Chapter Forty One - Part One

This chapter will be split down into 3 separate parts (much like I did with the chapter on fluoride). This is for the simple reason that it contains too much information for just one.

The first part will look at many of the commonly held assumptions and beliefs of modern medicine in regards to both the causes and also the “treatment” of cancer.

The second part will offer an alternative hypothesis or reason for the real cause of cancer that was suggested by the work of an incredible (yet almost forgotten) individual who was, believe it or not, curing cancer with a 100% success rate over 70 years ago!

The third and final part will show you some other methods for curing cancer (that actually work‖ without involving any of the “big three” methods that are employed by all of today’s so called “experts”, namely:

1. Chopping bits out of you - (surgery).

2. Poisoning you - (chemotherapy).

3. Nuking you - (radiotherapy).

I believe that cancer is a man-made phenomenon, and you might well remember that this theory was also suggested by other people during the course of this work:

- In the early 1900s an astute Indiana physician, Dr. W.B. Clarke, stated "Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person."

W.B. Clarke's important observation that cancer was not found in unvaccinated individual’s demands an explanation and one now appears forthcoming. All vaccines given over a short period of time to an immature immune system deplete the thymus gland (the primary gland involved in immune reactions) of irreplaceable immature immune cells. Each of these cells could have multiplied and developed into an army of valuable cells to combat infection and growth of abnormal cells. When these immune cells have been used up, permanent immunity may not appear. The Arthur Research Foundation in Tucson, Arizona estimates that up to 60 % of our immune system may be exhausted by multiple mass vaccines (36 are now required for children). Only 10 % of immune cells are permanently lost when a child is permitted to develop natural immunity from disease. There needs to be grave concern about these immune system injuring vaccinations! Could the persons who approve these mass vaccinations know that they are impairing the health of these children, many of whom are being doomed to requiring much medical care in the future? (My Note. YES!!!!) Compelling evidence is available that the development of the immune system after contracting the usual childhood diseases matures and renders it capable to fight infection and malignant cells in the future.

Cancer was a very rare illness in the 1890's. This evidence about immune system injury from vaccinating affords a plausible explanation for Dr. Clarke's finding that only vaccinated individuals got cancer. Some radical adverse change in health occurred in the early 1900s to permit cancer to explode and vaccinating appears to be the reason. From the article - “Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines” By Dr. James Howenstine, MD ―from the flu chapter earlier in this work).

I wholeheartedly concur with this belief. In fact, I personally think that vaccines are the biggest causes of cancer in the “Western World” in that they devastate our immune system leaving us open to attack from things that our immune system could easily have dealt with in the past. I hope that I can prove this to you during this chapter and also the one on AIDS. Cancer caused by modern man as it was virtually non-existent in ancient world

Cancer is a modern man-made disease caused by the excesses of modern life, a new study suggests.

By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent 14 Oct 2010 The Telegraph

Researchers looking at almost a thousand mummies from ancient Egypt and South America found only a handful suffered from cancer when now it accounts for nearly one in three deaths.

The findings suggest that it is modern lifestyles and pollution levels caused by industry that are the main cause of the disease and that it is not a naturally occurring condition.

The study showed the disease rate has risen dramatically since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer – proving that the rise is not simply due to people living longer.

Now it is hoped that it could lead to better understanding of the origins of cancer and to new treatments for the disease which claims more than 150,000 lives a year in the UK alone.

“In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death," said Professor Rosalie David, a biomedical Egyptologist at the University of Manchester.

"But in ancient times, it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.

"Cancer appears to be a modern disease created by modern life."

To trace the origins of cancer, Prof David and colleague Professor Michael Zimmerman, looked for evidence of the disease in hundreds of mummified bodies dating back up to 3,000 years and also in fossils and ancient medical texts.

Despite tried and tested techniques of viewing rehydrated tissue under the microscope they found that only five cases of tumours, most of which were benign.

Fossil evidence of cancer is also sparse, with scientific literature providing a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal and Neanderthal bones, the study in journal Nature Reviews Cancer reports.

They did find examples of other modern day aged related diseases such as hardening of the arteries and arthritis, which they said dismissed the argument that ancient humans did not live long enough to develop cancer.

The mummified bodies from both rich and poor backgrounds showed that the average life expectancy ranged from 25 to 50, depending on their background.

Evidence of cancer in ancient Egyptian texts is also "tenuous", the researchers claimed, with cancer-like problems more likely to have been caused by leprosy or even varicose veins.

The only diagnosis of cancer was a case in an unnamed mummy, an "ordinary" person who had lived around 200AD.

Modern records show that the disease rate has risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer.

Prof Zimmerman said: “In an ancient society lacking surgical intervention, evidence of cancer should remain in all cases. "The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialisation.”

Dr. Zimmerman dismissed arguments that tumours may have disintegrated over time. His experimental studies indicated that if anything they are better preserved than normal tissues.

As the team moved through the ages, it was not until the 17th century that they found descriptions of breast and other cancers.

Scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps occurred in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761 and Hodgkin’s disease in 1832.

Prof David said: “Where there are cases of cancer in ancient Egyptian remains, we are not sure what caused them.

"They did heat their homes with fires, which gave off smoke, and temples burned incense, but sometimes illnesses are just thrown up.”

“Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.”

Dr Rachel Thompson, of World Cancer Research Fund, said the research was "very interesting".

"About one in three people in the UK will get cancer so it is fairly commonplace in the modern world.

"Scientists now say a healthy diet, regular physical activity and maintaining a healthy weight can prevent about a third of the most common cancers so perhaps our ancestors’ lifestyle reduced their risk from cancer."

But Jessica Harris, senior health information officer at Cancer Research UK, said it was wrong to suggest that cancer was purely man-made.

“It can be tempting to worry about our cancer risk from external things like pollution and chemicals more than from things we can control, like our lifestyles," she said.

19 Ways Cancer Becomes the Ultimate Soft-Kill Operation

Paul Adams, J.D.Activist Post Tuesday, July 17, 2012

In earlier times it was easier to control a million people than physically to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people then to control a million people. - Zbigniew Brzezinski (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Carter/Obama Advisor).

The cancer epidemic is a soft-kill operation and a move by the world’s so-called elites to cull the human population. It is well documented that the Club of Rome, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, the Rockefellers, Warren Buffet and many other globalists plan to dominate and decimate humanity with their population reduction agenda.

As we will see, the globalists first cause the cancer and then provide us with their ineffective treatments (not cures) for profit. This method is known as Problem – Reaction – Solution.

According to the American Cancer Society, 1,638,910 new cancer cases will arise in the United States during 2012. Approximately 577,190 American cancer patients are expected to die from their cancer this year as well. One in every two men will suffer from cancer (one in four will die) as will one in every three women (one in five will die). According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, cancer is the second leading cause of death, closely trailing heart disease.

In 1971, President Nixon and Congress declared war on cancer. Since then, the federal government has spent well over $105 billion to battle cancer. In 2010 alone, the National Cancer Institute had a budget of $6.4 billion. As of March 2011, the Susan B. Komen Foundation, allegedly leading the fight against breast cancer, had <439,451,449 in “total public support and revenue.” Pharmaceutical giant Merck alone had a 2:1: research and development budget of 8.12 billion.

Why all the death and suffering despite billions, if not trillions, in government and private cancer research? Why have cancer treatments remained almost unchanged since the 1950s: toxic radiation, toxic chemotherapy, and surgery?

The answer is simple: treating cancer is profitable; curing it is not. Cancer also furthers the globalist goal of massive depopulation.

Worldwide cases of cancer are likely to rise by nearly 75 percent by 2030 according to a study published in The Lancet Oncology. A team led by Freddie Bray of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France, said that in 2008 there were 12.7 million new cases of cancer, which would rise to 22.2 million by 2030, with 90 percent of the rise occurring in the poorest countries.

In other words, the business forecast for pharmaceutical companies, tax-free cancer foundations and government health organizations is great.

If you still can’t believe that the cancer epidemic is a soft-kill operation, than you should understand Democide. Democide is the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Democide does not include soldiers killed in battle. During the 20th Century (1900s) alone, Professor R.J. Rummel calculates that government power was used to murder approximately 262,000,000 people.

It is well known by nutritionists and true healers that the best way to beat cancer is not to get it. That is, we must have proper nutrition and exercise to keep our immune systems functioning properly. We must also eliminate all forms of toxins from our every-day environment.

BPA Bisphenol A (BPA) is a widely used chemical that can behave like estrogen. It is used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. BPA is in many consumer products, including the lining of food and beverage cans, plastic food packaging, dental sealants, paper receipts and water pipes. Exposure in people is widespread and occurs mainly through eating or drinking contaminated food and beverages.

Animal and human studies have linked BPA to hormone-sensitive cancers, including breast and prostate cancers. A recent study form China found that exposure to BPA may be a risk factor for a common type of brain tumour called meningioma. The study participants with the highest urine BPA levels were about 1.6 times (160%) more likely to be diagnosed with meningioma compared to those with lower concentrations.

BPA is found in the urine of 95 percent of adults. Research from Harvard University found that eating canned soup can spike your urinary (BPA) levels by 1,200 percent compared to fresh soup. Canada lists BPA as a “toxic substance” and has banned it from being used in baby bottles. However, in March of 2012, the FDA blocked a ban on BPA in the United States despite its well-proven links to cancer. 4.7 tons of BPA is expected to be made in 2012 by AkzoNobel N.V., Dover Chemical Corporation, The Dow Chemical Company, Huntsman Corporation, Rhodia (Solvay Group), and SI Group, Inc. While many consumers now wisely refuse to purchase plastic products unless they are BPA free, many plastic manufactures have replaced BPA, with Bisphenol-S (BPS), which may be even more dangerous. Therefore, it is best to avoid plastic products and use glass instead. Unfortunately, almost all bottled water is sold in plastic bottles.

Fluoride Speaking of water, almost every water district in the United States ads toxic sodium fluoride/hydrofluosilicic acid to our tap water. After years of denial, the CFR/Rockefeller controlled federal government finally admitted that fluoride harms children. Rather than removing the toxins, the federal government called for a reduction in the amount of fluoride added to public water supplies, citing its negative effect on teeth (dental fluorosis). Of course it has long been known by real researchers, as opposed to the American Dental Association, that fluoride harms teeth.

The Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoridated causes cancer:

New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and 19… The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain…. Even with DDT, you don't have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.'

It should also be noted that several unethical water bottling companies add fluoride to their water (Nursery Purified Water - DS Waters, Dannon Fluoride To Go, and others). They advertise that fluoride is great for kids and promotes strong teeth despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Pesticides The soft-kill cancer operation continued in plain view when California legislators approved the use of methyl iodide on California strawberry crops with knowledge that it was linked to cancer, late-term miscarriages, thyroid disease and neurological damage in humans. In 2007, the Bush administration approved methyl iodine nationally with 47 states registering the chemical for use.

Fortunately, Arysta LifeScience, methyl iodide manufacturer and largest private pesticide corporation in the world, pulled methyl iodide from the U.S. market on March 20, 2012.

Workers who apply certain pesticides to farm fields are twice as likely to contract melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. Yet we are told that non-organic foods are safe to eat. Likewise, researchers find higher levels of common household pesticides in the urine of children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, a cancer that develops most commonly between three and seven years of age.

The lingering effects of DDT pesticide use is increased rates of cancer.

Parabens Cancer-causing chemicals have been added to our personal hygiene products. Parabens are a chemical compound found in everyday toiletry products including moisturizers, make-up, shaving foam, tanning lotions and toothpaste. They are also found in numerous brands of underarm deodorant.

A study of 160 women with breast cancer revealed that parabens were present in the tumours of all the women. “In total, 16: samples were collected, four from each woman. They found 99 per cent of the tissue samples contained at least one paraben and 60 per cent of the samples had five.”

Aluminium Most antiperspirant contains aluminium, and that aluminium may be absorbed into women’s breast tissue where it could potentially increase the risk of breast cancer or other health problems. Women with breast cancer have higher levels of aluminium in their nipple aspirate fluid (NAF), a fluid present in the breast duct tree. Studies show aluminium from antiperspirants is deposited in breast tissue, and animal studies have also found that aluminium can cause cancer. Studies also classify Aluminium as a neurotoxin associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

Sunscreen Many popular sunscreens contain ingredients known to spur the growth and spread of skin cancer cells, which defeats their stated purpose of preventing skin cancer. Even worse, the FDA has allegedly been aware of this critical information for the past ten years, but has done absolutely nothing to warn people about it.

Only 7.8 percent of the sunscreens tested have been deemed "safe and effective." The other 92.2 percent, which represent hundreds of sunscreens on the market today, contain one or more ingredients known to be harmful to health, a shocking figure when considering their widespread use.

Sugar It has long been known that cancer cells feed on sugar and that those with cancer should reduce their sugar/simple carbohydrate intake. Today Americans are swallowing 22 teaspoons of sugar each day or about 100 pounds per year. One can of soda alone has 39 grams of sugar (8 teaspoons) – thank you Pepsi and Coca-Cola. No wonder so many Americans suffer from cancer.

Common and Medical Radiation CT scans are associated with increased risks of cancer, yet patients are not warned of the danger. Exposing a child to the nuclear radiation from two or three computed tomography (CT) head scans can triple the risk of developing brain cancer later in life, according to a 20-year study. The study also found that a child exposed to the cumulative radiation of between five and 10 CT scans is three times more likely than an unexposed child to develop leukaemia.

Likewise, dental X-rays raise brain cancer risk. A study involving 1,400 cancer patients found that patients who reported having yearly bitewing exams (dental x-rays) were up to two times more likely to develop meningioma.

Mammograms cause cancer by exposing the body to ionizing radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which we know poses a cancer risk.

If a woman follows the current guidelines for premenopausal screening, over a 10 year period she would receive a total dosage of about 5 rads. This approximates the level of exposure to radiation of a Japanese woman one mile from the epicentre of atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki." ... [In] a study by Dr. Robert M. Kaplan, the chairman of the department of health services at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles... they found 22 percent more invasive breast tumours in the group who had mammograms every two years compared to the group who had just one mammogram over a six-year period.

Following on the heels of recent revelations that X-ray mammography may be contributing to an epidemic of future radiation-induced breast cancers, in a new published in the journal Cancer July 1st, 2012, reports that radiation treatment actually drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy.

The researchers found that even when radiation kills half of the tumour cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumours than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumour, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.

Airport Naked Body Pervert Porno Scanners not only violate the Fourth Amendment, but they are linked with increased rates of cancer. There has been a surge in cases of TSA workers developing cancer as a result of their close proximity to radiation-firing devices Dr. Edward Dauer, head of radiology at Florida Medical Centre, says that naked body scanners can cause cancer, particularly in those over age 65 and in women who are said to be genetically prone to developing breast cancer.

Europe has banned airport naked body scanners due to cancer fears. The decision comes after American academic Dr. David Brenner the scanners could deliver up to 20 times more radiation to the skin than previously thought - potentially increasing the risk of skin cancer.

Cell phones Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

Radiation has also been linked to DNA damage and cancer. The Office of National Statistics in the United Kingdom discovered a 50 percent increase in frontal and temporal lobe tumours in children during the ten year span covering 1999 to 2009, most likely caused by cell phones.

One in three children under the age of ten currently has a cellphone in their possession. Researchers warn: "Children should only use mobile phones for essential purposes and keep all calls short."

Yet despite the obvious danger, the government requires no radiation or cancer warning on cell phones.

Likewise, laptop computers have been linked to cancer by electromagnetic radiation.

Smart Meters do not just spy on you, they produce electromagnetic radiation that can damage our health and possibly be linked to cancer.

Mercury Mercury in any form is poisonous, with mercury toxicity most commonly affecting the neurologic, gastrointestinal (GI) and renal organ systems. Poisoning can result from mercury vapour inhalation, mercury ingestion, mercury injection, and absorption of mercury through the skin.

It has been shown that mercury rapidly depletes the immune system. Mercury has also been shown to induce auto-immune diseases. Anything that depletes and disturbs the immune system will increase one’s chances of contracting cancer.

Vaccines Vaccines are perhaps the ultimate soft-kill weapon that the global elite use against humanity.

Mercury (as Thimerosal), Aluminium and Formaldehyde (a known carcinogen used for embalming) have been used as a preservative in child-hood vaccines and are still present in many flu shots. There are hundreds if not thousands of studies linking vaccines with cancer and neurological disorders such as Autism.

The infamous soft-kill operation known as the Polio vaccine (1950s - 1960s) delivered the SV-40 Cancer virus to millions of Americans and preceded an explosion in cancer rates. Brave whistleblowers like Doctors Bernice Eddy and Sarah Steward were told to shut-up and ignored as the soft-kill operation was released to the public.

Top Merck vaccine scientist, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, openly admits the presence of deadly SV40 in Polio vaccines. The SV40 Cancer Foundation provides additional research and information.

Meanwhile, the Polio vaccine is still used against unsuspecting citizens of third-world nations. Recently an Italian court found vaccine makers liable for damaging children. But in the United States, after vaccine makers were nearly wiped-out by lawsuits brought by parents of injured children, Congress granted them legal immunity. The Supreme Court upheld the immunity stating that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.”

Eugenicist Bill Gates and other globalists such as the Rockefeller Foundation fund vaccine research in order to reduce the human population through soft-kill methodology. That is the true reason that many governments are pushing to make vaccines mandatory, even going door-to-door against natural law and the will of informed parents.

Dental Filings Dental amalgams are the primary source of mercury exposure in Americans. A single dental amalgam filling releases as much as 15 micrograms of mercury per day. The average individual has eight amalgam fillings and could absorb up to 120 micrograms of mercury per day. For comparison, eating mercury-tainted seafood will expose you to about 2.3 micrograms per day.

The National Cancer Institute linked periodontal disease to pancreatic cancer. “Our study provides the first strong evidence that periodontal disease may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer,” said Dr. Dominique Michaud of the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, who led the research. Men with a history of periodontal disease had a 64 per cent increased risk of pancreatic cancer than men with no such history.

Light Bulbs In 2007, Skull and Bones cult member George W. Bush signed a bill mandating that, “Manufacturers will no longer be able to make the 1::-watt Thomas Edison bulb after Jan. 1, 2012, followed by the 75-watt version in Jan. 2013, and the 60- and 40-watt bulbs in Jan. 2:14.”

The standard incandescent bulb was to be replaced soft-kill CFL bulbs, which are harmful to humans and the environment because they are filled with toxic mercury. “A report released in 2008 from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection revealed that when a CFL bulb is broken, it can release dangerously high levels of mercury into the air.

Fortunately the planned ban was repealed and you need not pollute your home with toxic CFL bulbs.

High Fructose Corn Syrup High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is used as a sweetener in thousands of mainstream packaged foods sold in the United States and around the world, from bread to soda and even breakfast cereal.

Researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) found that cancer cells have a particular liking for refined fructose. In tests, pancreatic cancer cells quickly fed on refined fructose and used it to divide and proliferate rapidly within the body.

"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," explained Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Centre, one of the authors of the study.

Published in the journal Cancer Research, the findings also reveal that not all sugars are the same, a widely held belief in mainstream medicine. Tumour cells love both glucose sugar and fructose sugar, but fructose directly causes cancer cells to reproduce and spread in a way that glucose does not.

The study demonstrates that there is a major difference between high fructose corn syrup, a highly-refined sugar commonly used in processed American foods and beverages, and refined sugar cane. Both can lead to health problems, but high fructose corn syrup is worse in terms of cancer growth.

Additionally, a study conducted by David Wallinga, M.D., entitled "Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup" (http://healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=105026) reveals that nearly one-third of all grocery items sweetened with HFCS were contaminated with mercury.

The average American consumes 12 teaspoons of HFCS every day! So just by eating the standard American diet of processed foods, consumers are right now potentially exposing themselves to exceedingly high levels of mercury that far surpass the safety limits set by the EPA.

High Fructose Corn Syrup also contributes to obesity. A Princeton University research team demonstrated that rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

Obesity is linked to higher rates of cancer. According to the American Institute for Cancer Research, more than 100,000 cancer cases in the U.S. are linked to excess body fat - most of them are preventable.

Microwave Ovens Nearly every home has a microwave oven to quickly heat or cook food. Yet many studies conducted throughout the world have repeatedly highlighted the deleterious effects of microwave ovens on human health. In fact microwave ovens are so dangerous that they were banned in Russia from 1976 to 1987. Twenty years of thorough research by Russian scientists convinced them that the dangers of the devices outweighed the benefits in cooking time.

A recent experiment showed that microwaved water given to a plant causes the plant to wither and die within days; however, another identical plant given water that was boiled on a conventional stove grew normally during the same time period. Therefore, microwave ovens likely alter and destroy your food as well.

Pasteurization was discovered by Louis Pasteur in the mid-1800s. It compromises your milk, Almonds and juice. Pasteurization destroys vitamins, enzymes and interferes with absorption. When you boil a liquid, you kill any bacteria and make that food sterile. In the process, you can't help but affect the taste and nutritional value of that food. Pasteurization is the process of heating a liquid to a high enough temperature to kill certain bacteria and disable certain enzymes.

Food Irradiation (radiation) The FDA approved food irradiation, the brainchild of the Atomic Energy Commission's efforts in the Eisenhower administration to find practical uses for the flood of radioactive wastes from nuclear weapons. Industry and the FDA insist that irradiated food has been thoroughly tested and is absolutely safe. However, New York, New Jersey and Maine have prohibited the sale and distribution of irradiated food, as have foreign governments, including Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. Claims of safety are unproven at best.

Studies have linked food irradiation with increased risk of cancer.

Aspartame The average person consumes about 2 or 3 mg/kg aspartame each day through diet soda and artificial sweeteners. A study of rats links low doses of aspartame -- the sweetener in NutraSweet, Equal, and thousands of consumer products -- to leukaemia and lymphoma.

"Our study has shown that aspartame is a multipotential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are also evident at a daily dose of 20 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (mg/kg), notably less than the current acceptable daily intake for humans," the authors write.

Donald Rumsfeld, best known for slaughtering Iraqis that had nothing to do with 9/11, is largely responsible for foisting the Aspartame soft-kill operation on the public. Chlorine Chlorine has been used to disinfect U.S. and British tap water supplies for 100 years. Low levels of chlorine in tap water used for bathing can almost double the risk of bladder cancer. Swimming in public pools can also present a risk because chlorine levels are much higher.

Researchers found that those living in areas with high-chlorine content water, who bathed in it regularly, were 83 per cent more likely to get a tumour than those in low-chlorine areas. Those who drank high-chlorine tap water were 35 per cent more likely to get bladder cancer. Regular swimming in pools increased the risk by 57 per cent.

Absorbing chlorine through the skin is thought to be more dangerous because it bypasses the liver, which filters out many harmful chemicals when water is swallowed.

It should be noted that many baby diapers and feminine products (pads/tampons) contain chlorine as the soft-kill operations rolls on.

Sodium Nitrate and other preservatives are commonly added to processed meat (cold cuts) and are linked with increased rates of cancer. It is best to buy preservative-free meat to avoid being soft-killed by cancer.

Nuclear Radiation is also a favourite soft-kill tool as radiation deaths are far more difficult to prove than cigarette smoking deaths, because the source is almost always unknown in its quantity, who it was delivered to, and when.

Contrary to government propaganda distributed by the mainstream media, there is no safe dose of radiation.

A French study published in the International Journal of Cancer found a leukaemia rate twice as high among children under the age of 15 living within a 3.1-mile radius of France's 19 nuclear power plants. The study added to the findings of a German study published in late 2007 studying German children under 5 years old, which found that children of that age in the vicinity of German NPPs had suffered an increase in the incidence of childhood leukaemia.

In 2003, a blue ribbon European Committee on Radiation Risk reported 61,600,000 cancer deaths worldwide from fallout of atom bomb testing during the 1950s and 1960s. Rain brought the fallout back down into the food supply.

This radioactive fallout, as it is called, carries something that's called strontium-90, which is the most dreadful poison in the world. For only one tablespoon equally shared by all the members of the human race could produce a dangerous level of radioactivity in the bones of every individual.

Lab tests found that children born in 1963 had about 50 times more Sr-90 in teeth than those born in 1950. Washington University officials used their results in testimony to the U.S. Senate leading to the Partial Test Ban Treaty signed by President John F. Kennedy, ending all above-ground atom bomb tests.

A book published by three prominent scientists concluded that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

Evidence demonstrates that the Fukushima nuclear debacle is being used as a soft-kill operation, as absolutely nothing significant is being done to stop the continuous leak of radiation. The Fukushima disaster was entirely foreseen by prominent scientist such as Leuren Moret but her warning went unheeded.

Arnold Gunderson, a 39-year veteran of the nuclear industry, stated: The numbers I’ve seen, from reputable scientists, are that Fukushima is going to kill 200,000 from increased cancers over the next 50 years.

Likewise, Dr. Christopher Busby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, states that 400,000 people will develop cancer within a 200 kilometre radius of Fukushima.

One estimate states that the fallout from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown resulted in 21,851 U.S. deaths within the first 14 weeks of the emergency. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among the United States for infants under age one.

GM Crops may cause cancer Dr. Stanley Ewen, a consultant histopathologist at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, says that a cauliflower [mosaic] virus used in GM foods could increase the risk of stomach and colon cancers.

Monsanto’s GM-derived rBGH (which is a genetically-altered growth hormone given to dairy cows to make them more milk) was shown to increase the production of IGF-1 from 70- 1000%. IGF-1 is a very powerful hormone that has been linked to a 2.5-4 times higher incidence of human colon, breast and prostate cancer.

Conclusion

The global elite have clearly implemented their depopulation agenda and are spiking our food, air, water and bodies with toxins to give us cancer. These elites then profit immensely by selling us drugs through the pharmaceutical companies they control. These drugs normally provide temporary relief from cancer/disease systems, while being falsely marketed as a cure by fake studies and perverted statistics.

Fight cancer by not getting it. Please share the knowledge obtained from this research and links provided herein.

Lastly, the following resources may be helpful if you or someone you know has cancer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSCxVtePTh8 http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/ http://apricotsfromgod.info/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGsSEqsGLWM http://www.cancertutor.com/ http://www.cancertruth.net/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1383240/Boy-brain-cancer-cured-secretly-fed- medical-marijuana-father.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSXhwP5QjUQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6szBDCh5w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTGye7kA6rM

Are we bathing our babies in carcinogens?

Kids in the 21st century - especially babies - face a set of challenges that are potentially just as deadly as the sickness that threatened the youth of earlier centuries. Unfortunately, with progress comes complications, and today's children are exposed to many toxins that earlier generations never came in contact with. Here's a prime example: According to a study by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC), there are toxic chemicals in some of the most recognized and used brand-name baby products - including lotions and shampoos.

The CSC tests found that products like the ever-popular Johnson & Johnson Baby Shampoo contained chemicals that the Environmental Protection Agency has marked as probable carcinogens.

Of the 48 baby products the CSC found that 32 of them (66 percent) contained trace levels of 1,4-dioxane, and 23 of them (47 percent) had levels of formaldehyde. Seventeen of the products (35 percent) actually had detectable levels of BOTH of these chemicals.

The companies aren't putting those chemicals into the products intentionally. Instead, they're byproducts of the manufacturing process. I don't know about you, but I don't care HOW they got there. The point is that there are detectable amounts of these potential carcinogens in products many parents are exposing their children to on a daily basis.

But as you might expect, the companies are protesting that they've done nothing wrong. Johnson & Johnson released a statement saying, "We are disappointed that the CSC has inaccurately characterized the safety of our products … and unnecessarily alarmed parents." I think what they really meant is that the CSC unnecessarily alarmed their paying customers.

Naturally, J & J is hiding behind FDA "standards," saying that the federal agency considers "these trace levels safe, and all our products meet or exceed the regulatory requirements in every country where they are sold."

Maybe so, but as you know, the just because the FDA thinks something is safe doesn't mean it is. As I've pointed out to you time and again, the FDA's "standards" are often based on political expediency rather than good science.

Case in point: a certain level of 1,4-dioxane is A-OK with the FDA, but its use as an ingredient in personal care products has been BANNED OUTRIGHT in Europe. The FDA's stance on 1,4-dioxane seems odd to me because back in 1982, an FDA-sponsored study showed that the substance can actually penetrate the skin when it's used in lotion.

The CSC admits that their study found very low levers of the two carcinogens in the products studied, but that doesn't mean it's safe.

"The problem is, we're finding a little bit of carcinogen in many products," Malkin said. "Many of these products are used every day, so we've got repeated and frequent exposure to these low levels of chemicals. They're not the safest and purest products, and parents ought to know that."

Copyright © 1994-2009 by The Douglass Report

60 Studies Confirm Cancer Link To Vax You Probably Had

1-15-12 from rense.com

The Hidden Connection Behind Viruses, Vaccines and Cancer

Dr. Tyson Perez, Green Med Info from Waking Times January 31, 2013

Mainstream medicine tells us that the hepatitis B virus (HBV) causes liver cancer which is why it is so necessary for US newborns to be vaccinated within hours of birth. We are told that the human papillomavirus (HPV), which is supposedly so prevalent in our population, causes cervical cancer which is why there is such a push to vaccinate girls and boys in the US as early as 9 years old. Let’s not forget about Simian Virus 4: ―SV4:‖ which is known to have contaminated polio vaccines and is associated with a wide variety of human cancers. Conventional wisdom tells us that viruses cause cancer. But is this true? Let’s investigate the story further.

The first recorded cases of HBV infection occurred following the administration of the smallpox vaccine containing human lymph to shipyard workers in Germany in 1883. HBV is transmitted through contact with infected bodily fluids. It is estimated that over 2 billion people worldwide have been infected and that approximately 350 million are chronic carriers. Chronic HBV infection is believed to cause up to 80% of all hepatocellular carcinomas. Sounds scary right? But when you look deeper you find that, in the US, HBV is found predominantly in adults who are either I.V. drug users or engaging in high-risk sexual behaviour.

The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that only 0.1-0.5 % of the US population are chronic carriers. This is due, in large part, to the fact that only about 5% of acute HBV infections ever become chronic. In other words, about 95% of people clear the infection and never become chronic carriers. But those who do become chronic carriers will definitely get liver cancer right? No. The CDC estimates that only about 25% of those with chronic HBV infection die prematurely from liver cancer or cirrhosis decades after the initial infection.

Is it possible that over those decades, other factors could have caused or, at least contributed, to their liver disease? Ok, but if the mom tests positive for Hep B, her infant will definitely get infected right? Wrong again. According to the CDC, there is only a 10% chance that a mother who tests positive only for the Hep B surface antigen (s-antigen) will infect her baby. Additionally, does it make sense to indiscriminately vaccinate newborns if mothers have already tested negative for Hep B? It does if your motivation is ease of access. HPV is recognized by mainstream medical authorities as the most commonly sexually transmitted infection in the US with an estimated 20 million persons infected and over 6 million new infections annually. They state that in the 1980s, cervical cancer cells were discovered to contain HPV. Although there are more than 100 types of known HPV, only a few are considered oncogenic or cancer causing.

The CDC claims that 99% of cervical cancers contain oncogenic human papilloma viruses with types 16 and 18 found in 70% of all cervical malignancies. The 2 most common types of cervical cancer are squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. Those numbers would certainly frighten the average woman. On deeper analysis, however, you learn that the CDC admits that HPV has never been isolated in culture. In other words, wild HPV has never been seen. But let’s assume that HPV does exist.

The CDC also says that most HPV infections are asymptomatic resulting in no clinical disease and that HPV by itself is not sufficient to cause cancer because the vast majority of women with the infection do not develop cancer. In fact, a recent study published in the journal Vaccine estimates that 90% of HPV infections are cleared from the body within 2 years.

As an interesting side note, Merck, the maker of the HPV vaccine Gardasil, presented information to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prior to approval that their vaccine increased the risk of pre-cancerous changes by 44.6% in women exposed to HPV types 16 or 18 pre-vaccination. How many doctors do you know who test for the presence of these strains prior to administering the HPV vaccine? I have yet to hear of such a doctor.

Not all viruses linked to cancer are natural inhabitants of the human body. Many of the early polio vaccines, which were cultured on monkey kidney tissue and given to millions of children in the mid-1950s and early 1960s, were found to be contaminated with live Simian viruses. One in particular, known as Simian virus 40 (SV40), was found to have powerful oncogenic effects and has been discovered in numerous tumours including various types of brain, bone and lung cancers. SV40 has even been found in tumours of individuals who were never given those early polio vaccines. (My Note. Perhaps this was because SV 40 was in more than just the polio vaccine?)

There is mounting evidence that this monkey virus can pass from generation to generation. Also, it has been suggested that SV40 is contaminating current polio vaccines since the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) and the oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) viruses are still seeded from and cultured on monkey kidney tissue (vero-cell line). Government health officials will deny this possibility since widespread testing for contamination was mandated in the early 1960s, however, if you research the issue further, you will discover that methods used to test for contamination are often inadequate or non-existent.

But why didn’t every person who was infected with SV4: get cancer? Claude Bernard, considered the Father of Experimental Medicine and a contemporary of Louis Pasteur, once said so eloquently that “‗t‘he terrain is everything; the germ is nothing.” Following this pronouncement, he is said to have gulped down a glass of water filled with cholera without getting sick. This demonstration was a bold attempt to prove that individuals with a healthy internal environment and a robust immune system provide an inhospitable environment for pathogenic germs and are unlikely to succumb to illness while those who are malnourished and toxic provide a diseased terrain which is far more likely to be inhabited by disease causing microorganisms. This certainly is a plausible explanation with regard to SV40.

Furthermore, although human viruses, including HBV and the phantom HPV, are associated with cancer, their presence alone does not prove that they, in fact, caused the cancer. Consider, for a moment, that cancer may be an intelligent adaptation by the body’s cells in response to a deficient and toxic internal environment. These viruses may simply be innocent bystanders, or at worst accomplices, who find refuge in sick and weakened tissues that have been damaged by years of neglect and abuse. Rudolph Virchow, known as the Father of Pathology, stated that “‗i‘f I could live my life over again, I would devote it to proving that germs seek their natural habitat – diseased tissue – rather than being the cause of diseased tissue.” He sums up nicely the moral of our story; a moral that I wished more people truly understood.

About the Author

Dr. Tyson Perez, DC is a chiropractor in Carlsbad, CA where he specializes in paediatric, prenatal and family care. You can visit his websites www.WestCoastChiropracticCarlsbad.com and www.SanDiegoScoliosisCenter.com.

Resources:

“The Pink Book: Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases“, CDC (12thEdition, May 2012)

“Fear of the Invisible: An Investigation of Viruses and Vaccines, HIV and AIDS“, Janine Roberts (2008-9)

“The Virus and the Vaccine: Contaminated Vaccine, Deadly Cancers, and Government Neglect“, Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher ―2::4‖

“New Evidence Demolishes Claims of Safety and Effectiveness of HPV Vaccine”, Dr. Joe Mercola (Oct 16, 2012)

11 Big Surprises Inside Vaccines

Greg Mathews, J.D. Waking Times June 8, 2012

Like a box of children’s cereal, vaccines, which also target children, have surprises inside. Unfortunately, these surprises are not fun like the ones in the cereal boxes.

Surprise of Cancer Viruses in Vaccines

In his book, Dr. Mary’s Monkey, author Edward Haslam documents connections between the vaccine and biological weapons industries. In 1955, Dr. Jonas Salk developed a polio vaccine, which at the time, was the most anticipated publicized event in the history of medicine. However, Dr. Bernice Eddy tested the vaccine on eighteen monkeys and they all became paralyzed. Eddy tried to warn everyone and stop distribution of the vaccines, but other prominent doctors like Dr. Alton Ochsner assured the public that the vaccine was safe. The vaccine was released to the public, and within days children were killed or crippled from polio in the vaccine. The public was outraged.

Haslam notes that in 1955, Dr. Bernice Eddy and Dr. Sarah Stewart “discovered the polyoma virus, which produced several types of cancer in a variety of small animals. Polyoma proved that some cancers were indeed caused by viruses.”

Dr. Eddy would later discover that the second-generation polio vaccine, developed by Albert Savin, and which the public was sold was safe, was contaminated with cancer viruses (SV40).

In fact, an entire generation had been injected with cancer-causing monkey viruses because the vaccine was developed using monkey kidneys. Again, Dr. Eddy blew the whistle and tried to warn the public, but the National Institute of Health crushed her professionally.

In 1960, Doctors Benjamin Sweet and Maurice Hilleman, the Merck scientists who named the virus SV40, published their findings:

Viruses are commonly carried by monkeys and may appear as contaminants in cell cultures of their tissues, especially the kidney . . . The discovery of this new virus, the vacuolating agent, represents the detection for the first time of a hitherto “non-detectable” simian virus of monkey renal cultures and raises the important question of the existence of other such viruses . . . . As shown in this report, all 3 types of Sabin’s live poliovirus vaccine, now fed to millions of persons of all ages, were contaminated with vacuolating virus.

An interview featuring Dr. Hilleman discussing vaccines tainted with cancer viruses can be seen online. (My Note. My copy was titled “Merck Dr. ADMITS Cancer _ Other Viruses Found In Vaccines” - I got it on youtube)

Pages 211-218 of Dr. Mary’s Monkey demonstrate that the rates of skin, lymphoma, prostate, and breast cancer skyrocketed in the forty years after the tainted polio vaccines were given to the public. The SV40 Cancer Foundation provides additional research and information.

Surprise of Live Polio in Vaccines

Even the mainstream media reports that some cases of polio are “caused by the vaccine used to fight it.” In July of 2::9, “the World Health Organization issued a warning that this vaccine-spread virus might extend beyond Africa. So far, 124 Nigerian children have been paralyzed this year — about twice those afflicted in 2::8.”

In fact, it has been reported that polio vaccines are now the leading cause of polio paralyses.

The Secret History of the War on Cancer

Dr. Ben Kim, Guest Writer Waking Times December 12, 2012

For many years, I have explained to questioning family members and friends why I cannot support conventional cancer-fighting fundraising campaigns.

I am not completely against conventional medical treatment options for different types of cancer. For example, for a good number of people that I have worked with over the past several years, I have fully supported and encouraged surgical excision of malignant tumours. My wariness of the mainstream cancer-fighting industry pertains to what I believe is excessive and often times inappropriate use of chemotherapy and radiation, as well as the lack of attention that is given to relevant environmental and personal lifestyle factors.

At long last, a devastating and truly noteworthy book on this topic has been published. It’s called The Secret History of the War on Cancer, written by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH.

I am grateful to have the permission of Andrew Nikiforuk, a well known Canadian journalist, to share his helpful review of Dr. Davis’ book.

Andrew Nikiforuk’s Review of The Secret History of the War on Cancer, written by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH.

In 1936, the world’s cancer experts assembled in Brussels to talk shop. The gathering heard a lot about workshop hazards and environmental toxins. A British scientist, who had studied identical twins, argued that cancer wasn’t inherited, but mostly the product of early chemical exposures in life. A meticulous Argentine showed how sunlight combined with hydrocarbons could sprout tumours on rats. Others explained how regular exposure to the hormone estrogen prompted male rodents to grow unseemly breasts. Everyone agreed that arsenic and benzene were workplace killers, too.

Since then, the cancer establishment has retreated from the truth faster than Canada’s commitment to a greener country. What began as sincere investigation into the economic root causes of a complex set of 200 different diseases quickly degenerated into a single- minded focus on treatments after the Second World War, argues Devra Davis, one of North America’s sharpest epidemiologists ―her previous book, When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle Against Pollution, was a finalist for the National Book Award).

In the process, industry and its propaganda hit men have used every opportunity to discredit, dismiss or disparage information on cancer hazards in the workplace or at home. So let me warn comfortable readers here and now. This courageous and altogether horrible book is about as unsettling as it can get. It painstakingly documents such a persistently foul pattern of deceit and denial that I often wanted to throw it against a wall and scream.

Furthermore, Davis’s hair-raising investigation – in what is easily the most important science book of the year – will rob you of any lingering, Disney-like fantasies you might have entertained about the nobility of cancer fundraising campaigns. And if you have lost a relative or friend to a malignant tumour (odds are you have), Davis will make you weep again, knowing that fraud and outright criminal neglect have turned a 40-year-long medical war into a questionable $70-billion charade.

Even Davis can’t hide her own disbelief at times: “Astonishing alliances between naive or far too clever academics and folks with major economic interests in selling potentially cancerous materials have kept us from figuring out whether or not many modern products affect our chances of developing cancer.” She then diligently documents, for example, how some of the world’s most prominent cancer researchers, such as the late Sir Richard Doll, the epidemiologist who was instrumental in linking smoking to health problems, secretly worked for chemical firms without disclosing these ties when publishing studies.

Davis, a modern scientist committed to moral clarity, knows her stuff and then some. After decades of front-line battles against air polluters, she now heads the world’s first Centre on Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. She too has smelled and felt cancer firsthand, having lost two parents and many friends, including Andrea Martin, to the disease. She shines, in short, with a burning indignation about the abuse of power in medicine.

Her angry history of the way free and open discourse on cancers in the workplace has become as elusive as meaningful political debates reveals the rot with the bluntness of a chemo treatment. When men who bottled liquid lead as a gasoline additive in the 1920s started to drop like flies, General Motors blamed the workers and called lead a “natural contaminant.” When dye-makers at DuPont got bladder cancer from working with benzidine in the 1930s, the company, like an errant spouse, first denied the findings. Then they refused to record cases. Finally, they suppressed or delayed publishing the results.

After inhaling tar and poisonous fumes from coke ovens, black steel workers succumbed to waves of lung cancer in the 1950s. Yet industry argued that blacks were just more vulnerable to lung-consuming tumours. It took an enterprising study of dying Mormon coke- oven workers to challenge the lie. Damning studies on the health of asbestos workers couldn’t find a home in the 193:s, and to this day, Canada shamefully remains an exporter of the lung destroyer.

Benzene, a true-blue leukaemia-maker that can cause workers to bleed out, has been the subject of 100 years of deceit and denial. When Myron Mehlman, a toxicologist with Mobil Oil, told Japanese officials in 1989 that gasoline with 5-per-cent benzene was damned dangerous and shouldn’t be sold, the company fired him. Davis reports that ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Shell have invested $27-million in China to “contradict earlier claims that link exposure to low- and mid-levels of benzene to cancers and other diseases.”

In 1986, researcher William Fayerweather put together a computerized system for tracking the health of every worker at DuPont’s chemical plants. Davis found that “neither he nor his system any longer work for DuPont.” She reports that men and women who produced computer chips for IBM are now dying young from cancers of the breast, bone marrow and kidney.

While China now leads a global economic boom, it’s also exploring new opportunities for cancer. Even its secretive, Ottawa-like government now concedes that the country’s industries use the nation’s rivers as industrial urinals. Not surprisingly, China now lists cancer as its number-one killer.

Many of Davis’s findings simply stunned me. Consider the invasion of computerized imaging technology (CT scans) in modern medicine. Since its invention in the 1970s, CT scanning has become a $100-billion industry that creates nifty three-dimensional images, yet exposes patients to radiation. CT scans have become such a favoured technology that one in every three scans recommended for children is probably unnecessary.

In the last 25 years, the amount of radiation zapping North Americans from scanning and the like has increased fivefold. Now ponder this stunner: “Modern America’s annual exposure to radiation from diagnostic machines is equal to that released by a nuclear accident that spewed the equivalent of hundreds of Hiroshima’s across much of Russia and Eastern Europe.” Most physicians don’t know that a typical CT scan equals 4:: chest X- rays. A group of researchers at Yale now estimate that radiation from CT scans of the head and abdomen will kill 2,500 people a year.

Davis also presents some disturbing data on aspartame, cellphones and Ritalin. Armed with what a prominent toxicologist would later describe as “uninterpretable and worthless” studies on aspartame, Donald Rumsfeld, then CEO of Searle & Co. (since acquired by Monsanto), used his formidable political contacts to gain government approval for the food additive in 1981. Yet the U.S. Air Force still reports that aspartame “can cause serious brain problems in pilots.” Despite whatever malarkey you might have read, cellphone users still have double the risk of brain cancer and folks under 18 years of age really shouldn’t be using them. Ritalin, the drug to slow kids down, can rearrange an individual’s chromosomes, yet in some school districts more than 10 per cent of the students are now on the drug. As Davis notes, “Highly profitable industries have no incentive to ask whether the products on which they depend may have adverse consequences.”

Each and every chapter in this book offers a uncomfortable revelation. Pioneering research on the deadly effects of tobacco and environmental hormones by the Nazis secretly found its way to many of U.S. corporations producing the same questionable goods. The American Cancer Society spends less than 10 per cent of its billion-dollar budget on independent studies. The great Wilhelm Hueper, the bold pathologist who wrote the book on “occupational tumours,” suffered one indignity after another for simply reporting the dangers of uranium mining. And on it goes.

So, the strange reality of cancer fighting truly reads like one of Kafka’s nightmares. Most of the 100,000 chemicals commonly used in commerce have not been tested. Their proliferation in the workplace has created a cancer epidemic and a medical-business industry to treat it. Given the toxic nature of many cancer treatments, including radiation and chemotherapy, Davis claims that cancer researchers and cancer physicians are dying in record numbers.

Davis not only sheds light on this darkness, she also opens many hopeful doors. She celebrates tough, rural, blue-collar mothers who have taken on the companies that have riddled their children with cancer-makers. And she welcomes groups such as Health Care Without Harm, a novel coalition focused on getting toxic products out of hospitals.

But her remarkable and disturbing history ultimately illuminates another hidden hydrocarbon holocaust. Our frightful addiction to fossil fuels has not only fouled the atmosphere but given us a wealth of chemicals, plastics and technologies that increasingly undoes the health of millions with cancers. It, too, has given us rich armies of PR men employing “the same expert public relations strategies that kept us tied in knots on tobacco.”

Davis knows that changing medical perspectives and priorities, from treatment to prevention, will be an enormous task. But she does not despair. In fact she ends her book with a simple Talmudic story. Faced with a complicated assignment, a group of workers rhyme off the usual excuses: They haven’t got the tools or they haven’t got the energy. But a good rabbi ―sounding much like Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings‖ sets them straight: “It is not for you to complete the task,” he says. “But you must begin.”

Davis’s masterful book has shown us why we must begin rethinking cancer research and treatment now for our children’s sake.

Now I will demonstrate that one of the biggest causes of cancer is ...cancer treatments!

Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms and Some Cancers may Heal Naturally

Monday, November 24, 2008 by: Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor naturalnews.com

(NaturalNews) A report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med. 2008;168[21]:2302-2303) reaches a startling conclusion. Breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, according to background information in the study, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer.

This raises some obvious and worrisome questions: Did the x-rays and/or the sometimes torturous compression of breasts during mammography actually spur cancer to develop? Or does this just look like an increase in the disease rate because mammography is simply identifying more cases of breast cancer?

The answer to the first question is that no one knows (and it isn't addressed in the Archives of Internal Medicine study). But the second question has an unexpected and – for those interested in the human body's innate ability to heal itself – potentially paradigm-shifting answer. The researchers say they can't blame the increased incidence of breast cancer on more cases being found because the rates among regularly screened women remained higher than rates among women of the same age who only received mammograms once after six years. Bottom line: the scientists conclude this indicates that some of the cancers detected by mammography would have spontaneously regressed if they had never been discovered on a mammogram and treated, usually with chemotherapy and radiation. Simply put, it appears that some invasive breast cancers simply go away on their own, healed by the body's own immune system.

Per-Henrik Zahl, M.D., Ph.D., of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, and his research team studied breast cancer rates among 119,472 women (age 50 to 64). These research subjects were asked to participate in three rounds of screening mammograms between 1996 and 2001, as part of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. The scientists then compared the number of breast cancers found in this group to the rate of malignancies among a control group of 109,784 women who were the same ages in 1992, and who would have been invited for breast screenings if the program had been in place that year. Cancers were tracked using a national registry. Then, after six years, all participants were invited to undergo a one-time screening to assess for the prevalence of breast cancer.

The researchers were surprised to find that the incidence of invasive breast cancer was 22 percent higher in the group regularly screened with mammography. In fact, screened women were more likely to have breast cancer at every age. "Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of six years," the authors stated in their report. "This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress."

The researchers also conclude that their findings "provide new insight on what is arguably the major harm associated with mammographic screening, namely, the detection and treatment of cancers that would otherwise regress."

This does not mean breast cancer should be ignored or not treated. After all, breast cancer is the second leading cause of death among American women. But the extraordinarily good and hopeful news is that it appears invasive breast cancer sometimes can be destroyed naturally -- at least in some people -- by the body's own innate defences.

"Although many clinicians may be sceptical of the idea, the excess incidence associated with repeated mammography demands that spontaneous regression be considered carefully," the scientists wrote in their report. "Spontaneous regression of invasive breast cancer has been reported, with a recent literature review identifying 32 reported cases. This is a relatively small number given such a common disease. However, as some observers have pointed out, the fact that documented observations are rare does not mean that regression rarely occurs. It may instead reflect the fact that these cancers are rarely allowed to follow their natural course."

In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accompanies the breast cancer study, Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Franz Porzsolt, M.D., Ph.D., of Clinical Economics University of Ulm, Germany, wrote that the most important concern raised by the study is "how surprisingly little we know about what happens to untreated patients with breast cancer.

In addition to not knowing the natural history of breast cancer for younger women, we also know very little about the natural history for older women. We know from autopsy studies that a significant number of women die without knowing that they had breast cancer (including ductal carcinoma in situ). The observation of a historical trend toward improved survival does not necessarily support the benefit of treatment."

Cancer Drugs Make Tumours Grow

Monday, November 17, 2008 by: Sherry Baker naturalnews.com

NaturalNews) Drugs like Avastin that are used to treat some cancers are supposed to work by blocking a vessel growth-promoting protein called vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF. With VEGF held in check, researchers have assumed tumours wouldn't generate blood vessels and that should keep malignancies from growing. In a sense, the cancerous growths would be "starved". But new research just published in the journal Nature shows this isn’t true. Instead of weakening blood vessels so they won't "feed" malignant tumours, these cancer treatments, known as anti-angiogenesis drugs, actually normalize and strengthen blood vessels -- and that means they can spur tumours to grow larger.

For their study, researchers at the Moores Cancer Centre at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) in La Jolla, replicated the action of anti-angiogenesis drugs by genetically decreasing VEGF levels in mouse tumours and inflammatory cells in several types of cancers, including pancreatic cancer. The research team, headed by David Cheresh, Ph.D., professor and vice chair of pathology at UCSD, also used drugs to inhibit VEGF receptor activity. The results? In every single instance, blood vessels were not weakened but, instead, were made normal again. And in some cases, tumours increased in size.. In a prepared statement for the press, Dr. Cherish said: “We’ve discovered that when anti- angiogenesis drugs are used to lower the level of VEGF within a tumour, it's not so much a reduction in the endothelial cells and losing blood vessels as it is an activation of the tumour blood vessels supporting cells. It appears that the drugs, in shutting down VEGF activity, are actively maturing blood vessels, causing them to become stable and more normal, as opposed to reducing blood vessels."

Although the findings of this study might sound like a death knell for drugs like Avastin, Dr. Cheresh claims the fact anti-angiogenesis drugs can increase tumour size and give them stronger blood vessels could be a good thing. According to his press statement, he suggests chemotherapy drugs may be able to get to cancer tumours more directly through the stronger blood vessels created by the anti-angiogenesis drugs. "We have to test available regimens and perhaps restructure the way that we give drugs," he said. "We may be giving the right drugs, but we may not be giving them in the right order. We're just beginning to understand how it works."

That could be seen a huge understatement. After all, Dr. Cheresh’s own research shows the supposedly cancer fighting anti-angiogenesis drugs appear to do exactly the opposite of what scientists thought they did.

Dr. Cheresh also points out in his media statement that the results of the Nature study demonstrate how a specific host’s response to cancer is critical in terms of susceptibility to therapy. "It's not just about the therapy, but also what the host does in response to the cancer that makes a difference whether a tumour lives or dies, and if it's susceptible to a drug or not. We can change the host response to the cancer," he stated.

While Dr. Cheresh is talking about using drugs to influence how the host responds to cancer, natural health advocates have pointed out for decades that strengthening the body’s own defence system and avoiding cancer-promoting and potentially health-weakening toxins, foods and behaviours can help keep cancer at bay. Mainstream medicine appears to be recognizing the efficacy of this strategy more and more, too.

For example, a new review sponsored by the American Cancer Society just published in CA: Cancer Journal for Clinicians studied potential pharmaceutical, dietary, surgical, and other approaches to reducing the risk of breast cancer. The conclusions show that risk reduction strategies should focus primarily on lifestyle factors -- specifically, eating a healthy diet, drinking alcohol moderately or not at all, and maintaining a healthy weight. In other words, natural, common sense healthy living that strengthen the “host” appear to be the best ways to prevent cancer in the first place.

Mammograms cause breast cancer, groundbreaking new research declares

Wednesday, December 02, 2009 by: S. L. Baker, features writer

(NaturalNews) Ever since the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force took a look, finally, at the scientific evidence and announced new recommendations earlier this month for routine mammograms -- specifically that women under 50 should avoid them and women over 50 should only get them every other year -- the reactions from many women, doctors and the mainstream media have reached the point of near hysteria. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027558_mammograms_cancer_industry.html).

Not getting annual mammograms, some say, means countless women will receive a virtual death sentence because their breast tumours won't be discovered. But what is rarely discussed about mammograms is this: the tests could actually be causing many cases of breast cancer. In fact, a new study just presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), concludes the low-dose radiation from annual mammography screening significantly increases breast cancer risk in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer. This is particularly worrisome because women who are at high risk for breast cancer are regularly pushed to start mammograms at a younger age -- as early as 25 -- and that means they are exposed to more radiation from mammography earlier and for more years than women who don't have breast cancer in their family trees.

"For women at high risk for breast cancer, screening is very important, but a careful approach should be taken when considering mammography for screening young women, particularly under age 30," Marijke C. Jansen-van der Weide, Ph.D., an epidemiologist in the Department of Epidemiology and Radiology at University Medical Centre Groningen in the Netherlands, said in a statement to the media. "Further, repeated exposure to low-dose radiation should be avoided."

Dr. Jansen-van der Weide and colleagues analyzed peer-reviewed, published medical research to investigate whether low-dose radiation exposure affects breast cancer risk among high-risk women. Out of the six studies included in this analysis, four looked at the effect of exposure to low-dose radiation among breast cancer gene mutation carriers. The other two studies traced the impact of radiation on women with a family history of breast cancer. The researchers took the combined data from all these research projects and then calculated odds ratios to estimate the risk of breast cancer caused by radiation.

The results? All the high-risk women in the study who were exposed to low-dose mammography type radiation had an increased risk of breast cancer that was 1.5 times greater than that of high-risk women who had not been exposed to low-dose radiation. What's more, women at high risk for breast cancer who had been exposed to low-dose radiation before the age of 20 or who had five or more exposures to low-dose radiation were 2.5 times more likely to develop breast cancer than high-risk women not exposed to low-dose radiation.

Bottom line: any supposed benefit of early tumour detection using mammograms in young women with familial or genetic predisposition to breast cancer is offset by the potential risk of radiation-induced cancer. "Our findings suggest that low-dose radiation increases breast cancer risk among these young high-risk women, and a careful approach is warranted," Dr. Jansen-van der Weide said in the press statement.

The mammogram scam exposed

Incredibly, although it is rarely reported in the mainstream media, the new study follows on the heels of several others that have already sounded the warning that mammograms may cause breast cancer.

For example, NaturalNews covered a Johns Hopkins study published earlier this year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (http://www.naturalnews.com/ 025560 _cancer_ brst_cancer_mammograms.html) that warned radiation exposure from annual mammograms could trigger breast malignancies in women with a strong family history of breast and/or ovarian cancers who have altered genes (identified as BRCA1 or BRCA2).

And it may not be only women with a familial risk for breast cancer who are at extra risk from mammography radiation. As NaturalNews covered last year, a report published in the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine found breast cancer rates increased significantly in four Norwegian counties after women there began getting mammograms every two years. In fact, the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been linked to an increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html).

Comments by the Health Ranger, Editor of NaturalNews.com Mammogram pushers now have nothing left to stand on. The complete and utter hoax of mammography has now been wholly discredited through a flurry of groundbreaking studies performed by conventional medicine researchers! Yes, even the industry's own former advocates now admit mammography harms far more women than it helps.

Why? Because mammography causes the very disease it claims to "detect". It's much like a clever sleight-of-hand magician's trick where they reach for your ear and suddenly produce a coin that was presumably hidden there. But as everybody knows, they put it there themselves! Mammograms offer a similar kind of sleight-of-hand trick (or sleight-of-breast, as the case may be) by actually generating the very disease they claim to find. If so many women hadn't already been harmed by mammography, the whole thing would be quite hysterical.

"Early detection saves lives," they say. Except they stupidly forget to tell women the other side of the story: "Mammograms cause cancer." And if you're gullible enough to actually irradiate your breasts every year, don't be surprised -- shocked! -- if they someday find tumours in them.

For more information: http://www.naturalnews.com/mammography.html

Now I will document the harm caused by conventional cancer treatments.

Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments

By R. Webster Kehr, Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc.

Part 1 - The Medicine

Introduction

Most people could not name five of the more than 300 alternative cancer treatments. Fewer still could name the five most potent alternative cancer treatments for advanced cancer patients.

Some people wonder why the scores of billions of dollars spent on the "War on Cancer," that President Nixon started in 1971/72, has not produced a cure for cancer. Have researchers been looking for more profitable treatments for cancer or have they been looking for cures for cancer?

In fact, the average person knows almost nothing about either orthodox cancer treatments or alternative cancer treatments, outside of what they have heard on television or read in the media.

If a survey were taken, the average person would probably think that the true cure rate of orthodox cancer treatments was 40% or more and the true cure rate for alternative cancer treatments was close to zero percent. This is total nonsense, but more will be said about that later in this article.

Is what you know about cancer treatments based on who has the most truth, or is it based on who has the most money? Is what you know about cancer treatments carefully designed to deceive you? Are you being sold a "bill of goods?"

This website is just as important for people who don't have cancer as it is for people who do have cancer. Why would someone who doesn't have cancer be concerned about the truth? The reason is that if they are diagnosed with cancer, their doctor will immediately put intense pressure on them to commit to chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Unless you know whether alternative cancer treatments or orthodox cancer treatments are superior, BEFORE YOU ARE DIAGNOSED, there is a 100% chance you will make the wrong decision. If you read all three parts of this article, you are assured of hearing many things that have never entered your mind before. You will read things that you will never, never hear on television or read in print.

You will learn a lot about the techniques of deception that you are exposed to every day. You will learn things that the people of orthodox medicine don't want you to know. And all this information is free. Nothing is sold from this website.

To visualize what is going on in the "cancer industry" today, and to see behind their massive facade, here is a short story that will describe how orthodox medicine currently treats cancer patients.

A Story

Suppose you own a nice, comfortable, $300,000 house in the country, near a small city. While you have gone to the store your house catches on fire. As you return home you see that two rooms of your house are in flames and the fire is spreading. You immediately call the fire department.

Twenty minutes later three fire trucks show up.

The men and women in the first fire truck pull out heavy suits and axes and run to the house and start cutting down parts of the house that have already burned, but are still smouldering. They furiously cut and cut and when they have cut out about 10% of the parts of the house that have already burned, they quit and go back to their fire truck.

You note that they did absolutely nothing to stop the spreading of the fire. What they cut out wasn't even burning and it certainly had nothing to do with stopping the raging fire.

You watch the men and women in the second fire truck pull out a fire hose and start spraying a powder on the fire. The amount of powder they were spraying did not seem to you to be enough to put out the fire. But you notice that while the powder is slowing down the spreading of the fire, it is also severely damaging the parts of the house that are not on fire.

Puzzled, you ask the fireman what the powder is. They say it is a very toxic acid that is capable of putting the fire out, but they can't spray very much of it on the fire because if they did, the entire house would be reduced to a pile of rubble by the acid. Thus, all they can do is slow down the spreading of the fire, but they can't stop the spreading of the fire.

Even more puzzled, you ask them why they did not bring water in their fire truck. They said that in firefighter school they were taught that water was useless in putting out house fires. They said that using water on a house fire is an old "wives tale" and water is not effective. They also said that the state firefighter's union would fire any firefighter that used water on a house fire.

By sheer coincidence you are also aware that the federal regulatory agency, the Fire Development Administration (FDA), has researched water and has declared that water is an "unproven" method to put out house fires. The FDA says there is "insufficient evidence" as to water's effectiveness and safety. You silently mumble to yourself that there must be a huge connection between the FDA, the firefighter's union, the firefighter schools and the chemical companies.

While you have been talking to the men and women in the second truck, five men have jumped out of the third fire truck. They ask you where the couch is in the living room. You point in the general direction of the couch in the living room, which you assume by now is on fire. Each of them immediately pulls out a 30-06 calibre rifle and starts shooting at the couch from where they are standing next to their fire truck. You scream at them and ask them what they are doing. They respond that they have been taught in firefighter's school that couches are very bad to have in a house during a fire, so they are trying to shoot the couch to pieces. They comment: "We think we are doing some good."

You say that even if the couch is helping spread the fire, that they are blowing holes in the front and back of the house trying to shoot the couch to pieces from outside the house. Furthermore, very impatiently, you say the fire has already spread far beyond where the couch is located.

While the spreading of the house fire did slow down because of the toxic acids, within two hours you no longer have a house. The fire men and women were quite proud that they slowed down the fire. They tell you that your house lasted an extra hour because of their work. You doubt the accuracy of that number. They give each other "high fives," get in their fire trucks, and head back to the fire station.

Between the fire, the acid and the bullets, your house has been reduced to rubble. The cutting out of the wood that had already burned, by the first fire truck, had absolutely no affect on stopping the fire. In fact, nothing any of them did stopped the spreading of the fire, it only slowed it down.

You are astonished at what you have seen.

You ponder why the "investigative journalists" have not jumped on this situation. Then you realize how much money the chemical companies spend on television advertisements and you realize why the "investigative journalists" have kept their mouths shut.

A week later, as you drive by the fire department, you notice that all of the cars in the parking lot are very expensive cars.

A month later you know why they are driving very expensive cars. They have sent you a bill for their services: $100,000. But they note in the bill that the house insurance company will pay most of the bill. You are amazed when you look at your house insurance policy and realize the insurance company will not pay the bill if the fire department uses water.

You ponder to yourself: "What is the connection between the fire department, the firefighter's union, the firefighter's school, the FDA, the insurance companies, the television stations and the chemical companies?"

One thing is clear to you, you now know why all of your friends think the firefighters are heroes, the television stations constantly portray them as heroes in their shows.

As you research all of the connections between these organizations it quickly becomes clear to you that all of them are owned or controlled by very wealthy people who are very, very good friends with each other. You have a brand new comprehension of what quid pro quo means - you scratch my back and I'll scratch your back. You conclude that a quid pro quo of this magnitude is another term for "conspiracy."

End of Story

The Explanation

What has just been described is how "modern medicine" treats cancer that has already metastasized. Cancer can be compared to a fire. It is a fire that will spread until it kills you. But "modern medicine" does nothing that will put out the fire. The first fire truck represents surgery to cut out tumours or parts of the body where there are concentrations of cancer cells, after the cancer has already started to spread throughout the body!

The third fire truck represents radiation, which is used to shrink tumours, after the cancer has already started to spread throughout the body!

While the second fire truck represents chemotherapy, the "progress" chemotherapy is making is frequently judged by its ability to shrink tumours. Oncologists love to tell the cancer patient that their tumours are shrinking.

But even if chemotherapy does slow down the progress of the cancer, and even if it puts cancer patients into remission, it is almost always a temporary Pyrrhic victory because the cancer almost always returns.

The Food and Drug Administration (the real FDA) has approved scores of chemotherapy drugs, but none of them can stop the spread of cancer because chemotherapy drugs do not target cancer cells.

There are scores of natural substances that do target cancer cells and can stop the spread of cancer. But the FDA has never approved a single one of these natural substances (natural substances cannot be patented by the pharmaceutical companies).

Insurance companies will not pay for natural cancer treatments (i.e. alternative cancer treatments). The media never says anything good about alternative cancer treatments, but constantly glorifies the medical profession. Medical schools have not taught a single truthful thing about alternative cancer treatments in over 90 years.

The Importance of the Spreading of Cancer

To understand how all of this relates to the spreading of cancer, consider this quote by an M.D., the late Dr. Philip Binzel:

"When a patient is found to have a tumour, the only thing the doctor discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the tumour. If a patient with a tumour is receiving radiation or chemotherapy, the only question that is asked is, "How is the tumour doing?" No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical training, I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or chemotherapy. The tumour would get smaller and smaller, but the patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear, "Isn't that marvellous! The tumour is gone!" Yes, it was, but so was the patient. How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat these scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing?

In primary cancer, with only a few exceptions, the tumour is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. I am going to repeat that statement. In primary cancer, with few exceptions, the tumour is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. What is health-endangering and life-threatening is the spread of that disease through the rest of the body.

There is nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of cancer. There is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of the disease. There is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent the spread of the disease. How do we know? Just look at the statistics! There is a statistic known as "survival time." Survival time is defined as that interval of time between when the diagnosis of cancer is first made in a given patient and when that patient dies from his disease.

In the past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the early diagnosis of cancer. In that period of time, tremendous progress had been made in the surgical ability to remove tumours. Tremendous progress has been made in the use of radiation and chemotherapy in their ability to shrink or destroy tumours. But, the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago. What does this mean? It obviously means that we are treating the wrong thing!" - Philip Binzel, M.D., Alive and Well, Chapter 14

In other words, if the cancer has not spread from the tumour, the tumour presents no danger to the patient (with rare exceptions, such as when a tumour blocks the fluid in the common bile duct).

It is important to understand that the vast majority of cells in a tumour are healthy cells. Cancer cells CANNOT form tissue. Thus, if the cancer were contained within the tumour, there would not be enough cancer cells in the person's body to endanger their life. Likewise, if a man had prostate cancer, and the cancer was contained inside the prostate gland, there could not be enough cancer cells inside the prostate gland to endanger the patient's life.

Even if the cancer cells in a tumour were killed, or the tumour was cut out, it would not solve the problem of the spreading of the cancer if the cancer has already spread. There would be no benefit to the patient because it is the spreading of the cancer that kills cancer patients, not the cancer inside the tumour.

Yet the focus of orthodox medicine is on shrinking the tumours.

Chemotherapy (i.e. the second fire truck in the example) is so toxic to cancer patients that if they gave enough of it to a cancer patient to kill all of the cancer cells, the patient would die from the side-effects of the chemotherapy immediately.

So doctors give chemotherapy in very low doses (though they seem like very high doses), not enough to actually cure you. In the mean time the cancer continues to spread.

Chemotherapy may put a patient "in remission," but virtually every cancer patient who goes into remission eventually comes out of remission and later dies.

Incredibly, doctors use radiation, the third fire truck, even after the cancer has started to spread. They are interested in shrinking a tumour. As mentioned above, the tumour is not the problem, it is the spreading of the cancer that is the problem.

While orthodox medicine continues to use worthless treatments, that only temporarily slow down the spreading of the cancer, many cancer patients who use alternative cancer treatments fare no better. Many alternative medicine practitioners do not use the best cancer treatments. Either they have been trained to use the most profitable treatments, or they are simply interested in making as much money as possible as fast as possible.

To make matters worse, vendors of natural supplements generally only sell their products, thus if they have a very weak product line, the patient probably isn't going to survive.

When a person gets cancer, their chances of survival are virtually nil. If they go with orthodox medicine they are assured they will get the treatments discussed above.

But even if they go with alternative medicine they are likely to get treatments that simply don't work.

This leaves the cancer patient in a quandary. No matter which way they turn the only thing that is thriving is their cancer and their practitioners.

But believe it or not, there is good news! While the pharmaceutical industry is in it for the money, Mother Nature isn't in it for money. And Mother Nature is a lot smarter than the chemists in the pharmaceutical industry.

And there are some people in alternative medicine who are not getting rich treating cancer patients and they know how to cure the vast majority of cancer cases. And there are even a few vendors who have products that are strong enough for almost all cancer cases!

This very long article, which is practically a small book in three parts, will walk the cancer patient, or their caregiver, through the mazes of deception that they have been exposed to all their life.

This article is definitely NOT a treatment article. Absolutely do not use this article to put together a cancer treatment program. There are dozens of articles on this website that deal with treating cancer. But this article isn't one of them. When you are finished with this article, go to the home page of this website and the home page will walk you through the articles on treating cancer.

But for now, let us discuss why so many cancer patients die.

Introduction To The Key Issue - Integrity

The issue of treating cancer has far more to do with integrity than it does with science. In fact, after several years of researching this very issue, it is clear to this author that treating cancer today has absolutely nothing to do with science. Nothing at all.

Had scientists embraced the Brandt Grape Cure of the 1920s, and refined it as future discoveries in natural medicine were made, cancer would have been a footnote in the history books written in the 1940s.

It is a fact that if every person who has lived on the Earth lived the Golden Rule, as it should be lived, cancer, and hundreds of other diseases, would currently be a footnote in history books.

Here is a quote from the late Dr. Bob Beck, a PhD in physics, who spent 40 years of his life working in electromedicine:

"When I looked into Dr. Kaali's work [Patent #5188738 describes a cure for AIDS/HIV found at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1990], I decided to go ahead and fund it. We found that it worked all of the time [at curing AIDS/HIV]. For two and a half years, we gave full credit for this invention to Dr. Kaali, whose name is on the patent. Then I discovered that there was a long history of this technology. We followed a trail of these patents back 107 years! We found a patent, #4665898, that cured all cancer, dated May 19, 1987. Why has this been suppressed? Why hasn't your doctor told you about an absolutely proven, established cure for cancer? The answer is that doctors get $375,000 per patient for surgery, chemotherapy, x-ray, hospital stays, doctors and anesthesiologists. This is the official statistic from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Unfortunately, the medical patient cured is a customer lost.

A lot of people say, "Aren't you infringing on others' patents?" In the beginning, I was nervous, but when I found this technology had been discovered and rediscovered for 107 years, I changed my mind. Now I am broadcasting it from the rooftops. Still, it is very touchy. It's rocking the pharmaceutical, surgical and diagnostic industries. But I really feel that I have been called to do this. I have had people come to my door with guns. I have been threatened and chased. But I think God wants this information out. I feel it is my mission to give people back to themselves, to deliver them from these vested interests, these [medical] priesthoods that are taking everyone's money. I am not charging a nickel." - Bob Beck, PhD, Interviewed by Kenneth and Dee Burke

As another example, in 1976, two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, PhD, and an associate, Ewan Cameron, M.D. - (My Note. I think this is the same Dr Cameron who then went on to become the monster of mind control that you’ve already red bout! It’s a pity that he didn’t stick to this field isn’t it?‖ - did a published scientific study in Scotland that resulted in proving that Vitamin C, given by I.V., of 10 grams a day, could extend the average length of time a terminal cancer patient lives by six times or more.

Had the medical community had any integrity, they would have quickly replicated his study, come to the same conclusion (because they did exactly what he did), and would have quickly started giving every cancer patient, terminal or otherwise, 10 grams of Vitamin C by I.V. every day.

But that is not what happened.

What really happened is that 3 studies were done at the Mayo Clinic, all of which were directly a result of the Pauling/Cameron study. However, these studies were not designed to replicate the Pauling/Cameron research. Instead they were designed to AVOID replicating the Pauling/Cameron protocol, AVOID their patient mix, and AVOID their statistical methods. Obviously, if you don't follow the same protocol, you won't get the same results. And they didn't.

Here is what the American Cancer Society (ACS) says about this issue:

"The Pauling study has been criticized by the NCI [National Cancer Institute, a division of the NIH or National Institutes of Health, a U.S. government agency] for being poorly designed, and subsequent studies done at the Mayo Clinic found that advanced cancer patients given the same dosage of vitamin C did not survive any longer than those not given the supplement. However, the Mayo Clinic trials have also been criticized for not fully addressing all the issues related to the effects of vitamin C, which still left questions about its effectiveness in the treatment of cancer." http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Vitamin_C.asp

The ACS would have been insane to challenge the integrity of Linus Pauling (one of his Nobel Prizes was the Nobel Peace Prize, the other was in chemistry). So they quote the totally corrupt NIH (Note: 500 NIH employees were recently caught taking bribes from the pharmaceutical industry, which they called "outside consulting fees") and state that a world famous chemist, and two-time Nobel Prize winner, doesn't know how to design a scientific study!!

But they also admit that the Mayo clinic did not use the same protocol as Pauling and Cameron. So if there are "still left questions," why hasn't the ACS used their annual scores of millions of dollars of income, and their political clout, to set the record straight and replicate the study as originally done? It has been more 30 years since the original study, yet no one in orthodox medicine, with their billions of dollars in research money, not even the ACS or NIH, has replicated the Pauling/Cameron study.

It appears that extending the life expectancy of terminal cancer patients six-fold, using natural substances, is not important to orthodox medicine.

In fact, two other studies did replicate the Pauling/Cameron study far more closely than did the Mayo Clinic. Both of these studies verified the Pauling/Cameron results.

But this is just one of many, many instances where highly effective cancer treatments have been persecuted and/or ignored.

There is, in fact, a pattern. A very clear pattern. The pattern is that if natural substances are involved, such as vitamin C, the study and evidence is persecuted and/or ignored. When natural substances are involved it is called "alternative medicine." It should be called "persecuted and/or ignored medicine."

There are more than 300 alternative cancer treatments that use natural substances, such as Vitamin C. Every one of them is more effective than the Pauling/Cameron protocol. Every one of them is far more effective than chemotherapy and/or radiation. Every one of them is ignored and many of them have been persecuted.

But there is a clear reason why natural substances are ignored. It has nothing to do with their effectiveness. The pharmaceutical industry cannot patent and control, and thus cannot profit from, natural substances. They can only charge their monopolistic prices on synthetic molecules, many of which are nothing but mutations of natural molecules.

What is Going On In The Cancer Industry?

The February 22, 2006 USA Today mentioned that by the year 2015, 20% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) could be for health spending.

Now let's be logical. Suppose a cure for cancer was found; and suppose a treatment to avoid 90% of all heart disease problems was found; and suppose a cure for type 2 diabetes was found; and suppose a cure for AIDS/HIV was found. (In fact, all of these have been found.) Would health spending ever hit 20% of GDP? Of course not. All of these are highly profitable diseases for both the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry (and the politicians who claim to represent their constituents).

All the money being raised for treating AIDS patients in Africa are benefiting no one but the pharmaceutical industry stockholders because a cure for AIDS/HIV has been around since 1990.

So in essence, the article in U.S. Today was predicting that no cures for the highly profitable diseases would be found by the year 2015. That is a safe prediction!! Another safe prediction would be to predict that every new treatment for the profitable diseases will be more expensive and more profitable than existing treatments!! Here is another safe prediction, the 20% figure will be hit before 2015.

Here is yet another safe prediction: the media will continue to suppress alternative treatments for cancer, heart disease, dementia, diabetes, etc. See this web site, you will be amazed at what alternative medicine can already prevent and cure (and this website is just the tip of the iceberg): Dementia, Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc. Website

Ask yourself this questions: "When was the last time orthodox medicine used their massive profits to find a cure for any disease?" When was the last time a cure for disease was found that used prescription drugs? If you said polio, you would be wrong. Polio was cured by a medical doctor in the 1940s, but the cure was suppressed because he used a form of Vitamin C, which drug companies could not patent and control.

Have you ever wondered what would happen if someone found a cure for cancer? You probably think that the person finding the cure would be featured on every television show in America and would win a Nobel Prize in medicine. Kaali and Lyman, mentioned above, found a cure for AIDS/HIV, and more than 200 other diseases, and they didn't win a Nobel Prize. Have you ever heard of them before?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to convince the average American that orthodox medicine today is not only corrupt, it is more corrupt than it has ever been in the history of medicine. That is saying a lot because orthodox medicine was persecuting cures for disease in the 1700s.

With Big Money comes Big Corruption. The bigger the money the more the corruption.

Unfortunately, there are some in alternative medicine who are also more interested in profits than their patients. The main difference between orthodox medicine and alternative medicine is freedom. The people with integrity in alternative medicine are allowed a great deal of freedom to help others. However, the Food and Drug Administration is always looking for excuses to crush the people who know how to cure diseases which are highly profitable to Big Pharma and Big Medicine (and thus Big Government).

Nevertheless, in spite of some persecution, there are over 300 alternative cancer treatments that currently exist. Every one of them can cure some cases of cancer, if the person starts using that treatment immediately after being diagnosed. However, there is a very wide range in effectiveness between these treatments, especially when used on advanced cancer patients.

The problem with alternative medicine is that patients are frequently on their own to find out which treatments work for their situation - and which don't work. Unlike orthodox medicine, which is very uniform across the country, alternative medicine is neither organized, nor uniform. The quest for truth is always a winding and rocky road, especially when money is involved.

Some people erroneously think that medical doctors do not use the best alternative cancer treatments because the doctors do not know which treatments are really effective. While medical schools turn doctors into nothing but drug salesmen, that is not why medical doctors do not use natural substances in the treatment of disease. Medical doctors know how to read. But they also know that if they used a single one of these alternative cancer treatments on a single cancer patient, they would risk losing their license and could go to jail!!

While it is this attitude that creates uniformity in orthodox medicine, it is also this attitude that crushes progress. Orthodox medicine is a highly controlled monopoly, totally controlled by the combination of Big Pharma and the American Medical Association.

The suppression of truth by Big Medicine is why this website, and many other websites, exist. The major purpose of this website is to make information about alternative cancer treatments free and available to the public so that more and more people know which alternative cancer treatments are the strongest.

Why Some Alternative Cancer Treatments Are Far Superior to Orthodox Cancer Treatments

All of your life you have probably been taught that natural substances from Mother Nature cannot possibly be as effective against cancer as the highly condensed, highly potent synthetic molecules made by the drug companies. In other words, you have been taught that chemotherapy drugs kill cancer cells far better than anything Mother Nature can put together.

That is definitely not a true statement, but even if it were true it would be an irrelevant issue!

The key issue is whether patented drugs or Mother Nature's minerals and nutrients target cancer cells better.

The fact of the matter is that chemotherapy does not target cancer cells. In fact, chemotherapy kills far, far more healthy cells than it does cancer cells.

What this means is that chemotherapy must be given in very, very low doses, spread out over long periods of time, and the therapy must include gaps between the treatments. This "pacing" of the drugs is because too many healthy cells would be killed if too much chemotherapy were given too fast.

The reason orthodox medicine treats cancer like a chronic disease is because orthodox treatments, in high doses, would kill the patient long before they would cure the cancer. This failure of orthodox medicine to safely kill cancer cells (i.e. safely target cancer cells) is why they talk about a "5 year cure rate" rather than a true cure rate. If they can keep the patient alive for 5 years they consider the patient to be "cured," even if they die in the sixth year.

Mother Nature's cancer treatments, called natural cancer treatments, or more commonly "alternative cancer treatments," generally do absolutely no harm to healthy cells. This is because the human body, which was made by Mother Nature, knows exactly what to do with Mother Nature's minerals and nutrients.

Virtually all natural treatments for cancer do not kill healthy cells - not a single one.

This is the key - because alternative cancer treatments do not harm or kill healthy cells, the items from nature that can kill cancer cells can be given in much higher doses than chemotherapy - without any gaps in treatment!!

Thus, even if the mutations of natural molecules, called drugs, were more potent at killing cancer cells than the original natural molecules, because of the superiority of natural substances at targeting cancer cells or leaving healthy cells healthy, alternative cancer treatments can be far more effective than orthodox drugs at treating cancer!

Because Mother Nature does not necessarily condense the cancer-killing nutrients found in foods, some of the most potent of the alternative cancer treatments are liquid ionic minerals, certain types of ozone treatments, and other natural treatments that contain molecules that can be condensed, such as intravenous vitamin C (but not the Pauling/Cameron doses, however).

Just how effective are the best treatments from Mother Nature? Several alternative cancer treatments have achieved a consistent 50% true cure rate on cancer patients who had been given up on by orthodox medicine and had been sent home to die!

Such results are possible because these key alternative cancer treatments not only target cancer cells, they can be given in a very condensed and potent form, they do not need a catalyst, and they can be given safely in much higher doses than chemotherapy. Ponder that very carefully!

Also ponder the true cure rate of these same treatments on cancer patients who use these treatments exclusively, meaning they had not lost many months of treatment time while being treated with orthodox treatments!

However, do not assume every alternative cancer treatment is that effective. Very few of the 300+ alternative cancer treatments can come anywhere close to a 50% true cure rate on patients given up on by orthodox medicine.

One of the big mistakes people who seek out alternative cancer treatments make is to assume that if an alternative cancer treatment will cure one patient, it will cure all cancer patients, no matter what condition they are in. This is a dangerous assumption because very, very few of the 300+ alternative cancer treatments are condensed and potent enough to cure 50% of those sent home to die by orthodox medicine. Very few.

An Example of One of the Potent Alternative Cancer Treatments

There are very few minerals that can get inside of cancer cells. Two of the minerals that can get inside of cancer cells are caesium and potassium. Once caesium gets inside of cancer cells it starts to "pull" potassium from the blood into the cancer cells (potassium supplementation is required when on this treatment in order to replenish the potassium in the blood that was pulled into the cancer cells). When there is enough build-up of caesium and/or potassium inside the cancer cell, glucose is blocked from getting into the cancer cell. Since glucose is what feeds the cancer cell, the cancer cell will eventually die from starvation. Not only that, but caesium and/or potassium will also block the cancer cells from making lactic acid, meaning they block the cachexia cycle at the cancer cell. Other items also help block or overcome the cachexia cycle in different ways (e.g. hydrazine sulphate blocks the cachexia cycle at the liver).

Dr. A. Keith Brewer, PhD, discovered in the 1980s how caesium can treat cancer. Aside from treating the cancer, it can treat the pain of cancer within 12 to 36 hours, depending on what is causing the pain. The liquid ionic caesium chloride used today is much more potent than the caesium carbonate of the 1980s. The complete protocol includes several other items. Here is an article on this treatment: Article: The Caesium Chloride / DMSO Protocol

Like all of the most potent alternative cancer treatments, this treatment is so potent at killing cancer cells it must be "paced," meaning dosages must be set so the body has time to safely remove the debris caused by the dead cancer cells.

Did you notice that orthodox cancer treatments must be "paced" because of all the healthy cells that they kill. But alternative cancer treatments must be "paced" because of all the targeted cancer cells they kill.

Because of the number of cancer cells killed by the caesium chloride / DMSO treatment, the cancer patient needs the expert advice of a vendor who knows how to safely use these products. Fortunately, such experts exist.

In fact, all of the most potent alternative cancer treatments require expert advice over the telephone or in a clinic setting. For example, the ozone RHP and ozone liquid I.V. treatments require expert advice or a clinic setting.

Also, these most potent treatments generally cannot be combined with each other (but they can be combined with some other alternative treatments). The doses for these products are designed to kill cancer cells at a rate that the body can safely handle the debris. To combine such treatments may create too high of a die-off rate.

[Note: The list of alternative cancer treatments which can give a cancer patient (given up on by orthodox medicine) hope for survival can be found in the top section of the home page of this web site. Several of these treatments have articles written about them on this website.] CancerTutor Home Page

More on Orthodox Cancer Treatments

You probably believe that the true cure rate of orthodox cancer treatments is around 40% and growing. This belief is the result of a wide variety of fancy statistical tricks (which will be discussed in Part 2 of this article). The fact is that if you get cancer, and you use nothing but orthodox cancer treatments, your chance of surviving your cancer (and surviving your cancer treatment) is only about 3%.

On top of that, even the 3% who do survive have had their bodies so severely damaged that they are vulnerable to future bouts with cancer.

Here is what really happens to the typical cancer patient:

Step 1) The patient goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with cancer,

Step 2) The cancer surgeon cuts out the parts of the body with high concentrations of cancer cells,

Step 3) The oncologists give the patient chemotherapy and/or radiation, Step 4) They send the patient home "in remission,"

Step 5) The cancer soon appears again (because they didn't actually cure the patient),

Step 6) Go back to step 1)

This cycle continues until the patient is sent home to die (of course, they are sent home to die after one more round of chemotherapy and radiation). Soon the patient dies. This is the cycle for virtually all cancer patients. The only difference between one patient and another is how many times the cycle is repeated.

This is medicine?

One hundred years from now the medical doctors of the day will look at the "medicine" of today in total and absolute disgust. There is absolutely no excuse for what is going on today in medicine.

Even those who stop this nonsense and go with alternative medicine have severe problems. Chemotherapy, radiation and surgery virtually destroy a person's immune system. A well put together natural treatment, on the other hand, which will actually include several different products which do different things, will actually build the person's immune system to make sure the cancer will not return. But alternative medicine cannot quickly mend an immune system that has been destroyed. That is why the most potent alternative cancer treatments do not take the time to fix the patient's immune system. The immune system is fixed during remission.

But it gets worse.

First, ninety-five percent of cancer patients who go with alternative cancer treatments have already been given up for dead by orthodox medicine. In other words, they first went to orthodox medicine, their body was destroyed by orthodox medicine, THEN they decided to go with alternative cancer treatments.

Second, because so few alternative cancer treatments can cure people sent home to die by orthodox medicine, very few of the cancer patients sent home to die pick a treatment strong enough to give them a fighting chance. In other words, very few of these cancer patients pick one of the most potent alternative cancer treatments.

These two things create a severe disadvantage for alternative medicine. Alternative medicine has lost between 1 and 4 years to treat the patient and build their immune system - because the patient was using orthodox treatments.

In addition to that, after orthodox treatments, the patient is in far worse physical and mental condition than they were when they were first diagnosed. This is why there are so few alternative cancer treatments that can achieve a true cure rate of 50% on these patients.

If we put all of this together we come to the following facts:

1) Almost 100% of all newly diagnosed cancer patients go with orthodox medicine first,

2) About 97% of these patients die, or are sent home to die and later die, due to their cancer and/or their cancer treatment,

3) Only a very small percentage of the cancer patients sent home to die ever go with alternative cancer treatments, they simply go home and die,

4) Of those who do go with alternative cancer treatments, only a very small percentage of them pick a treatment strong enough to give them a 50% chance of survival. Is it any wonder that deaths from cancer continue to rise in spite of the power of some of the alternative cancer treatments?

So, what is the cure rate of recently diagnosed cancer patients who go with alternative medicine exclusively? It depends on how dangerous their cancer is and what treatment they pick. There are more than 300 alternative cancer treatments.

If they pick the best possible treatment for their situation, when they are first diagnosed, a 90% or higher true cure rate is fairly easy to achieve. Overall, there are at least two dozen alternative cancer treatments that can come close to a 90% overall true cure rate across the board for those who use alternative cancer treatments exclusively.

The amazing thing is that orthodox medicine has had its own opportunities to have its own 90% cure rate. There are two incredible substances that allow chemotherapy to safely target cancer cells: insulin and DMSO.

Insulin allows small amounts of chemotherapy to target cancer cells because of the way it works with the cell membranes. The treatment is called Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT).

DMSO actually binds to small amounts of certain chemotherapy drugs. The DMSO, which has a very high affinity for cancer cells, then pulls the chemotherapy into the cancer cells with it. On this website, this treatment is called DMSO Potentiation Therapy (DPT).

DPT and IPT are two treatments that are easy to combine. It is a very potent treatment. But don't ask your oncologist about it, he or she has probably never heard of it.

Because these two treatments use very low doses of chemotherapy (about 1/10th a normal dose), and because the chemotherapy targets the cancer cells, these two treatments are very potent and have virtually no side-effects.

But orthodox medicine does not use their own discoveries! They would rather have a 3% cure rate than a 90% cure rate!! See this article about these two substances: Article: DMSO - The Magic Bullet For Cancer

So, if this is true, and it is true, why haven't you heard this on television a hundred times during your lifetime? Why don't movie stars, "investigative journalists," etc. constantly tout the vast superiority of alternative cancer treatments?

Why You Haven't Heard These Things Before

Everything you hear throughout your life is not based on who has the most truth, it is based on who has the most money. If you haven't figured that out by now, you better figure it out real quick.

The average American knows absolutely nothing about alternative cancer treatments except rumours about people who probably used the wrong treatment. Let us consider the reasons for this lack of accurate and useful information about alternative cancer treatments with the following list of facts:

Fact #1) Virtually every American gets the vast majority of their information directly or indirectly from the media, which includes television, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. Only the Internet, books and emails would not be considered part of the "media."

Fact #2) The pharmaceutical industry spends $3 billion a year advertising in the media.

Fact #3) In the 1940s, the book: The Drug Story was published by newspaper owner Morris Bealle. This book exposed the vast corruption in the media due to advertising dollars. In other words, it exposed why newspapers (this was before television) refused to tell the truth about corruption in corporations due to their fear of losing advertising dollars to these same corrupt corporations.

However, it was well known long before the 1940s that advertising money bought influence with the media. Actually, this was known no later than the 1880s. In other words, for more than 100 years the media has clearly understood that if you say things in the media that are true, but cut into the profits of your advertisers, you will quickly lose not only your advertising revenue from that company, but possibly from many other companies as well (who also fear any type of honesty).

Consider this quote by a famous journalist to a group of other journalists, given in the 1880s:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history [1880], in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.

If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his [human] race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." John Swinton (1829-1901) pre- eminent New York journalist & head of the editorial staff at the New York Tribune. Quoted one night between 1880-1883.

Quoted by Upton Sinclair in his 1919 book: The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism, page 400 Even though Upton Sinclair was famous by 1919, because he was criticizing corruption in the media, he had to self-publish this book.

Absolutely nothing has changed since the 1880s.

Fact #4) As a result of the above item, and the $3 billion a year spent by the pharmaceutical industry in the media, American journalists are required to publicly be highly, highly loyal to the pharmaceutical industry. A single verbal slip by a journalist on or off the air could cost him or her their job. Prior approval by the advertisers is required to say anything mildly negative about the pharmaceutical industry.

These same rules apply to most major industries, not just the pharmaceutical industry.

Fact #5) The orthodox cancer treatments (e.g. surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and many others) used in "modern" medicine are equally subservient to the pharmaceutical industry. Actually, "modern" medicine was corrupt long before the pharmaceutical industry took over the medical schools many decades ago. Medical doctors, who are under the control of the American Medical Association, are not allowed to use any natural substance in the treatment of cancer. Modern "doctors" are taught nothing but medicine using prescription drugs.

Medical doctors are only allowed to use natural substances in the treatment of the symptoms of prescription drugs. This is called "complementary alternative medicine" or CAM. CAM is not designed to treat any disease! Because of the money of the pharmaceutical industry: the medical community, the media and the politicians are all subservient to the pharmaceutical industry. All are in the same bed together.

There are many books that have been written on these subjects.

Fact #6) While vitamin companies can advertise in the media, the substances which are used in the most potent natural or alternative cancer treatments are never advertised in the media. Thus, the media receives $0 dollars of advertising related to viable alternative cancer treatments.

Thus, there is a $3 billion dollar difference between what the pharmaceutical industry spends on advertising and what is spent for the main substances used in alternative cancer treatments. There is an equally proportional difference in the opinions you gather from watching or reading the media.

Fact #7) Taking all of the above items into account, is it any wonder that the average American hears nothing good about alternative cancer treatments anywhere in the media, but hears hundreds or thousands of good things about orthodox medicine in the media every year (thousands if you include pharmaceutical advertisements).

You might not remember hearing anything good about orthodox medicine. Every time you watch a role-playing show on television that glorifies a doctor or hospital you are being indoctrinated. Every time you hear a news program that implies you should go to your orthodox doctor for some problem, you are being indoctrinated. Every time you hear a pharmaceutical ad you are being indoctrinated.

But you never hear anything positive about alternative cancer treatments. This is by design.

An Even Bigger Reason For The Great Deception

But the problem is much deeper than just advertising money. The issue of cross-ownership and cross-board of director’s control is a far more significant reason for the great deception.

For example, as this article is being written, General Electric owns 80% of the NBC network. General Electric also owns 14 major NBC affiliates. General Electric's partner, Telemundo (which owns the other 20% of NBC), owns 16 major television stations. By the way, GE now owns Telemundo.

Why is this significant? General Electric has a major division called: "GE Healthcare." This division includes "GE Medical Systems Information Technologies," "GE Healthcare Cintricity Pharmacy" (which has sold about 6 billion prescriptions) and other orthodox health related organizations.

All of these organizations, and many more, are heavily involved in orthodox medicine. Thus, the same company, General Electric, has major ownership in both the media and orthodox medicine.

CBS has a longstanding advertising policy that prohibits the sale of advertising time for the advocacy of viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance. In other words, they can censor any advertisement they want. So much for freedom of the press. The press has the freedom, but not the people.

A local FOX station in Florida fired two of its reporters, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, for refusing to back down on an investigative reporting segment that exposed Monsanto chemical company for adding a toxic chemical, BGH, which causes cancer, to milk. The national FOX network has stood solidly behind the Florida station. Are you surprised? For decades the 3 major television networks were so liberal that they were no longer able to control the conservatives. Something had to be done to manipulate and keep the conservatives from figuring out what was going on in Washington. In 1985, the Fox Network was founded with the main purpose of controlling the conservatives by diverting their attention from the real corruption in Washington and focusing the attention of the conservatives on unimportant issues that would not threaten the profits of the main conspiracy.

All of what has been said is just the tip of the iceberg. There is the issue of cross-board of director’s control, such as between large cancer research clinics and pharmaceutical companies. There is also the issue that 42 U.S. Senators (42%) own stock in the pharmaceutical industry.

Then there is the issue of the revolving door between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. There is the issue discovered by a Los Angeles Times investigation that found out more than 500 employees of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were receiving bribes (i.e. "outside consulting fees") from the pharmaceutical industry. When the head of the NIH slapped a one year moratorium on these bribes (because they got caught, not because of any modicum of integrity), he was jeered by the crowd of NIH employees.

Follow the money trail, it all leads back to the pharmaceutical industry and American Medical Association (AMA).

Now you know why the government and the AMA don't want you to know the whole truth about your cancer treatment options. Now you know why medical doctors are not allowed to use natural substances in the treatment of cancer EVEN AFTER a person is sent home to die. Ponder that one carefully!!

If alternative medicine is capable of having a consistent cure rate of 90% or more, on newly diagnosed cancer patients, then clearly orthodox medicine is also capable of having a 90% true cure rate on newly diagnosed cancer patients if doctors were allowed to use natural substances in the treatment of disease. That is exactly why they are not allowed to use alternative medicine to treat disease.

The 3% cure rate treatments are so much more profitable than the 90% cure rate treatments, that the "leaders" of orthodox medicine have intentionally chosen to suppress the far superior alternative cancer treatments.

If medical doctors were allowed to use alternative medicine on cancer patients they sent home to die, they could cure 50% of them. That would lead to questions of why the alternative cancer treatment was not used first! That is why medical doctors are not allowed to use alternative medicine even after the pharmaceutical industry and doctors already have their money and the patient is sent home to die!

This point is so important it cannot be made often enough. After orthodox medicine has all the money they can get from a cancer patient, the individual medical doctor is still not allowed to cure the patient with alternative medicine. This is the most telling fact of all in the battle between orthodox and alternative medicine. It would be too embarrassing to orthodox medicine for their cancer patients to be cured with alternative medicine after the orthodox treatments failed! So to avoid the embarrassment, they stand back and watch their patients die a painful death.

While individual doctors may or may not know what is going on, and may or may not be at fault for what is going on, it is clear that the individual medical doctors can be severely criticized for not having the guts to clean house within the national and state AMA boards and stand up for their patient's health. They can also be severely criticized for not desiring to learn more about alternative cancer treatments. Most doctors don't want to "rock the boat." What you hear from the "cancer industry" and the media does not come from anyone who is concerned about your health (or your life), what you hear comes from people who care about their personal assets. What you hear is controlled very carefully by a wide network of cross-controlled organizations and advertising money.

Indeed, those of us who are interested in telling people about their cancer treatment options feel as the reformer Upton Sinclair felt in 1919:

"I was determined to get something done about the Condemned Meat Industry. I was determined to get something done about the atrocious conditions under which men, women and children were working the Chicago stockyards. In my efforts to get something done, I was like an animal in a cage. The bars of this cage were newspapers, which stood between me and the public; and inside the cage I roamed up and down, testing one bar after another, and finding them impossible to break." Upton Sinclair, The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism, page 39 Even though Sinclair was famous by 1919, he had to self- publish this book.

With the total control of information by the media, and the total dependence of Americans on this mode of information, is it any wonder that virtually every newly diagnosed cancer patient chooses to go with orthodox medicine?

A Summary

Let us summarize all of the things above:

1) Because of greed and corruption, orthodox medicine uses the most profitable treatments for cancer, thus their true cure rate is around 3%.

2) The true cure rate of orthodox medicine could easily be 90% or higher if they used the most effective orthodox cancer treatments or the most effective alternative cancer treatments.

3) Because of a wide variety of problems, but mainly because most cancer patients go with orthodox cancer treatments first, the true cure rate of alternative medicine is unknown, but it is probably around 10% to 15%.

4) Like orthodox medicine, the true cure rate of alternative cancer treatments could be 90% or higher if newly diagnosed cancer patients went with alternative cancer treatments instead of orthodox cancer treatments and they found and used the most effective of the alternative cancer treatments for their situation.

5) Thus, orthodox medicine and alternative medicine have essentially the same potential, especially if orthodox medicine used the best of the alternative cancer treatments. But a medical doctor stands at risk of losing their medical license, and possibly going to jail, should they use the most effective cancer treatments, either orthodox or alternative. Thus, going with orthodox cancer treatments is almost always a mistake, because of the corruption in modern medicine.

6) Thus, for a newly diagnosed cancer patient, because they have the option to use alternative cancer treatments, and the freedom to do their homework on the Internet and in the right books, their only hope of achieving a high chance of survival is to use alternative cancer treatments.

In short, the war between alternative cancer treatments and orthodox cancer treatments has nothing to do with science, it is a war of information and freedom. From a scientific standpoint, if the right treatment is chosen for a given situation, and the patient avoids orthodox medicine (except in rare situations), because of the corruption of orthodox medicine, alternative cancer treatments are far superior. But the side that wins the most cancer patients is the side with the most money. In other words, because they are corrupt, Big Pharma and Big Medicine have the most money and the most influence over the media (who are essentially owned and controlled by the same people who own and control the pharmaceutical industry), thus almost all newly diagnosed cancer patients choose the worst possible option because the media has suppressed the truth, deceived them into thinking current orthodox medicine is wonderful and brainwashed them into picking their worst possible option.

Medicine is not a "healing art," it is a business. Their goal is not to cure people, but to maximize their profits. Cancer is one of the key diseases that is a "goose that lays golden eggs" for orthodox medicine. No one wants to kill that goose.

More than one million Americans die every year of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc., when they could have been cured or their disease could easily have been prevented. Instead of being told the truth, the truth is suppressed and replaced with false hopes, deceptive statistics and pressure.

God will judge those who are responsible and God cannot be bribed.

Exposing the fraud and mythology of conventional cancer treatments

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 by: Christina Luisa

(NaturalNews) Treating cancer is BIG business in America -- in fact, it's a $200 billion a year business. Yet 98 percent of conventional cancer treatments not only FAIL miserably, but are also almost guaranteed to make cancer patients sicker.

What's worse: The powers are suppressing natural cancer cures that could help tens of thousands of people get well and live cancer free with little or no dependence on drugs, surgery and chemotherapy.

The treatment of cancer in the U.S. is one of the most bald-faced cover-ups in medical history. Enough is enough! You deserve to know the truth about the criminality of oncologists and about the dangers of chemotherapy, conventional cancer treatments and the cancer "business."

Chemotherapy kills more than cancer

Want proof? Did you know that 9 out of 10 oncologists would refuse chemotherapy if they had cancer? That's up to 91% -- a huge percentage that clearly shines a light on the truth: chemotherapy kills. Conventional oncologists are not only allowing this to happen, but they're also bullying many patients into chemotherapy and surgery right after their diagnoses.

Why would that large percentage of oncologists - the ones telling so many patients to get chemotherapy - refuse to do it themselves? Because they know it's not just ineffective, but extremely toxic. Regardless, 75% of cancer patients are directed to receive chemotherapy.

Not shocked enough yet? A rigorous review of chemotherapy revealed that it fails for 98% of people. And when chemotherapy was tested against no treatment, no treatment proved the better option. What's more is only two to four percent of cancers respond well to chemotherapy.

In a German study of women over age 80 with breast cancer, those who received no treatment lived 11 months longer on average than those who received conventional cancer treatments.

A 14-year study by two oncologists in Australia reported in the film "A Shocking Look at Cancer Studies" that conventional treatment such as chemotherapy for all of our major cancers is totally ineffective -- far below a 10% success rate. Chemotherapy is a barbaric and pointless procedure. It attacks and kills not just cancer, but also all the living, healthy cells in the body and completely cripples the body's immune system. While this extreme treatment has been called effective against testicular cancers and lymphocytic leukaemia, in many cases it's hard to tell which the supposed "therapy" will kill first -- the cancer or the patient. In fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to say most people, who die from cancer, actually die from cancer TREATMENTS.

Mammograms do more damage than good (and preventive mastectomies are pointless)

The $4 billion-a-year mammogram industry urges women to rely on these x-ray tests to "protect" their health. However, what they don't tell you is mammograms are a highly unnecessary and harmful treatment. In fact, mammograms harm ten women for every one the procedure helps.

A study by researchers from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Demark reviewed both the benefits and negative effects of seven breast cancer screening programs on 500,000 women.

For every 2,000 women who received mammograms over a 10-year period, only one would have her life prolonged, but ten would be harmed. This is because mammograms can actually INCREASE a woman's risk of developing breast cancer by as much as 3% a year by irradiating the breast cells and triggering breast cancer.

Modern cancer treatments = the "Dark Ages" of medicine

In the documentary, Cancer is Curable, available on NaturalNews (http://premium.naturalnews.tv/CANCE...), one alternative cancer treatment expert says someday people will look back and wonder "what kind of Neanderthals we were" for practicing surgery, radiation and chemotherapy (or cut, burn and poison). He also calls the conventional approach to cancer treatment "medieval."

Statistics show that there is no proof preventive mastectomy -- removal of the whole breast -- extends the life of breast cancer patients, yet oncologists go right on doing it on a regular basis. Preventative mastectomies are pointless procedures, and many patients are led to believe they have cancer due to false positive cancer screenings. This means they are pressured into having breasts removed for no reason whatsoever. The women undergoing these treatments are scarred for life.

CT scans, or computed tomographies, are a common testing procedure for most cancer types, but the irony is that this CT scan radiation is highly dangerous and can lead to cancer itself.

The radiation from a CT scan actually has been shown to cause a substantial amount of cancer. A recent report published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that the radiation from current CT-scan use (estimated at more than 62 million CT scans per year in the US) may cause as many as 1 in 50 future cases of cancer. This is nothing to be taken lightly. Radiation from medical devices is a huge and under-estimated contribution to the growing incidence of breast and other forms of cancer.

According to an article in Time Health, other studies prove doctors are performing too many unwarranted CT scans, exposing a countless amount of patients to cancer-causing radiation. Many mammograms are also miscalibrated, so they end up churning out far too much radiation to be safe. If a woman begins getting routine mammograms at age 40, then by age 60 it is almost certain she will have breast cancer.

It's no wonder so many women end up with this form of cancer - they begin getting frequent screenings starting in middle age at the urgings of doctors everywhere. The health and cancer industries know about the connection between CT scan radiation and mammograms and cancer statistics, yet they keep pushing patients to perform these "preventive" procedures. The outrageous truth is frequent mammograms purposely bring repeat business to the corrupt cancer industry by creating cancer tumours over time.

Speaking of lies, virtually NONE of Komen's donation money goes toward funding actual cancer research. Up to 95% of the donation money at Komen goes to provide "free mammograms" to African American women and low income women - after all, they wouldn't want them to be left out from all this unnecessary radiation. Better ensure they get cancer, as well. Komen's money is almost entirely contributed toward doing more mammograms and pumping more radiation into women.

There is actually a little-known test for breast cancer that exists, and this method yields no false positive or negatives: a saliva test. Researchers from the University of Texas Health Science Centre in Houston discovered that women with breast cancer carry different proteins than women with no cancer; this can be tested by a saliva test so simple a dentist could do it.

Big Pharma lies to convince us that their so-called cancer "cures" work

Oncologists and Big Pharma use clever tricks to promote their cancer treatments such as using relative numbers to supposedly prove the effectiveness of their cancer treatments. For example, if you or a loved one has breast cancer, doctors will likely recommend the drug Tamoxifen. They'll tell you it reduces the chances of breast cancer recurring by 49%, which sounds fairly impressive.

However, based on absolute numbers, Tamoxifen reduces the risk of breast cancer returning by 1.6% -- 30 times less than advertised. Relative numbers instead of cold, hard statistics are often used by oncologists because relative numbers can be manipulated in many ways. Any relative statistic that allows the percentages to be spun in a false positive light could be used in these situations.

Perhaps you have heard through the major media that treating early stage breast cancer creates a 91% cure rate over five years. This statement is absolutely ridiculous -- you could get the same cure rate by doing nothing at all (breast cancer is a very slow growing cancer).

The point is: Don't be fooled by ambiguous "relative" numbers. Get the real facts!

Drug companies pay oncologists to promote (expensive) ineffective and toxic cancer drugs

Most oncologists don't make their money by treating patients, but by selling cancer drugs. In fact, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, as much as 75% of the average oncologist's earnings come from selling chemotherapy drugs in his or her office -- and at a substantially marked-up price.

Pharmaceutical companies not only hire charismatic people to charm doctors, exaggerate drug benefits and underplay side effects, but they also pay oncologists kickbacks to push their drugs. For example, AstraZeneca, Inc. had to pay $280 million in civil penalties and $63 million in criminal penalties to the federal government after it paid kickbacks to doctors for promoting its prostate cancer drug.

Many oncologists are criminals and bullies, not doctors

Oncologists not only bully patients into taking the destructive route of chemotherapy, toxic drugs and surgery, but they also don't tell their patients the whole truth about the danger of these treatments, other available options, cancer survival statistics, and much more. An innumerable number of cancer patients have suffered needless at the hands of these so- called doctors, who are often really corrupt and immoral human beings that could care less about the healing process of their patients. Many of these shameless oncologists deserve to be arrested and prosecuted immediately for the crimes they commit, yet they keep on sending patients down the same treacherous and painful road that has resulted in too many deaths to keep track of.

More and more patients are waking up to the truth about cancer treatment and educating themselves on the power of whole food nutrition and supplements -- they are choosing doctors that educate and heal them rather than bully them into surgery and chemotherapy. The staggering documentary Cancer is Curable mentioned earlier interviews doctors who tell you how patients are often pressured by conventional oncologists; sometimes they're even hustled onto the operating table the day after their diagnosis -- without having any of their other choices explained to them.

What's worse is that no matter how effective a treatment could be, conventional patients are still being killed by the food they are fed in hospitals. All the doctors in Cancer is Curable unanimously explain that sugar is the No. 1 killer for every cancer patient -- and although every medical doctor should know that fact, they still continue to give their patients tootsie rolls and candies in the chemotherapy room.

Many oncologists are also telling their cancer patients to stop taking antioxidant supplements while they're undergoing treatment. Why? Because they're saying there is a possibility that antioxidants could be lowering the effectiveness of cancer treatments like radiation treatment and chemotherapy.

In spite of what you might have been told or led to believe, chemo is hardly the exact science that it pretends to be. And yet, on the mere hunch that antioxidants could be protecting the cancer cells that chemotherapy seeks to destroy, oncologists feel justified in telling their patients to forfeit antioxidant supplements.

There are a ridiculous number of false positives in cancer screenings

Among 1,087 individuals participating in a cancer screening trial who received a battery of tests for prostate, ovarian, colorectal and lung cancer, 43 % had at least one false positive test result, according to a study published in an issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (http://www.newmaterials.com/Customi...). That's almost half of the patients who were tested!

One of the obvious downfalls of this is the needlessly expensive medical care costs associated with false positive cancer screenings. Considering the high cost of testing and treatments, the economic consequences of false-positive screening results are significant. Let's not neglect to mention the pointless emotional and physical suffering inflicted upon thousands of patients who are led to believe they have cancer.

In the study mentioned above, men that specifically were given a false positive result for either prostate, lung or colorectal cancer averaged almost $2,000 in additional medical care expenditures compared to men with all negative screens. More than half -- or 51% -- of the men in the study had at least one false positive test.

The lesson to take home from all this

These cancer cover-ups and myths are just a few basic examples of how corrupt and dishonest the cancer industry really is. This especially pertains to the oncologists, who are treating patients regardless of knowing the disturbing truth about the procedures, testing and treatment processes they so frequently push upon their patients.

While not all oncologists should be placed into the same category, a large majority of these criminal "doctors" should be held accountable and properly punished for the needless struggle they are inflicting upon thousands of cancer sufferers. If you know anyone who is being pushed into chemotherapy and other deadly and unnecessary "treatments," share the truth with them today and you could save a life. Fortunately, more and more people are waking up to these cancer lies and are looking into safer and more effective alternative treatment protocols and therapies.

Prostate cancer surgery 'has little or no benefit' in extending life of patients

The study compared surgically removing prostate gland with 'watchful waiting'

Some experts now questioning whether disease should even be called cancer

By Pamela Owen PUBLISHED: 09:26, 28 April 2012 Daily Mail

New research into prostate cancer has revealed that surgery has little or no benefit in extending the life of a patient.

The study, which has not yet been published, compared surgically removing the prostate gland with 'watchful waiting' and found there was little difference between the two.

Experts are believed to be 'shaken' by the news because thousands of men could have gone through painful and unnecessary surgery.

A new study suggests that surgery makes little or no difference to prostate cancer sufferers

One expert, who did not want to be named, told the Independent newspaper: 'The only rational response to these results is, when presented with a patient with prostate cancer, to do nothing.'

The Prostate Intervention Versus Observation Trust (PIVOT), led by Timothy Wilt, started in 1993 and analysed 731 patients over 12 years.

It found that those who had an operation to treat the cancer had less than three per cent chance of survival compared with those who had no treatment.

The results were presented at a meeting of the European Association of Urology in Paris in February and were met with a stunned silence.

One urologist said that it definitely was not a finding the medics would be eagerly tweeting about.

Cancer of the prostate is the most common male cancer and affects 37,000 men every year with up to 10,000 deaths.

In half of all cases it is slow growing with suffers living for many years and often dying of another disease.

It is believed some specialists are now questioning whether the disease should be considered a cancer at all.

The surgery, known as radical prostatectomy, can often leave patients impotent or incontinent.

However a consultant urologist at Guys and St Thomas' NHS Trust said he did not believe that nothing should be done.

He said that many older men would with a lower-risk would not normally be offered surgery in the UK and would be offered radiotherapy or 'watchful waiting'.

Dr Kate Holmes, head of research at the Prostate Cancer Charity, said: 'Early data from the Pivot trial certainly suggests that surgery to remove the prostate does not provide any significant survival benefit for men with low to medium risk of prostate cancer. 'However, these findings are from a large ongoing trial, and we look forward to seeing the full published results which could help men in future to make more informed decisions about treatment.'

Chemotherapy can do more harm than good, study suggests

From Times Online November 12, 2008 David Rose

Doctors have been urged to be more cautious in offering cancer treatment to terminally-ill patients as chemotherapy can often do more harm than good, a study suggests.

Patients with incurable cancers were promised much greater access to the latest drugs which could offer them extra months or years of life by a Department of Health review last week.

Such medicines are often taken or injected as part of a “cocktail” of chemotherapy drugs.

But the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that more than four in ten patients who received chemotherapy towards the end of life suffered potentially fatal effects from the drugs, and treatment was “inappropriate” in nearly a fifth of cases.

About 300,000 patients now receive chemotherapy in the UK each year, a 60 per cent increase compared to 2004.

But in a study of more than 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of receiving treatment, chemotherapy probably caused or hastened death in 27 per cent of cases, the inquiry found.

In only 35 per cent of these cases was care judged to have been good by the inquiry’s advisors, with 49 per cent having room for improvement and 8 per cent receiving less than satisfactory care.

More than one fifth of patients were already severely debilitated at the time the decision to treat with chemotherapy was taken, while that many could not make an informed consent to treatment, the report said.

Mark Lansdown, surgical oncologist at Leeds General Infirmary, and a co-author of the report, said that it is usual for patients to suffer some side-effects following chemotherapy, but that very few patients die as a consequence.

“The majority of patients in this study were receiving palliative treatment where the aim is to alleviate symptoms of cancer with the minimum of side effects,” which represented a small proportion (2 per cent) of all patients receiving the treatment, he said.

“Yet 43 per cent of all patients in the study suffered significant treatment-related toxicity.”

The proportion of deaths attributed to chemotherapy “is of particular concern for the 14 per cent of patients for whom [it] was intended to cure them of their cancer,” he added.

Co-author Diana Mort, of Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff, said that treatment can also result in life-threatening infections or patients may simply die of their cancer. “‗But‘ patients must be made aware of the risks and side effects of chemotherapy as well as the potential benefits. They should be given time to reflect on their decision and must always be free to change their minds.”

The Government’s national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, said that he was “very concerned” by the report’s findings.

The National Chemotherapy Advisory Group will publish a full response to the NCEPOD report today, “to bring about a step change in the quality and safety of chemotherapy services for adult patients,” he added.

“I am asking all chemotherapy service providers to consider these reports urgently and to reassess their own services immediately against the measures we have set nationally.”

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, commented: “too many clinicians have a cavalier attitude to providing information on cancer outcomes, when they should be doing everything in their power to raise standards and give full information to their patients.”

Jane Maher, Chief Medical Officer at Macmillan Cancer Support added: “Doctors and nurses need to be much better at helping patients understand the pros and cons of such powerful treatments in the last year of life.

“Some patients may not be getting the right information and support before deciding whether to start chemotherapy and even more importantly, when enough is enough.

“Something clearly needs to be done - I welcome a prompt response by the National Chemotherapy Advisory Group.”

75% OF THE PHYSICIANS REFUSES CHEMOTHERAPY THEMSELVES

The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism.

This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy:

“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumours.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 199:‖.

“If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centres have some chance to make it.” ―Prof. Gorge Mathe, “Scientific Medicine Stymied”, Medicines Nouvelles, Paris, 1989‖

“Dr. Hardin Jones, lecturer at the University of California, after having analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this conclusion: ‘… when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get better’. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted”. ―Walter Last, “The Ecologist”, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998)

“Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures”. (Albert Braverman, MD, “Medical Oncology in the 9:s”, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 9:1‖ “Our most efficacious regimens are loaded with risks, side effects and practical problems; and after all the patients we have treated have paid the toll, only a miniscule percentage of them is paid off with an ephemeral period of tumoural regression and generally a partial one” ―Edward G. Griffin “World Without Cancer”, American Media Publications, 1996‖

“After all, and for the overwhelming majority of the cases, there is no proof whatsoever that chemotherapy prolongs survival expectations. And this is the great lie about this therapy, that there is a correlation between the reduction of cancer and the extension of the life of the patient”. ―Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)

“Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Centre sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” ―Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2:::‖

“Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumour Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy .... Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’ Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991). None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” ―Tim O’Shea, “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”‖

“According to medical associations, the notorious and dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth main cause of death after infarction, cancer, and apoplexy” ( Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998) Questioning Chemotherapy

Posted on December 4, 2007 by Eric A. Blair

A few days ago I posted Why 75% of Doctors Would Refuse Chemotherapy on Themselves. This post has generated a lot of interest. My only intent in posting the article was to give airtime to the information on chemotherapy that is generally ignored, such as how the people on the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre Board also work for and profit from Bristol-Myers Squibb, the largest producer of chemotherapy drugs.

We live in an over-medicated world where people are given disinformation, at the peril of human health, to increase pharmaceutical profits. This may or may not be one of those cases. Either way, it’s worth researching. This post contains more information to help those looking for answers.

From Shirleys-Wellness-Cafe.com: Questioning Chemotherapy

An Australian study suggests that the benefits of chemotherapy have been oversold … Why has it been oversold? Are you suggesting that medical oncologists in Australia are just sort of marketing shysters or what?’ These were some of the questions posed by Dr Norman Swan when he presented the Health Report on ABC Radio National on 18 April 2005. Dr Swan was quizzing Associate Professor Graeme Morgan, the lead author of a controversial article entitled ‘The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies’. This article reported that chemotherapy has improved survival by less than 3% in adults with cancer.

In 1987 Dr. Lana Levi, of the University of California wrote, “Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy… It does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancer. This fact has been known for over a decade. Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemotherapy than without it.”

Questioning Chemotherapy: A Critique of the Toxic Drugs Used in Chemotherapy by Ralph W. Moss Ph.D.

Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. – “Conventional cancer therapy is so toxic and dehumanizing that I fear it far more than I fear death from cancer. We know that conventional therapy doesn’t work–if it did, you would not fear cancer any more than you fear pneumonia. It is the utter lack of certainty as to the outcome of conventional treatment that virtually screams for more freedom of choice in the area of cancer therapy. Yet most alternative therapies regardless of potential or proven benefit, are outlawed, which forces patients to submit to the failures that we know don’t work, because there’s no other choice. I started as a believer in chemotherapy. As a science writer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, I wrote articles praising the latest advances in chemotherapy. Because chemotherapy drugs were general cellular poisons, they could be terribly toxic. They were also very expensive for patients and for society as a whole. When I learned about the links between the pharmaceutical industry and the cancer establishment (later detailed in my book, The Cancer Industry) I understood the commercial reason that such an inadequate modality was so heavily promoted.”

Dr. Hardin Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California, Berkeley. He told an ACS panel, “My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancer victims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. For a typical type of cancer, people who refused treatment lived for an average of 12-1/2 years. Those who accepted surgery other kinds of treatment lived an average of only three years. . . . I attribute this to the traumatic effect of surgery on the body’s natural defence mechanism. The body has a natural defence against every type of cancer.” G. Borell, The Peroxide Story (Delano, Minnesota: ECHO, 1988), page 30. – Dr. Hardin Jones is a professor of medical physics and physiology at the University of California, Berkeley.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) says that the powerful drugs used in chemotherapy can themselves cause cancer and pose a risk to nurses, pharmacists and others who handle them. A housekeeper who dumps the contents of a bedpan into a toilet might not realize that the waste is toxic. “Sometimes, 8: percent of the active ingredient ‗in a drug‘ goes right through the patient’s system,” said Borwegen, who also served on the NIOSH work group. – What if the Cure is Also a Cause?

William Campbell Douglass II, MD – “To understand the utter hypocrisy of chemotherapy, consider the following: The McGill Cancer Centre in Canada, one of the largest and most prestigious cancer treatment centres in the world, did a study of oncologists to determine how they would respond to a diagnosis of cancer. On the confidential questionnaire, 58 out of 64 doctors said that all chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members.

The overriding reason for this decision was that the drugs are ineffective and have an unacceptable degree of toxicity. These are the same doctors who will tell you that their chemotherapy treatments will shrink your tumour and prolong your life! Thirty years ago, I worked with a radiologist who told me this: “If I get cancer, I’m going to Mexico.” So if you get cancer, don’t call your doctor; call your travel agent. There are alternative treatments available, but you will have to run the gamut of outraged chemotherapists, radiologists, and surgeons to find one. They will use cajolery, insults, fear, threats ―”If you do this, I am off the case”‖, and misrepresentation to dissuade you.”

Chemotherapy: Afraid of Their Own Medicine In one survey, most oncologists specializing in lung cancer reported that they would not take chemotherapy if they had the disease. Yet, everyday these doctors give their patients chemotherapy. In conversation with an investigative reporter, one brain cancer specialist admitted that he would never submit to radiation if he had a brain tumour. Nevertheless, he continues to send patients for radiation, because he would be kicked out of the hospital if he didn’t follow the accepted protocol. Based on information in: Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, Jan 1998; Spectrum, Mar/April 1998

In her book, ‘Managing the Side Effects of Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy‘, Marylin J.Dodd, RN, PhD, describes side effects associated with radiation therapy. Dr. Dodd has 25 years of research experience helping patients and their families manage the side effects of cancer treatment. She is a professor of nursing at the University of California, San Francisco School of Nursing.

Scientists in China have also shown that a spirulina extract increased the level of white cells in the blood and of nucleated cells and DNA in the bone marrow of mice that had been subjected to chemotherapy and radiation. In dogs, the spirulina extract additionally increased the level of red blood cells. The authors concluded that spirulina “has chemo- protective and radio-protective capability, and may be a potential adjunct to cancer therapy.” CancerDecisions

Death by Doctoring The burning and scarring is the result of a spill of chemotherapy onto the bare hand. Is it any wonder that people are worried about what might be happening to their insides as chemotherapy is intravenously fed into the body? Is it any wonder that chemotherapy nurses wear protective gloves? And is it any wonder that so high a percentage of oncologists refuse to submit to the treatments they advocate for their patients? Hazel had every right to be concerned about the internal damage taking place as she was being intravenously administered chemotherapy for her breast cancer. — Death by Doctoring

Overcoming Immunosuppression from Chemotherapy —Overcoming Chemotherapy Sickness with Nutritional Supplements

Cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or radiation which greatly weaken the immune system, can greatly benefit from taking transfer factor supplementation. Transfer factor supplementation serves to protect the body from “opportunistic” infections, which often occur during these treatments. Dr Duane Townsend, former director of gynaecologic oncology at LDS Hospital in Salt Lake City, puts all of his cancer patients on transfer factor treatments to boost their immune systems’ abilities to respond to any health challenges. Both Japanese and Chinese clinical studies found that the immunosuppression that results from chemotherapy can be prevented by using transfer factor isolates. Keep in mind that the elimination of dying or dead cancer cells is monitored by the immune system. Italian, Japanese and American studies tell us that the use of transfer factor isolates to boost immune function after surgery significantly improves the chances of cancer-free future.

Scientists in China have also shown that a spirulina extract increased the level of white cells in the blood and of nucleated cells and DNA in the bone marrow of mice that had been subjected to chemotherapy and radiation. In dogs, the spirulina extract additionally increased the level of red blood cells. The authors concluded that spirulina “has chemo- protective and radio-protective capability, and may be a potential adjunct to cancer therapy.” - CancerDecisions Chemo A FRAUD - More Evidence It's WORTHLESS

".....RESULTS: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

CONCLUSION: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required."

Chemotherapy...the massive, evil poisoning of the already immuno-suppressed human body...remains one of the most barbaric, criminal undertakings of modern 'medicine' against the human species. The cost of the average chemotherapy regimen: $300,000 to $1,000,000. It's ALL about MONEY and PROFITS. YOU are worthless to the AMA- Pharma death machine. The FAKE war on cancer has raised over a trillion dollars to date and now one out of every TWO Americans will be confronted with cancer at some point. Most of all, the criminal 'war on cancer' has made a lot of people wealthy. It is, without question, one of the biggest hoaxes in human history.

There are MANY cures for cancer, from Rife to Essiac to Ozone to Hoxey to Glyconutrients to the simple cessation of poisoning one's body with meat, dairy and processed foods loaded with MSG and countless other carcinogens. This particular article is but one of many showing that chemo (and radiation) do NOT extend the life of one cancer patient over another with the same cancer who does NOTHING. To devastate a body trying to cope with a disease by poisoning the hell out of it is beyond something from the Dark Ages.

So, when your 'doctor' tells you a tumour can be 'shrunk' ask him/her how that actually translates to ANY increase in survival. The vast majority of times chemotherapy will only HASTEN death...and utterly destroy the quality of life until then.

While chemo can shrink some tumours, the devastating cycotoxic nature of chemo 'therapy' further destroys the patients already compromised and failing immune system causing an even quicker demise. Until and unless the patient takes the responsibility for his or her OWN health and stops poisoning their own body...and begins to study so- called 'alternative' approaches to recovery...there is virtually no hope for true healing.

Cancer doesn't just 'happen'...it is CAUSED by diet, lifestyle, stress, anxiety and environmental toxins in the work place and home.

Do a search for Rife and Ozone and Essiac. Read NotMilk.com and NoMilk.com. Read MadCowboy.com and MeatStinks.com. And others. Educate yourself if you want to live. By all means, see the new Rife Documentary (http://www.zerozerotwo.org) and prepare to be outraged beyond your worst imaginings. -JR Comment in: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2005 Jun;17(4):294. (My Note. We will cover the work of Rife in the next part)

The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies

Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M. Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. [email protected]

AIMS: The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.

RESULTS: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5- year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

CONCLUSION: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required. PMID: 15630849 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849?ordinalpos=1&itool=Entrez System2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Chemotherapy for testicular cancer causes long-term neurological damage

Friday, November 27, 2009 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com

The November 25 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute contains a report about the long-term side effects experienced by men who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer. Severe neurological side effects, discoloration of the hands and feet when exposed to the cold (Raynaud-like phenomena), tinnitus, and impaired hearing were found to be common in men who received chemotherapy as opposed to those who did not.

Men who received cancer treatment between 1980 and 1994 were given follow-up surveys between 1998 and 2002 to assess their conditions after treatment. Researchers found that in the decades following treatment, those men who received any form of chemotherapy were significantly more likely to be experiencing long-term negative side-effects as a result.

In the chemotherapy group, 39 percent of men reported Raynaud-like phenomena, 29 percent reported paresthesias in the hands or feet, 21 percent reported hearing impairment, and 22 percent reported tinnitus symptoms.

Marianne Brydoy, M.D., from Haukeland University's Department of Oncology in Norway, conducted the study with the help of her colleagues to verify the correlation between high rates of long-term neurological damage and chemotherapy. Since the control groups who did not receive any form of chemotherapy experienced far fewer neurological damage incidents than did those who received chemotherapy, the results are indicative of an underlying problem with chemotherapy treatment.

Experts aim to reassess proper treatments for testicular cancer. They hope to minimize the toxic side effects of chemotherapy by reformulating the levels of cisplatin used in chemotherapy treatment. According to their research, 20 mg/m2 a day is the maximum safe dosage of the drug.

Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger As this study goes to show, chemotherapy is poison. While chemo may at first appear to be working by shrinking a tumour, it is in fact a systemic poison that will inevitably destroy cells throughout the body, most notably in the brain, heart, liver and kidneys.

The only way to protect yourself from these devastating effects of chemotherapy is to take protective nutritional supplements before undergoing chemo treatments. But oncologists sternly warn patients against consuming such nutritional supplements by citing one of the most oft-repeated myths of the cancer industry: "Nutritional supplements block the chemotherapy" they say!

It's a lie, of course, but it's been repeated so frequently by the cancer establishment that they can't even remember who uttered it first... or why. Truth be told, there is absolutely no science backing up such a false belief. No credible scientific study has ever found that antioxidants or other immune-boosting supplements impede chemotherapy treatments at all. In fact, many supplements potentiate the chemo for cancer cells while simultaneously reducing its toxic effects on healthy cells.

Then again, if cancer doctors knew anything at all about nutrition, they probably wouldn't be in the business of poisoning people with chemo in the first place.

Sources for this story include: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/jotn- nbl112309.php

New study: Radiation treatments create cancer cells 30 times more potent than regular cancer cells

Monday, March 19, 2012 by: Tony Isaacs

(NaturalNews) In a groundbreaking new study just published in the peer reviewed journal Stem Cells, researchers at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Centre Department of Oncology found that, despite killing half of all tumour cells per treatment, radiation treatments on breast cancer transforms other cancer cells into cancer stem cells which are vastly more treatment-resistant than normal cancer cells. The new study is yet another blow to the failed and favoured mainstream treatment paradigm of trying to cut out, poison out or burn out cancer symptoms (tumours) instead of actually curing cancer.

Senior study author Dr. Frank Pajonk, associate professor of radiation oncology at the Jonsson Centre, reported that induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSC) "were generated by radiation-induced activation of the same cellular pathways used to reprogram normal cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) in regenerative medicine." Pjonk, who is also a scientist with the Eli and Edythe Broad Centre of Regenerative Medicine at UCLA, added "It was remarkable that these breast cancers used the same reprogramming pathways to fight back against the radiation treatment."

In the new study, Pajonk and his team irradiated normal non-stem cell cancer cells and placed them into mice. Through a unique imaging system, the researchers observed the cells differentiate into iBCSC in response to radiation treatments. Pjonk reported that the newly generated cells were remarkably similar to non-irradiated breast cancer stem cells. The team of researchers also found that the radiation-induced stem cells had a more than 30-fold increased ability to form tumours compared with non-irradiated breast cancer cells.

Despite mounting evidence, mainstream medicine clings to surgery, chemo and radiation and ignores natural solutions

Despite all the billions of dollars spent on cancer, the 40 year "war on cancer" has been a losing one by any honest evaluation. One hundred years ago, anywhere from 1 in 50 to perhaps 1 in 100 people could be expected to develop cancer. Now it is estimated that 1 in every 2 men and 1 in every 3 women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes. Despite more people around the world developing cancer and dying from cancer every year, mainstream medicine continues to cling to failed treatments which more often than not fail to eliminate the cancer and help cancer spread and return more aggressively than ever. Notably, two of the three major mainstream cancer treatments - radiation and chemo - are themselves highly carcinogenic. One might think that the new study provided ample reasons to rethink using radiation. However, the study authors looked at the results as an opportunity to continue and enhance the use of radiation by finding ways to control the cell differentiation. What the scientists failed to note is that natural alternatives have already been found which prevent the development of cancer stem cells.

As just one example, Natural News reported in May 2010 that a University of Michigan study had found a compound in broccoli and broccoli sprouts which had the ability to target cancer stem cells. See: http://www.naturalnews.com/028822_broccoli_breast_cancer.html

The researchers failed to note how cancer cells fought against unnatural treatments. They also failed to take into account the mounting evidence that the best way to beat cancer as well as avoid it is to build and enhance our natural first line of defence - our immune system.

The safest and most effective way to enhance the natural immune system and fight cancer in general is by working with nature. It is also by far the least expensive way, and therein likely lies the rub. You can't patent and profit from nature like you can with mainstream drugs and treatments.

Note: Neither NaturalNews nor this author condone the inhumane use of animals in medical studies.

Other sources included: www.cancer.ucla.edu/Index.aspx?page=644 www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120213185115.htm www.naturalnews.com/cancer_cells.html www.naturalnews.com/stem_cells.html

Experts Reveal Unnecessary Cancer Treatments Accelerating Death

Andre Evans NaturalSociety March 5, 2012

Experts Reveal Unnecessary Cancer Treatments Accelerating DeathAccording to a recent study, conventional cancer treatments are on the rise, and many experts are now revealing that the increase is without a reasonable cause. The study suggests that those with lower risk of cancer diagnoses and those expected not to live longer than 10 years (seniors from 80-90 years old) are more apt to receive treatment for cancer despite the fact that it would likely do them more harm than good.

There is a stigma that follows cancer wherever it goes. Survivors are often heralded as being ‘extremely lucky’ or ‘exceptional cases’ due to the level of fear people have for cancer and the lack of knowledge from the general public in dealing with that fear.

Cancer has become increasingly more common, and people think it’s a death knell to receive a cancer diagnosis. Such a verdict often sends the average person into a panic that gives them frightening uncertainty of their own future. In the midst of this fear, the average person will defer to leave the fate of their lives in the hands of a ‘qualified medical professional.’ Given the less than effective practices of western medicine, putting faith in such professionals is often a grave mistake. The conventional cancer treatments are radiation and chemotherapy. These treatments are notorious for causing heavy damage to the human body, insomuch that they often can kill the patient, or leave them in a worse state than they were in beforehand. Additionally, chemotherapy has been shown to negatively impact DNA extending to offspring.

Though chemotherapy is able to destroy the cancer, it does not address the root cause of the cancer, nor does it offer a favourable chance of recovery.

Many doctors themselves state that they would not receive conventional cancer treatment if they had cancer. Their decision to refuse mainstream cancer treatments likely has to do with cancer drugs being found to have been found to actually make cancer worse and kill patients more quickly. And yet when individuals first hear that they have cancer, they hastily accept the treatment assuming that it is the only hope for survival.

Why are millions of dollars spent and donated to cancer research while the same dangerous treatments are pushed so heavily today? Is the medical establishment truly trying to make a breakthrough in cancer treatment, or is that not the sought after goal whatsoever?

Are these people too afraid to make a change or address the root cause of cancer? Some suggest that cancer is a deficiency disease like many others, and can be cured with alternative treatments like laetrile or turmeric, which have much higher success rates than conventional therapy. In fact, turmeric has been shown to decrease cancerous brain tumour size by 81 percent in more than 9 studies.

The conventional diet of the American citizen today is unbalanced, and consists of dangerous chemical additives, genetically modified foods (shown to cause cancer), gross amounts of sugar (which cancer cells use as fuel), and no nutritional intake whatsoever.

Along with these causes, there are numbers of X-factors bred from the average lifestyle like radiation, a lack of exercise, unhealthy habits like smoking or alcohol abuse, lack of sleep and especially high stress levels that all contribute to causing cancer today.

Unless the individual is conscious of this and attempts to remedy it, the body will quickly fall victim to cancers and the many diseases that also plague society today. The stigma surrounding cancer is caused by the cancer industry itself. Creating the image of an undefeatable disease, expensive and destructive drugs are pushed as the only solution, when many alternatives exist.

Ultimately, it is the individual’s personal obligation and duty to search for alternative treatments and discover how to truly avoid illness and disease, as opposed to simply accepting the ‘professional method’ which has been proven to be lethal.

Two thousand schoolgirls suffer suspected ill-effects from cervical cancer vaccine

Thousands of schoolgirls have suffered suspected adverse reactions to a controversial cervical cancer vaccine introduced by the Government.

By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent The Telegraph Published 12 Sep 2009

Doctors' reports show that girls of 12 and 13 have experienced convulsions, fever and paralysis after being given the vaccine, which is now administered in schools as part of efforts to prevent women developing cancer.

Others suffered nausea, muscle weakness, dizziness and blurred vision, according to a special report drawn up by drug safety watchdogs.

A support group says it has received dozens of calls from parents who believe their daughters have been damaged by the vaccine. The parents of one teenage girl given the jab last autumn believe it was to blame for repeated seizures which have left her with brain damage and psychosis.

The immunisation programme for teenage girls is controversial because it protects them from the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus which causes 70 per cent of cervical tumours.

When the Government introduced the Cervarix vaccination programme last year, some campaigners dubbed it a "promiscuity jab".

Campaigners and families said the new figures showed the vaccination should not have been introduced via a mass programme.

More than one million girls have already been given the jab, which is offered to all as they enter their teens.

Until 2011 it will also be administered to older girls, so that all female teens below the age of 18 will be covered by the programme.

Ministers say that ultimately the scheme will save 700 lives a year, while drug safety experts insist the number of suspected reactions are outweighed by the benefits from the jab.

Most of the more than 2,000 suspected reactions recorded by drug safety watchdog Medicines and Health care products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) were mild, with dozens of girls recording rashes, pain in the arm, and allergies.

But the report prepared by the MHRA earlier this month also discloses cases in which teens have suffered convulsions, eye rolling, muscle spasms, seizures and hyperventilation soon after being given the jab.

The analysis by the MHRA, drawn up this month, found 2,107 patients had reported some kind of suspected adverse reaction to Cervarix. Several reported multiple reactions, with 4,602 suspected side-effects recorded in total.

Jackie Fletcher, founder of Jabs, a support group for families whose children have fallen ill after immunisation, said she had taken dozens of calls from parents who believed their daughters had been damaged by the cervical cancer vaccine.

She said: "We have spoken to parents whose daughters have had seizures, paralysis, blurred vision, severe headaches and the loss of feeling in parts of their body.

"Doctors will try to convince parents that these problems are in their child's mind, or have nothing to do with the vaccines, but we don't think there is sufficient evidence to show Cervarix is safe."

Medical safety experts insist the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

They say many of the patients who experienced an "adverse" reaction to the jab since April 2008, including some who took part in drug trials or bought the drug privately, only suffered short-term side effects from the injection process, not as a result of the drug.

There was no evidence to suggest "isolated cases of other medical conditions" were actually caused by the vaccine, and not just a coincidence, the regulator's report said.

Cancer charities urged parents to continue allowing their daughters to have the jabs, saying the numbers were well within what would have been expected for a large-scale programme, and that most of the side effects were minor. Robert Music, director of cervical cancer charity Jo's Trust said: "I can understand why parents would feel cautious, but this programme could reduce 70 per cent of cervical cancers.

We need to keep reviewing the evidence, but we would really urge parents to make sure their daughters have the vaccination."

Stacey Jones is one of those who believes she has suffered side effects from the vaccine. She was 17 when she had her first Cervarix injection.

Her parents Julie and Kerry, from Bilston, West Midlands, noticed her becoming increasingly emotional in the weeks following the first two jabs, but feared their "happy-go- lucky" girl had finally succumbed to adolescent moodswings.

Within four days of the third injection in March of this year, Stacey suffered an epileptic seizure, followed by 17 more in the following week.

She has now been diagnosed with a brain injury, caused by inflammation of the brain, and is being treated in an NHS rehabilitation unit in Birmingham, which helps her with basic tasks like making a sandwich.

Seizures are minimised by five types of medication, but her memory is badly damaged.

The family has been given no explanation for how the damage occurred. Mrs Jones, 44, said: "She was such a lovely, happy go-lucky girl, now she is just a shell.

"When we go to see her, she can't remember what she has just eaten for tea. The impact on her and all of us has been absolutely devastating. I feel she has been used as a guinea pig."

A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline, which makes Cervarix, said the drug had to undergo rigorous testing, with over 70,000 doses used in trials before a licence was granted.

He said: "The UK medicines safety agency has reviewed all reported adverse events relevant to Cervarix and there is no evidence to suggest that the vaccine carries any long-term side effects.

"The symptoms this girl has experienced are clearly upsetting and it is understandable that the girl and her parents want to uncover the cause."

If this wasn’t bad enough the “experts” are saying that it’s only going to get worse... (Yes if we keep listening to them that is)

Department of Health: 'Obesity is the biggest health challenge we face'.

Cancer cases are now rising at such a rate in Britain and the rest of the world that the disease poses a threat to humanity comparable to climate change, a leading scientist has warned.

The growing obesity epidemic in industrialised countries will be highlighted this week as a leading cause of cancer in a policy report led by Sir Michael Marmot, professor of epidemiology and public health at University College London.

About seven million people die from cancer worldwide each year, according to the most recent estimate by the World Cancer Research Fund, expected to rise to more than 10 million by 2020. The estimated number of new cases annually is set to increase from 10 million now to 16 million by 2020. Overall the toll is predicted to double in the next 40 years. "It's enormous, it's catastrophic," said Marmot, who said the crisis demanded urgent action. "The numbers are just frightening on a global scale. After cardiovascular disease, it's the next highest cause of death in this country."

Just as global warming requires a quick and concerted international response, so Marmot believes that cancer now requires intervention on a similar scale. "With the same sense of urgency that at long last we're now starting to address the climate change agenda, let's address the cancer agenda because we think a large proportion of those cancer deaths are preventable or could be delayed. It's urgent to be taking action now," he said.

Marmot chaired a panel of 23 experts from around the world to make recommendations for the World Cancer Research Fund's Policy and Action for Cancer Prevention report. A report by the same panel in 2007, the biggest undertaken into lifestyle and cancer, found that a third of cancers are caused by diet and lack of exercise. The experts urged people to stay slim and abstain from too much fast food, red meat and preserved meat, such as ham and bacon, as well as alcohol.

The new report, to be published on Thursday, will not dwell on the issue of smoking because the science is now so well established. Instead its focus is on weight gain and obesity, which leads to around 13,000 cancer cases in the UK every year. Marmot said: "When we look at what's happened to obesity levels in this country, it's growing at an alarming rate. Anybody looking at the evidence would say there must be social and economic causes of that. It can't be that 20 million people individually said, 'I'll think I'll get fat.'"

Marmot acknowledged the extra challenge posed by the recession, which has led to booming sales for fast food chains. "It is going to be difficult, but in a way it's even more urgent to ask what needs to be done, because if you do nothing and the recession forces people into cheaper, unhealthier options, that only highlights that the unhealthy options tend to be the cheaper ones."

The panel will call on individuals to take responsibility for themselves and their children, while stressing the need for action from governments, multinational corporations, civil society, industry, workplaces, schools, the media and health professionals. Marmot cited the provision of cycle lanes, gyms and swimming pools as measures encouraging people to exercise. He welcomed the congestion charge in London as having prompted more people to cycle to work.

Marmot, who is also chair of the World Health Organisation's Commission on Social Determinants of Health, is braced for the charge that he is advocating a nanny state approach. He cited two examples of communicable diseases, smallpox and water-borne diseases, which collective social action have largely eliminated. "We didn't say at the time, 'Oh, this is the nanny state providing clean water for people - people should decide for themselves whether they want to drink water with cholera in.' Nobody would say that today. Diet is a bit more complicated but we want the availability of a nutritious supply of food."

Obesity has social and economic causes, he added, and therefore social and economic solutions. "We're worried in this country, but it's also Egypt, Mexico, Brazil, middle-income countries. In Egypt two thirds of women are overweight or obese. Mexico has frightening levels of obesity in middle-class kids ... they've gone from fajitas to fast food, with nothing in between. "

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Obesity is the biggest health challenge we face and many people simply don't know that being overweight can lead to major health problems, including cancer. The UK is leading the world when it comes to facing up to the problem and tackling obesity." Western Lifestyle to Surge Global Cancer Rates by 75% Come 2030

Mike Barrett NaturalSociety June 4, 2012

Western Lifestyle to Surge Global Cancer Rates by 75% Come 2030 According to new research, it is projected that global cancer rates will increase by 75 percent come 2030 based on current trends. It is well documented that the Western lifestyle, drowning in poor eating habits, excess drinking, and habitual smoking, is one of the worst lifestyles for your health, but it seems that many developing countries are adopting this lifestyle.

Western Lifestyle Will Breed More Cancer

Conducted by scientists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon France, and the American Cancer Society, the researchers estimated that 22.2 million new cancer cases would appear in 184 different countries by 2030 – an increase based on current cancer trends, demographic projections and how the transition into the Western lifestyle will breed cancer in developing countries and other nations. The 22.2 million estimate is up from the estimated 12.7 cancer cases in 2008.

Cancers rates stemming from infections are dropping in other countries, but overall cancer rates will continue to escalate if others do not learn of the lifestyle mistakes portrayed by the West. Throat, stomach, colon, breast and lung cancer rates are all expected to rise, along with many other cancers.

The good news is that this massive increase in cancer rates does not need to occur – and even current cancer rates can be slashed by at least 50 percent with dietary and lifestyle changes. It is important that individuals become aware of the fact that natural solutions do in fact exist, but prevention is always a much simpler solution. So how can cancer rates be drastically slashed? Fructose is consistently being found to play a significant role in the development and spread of cancer, so fructose consumption should be greatly limited. In addition, virtually all processed food, fast food, and junk food consumption should be halted if not severely limited. If you want to go the extra mile, which quite frankly is becoming more and more of a necessity for good health, begin eating all organic foods over foods offered by multi-national corporations.

In addition to eating organic and indulging in generally healthful foods, there are numerous cancer-fighting foods you should add to your diet. These include vegetables such as kale, carrots, broccoli, and cabbage; fruit such as avocados, grapefruit, papayas, grapes, and blueberries; and nuts. For a simple addition to many meals, some extremely powerful cancer-fighting spices are turmeric, ginger, and garlic.

Lastly, and as expected, smoking and drinking should be reduced greatly. Both unhealthy habits are prominent in the Western lifestyle and contribute to the downfall of overall health, with a special focus on stomach, throat, bladder, and lung cancer.

Other nations should see the mistakes already made and avoid them, or the projected increase in cancer rates may very well come true.

Cancer deaths 'to double in next 40 years'

Professor warns that alarming rate of obesity across the world will trigger huge rise in disease

David Smith The Observer, Sunday 22 February 2009

Cancer cases are now rising at such a rate in Britain and the rest of the world that the disease poses a threat to humanity comparable to climate change, a leading scientist has warned. The growing obesity epidemic in industrialised countries will be highlighted this week as a leading cause of cancer in a policy report led by Sir Michael Marmot, professor of epidemiology and public health at University College London.

About seven million people die from cancer worldwide each year, according to the most recent estimate by the World Cancer Research Fund, expected to rise to more than 10 million by 2020. The estimated number of new cases annually is set to increase from 10 million now to 16 million by 2020. Overall the toll is predicted to double in the next 40 years.

"It's enormous, it's catastrophic," said Marmot, who said the crisis demanded urgent action. "The numbers are just frightening on a global scale. After cardiovascular disease, it's the next highest cause of death in this country."

Just as global warming requires a quick and concerted international response, so Marmot believes that cancer now requires intervention on a similar scale. "With the same sense of urgency that at long last we're now starting to address the climate change agenda, let's address the cancer agenda because we think a large proportion of those cancer deaths are preventable or could be delayed. It's urgent to be taking action now," he said.

Marmot chaired a panel of 23 experts from around the world to make recommendations for the World Cancer Research Fund's Policy and Action for Cancer Prevention report. A report by the same panel in 2007, the biggest undertaken into lifestyle and cancer, found that a third of cancers are caused by diet and lack of exercise. The experts urged people to stay slim and abstain from too much fast food, red meat and preserved meat, such as ham and bacon, as well as alcohol.

The new report, to be published on Thursday, will not dwell on the issue of smoking because the science is now so well established. Instead its focus is on weight gain and obesity, which leads to around 13,000 cancer cases in the UK every year. Marmot said: "When we look at what's happened to obesity levels in this country, it's growing at an alarming rate. Anybody looking at the evidence would say there must be social and economic causes of that. It can't be that 20 million people individually said, 'I'll think I'll get fat.'"

Marmot acknowledged the extra challenge posed by the recession, which has led to booming sales for fast food chains. "It is going to be difficult, but in a way it's even more urgent to ask what needs to be done, because if you do nothing and the recession forces people into cheaper, unhealthier options, that only highlights that the unhealthy options tend to be the cheaper ones."

The panel will call on individuals to take responsibility for themselves and their children, while stressing the need for action from governments, multinational corporations, civil society, industry, workplaces, schools, the media and health professionals. Marmot cited the provision of cycle lanes, gyms and swimming pools as measures encouraging people to exercise. He welcomed the congestion charge in London as having prompted more people to cycle to work.

Marmot, who is also chair of the World Health Organisation's Commission on Social Determinants of Health, is braced for the charge that he is advocating a nanny state approach. He cited two examples of communicable diseases, smallpox and water-borne diseases, which collective social action have largely eliminated. "We didn't say at the time, 'Oh, this is the nanny state providing clean water for people - people should decide for themselves whether they want to drink water with cholera in.' Nobody would say that today. Diet is a bit more complicated but we want the availability of a nutritious supply of food." Obesity has social and economic causes, he added, and therefore social and economic solutions. "We're worried in this country, but it's also Egypt, Mexico, Brazil, middle-income countries. In Egypt two thirds of women are overweight or obese. Mexico has frightening levels of obesity in middle-class kids ... they've gone from fajitas to fast food, with nothing in between. "

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "Obesity is the biggest health challenge we face and many people simply don't know that being overweight can lead to major health problems, including cancer. The UK is leading the world when it comes to facing up to the problem and tackling obesity."

Cancer to be world's top killer by 2010, WHO says

By MIKE STOBBE, Associated Press Posted: 2008-12-09 13:23:22

ATLANTA (AP) - Cancer will overtake heart disease as the world's top killer by 2010, part of a trend that should more than double global cancer cases and deaths by 2030, international health experts said in a report released Tuesday.

Rising tobacco use in developing countries is believed to be a huge reason for the shift, particularly in China and India, where 40 percent of the world's smokers now live.

So is better diagnosing of cancer, along with the downward trend in infectious diseases that used to be the world's leading killers.

Cancer diagnoses around the world have steadily been rising and are expected to hit 12 million this year. Global cancer deaths are expected to reach 7 million, according to the new report by the World Health Organization.

An annual rise of 1 percent in cases and deaths is expected - with even larger increases in China, Russia and India. That means new cancer cases will likely mushroom to 27 million annually by 2030, with deaths hitting 17 million.

Underlying all this is an expected expansion of the world's population - there will be more people around to get cancer.

By 2030, there could be 75 million people living with cancer around the world, a number that many health care systems are not equipped to handle.

"This is going to present an amazing problem at every level in every society worldwide," said Peter Boyle, director of the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Boyle spoke at a news conference with officials from the American Cancer Society, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the National Cancer Institute of Mexico.

The "unprecedented" gathering of organizations is an attempt to draw attention to the global threat of cancer, which isn't recognized as a major, growing health problem in some developing countries.

"Where you live shouldn't determine whether you live," said Hala Moddelmog, Komen's chief executive.

The organizations are calling on governments to act, asking the U.S. to help fund cervical cancer vaccinations and to ratify an international tobacco control treaty.

Concerned about smoking's impact on cancer rates in developing countries in the decades to come, the American Cancer Society also announced it will provide a smoking cessation counselling service in India.

"If we take action, we can keep the numbers from going where they would otherwise go," said John Seffrin, the cancer society's chief executive officer.

Other groups are also voicing support for more action.

"Cancer is one of the greatest untold health crises of the developing world," said Dr. Douglas Blayney, president-elect of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

"Few are aware that cancer already kills more people in poor countries than HIV, malaria and tuberculosis combined. And if current smoking trends continue, the problem will get significantly worse," he said in a written statement.

This chart came from Business Insider

The Leading Causes Of Death From 1900-2010

You can plainly see that something is seriously wrong with both our present day diagnosis and treatment of cancer, could it be because we don’t have a correct ―or even basic‖ understanding of what cancer actually is?

In the next part of this chapter we will explore another (as yet presently unaccepted by the experts) interpretation of what this disease actually is. The small fact that one of the other people who thought he had better understanding of it could cure over 70 years ago should tell you he was onto something!

Chapter Forty One - Part Two

Before we continue any further on the subjects of Cancer I feel that we should take a slight detour beforehand to learn about a true scientific genius (a real one this time). The reason for this is that I feel that his work provides a crucial understanding on the matter. To begin here is the blurb that came along with this fantastic video on both the man and his work:

The Rise and Fall of a Scientific Genius: The forgotten story of Royal Raymond Rife

See the staggering discoveries and work of Roy Rife which led him to a cure for cancer ―among many other diseases‖ in 1934. Hear Rife’s own voice describe his breakthroughs and successes which shook the medical-pharmaceutical establishment to its core.

This documentary by Shawn Montgomery, will leave you reeling with anger and shock at what has been withheld from all of us by men with an unbridled lust for profits and a complete disregard for the welfare of humanity.

The Rise and Fall shows how Rife’s own brilliance led him to eventual ruin in the hands of the hopelessly corrupt American Medical Association, which did not and still does not want you to know his astonishing story. Countless millions of lives have been lost due to conflicting interests within the so-called Cancer Industry.

This is the story of a scientific genius who, back in the first half of the 20th century, discovered that microbes could be destroyed by pulses of electromagnetic radiation - as all cells have a natural resonance frequency, he could target only the pathogenic cells causing disease, and leave the human cells unharmed. Sadly, his work has been suppressed for decades, some say because his method of killing microbes would put an end to the multibillion dollar antimicrobial drug industry...make up your own mind.

If you want to see the effect at work, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD- dVXIcVng&NR=1

This documents the scientific ignorance, official corruption and personal greed directed at the inventor of the Beam Ray Machine, Royal Raymond Rife, forcing him and his inventions out of the spotlight and into obscurity.

The story begins in 1999, when a stack of forgotten audio tapes was discovered. On the tapes were the voices of several people at the centre of the events which are the subject of this documentary: a revolutionary treatment for cancer and a practical cure for many infectious diseases.

The audio tapes were over 40 years old. The voices on them had almost faded, nearly losing key details of perhaps the most important medical story of the 20th Century. But as a result of the efforts of the Kinnaman Foundation, the faded tapes have been restored and the voices on them recovered. So now, even though the participants have all passed away...they can finally tell their story.

In the summer of 1934 at a special medical clinic in La Jolla, California, sixteen patients withering from terminal disease were given a new lease on life. It was the first controlled application of a new electronic treatment for cancer: the Beam Ray Machine.

Within ninety days, all sixteen patients walked away from the clinic, signed off by the attending doctors as cured.

What followed the incredible success of this revolutionary treatment was not a welcoming by the scientific community, but a sad tale of its ultimate suppression.

I will be using a few still photographs that were taken from this documentary during the rest of the chapter, I will also be using much of the fantastic material on both the man and his work stored at the rife.org. website. I thoroughly recommend both the website and documentary if you wish to learn more on this incredibly interesting matter for yourself.

Requiem for Royal Rife The Hubbard Interviews: Introduction - Searching For A Lost Way of Looking At Things By Shawn Montgomery8-10-6 taken from rense.com

Have you heard this crazy story?

An eccentric genius in depression-era California invented several fantastic medical devices including super microscopes and a death ray for microbes. In a twenty-year research initiative costing millions of dollars and backed by the most prestigious men in medical science, this genius endeavoured to deliver the "cure for cancer" to the world. By 1934, he had discovered a virus in cancer tumours and developed a way to destroy that virus with a beam of electrical energy produced by his invention: the Beam Ray Machine. Human clinical trials were set up and presided over by top-of-their-field doctors who were to discover that the "cure" was one hundred percent effective, with terminal patients enjoying full recoveries. Then, the AMA stepped in and, using nefarious means, shut down the whole endeavour. The cure for cancer was denied to the world because it was not pharmaceutically based and therefore not profitable to drug companies. (My Note. These guys all seem to have missed the population control angle, and this happens constantly throughout the chapter.)

The End

Isn't that the craziest thing you have ever heard?

This story actually floated around as rumour for several decades following World War Two. Lacking any corroborative evidence, telling details, or historical presence, it resisted being taken seriously as a "true story." A tad too apocryphal. Surely allegorical. A tale easily dismissed is one with no apparent record.

In the early 1970's, journalist Christopher Bird did some digging. He'd heard this story and wanted to settle its veracity once and for all. It didn't take long for him to find what was probably the source for at least part of the rumour. Bird had found a stunning article printed in two 1944 science journals: The Journal of the Smithsonian Institute and the Journal of the Franklin Institute. The article, titled "The New Microscopes," gave a detailed account of the work of the eccentric genius in the crazy story. Working from there, and digging deeper, journalist Bird was able to finally determine that the crazy story is actually true. He soon published in the New Age Journal an article titled "What Has Become of the Rife Microscope?" It was the saga of Royal Raymond Rife: the eccentric inventor who cured cancer. Today it is a simple matter to do an internet search on "Royal Raymond Rife" and have delivered to your computer a wealth of information on history's most forgotten scientist. You'll find not just the "New Microscopes" article from the Smithsonian Journal and Bird's article from the New Age Journal, but as well a wealth of corroborative data: dozens of newspaper and science journal articles, hundreds of personal letters between the doctors involved, photographs of Rife's scopes and other inventions, schematics, lab notes, lab films, reports, interviews, documentaries, books - the story of Rife is a rumour no more and his remarkable achievements seem not to be forgotten.

A once-suppressed science released from a veil of obscurity would be a glorious thing, especially a potential cure for cancer - but in the case of Rife, the glory is somewhat diminished. Though many details of his contributions survive as documentary evidence: pictures, films, schematics, testimony, reports and so forth - the real treasure would be actual surviving operational Rife Microscopes, Beam Ray Machines, or other artefacts. Even today the location and condition of many of Rife's inventions remains largely uncertain. Thirty years ago it was not much different even though the trail was much warmer. The documents that attest to the reality of these things were in hand, so where were these things?

It was in the mid-1940 that a young student of pathology first became obsessed with the Rife Universal Microscope. John Hubbard, keeping up with current advancements in the tools of his chosen field, was thumbing through the above-mentioned Journal of the Smithsonian Institute when he came upon the article titled "The New Microscopes." In astonishment, he read of Rife's instrument - a microscope that appeared to defy the accepted limits of optics.

At face value the text of the article seemed somewhat incredible. However, three photomicrographs included therein, taken through the Universal Microscope, tempered Hubbard's incredulity. The published photos were all labelled with magnification values:

Chlorophyll (Cell) 17,000X

Tetanus (Spore) 25,000X

Typhoid Bacillus (B. Typhosus) 23,000X

Hubbard recognized the extraordinary features of the pictures: the uncanny resolution of detail; the fantastic magnification values (one order higher than standard optical scopes); the clear imaging of certain structural features within the specimens (the existence of which had previously only been suspected by microbiologists - never seen and confirmed). Here it was: the ultimate microscope. A tool that could crack open the still-murky world of germs and spill all of the remaining secrets out onto the table. A tool that could help to answer just about any question a microbiologist could ask. Hubbard was duly impressed. In his mind, the near-anomalous-looking photos confirmed the story. This was one microscope he wanted to have. Reading about it was one thing, but actually working with such a scope in one's lab would elevate any microbiologist onto a whole new level.

So he began following up in earnest. He sent letters to everyone he could think of: the Royal Rife in the article of course, its authors, and any other names or places mentioned in the text. He sent letters to all optical companies: Leitz, Zeiss, American Optical etc... asking if they had any info on this microscope. Unfortunately, it was a fruitless effort. Most of the correspondence went unanswered nobody seemed to know anything about it and those that surely did weren't talking. The microscope and its inventor remained elusive to the young Hubbard.

Almost thirty years later, the inquisitive young student had matured into a tenured Professor of Pathology at New York University in Buffalo.

It was in the mid-1970's that Professor Hubbard serendipitously regained the scent from a long lost trail. He happened upon Christopher Bird's article while browsing a magazine rack.

Hubbard's fascination with Rife and his super-microscopes had not abated, but Bird's article acted as an accelerant. Armed with new information, the Professor was on the hunt again. He contacted Christopher Bird, who was himself still immersed in his own quest for Rife artefacts while following-up on his own article. In fact, Bird had located the estate of the recently deceased Rife and was in contact with his heir: one John F. Crane, a mechanical engineer from San Diego. By lucky coincidence, Bird was looking for an expert in microscopy and pathology to help him assess the instruments that Crane said were in his possession. Their quests merged and soon Hubbard and Bird were working together in an investigative capacity, determined to unearth, examine, and if possible, obtain a Rife Microscope (to satisfy Hubbard) and a Beam Ray Machine (to satisfy Bird)... and, the WHOLE story on this crazy Rife affair, (to satisfy both of them).

They didn't know it at the time, but what Hubbard and Bird did in their initial united effort was pioneer a field of endeavour that would, in decades, become something quite labyrinthine - involving thousands of people. They invented modern Rife Research. John Hubbard and Christopher Bird were the first (post) Rife Researchers. Their mission: re- establish the technology, methodology, and discipline that led Rife to his recorded successes.

ROYAL RAYMOND RIFE & THE CANCER CURE THAT WORKED!

More than just a cancer cure, Rife's discovery pointed to a new understanding of what we have mistakenly termed 'the germ theory'. (My Note. Pay attention to this part.)

Nexus Magazine, October-November 1993 - Extracted from the book The Cancer Cure That Worked! by Barry Lynes. Marcus Books, PO Box 327, Queensville, Ontario, Canada.

(My Note. I have added the original newspaper articles or pictures wherever possible)

In the summer of 1934 in California, under the auspices of the University of Southern California, a group of leading American bacteriologists and doctors conducted the first successful cancer clinic. The results showed that: a) Cancer was caused by a micro-organism; b) The micro-organism could be painlessly destroyed in terminally ill cancer patients. c) The effects of the disease could be reversed.

The technical discovery leading to the cancer cure had been described in Science magazine in 1931.

Article above was taken from the San Diego Union newspaper dated Nov. 3 1929

This one above is obviously from the Los Angeles Times Nov. 27 1931. Below just one of the beautifully crafted (hand machined!) microscopes that Rife made.

The next two pages show the 1931 article in Science Magazine that was just mentioned.

In the decade following the 1934 clinical success, the technology and the subsequent, successful treatment of cancer patients was discussed at medical conferences, disseminated in a medical journal, cautiously but professionally reported in a major newspaper, and technically explained in an annual report published by the Smithsonian Institution.

The first article, on the previous page, was from Science News Dec. 12 1931.

The article to the left is from the Helena Daily Independent dated Dec. 4th 1931 (The first one on the following page was the same date but I’m not sure if it was also taken from this publication or whether it was lifted from another, while the second one on the next page is dated Feb 1932, unsure of origin could be practical chemistry.) The one below to the right is from the Nevada State Journal dated Aug 24th 1933.

However, the cancer cure threatened a number of scientists, physicians, and financial interests. A cover-up was initiated. Physicians using the new technology were coerced into abandoning it. The author of the Smithsonian article was followed and then was shot at while driving his car. He never wrote about the subject again. All reports describing the cure were censored by the head of the AMA (American Medical Association) from the major medical journals. Objective scientific evaluation by government laboratories was prevented. And renowned researchers who supported the technology and its new scientific principles in bacteriology were scorned, ridiculed, and called liars to their face. Eventually, a long, dark silence lasting decades fell over the cancer cure. In time, the cure was labelled a 'myth'—it never happened. However, documents now available prove that the cure did exist, was tested successfully in clinical trials, and in fact was used secretly for years afterwards—continuing to cure cancer as well as other diseases.

BACTERIA AND VIRUSES (My Note. It is my opinion that pleomorphism, mentioned below, is something to take note of for later on in this and perhaps even the next chapter too.)

In 19th century France, two giants of science collided. One of them is now world-renowned - Louis Pasteur. The other, from whom Pasteur stole many of his best ideas, is now essentially forgotten - Pierre Bechamp.

One of the many areas in which Pasteur and Bechamp argued concerned what is today known as pleomorphism—the occurrence of more than one distinct form of an organism in a single life cycle. Bechamp contended that bacteria could change forms. A rod-shaped bacterium could become a spheroid, etc. Pasteur disagreed. In 1914, Madame Victor Henri of the Pasteur Institute confirmed that Bechamp was correct and Pasteur wrong.

But Bechamp went much further in his argument for pleomorphism. He contended that bacteria could 'devolve' into smaller, unseen forms—what he called microzyma. In other words, Bechamp developed—on the basis of a lifetime of research—a theory that micro- organisms could change their essential size as well as their shape, depending on the state of health of the organism in which the micro-organism lived. This directly contradicted what orthodox medical authorities have believed for most of the 20th century. Laboratory research in recent years has provided confirmation for Bechamp's notion.

This seemingly esoteric scientific squabble had ramifications far beyond academic institutions. The denial of pleomorphism was one of the cornerstones of 20th century medical research and cancer treatment. An early 20th century acceptance of pleomorphism might have prevented millions of Americans from suffering and dying of cancer.

In a paper presented to the New York Academy of Sciences in 1969, Dr Virginia Livingston and Dr Eleanor Alexander-Jackson declared that a single cancer micro-organism exists. They said that the reason the army of cancer researchers couldn't find it was because it changed form. Livingston and Alexander-Jackson asserted:

"The organism has remained an unclassified mystery, due in part to its remarkable pleomorphism and its stimulation of other micro-organisms. Its various phases may resemble viruses, micrococci, diptheroids, bacilli, and fungi."

THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

The American Medical Association was formed in 1846 but it wasn't until 1901 that a reorganisation enabled it to gain power over how medicine was practised throughout America. By becoming a confederation of state medical associations and forcing doctors who wanted to belong to their county medical society to join the state association, the AMA soon increased its membership to include a majority of physicians. Then, by accrediting medical schools, it began determining the standards and practices of doctors. Those who refused to conform lost their licence to practise medicine. Morris Fishbein was the virtual dictator of the AMA from the mid-1920s until he was ousted on June 6, 1949 at the AMA convention in Atlantic City. But even after he was forced from his position of power because of a revolt from several state delegations of doctors, the policies he had set in motion continued on for many years. He died in the early 1970s.

A few years after the successful cancer clinic of 1934, Dr R. T. Hamer, who did not participate in the clinic, began to use the procedure in Southern California.

According to Benjamin Cullen, who observed the entire development of the cancer cure from idea to implementation, Fishbein found out and tried to "buy in". When he was turned down, Fishbein unleashed the AMA to destroy the cancer cure. Cullen recalled:

"Dr Hamer ran an average of forty cases a day through his place. He had to hire two operators. He trained them and watched them very closely. The case histories were mounting up very fast. Among them was this old man from Chicago. He had a malignancy all around his face and neck. It was a gory mass. Just terrible, just a red gory mass. It had taken over all around his face. It had taken on one eyelid at the bottom of the eye. It had taken off the bottom of the lower lobe of the ear and had also gone into the cheek area, nose and chin. He was a sight to behold."

"But in six months all that was left was a little black spot on the side of his face and the condition of that was such that it was about to fall off. Now that man was 82 years of age. I never saw anything like it. The delight of having a lovely clean skin again, just like a baby's skin."

"Well he went back to Chicago. Naturally he couldn't keep still and Fishbein heard about it. Fishbein called him in and the old man was kind of reticent about telling him. So Fishbein wined and dined him and finally learned about his cancer treatment by Dr Hamer in the San Diego clinic."

"Well soon a man from Los Angeles came down. He had several meetings with us. Finally he took us out to dinner and broached the subject about buying it. Well we wouldn't do it. The renown was spreading and we weren't even advertising. But of course what did it was the case histories of Dr Hamer. He said that this was the most marvellous development of the age. His case histories were absolutely wonderful"

"Fishbein bribed a partner in the company. With the result we were kicked into court— operating without a license. I was broke after a year."

In 1939, under pressure from the local medical society, Dr R. T. Hamer abandoned the cure. He is not one of the heroes of this story.

Thus, within the few, short years from 1934 to 1939, the cure for cancer was clinically demonstrated and expanded into curing other diseases on a daily basis by other doctors, and then terminated when Morris Fishbein of the AMA was not allowed to "buy in". It was a practice he had developed into a cold art, but never again would such a single mercenary deed doom millions of Americans to premature, ugly deaths. It was the AMA's most shameful hour.

Another major institution which 'staked its claim' in the virgin territory of cancer research in the 1930-1950 period was Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York. Established in 1884 as the first cancer hospital in America, Memorial Sloan-Kettering from 1940 to the mid-1950s was the centre of drug testing for the largest pharmaceutical companies. Cornelius P. Rhoads, who had spent the 1930s at the Rockefeller Institute, became the director at Memorial Sloan-Kettering in 1939. He remained in that position until his death in 1959. Rhoads was the head of the chemical warfare service from 1943-1945, and afterwards became the nation's premier advocate of chemotherapy.

It was Dr Rhoads who prevented Dr Irene Diller from announcing the discovery of the cancer micro-organism to the New York Academy of Sciences in 1950. It also was Dr Rhoads who arranged for the funds for Dr Caspe's New Jersey laboratory to be cancelled after she announced the same discovery in Rome in 1953. An IRS investigation, instigated by an unidentified, powerful New York cancer authority, added to her misery, and the laboratory was closed.

Thus the major players on the cancer field are the doctors, the private research institutions, the pharmaceutical companies, the American Cancer Society, and also the US government through the National Cancer Institute (organising research) and the Food and Drug Administration (the dreaded FDA which keeps the outsiders on the defensive through raids, legal harassment, and expensive testing procedures).

THE MAN WHO FOUND THE CURE FOR CANCER

In 1913, a man with a love for machines and a scientific curiosity, arrived in San Diego after driving across the country from New York. He had been born in Elkhorn, Nebraska, was 25 years old, and very happily married. He was about to start a new life and open the way to a science of health which will be honoured far into the future. His name was Royal Raymond Rife. Close friends, who loved his gentleness and humility while being awed by his genius, called him Roy.

Royal R. Rife was fascinated by bacteriology, microscopes and electronics. For the next seven years (including a mysterious period in the Navy during World War I in which he travelled to Europe to investigate foreign laboratories for the US government), he thought about and experimented in a variety of fields as well as mastered the mechanical skills necessary to build instruments such as the world had never imagined.

By the late 1920s, the first phase of his work was completed. He had built his first microscope, one that broke the existing principles, and he had constructed instruments which enabled him to electronically destroy specific pathological micro-organisms.

Rife believed that the minuteness of the viruses made it impossible to stain them with the existing acid or aniline dye stains. He'd have to find another way. Somewhere along the way, he made an intuitive leap often associated with the greatest scientific discoveries. He conceived first the idea and then the method of staining the virus with light He began building a microscope which would enable a frequency of light to coordinate with the chemical constituents of the particle or micro-organism under observation.

Rife's second microscope was finished in 1929. In an article which appeared in the Los Angeles Times Magazine on December 27, 1931, the existence of the light-staining method was reported to the public:

"Bacilli may thus be studied by their light, exactly as astronomers study moons, suns, and stars by the light which comes from them through telescopes. The bacilli studied are living ones, not corpses killed by stains." Throughout most of this period. Rife also had been seeking a way to identify and then destroy the micro-organism which caused cancer. His cancer research began in 1922. It would take him until 1932 to isolate the responsible micro-organism which he later named simply the "BX virus".

THE EARLY 1930s

In 1931, the two men who provided the greatest professional support to Royal R. Rife came into his life. Dr Arthur I. Kendall (below left), Director of Medical Research at Northwestern University Medical School in Illinois, and Dr Milbank Johnson (below right), a member of the board of directors at Pasadena Hospital in California and an influential power in Los Angeles medical circles.

Dr Kendall had invented a protein culture medium (called "K Medium" after its inventor) which enabled the 'filterable virus' portions of a bacteria to be isolated and to continue reproducing. This claim directly contradicted the Rockefeller Institute's Dr Thomas Rivers who in 1926 had authoritatively stated that a virus needed a living tissue for reproduction. Rife, Kendall and others were to prove within a year that it was possible to cultivate viruses artificially. Rivers, in his ignorance and obstinacy, was responsible for suppressing one of the greatest advances ever made in medical knowledge.

Kendall arrived in California in mid-November 1931 and Johnson introduced him to Rife. Kendall brought his "K Medium" to Rife and Rife brought his microscope to Kendall.

A typhoid germ was put in the "K Medium", triple-filtered through the finest filter available, and the results examined under Rife's microscope. Tiny, distinct bodies stained in a turquoise-blue light were visible. The virus cultures grew in die "K Medium" and were visible. The viruses could be 'light'-stained and then classified according to their own colours under Rife's unique microscope.

A later report which appeared in the Smithsonian's annual publication gives a hint of the totally original microscopic technology which enabled man to see a deadly virus-size micro- organism in its live state for the first time (the electron microscope of later years kills its specimens): (My Note. Some fools think this story a hoax yet the close up pictures of Tetanus and Typhoid you saw earlier were taken before electron microscopes were invented. - How could he accurately fake pictures of something that no-one had seen at that time!)

"Then they were examined under the Rife microscope where the filterable virus form of typhoid bacillus, emitting a blue spectrum colour, caused the plane of polarization to be deviated 4.8 degrees plus. When the opposite angle of refraction was obtained by means of adjusting the polarizing prisms to minus 4.8 degrees and the cultures of viruses were illuminated by the monochromatic beams coordinated with the chemical constituents of the typhoid bacillus, small, oval, actively motile, bright turquoise-blue bodies were observed at 5,000X magnification, in high contrast to the colourless and motionless debris of the medium. These tests were repeated 18 times to verify the results."

Following the success, Dr Milbank Johnson quickly arranged a dinner in honour of the two men in order that the discovery could be announced and discussed.

Above picture from the dinner, consisting only of top doctor’s, that was to celebrate “the end of all disease” ―their words not mine‖ below is the guest-list. - Most of these people denied being there after the AMA went after Rife and his work! - Cowards to their bones!

More man 30 of the most prominent medical doctors, pathologists, and bacteriologists in Los Angeles attended this historic event on November 20,1931. Among those in attendance were Dr Alvin G. Foord, who 20 years later would indicate he knew little about Rife's discoveries, and Dr George Dock who would serve on the University of Southern California's Special Research Committee overseeing the clinical work until he, too, would 'go over' to the opposition.

On November 22, 1931, the Los Angeles Times reported this important medical gathering and its scientific significance:

“Scientific discoveries of the greatest magnitude, including a discussion of the world's most powerful microscope recently perfected after 14 years' effort by Dr Royal R. Rife of San Diego, were described Friday evening to members of the medical profession, bacteriologists and pathologists at a dinner given by Dr Milbank Johnson in honour of Dr Rife and Dr A. I. Kendall.”

"Before the gathering of distinguished men, Dr Kendall told of his researches in cultivating the typhoid bacillus on his new "K Medium". The typhoid bacillus is nonfilterable and is large enough to be seen easily with microscopes in general use. Through the use of "Medium K", Dr Kendall said, the organism is so altered that it cannot be seen with ordinary microscopes and it becomes small enough to be ultra-microscopic or filterable. It then can be changed back to the microscopic or non-filterable form.

"Through the use of Dr Rife's powerful microscope, said to have a visual power of magnification to 17,000 times, compared with 2,000 times of which the ordinary microscope is capable, Dr Kendall said he could see the typhoid bacilli in the filterable or formerly invisible stage. It is probably the first time the minute filterable (virus) organisms ever have been seen.

"The strongest microscope now in use can magnify between 2,000 and 2,500 times. Dr Rife, by an ingenious arrangement of lenses applying an entirely new optical principle and by introducing double quartz prisms and powerful illuminating lights, has devised a microscope with a lowest magnification of 5,000 times and a maximum working magnification of 17,000 times.

"The new microscope, scientists predict, also will prove a development of the first magnitude. Frankly dubious about the perfection of a microscope which appears to transcend the limits set by optic science, Dr Johnson's guests expressed themselves as delighted with the visual demonstration and heartily accorded both Dr Rife and Dr Kendall a foremost place in the world's rank of scientists."

Five days later, the Los Angeles Times published a photo of Rife and Kendall with the microscope. It was the first time a picture of the super microscope had appeared in public. The headline read, "The World's Most Powerful Microscope".

Meanwhile, Rife and Kendall had prepared an article for the December 1931 issue of California and Western Medicine. "Observations on Bacillus Typhosus in its Filterable State" described what Rife and Kendall had done and seen. The journal was the official publication of the state medical associations of California, Nevada and Utah.

The prestigious Science magazine then carried an article which alerted the scientific community of the entire nation. The December 11, 1931 Science News supplement included a section titled, "Filterable Bodies Seen With The Rife Microscope". The article described Kendall's filterable medium culture, the turquoise-blue bodies which were the filtered form of the typhoid bacillus, and Rife's microscope. It included the following description:

"The light used with Dr Rife's microscope is polarized, that is, it is passing through crystals that stop all rays except those vibrating in one particular plane. By means of a double reflecting prism built into the instrument, it is possible to turn this plane of vibration in any desired direction, controlling the illumination of the minute objects in the field very exactly."

On December 27, 1931, the Los Angeles Times reported that Rife had demonstrated the microscope at a meeting of 250 scientists. The article explained:

"This is a new kind of magnifier, and the laws governing microscopes may not apply to it... Or Rife has developed an instrument that may revolutionize laboratory methods and enable bacteriologists like Dr Kendall, to identify the germs that produce about 50 diseases whose causes are unknown..."

Soon Kendall was invited to speak before the Association of American Physicians. The presentation occurred May 3 and 4, 1932 at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. And there Dr Thomas Rivers and Hans Zinsser stopped the scientific process. Their opposition meant that the development of Rife's discoveries would be slowed. Professional microbiologists would be cautious in even conceding the possibility that Rife and Kendall might have broken new ground. The depression was at its worst. The Rockefeller Institute was not only a source of funding but powerful in the corridors of professional recognition. A great crime resulted because of the uninformed, cruel and unscientific actions of Rivers and Zinsser. (My Note. These guys were quite obviously Rockefeller puppets.)

The momentum was slowed at the moment when Rife's discoveries could have 'broken out' and triggered a chain reaction of research, clinical treatment and the beginnings of an entirely new health system. By the end of 1932, Rife could destroy the typhus bacteria, the polio virus, the herpes virus, the cancer virus and other viruses in a culture and in experimental animals. Human treatment was only a step away.

The opposition of Rivers and Zinsser in 1932 had a devastating impact on the history of 20th century medicine. (Zinsser's Bacteriology, in an updated version, is still a standard textbook.) Unfortunately, there were few esteemed bacteriologists who were not frightened or awed by Rivers.

But there were two exceptions to this generally unheroic crowd. Christopher Bird's article, "What Has Become Of The Rife Microscope?" which appeared in the March 1976 New Age Journal, reports:

"In the midst of the venom and acerbity the only colleague to come to Kendall's aid was the grand old man of bacteriology, and first teacher of the subject in the United States, Dr William H. 'Popsy' Welch, who evidently looked upon Kendall's work with some regard."

Welch was the foremost pathologist in America at one time. The medical library at Johns Hopkins University is named after him. He rose and said, "Kendall's observation marks a distinct advance in medicine." It did little good. By then Rivers and Zinsser were the powers in the field.

Kendall's other supporter was Dr Edward C. Rosenow of the Mayo Clinic's Division of Experimental Bacteriology. (below)

(The Mayo Clinic was then and is today one of the outstanding research and treatment clinics in the world. The Washington Post of January 6, 1987 wrote, "To many in the medical community, the Mayo Clinic is 'the standard' against which other medical centres are judged.") On July 5-7, 1932, just two months after Kendall's public humiliation, the Mayo Clinic's Rosenow met with Kendall and Rife at Kendall's Laboratory at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago.

"The oval, motile, turquoise-blue virus were demonstrated and shown unmistakably," Rosenow declared in the "Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic, July 13, 1932, Rochester, Minnesota". The virus for herpes was also seen. On August 26, 1932, Science magazine published Rosenow's report, "Observations with the Rife Microscope of Filter Passing Forms of Micro-organisms".

In the article, Rosenow stated:

"There can be no question of the filterable turquoise-blue bodies described by Kendall. They are not visible by the ordinary methods of illumination and magnification... Examination under the Rife microscope of specimens, containing objects visible with the ordinary microscope, leaves no doubt of the accurate visualization of objects or particulate matter by direct observation at the extremely high magnification (calculated to be 8,000 diameters) obtained with this instrument"

Three days after departing from Rife in Chicago, Rosenow wrote to Rife from the Mayo Clinic:

"After seeing what your wonderful microscope will do, and after pondering over the significance of what you revealed with its use during those three strenuous and memorable days spent in Dr Kendall's laboratory, I hope you will take the necessary time to describe how you obtain what physicists consider the impossible.... As I visualise the matter, your ingenious method of illumination with the intense monochromatic beam of light is of even greater importance than the enormously high magnification..."

Rosenow was right. The unique 'colour frequency' staining method was the great breakthrough. Years later, after the arrival of television, an associate of the then deceased Rife would explain, "The viruses were stained with the frequency of light just like colours are tuned in on television sets." It was the best nontechnical description ever conceived.

"BX"—THE VIRUS OF CANCER Rife began using Kendall's "K Medium" in 1931 in his search for the cancer virus. In 1932, he obtained an unulcerated breast mass that was checked for malignancy from the Paradise Valley Sanatorium of National City, California. But the initial cancer cultures failed to produce the virus he was seeking.

Then a fortuitous accident occurred. The May 11 1938 Evening Tribune of San Diego later described what happened:

"But neither the medium nor the microscope were sufficient alone to reveal the filter- passing organism Rife found in cancers, he recounted. It was an added treatment which he found virtually by chance that finally made this possible, he related. He happened to test a tube of cancer culture within the circle of a tubular ring filled with argon gas activated by an electrical current, which he had been using in experimenting with electronic bombardment of organisms of disease. His cancer culture happened to rest there about 24 hours (with the current on the argon gas-filled tube), and then he noticed (under the microscope) that its appearance seemed to have changed. He studied and tested this phenomenon repeatedly, and thus discovered (cancer virus) filter-passing, red-purple granules in the cultures."

The BX cancer virus was a distinct purplish-red colour. Rife had succeeded in isolating the filterable virus of carcinoma.

Rife's laboratory notes for November 20, 1932, contain the first written description of the cancer virus characteristics. Among them are two, unique to his method of classification using the Rife microscope: angle of refraction—12-3/10 degrees; colour by chemical refraction—purple-red.

The size of the cancer virus was indeed small. The length was 1/15 of a micron. The breadth was 1/20 of a micron. No ordinary light microscope, even in the 1980s, would be able to make the cancer virus visible.

Rife and his laboratory assistant E. S. Free proceeded to confirm his discovery. They repeated the method 104 consecutive times with identical results.

In time, Rife was able to prove that the cancer micro-organism had four forms:

1) BX (carcinoma);

2) BY (sarcoma—larger than BX);

3) Monococcoid form in the monocytes of the blood of over 90% of cancer patients. When properly stained, this form can be readily seen with a standard research microscope;

4) Crytomyces pleomorphia fungi—identical morphologically to that of the orchid and of the mushroom.

Rife wrote in his 1953 book: "Any of these forms can be changed back to "BX" within a period of 36 hours and will produce in the experimental animal a typical tumour with all the pathology of true neoplastic tissue, from which we can again recover the "BX" micro- organism. This complete process has been duplicated over 300 times with identical and positive results.

Rife had proved pleomorphism. He had shown how the cancer virus changes form, depending on its environment. He had confirmed the work of Bechamp, of Kendall, of Rosenow, of Welch, and an army of pleomorphist bacteriologists who would come after him and have to battle the erroneous orthodox laws of Rivers and his legions of followers. Rife said, "In reality, it is not the bacteria themselves that produce the disease, but the chemical constituents of these micro-organisms enacting upon the unbalanced cell metabolism of the human body that in actuality produce the disease. We also believe if the metabolism of the human body is perfectly balanced or poised, it is susceptible to no disease." ―My Note. Basically he’s saying is it’s the condition of your body that determines if you’ll get cancer. - More on this later.)

But Rife did not have time to argue theory. He would leave that for others. After isolating the cancer virus, his next step was to destroy it. He did this with his frequency instruments— over and over again.

And then he did it with experimental animals, inoculating them, watching the tumours grow, and then killing the virus in their bodies with the same frequency instruments tuned to the same "BX" frequency.

Rife declared in 1953:

"These successful tests were conducted over 400 times with experimental animals before any attempt was made to use this frequency on human cases of carcinoma and sarcoma."

In the summer of 1934 16 terminally ill people with cancer and other diseases were brought to the Scripps 'ranch'. There, as Rife and the doctors worked on human beings for the first time, they learned much. In 1953 when Rife copyrighted his book, he made the real report of what happened in 1934. He wrote:

"With the frequency instrument treatment, no tissue is destroyed, no pain is felt, no noise is audible, and no sensation is noticed. A tube lights up and 3 minutes later the treatment is completed. The virus or bacteria is destroyed and the body then recovers itself naturally from the toxic effect of the virus or bacteria. Several diseases may be treated simultaneously.

"The first clinical work on cancer was completed under the supervision of Milbank Johnson, MD, which was set up under a Special Medial Research Committee of the University of Southern California. ―My Note. It consisted of the best medical men available ―at Rife’s own request‖ because he was well aware that some ―AMA‖ “experts” would be trying to find fault with this treatment somewhere.)

16 cases were treated at the clinic for many types of malignancy. After 3 months, 14 of these so called hopeless cases were signed off as clinically cured by the staff of five medical doctors and Dr Alvin G. Foord, MD, pathologist for the group. (My Note. The other 2 guys needed only 4 more weeks before they too were 100% cured.)

The treatments consisted of 3 minutes duration using the frequency instrument which was set on the mortal oscillatory rate for "BX" or cancer (at 3-day intervals). It was found that the elapsed time between treatments attains better results than the cases treated daily. This gives the lymphatic system an opportunity to absorb and cast off the toxic condition which is produced by the devitalised dead particles of the "BX" virus. No rise of body temperature was perceptible in any of these cases above normal during or after the frequency instrument treatment. No special diets were used in any of this clinical work, but we sincerely believe that a proper diet compiled for the individual would be of benefit" - Date December 1, 1953.

Other members of the clinic were Whalen Morrison, Chief Surgeon of the Santa Fe Railway; George C. Dock, MD, internationally famous; George C Fischer, MD, Children's Hospital in New York; Arthur I. Kendall; Dr Zite, MD, Professor of Pathology at Chicago University, Rufus B. Von Klein Schmidt, President of the University of Southern California.

Dr Couche and Dr Carl Meyer, PhD, head of the Department of Bacteriological Research at the Hooper Foundation in San Francisco, were also present Dr Kopps of the Metabolic Clinic in La Jolla signed all 14 reports and knew of all the tests from his personal observation.

In 1956, Dr James Couche made the following declaration:

"I would like to make this historical record of the amazing scientific wonders regarding the efficacy of the frequencies of the Royal R. Rife Frequency Instrument.

"When I was told about Dr Rife and his frequency instrument at the Ellen Scripps home near the Scripps Institute Annex some twenty-two years ago, I went out to see about it and became very interested in the cases which he had there. And the thing that brought me into it more quickly than anything was a man who had a cancer of the stomach. Rife was associated at that time with Dr Milbank Johnson, MD, who was then president of the Medical Association of Los Angeles, a very wealthy man and a very big man in the medical world—the biggest in Los Angeles and he had hired this annex for this demonstration over a summer of time.

"In that period of time I saw many things and the one that impressed me the most was a man who staggered onto a table, just on the last end of cancer; he was a bag of bones. As he lay on the table, Dr Rife and Dr Johnson said, 'Just feel that man's stomach.' So I put my hand on the cavity where his stomach was underneath and it was just a cavity almost, because he was so thin; his backbone and his belly were just about touching each other. "I put my hand on his stomach which was just one solid mass, just about what I could cover with my hand, somewhat like the shape of a heart. It was absolutely solid. And I thought to myself, well, nothing can be done for that. However, they gave him a treatment with the Rife frequencies and in the course of time over a period of six weeks to two months, to my astonishment, he completely recovered. He got so well that he asked permission to go to El Centro as he had a farm there and he wanted to see about his stock. Dr Rife said, 'Now you haven't the strength to drive to El Centro.'

"Oh, yes,' said he.’I have, but I'll have a man to drive me there.' As a matter of fact, the patient drove his own car there and when he got down to El Centro he had a sick cow and he stayed up all night with it. The next day he drove back without any rest whatsoever—so you can imagine how he had recovered.

"I saw other cases that were very interesting. Then I wanted a copy of the frequency instalment. I finally bought one of these frequency instruments and established it in my office.

"I saw some very remarkable things resulting from it in the course of over twenty years."

Footnote:

Biophysicists have now shown that there exists a crucial natural interaction between living matter and photons. This process is measurable at the cellular (bacterium) level. Other research has demonstrated that living systems arc extraordinarily sensitive to extremely low-energy electromagnetic waves. This is to say, each kind of cell or micro-organism has a specific frequency of interaction with the electromagnetic spectrum. By various means, Rife's system allowed adjusting the frequency of light impinging on the specimen. By some insight he learned that the light frequency could be 'tuned' into the natural frequency of the micro-organism being examined to cause a resonance or feedback loop. In effect, under this condition, it can be said the micro-organism illuminated itself.

Rife extrapolated from his lighting technique, which we may be certain he understood, that specific electromagnetic frequencies would have a negative effect on specific bacterial forms. There can remain no doubt that Rife demonstrated the correctness of his hypothesis to himself and those few who had the courage to look and the perceptual acuity to see! The same new discoveries in biophysics not only explain Rife's principle of illumination; they also explain his process for selective destruction of bacteria. The latter phenomenon is similar to ultrasonic cleaning, differing in delicate selectivity of wave form and frequency. Recently, researchers whose findings have been suppressed, have caused and cured cancer in the same group of mice by subjecting them to certain electromagnetic fields. Rife's work was far more sophisticated. He selected specific microscopic targets, and actually saw the targets explode.

A body of recognised scientific evidence now overwhelmingly supports the original cancer theories articulated and demonstrated by Rife fifty years ago. This includes modern AIDS research.

Let’s briefly remind ourselves of some of the finer points concerning the AMA.

What the American Medical Association hopes you never learn about its true history

Thursday, June 23, 2005 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

To most Americans, the concept of "nonprofit" goes hand-in-hand with trust. If a person or an agency isn't driven by money, they seem more likely to be trustworthy and unbiased. They should have the public's best interests at heart, right?

The American Medical Association (AMA) is a nonprofit agency whose mission is "to be an essential part of the professional life of every physician and an essential force for progress in improving the nation's health," according to the AMA's website. It makes you wonder, then, why the AMA gladly accepted huge sums of advertising fees from tobacco companies who advertised heavily in its flagship journal, JAMA, throughout the 20th century.

The AMA claims to support "progress," but history shows that the AMA has worked diligently to block much in the way of real progress in order to control medicine and shut out competition. Consider chiropractic medicine, which is categorized as an "alternative" treatment by most Americans. It involves healing the human body through adjusting the spinal column and other musculoskeletal structures in the body. More than 60,000 chiropractors are practicing in the United States today, and 10,000 students are studying to become doctors of chiropractic medicine, or DCs. It is a legitimate medical practice that often solves medical problems conventional medicine can't.

As an agency that proclaims itself to be concerned with improving the nation's health, the AMA has a duty to accept the field of chiropractic medicine as having proven medicinal value. But history shows just the opposite. Until recently, the AMA viewed chiropractors as competition and tried to destroy the practice of chiropractic medicine in its entirety. In When Healing Becomes and Crime, Kenny Ausubel writes, "For over 12 years and with the full knowledge and support of their executive officers, the AMA paid the salaries and expenses for a team of more than a dozen medical doctors, lawyers and support staff for the expressed purpose of conspiring (overtly and covertly) with others in medicine to first contain, and eventually, destroy the profession of chiropractic in the United States and elsewhere."

This was not speculation. The actions taken by the U.S. Court of Appeals 7th circuit support Ausubel's accusation. In 1990, chiropractic doctors Chester A. Wilk, James W. Bryden, Patricia B. Arthur and Michael D. Pedigo won a landmark antitrust lawsuit against the AMA. The court ruled that the AMA had violated the Sherman Act by "conducting an illegal boycott in restraint of the trade directed at chiropractors generally, and at the four plaintiffs in particular." This 1990 verdict against the AMA followed three other antitrust cases against the association in 1978, 1980 and 1986, all of which were settled (out of court).

The fact that the AMA tried to eliminate the profession of chiropractic is fairly well known in the medical community. But there are other skeletons in the AMA's closet that aren't as well known. Have you ever heard of Morris Fishbein? The University of Chicago's Centre for History of Science and Medicine is named after him. He was editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) from 1924-1949. Oh, and he was a racketeer, too.

Fishbein apparently operated the AMA for the sole purpose of dominating medicine and discrediting anything he could not control. He also masterminded a scam where he determined what products were fit to carry the AMA's "seal of acceptance" and then accepted money from the manufacturers of those products in exchange for permission to use the AMA seal. (My Note. Weirdly again, even NaturalNews Mike is trying to blame the monkey not the (Rockefeller) organ grinder, I guess it’s because he didn’t want to be sued out of existence!)

But in reality, the association had no facilities in which to conduct tests of foods or drugs to evaluate their so-called "fitness." Gaining the seal was merely a matter of paying Fishbein shady advertising fees to feature the products in AMA publications. Those fees were in fact "protection" fees paid to keep AMA membership. As editor of JAMA, Fishbein had full control over what information reached the public and what did not.

Thanks to Fishbein, you most likely haven't heard of the Rife Beam Ray. It is a holistic treatment for cancer and infectious diseases. Fishbein single-handedly stifled its research when he learned of the technology. "Sadly, the research was suppressed by medical authorities under the covert direction of Morris Fishbein … who sought to buy into and control the use of the Rife Beam Ray," writes Richard Gerber, author of Vibrational Medicine. "Fishbein (who was later convicted of racketeering charges) was spurned by Rife [creator of Beam Ray treatment] when he attempted to buy into his company. In response, Fishbein decided that if he could not control the therapy, he would suppress it."

Although Fishbein's legacy is tainted with corruption and his misuse of an agency the public trusts, he is remembered by many as the AMA's spokesman for medical orthodoxy, which advocates sticking to what is commonly accepted, customary or traditional.

Take the case of Hoxsey Cancer Clinic in Dallas, which was the world's largest private cancer centre in the 1950s. Harry Hoxsey, the clinic's founder, was a self-taught healer who treated cancer patients with herbal folk remedies that proved amazingly effective.

"A Dallas judge ruled in federal court that Hoxsey's therapy was 'comparable to surgery, radium and x-ray in its effectiveness, without the destructive side effects of those treatments'," writes Dr. John Heinerman in Natural Pet Cures. "[Hoxsey] faced unrelenting opposition and harassment from a hostile medical establishment. [But] even his archenemies, the American Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration, admitted that his treatment could cure some forms of cancer." Despite the courts' approval of Hoxsey's treatment, the Dallas clinic was shut down in the 1950s at the end of the McCarthy Era. "The AMA, NCI (National Cancer Institute), and FDA organized a 'conspiracy' to 'suppress' a fair, unbiased assessment of Hoxsey's methods, according to a 1953 report to Congress," writes Heinerman.

But that was all in the 50s. Surely the AMA has improved with time, right? Perhaps not. According to a 1998 article in The New York Times, the AMA paid Sunbeam Corp. $9.9 million to avoid a breach-of-contract trial with the company after pulling out of a five-year, multi-million-dollar endorsement deal. The AMA would have made millions of dollars in royalties by endorsing Sunbeam's blood pressure monitors, humidifiers and other products, but the association backed out of the deal after being criticized because it had no plans to test the products. The AMA had basically made a profit-making deal to endorse products they had no plans of testing beforehand. The AMA only pulled out once the public got wind of the deal.

Does this situation sound familiar? It sounds a bit Fishbein-esque; although Fishbein's "seal of acceptance" program was abandoned in 1955 after a lawsuit was brought against the AMA. It was settled out of court – much like the Sunbeam suit.

After the settlement with Sunbeam, the AMA said it was "now fully focused on its historic mission to serve America's patients and the quality of American medicine." What, then, had been its focus before the Sunbeam settlement? Was it making money? Was it controlling what medical information is "fit" to reach the American public?

Despite the fact that the AMA is stated to be a nonprofit association, it nevertheless has a troublesome history of focusing on money and control. Even its longtime campaign against chiropractic medicine appears grounded in money-making motives, since the association was attempting to eliminate orthodox medicine's "competition."

Today, the AMA boasts that its core purpose is "to promote the science and art of medicine and the betterment of public health." The AMA further claims "only the AMA has the national voice, the reputation and the stature to be a strong advocate for physicians and their patients."

Reputation? For those inclined to place trust in the "reputation" and "stature" of the AMA, just take a look at the association's history. In doing so, you will find an organization operated with questionable ethics.

Even today, the AMA continues to make decisions obviously designed to protect organized medicine, not patients. For example, the AMA is right now engaged in the following actions:  Refusing to support the ban of direct-to-consumer drug advertising, a dangerous phenomenon that is partly responsible for the vast over-prescribing of prescription drugs that are right now killing 100,000 Americans each and every year.

 Continuing to support the prescribing of antidepressant drugs to children, even though such drugs are now clearly linked to violent thoughts and suicidal behaviour and have been banned from use in children in the U.K.

 Continuing to accept tens of millions of dollars each year in advertising funds from drug companies whose products dominate the pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Many of the drugs advertised in JAMA are, in fact, the very same drugs that are right now killing tens of thousands of Americans each year, according to senior drug safety researchers at the FDA. This massive funding of the AMA by drug companies creates a clear conflict of interest.

The experts speak on the AMA and Fishbein

Judge Getzendanner ruled, "I conclude that an injunction is necessary in this case. There are lingering effects of this conspiracy; the AMA has never acknowledged the lawlessness of its past conduct and in fact to this day maintains that it has always been in compliance with the antitrust laws." The AMA was forced to circulate the contrite Order of Injunction through medical journals, hospitals, and many other outlets, and to cease and desist from obstructing the professional rights of the chiropractic profession. The conviction marked the third time in the century that the AMA was found guilty of antitrust violations for conspiracy and restraint of trade. The medical association was first convicted in 1937 under Dr. Fishbein for trying to destroy an autonomous doctors' group applying cost-cutting health delivery and insurance in Washington, D.C. It was again found guilty in 1982 by the Federal Trade Commission—a decision upheld by the Supreme Court, just as the earlier conviction was. This time the verdict confirmed the AMA's decades-long, systematic violation of antitrust statutes. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 265

Cigarette manufacturer Philip Morris, the Journal's biggest single advertiser, also ran into some problems. Blitzing the AMA Journal and thirty-one state and regional medical journals, the start-up tobacco company was eager to publicize its innovative use of diethylene glycol as a hygroscopic agent (to retain moisture), in place of the glycerin used by other manufacturers. Philip Morris pegged its campaign on hyping the breakthrough that its cigarettes were consequently "less irritating to the throat." When the corporation approached the Journal with its ads, Dr. Fishbein courteously advised it how to go about conducting acceptable scientific testing to validate its unsubstantiated claims and thereby qualify. The cigarette manufacturer was eager to link its product with health benefits, and Dr. Fishbein saw a vast new opportunity for revenues from nonmedical products, despite the fact that by this time in the 1930s medical journals were already publishing studies associating smoking with lung cancer. The company completed its testing at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons with findings that the cigarettes with diethylene glycol caused three times less swelling than other brands. The company used these studies to launch its medical ad campaign, while supplying free smokes to doctors. One Journal ad read, "Patients with coughs were instructed to change to Philip Morris cigarettes. In three out of four cases, the coughs disappeared completely. When these patients changed back to cigarettes made by the ordinary method of manufacture, coughs had returned in one third of the cases. This Philip Morris superiority is due to the employment of diethylene glycol." - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 90

The AMA was also composed almost entirely of male doctors and there were many swipes at women in Fishbein's writing. It is interesting from a sociological point of view that nutrition and herbalism were opposed, in part, because they were associated with women. For example, Fishbein considered Eclecticism "the apotheosis of the old grandmother and witch- doctor systems of treatment." It arose out of "the medical practice of an old-woman herb doctor." Herbal remedies, built up over decades of careful observation, were mockingly derided as "veritable vegetable soups". Fishbein considered anything traditional in medicine to be abhorrent. He saw the botanical drugs of the late 19th century as "almost a replica of the herbals of the 17th and 18th century Europe." ...Of course, the vast majority of phytochemicals now known to reside in plants and herbs (many with unique physiological effects) were undreamed of in Fishbein's day. To put it colloquially, he was simply blowing smoke. While the AMA was successful in eliminating most competition, Fishbein became concerned, and then obsessed, by "the worst cancer quack of the century," Harry Hoxsey. - Herbs Against Cancer by Ralph W Moss PhD, page 75-76

One of the landmark days in the recent history of alternative medicine in the U.S. was August 27, 1987. On that day, District Judge Susan Getzendanner found the American Medical Association (AMA) and fourteen associated parties guilty of waging a conspiracy against chiropractors to contain and eliminate them entirely, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust law. …the fourteen litigators probably cost AMA at least <15 million. - Physician by Richard Leviton, page 28

Fishbein's early success combating quackery revealed to him a gold mine of limitless possibilities. In rapid-fire succession he cranked out three books: Fads and Quackery, Medical Follies, and The New Medical Follies. "As one reads the rolls of fakirs down through the ages," Fishbein gleefully penned, "one becomes almost convinced of the doctrine of transmigration of souls." Dr. Fishbein also utilized the "Devil theory of history," as one observer put it, exemplified by his quackdown. In Medical Follies, he dubbed the profession of chiropractic a "malignant tumour" whose theory was "so simple that even farm-hands can grasp it. It has been said that osteopathy is essentially a method of entering the practice of medicine by the back door. Chiropractic, by contrast, is an attempt to arrive through the cellar. The man who applies at the back door at least makes himself presentable. The one who comes through the cellar is besmirched with dust and grime; he carries a crowbar and he may wear a mask." Under Dr. Fishbein's direction, the AMA Bureau of Investigation's quack files swelled to a prodigious 300,000 names. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 88

...Even the American Medical Association (AMA) was complicit in suppressing results of tobacco research. In 1964, the Surgeon General's report condemned smoking, however the AMA refused to endorse it. … - Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 25

…. By the 195:s, the Hoxsey Cancer Clinic in Dallas was the world's largest private cancer centre, -with branches in seventeen states. Born in Illinois, the charismatic practitioner of herbal folk medicine faced unrelenting opposition and harassment from a hostile medical establishment. Nevertheless, two federal courts upheld the 'therapeutic value' of Hoxsey's internal tonic. Even his archenemies, the American Medical Association and the Food and Drug Administration, admitted that his treatment could cure some forms of cancer. A Dallas judge ruled in federal court that Hoxsey's therapy was 'comparable to surgery, radium, and x-ray' in its effectiveness, without the destructive side effects of those treatments.' But in the 1950s, at the tail end of the McCarthy era, Hoxsey's clinics were shut down. The AMA, NCI [National Cancer Institute], and FDA organized a 'conspiracy' to 'suppress' a fair, unbiased assessment of Hoxsey's methods, according to a 1953 federal report to Congress." - Natural Pet Cures by Dr John Heinerman, page 81

The campaign was wildly successful and established Philip Morris as a major tobacco player, until, in 1937, seventy-two people died as a result of using a drug called Sulfanalamide Massengill. With help from the AMA itself, the toxic agent was determined to be diethylene glycol. Dr. Fishbein hit the ground backpedalling. He defended his advertiser in an editorial by saying "There is no evidence that the ordinary use of diethylene glycol in industry, or as an ingredient in the manufacture of cigarettes, is harmful." The company was so grateful that it offered him a retainer for his services, which he refused, tipping his editor's public health hat. Other cigarette manufacturers quickly followed suit in their entry into the medical market using physician testimonials. More Doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette was the slogan at Camel's exhibit at the 1947 AMA convention. Only in the 1950s, when overwhelming evidence of the causation of lung cancer by smoking reached the public, did the Journal stop accepting tobacco ads, though Dr. Fishbein was by then serving as a paid consultant to the Lorillard tobacco company. Through its Members' Retirement Fund, the AMA continued to own tobacco stock in the seven figures until the mid- 1980s. Numerous physicians complained of other high-pressure tactics from Chicago. Dr. George Starr White, a respected physician who lectured extensively to doctors and reputedly had the largest private practice in the country, described how two doctors from AMA headquarters approached him with a proposition. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 91

The AMA could not survive on membership dues alone, and without the income secured by him, the Association would undoubtedly flounder. The key to financial solvency for the organization has been its monthly publication, the AMA Journal. It was begun in 1883 by Dr. Simmons as a last-ditch effort to save the infant association from bankruptcy. Its first press run was 3,500 copies and sold at a subscription rate of five dollars per year. But it was anticipated that the bulk of the revenue would be derived from advertisers. By 1973, under the tight control of Managing Editor Dr. Morris Fishbein, it had a print run of almost 200,000 copies each month and had extended its publication list to include twelve separate journals including the layman's monthly, Today's Health. Altogether the AMA now derives over ten million dollars per year in advertising, which is almost half of the Association's total income. Who advertises in the AMA Journal and related publications? The lion's share is derived from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association whose members make up ninety-five percent of the American drug industry. - World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin, page 274

The National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) is widely considered the unofficial propaganda arm of the American Medical Association. After a federal court ruling that found the AMA and other medical organizations had conspired to disseminate misinformation about chiropractic in an attempt to destroy its "competition," the NCAHF became the front man for the attack. - Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 143

When Dr. Fishbein took the stand under cross-examination, the digging done by Hoxsey's lawyers paid off. Under oath, Dr. Fishbein made shocking admissions. He failed anatomy in medical school. He never completed his internship before going to work at the Journal. He never practiced a day of medicine or treated a single patient in his entire career. Dr. Fishbein was sweating profusely by the time he left the stand. His definition of a quack as "one who pretends to medical skill he does not possess" now reflected back in an unseemly mirror. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 117

One may ask why no one has heard of the Rife Beam Ray if it had such a high success rate in treating cancer and infectious diseases. Sadly, the research was suppressed by medical authorities under the covert direction of Morris Fishbein, a powerful editor of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association) who sought to buy into and control the use of the Rife Beam Ray. Fishbein (who was later convicted of racketeering charges) was spurned by Rife when he attempted to buy into his company. In response, Fishbein decided that if he could not control the therapy, he would suppress it. - Vibrational Medicine by Richard Gerber MD, page 515

… The American Medical Association had just been convicted in federal court of a "conspiracy to destroy and eliminate" the chiropractic profession." The court judgment was unequivocal. "For over twelve years and with the full knowledge and support of their executive officers, the AMA paid the salaries and expenses for a team of more than a dozen medical doctors, lawyers, and support staff for the expressed purpose of conspiring (overtly and covertly) with others in medicine to first contain, and eventually, destroy the profession of chiropractic in the United States and elsewhere." Also convicted with the AMA were the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Radiologists. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 263

Historically, this was a period in which the AMA had recently established its hegemony over American medicine. It was headed by Morris Fishbein, a pugnacious physician who was to make himself infamous in the eyes of many advocates of unconventional cancer therapies for his attacks on Gerson, Hoxsey, and other pioneers of unconventional therapies. It is no surprise to me that Fishbein, faced with congressional hearings inimical to conventional cancer treatment and AMA hegemony, went on the attack. The details of the process by which the AMA destroyed Gerson's professional reputation have been described by Ward and others. Gerson lost his hospital affiliation and was denied malpractice insurance. - Choices In Healing by Michael Lerner, page 612

The Journal, after all, solicits advertisers to pay top dollar for its pages, whose 750,000 circulation still commands the greatest market share of doctors (including fifteen international editions in 150 countries). The lure of advertising profits continues to compete with the impartiality of "scientific medicine." The AMA medical publicity machine Dr. Fishbein founded is running in perpetual overdrive today. The "JAMA Report," a video news release, goes out weekly on satellite to every TV network and local station in the United States, reaching between 25 and 110 million viewers. Most major newspapers routinely scan JAMA for breaking stories, as do wire services and radio. The AMA also floods about 2,500 press outlets worldwide with weekly e-mails and faxes. The credibility of the AMA's vaunted Code of Ethics, which ostensibly puts the profession of healing above business, is in tatters today. In 1998 the AMA once again was mired in negative publicity as the Seal of Acceptance experienced its latest devaluation. After the AMA granted the Sunbeam corporation an exclusive product endorsement for the manufacturer's medical devices without even testing them, the medical association was set to receive millions of dollars in licensing fees, which it planned to use to offset declining membership dues. Outrage from the medical community and other competing companies crashed the nakedly commercial transaction. The mass media roasted the AMA's signature cupidity. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 331

Historian Harris Coulter, PhD, has called Eclecticism "a more sophisticated system of practice drawing on the same intellectual and philosophical sources" as Thomsonianism (86). However, they had no systematic theory of diagnostics or pharmacology, and basically accepted allopathic medicine's systems, substituting their own vegetable cures. Regular and Eclectic physicians competed for the same clients and generally despised each other. JAMA editor Morris Fishbein, MD, called Eclecticism "the apotheosis of the old grandmother and witch-doctor systems of treatment" (132). He championed chemotherapy and denied any utility to herbs, whatsoever. - Herbs Against Cancer by Ralph W Moss PhD, page 39

In 1912, 1921 and 1936, the AMA issued three volumes called Nostrums and Quackery. These described the "evils" of patent medicines, which a few years before had been a mainstay of the Journal of the American Medical Associations revenue. In 1927, Morris Fishbein, MD, the editor of JAMA, issued a popular book that included an "Encyclopaedia of Cults and Quackery." Fishbein saw "cults" everywhere. It is amusing that he even considered beauty parlours to be part of the medical cult phenomenon. And he filled page after page with descriptions of cults from Aero- to Zonotherapy. "The appeal of the bizarre is strong even to enlightened men," wrote the enlightened Fishbein. "To a public educated to a belief in the black art, magic, alchemy, and the miracles of the saints, the unusual necessarily has an absolute fascination. Medicine in this way became inordinately complex and chaotic". Fishbein and his colleagues set out to make medicine simple and well organized, by centralizing everything under the control of the AMA. They especially aimed at the destruction of Eclecticism and its heirs. This set the stage for the great battle of the 20th century concerning herbs and cancer, the Hoxsey saga. - Herbs Against Cancer by Ralph W Moss PhD, page 48 Throughout Hoxsey's era, organized medicine denied any link between diet and cancer. As Dr. Morris Fishbein contended, "There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to indicate that modification in the dietary intake of food or any other nutritional essentials are of any specific value in the control of cancer." Science has since contradicted him. In general terms, contemporary research has shown that the Hoxsey diet does directly serve important anticancer functions. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 211

Over the years Fishbein not only established himself as the gifted editor of the most widely read medical journal in the United States; he also learned how to extend his editorial position, how to project his opinions nationwide. He became, as the saying went in those years, a "personality." TIME referred to him as "the nation's most ubiquitous, the most widely maligned, and perhaps most influential medico." In addition to his development of JAMA as an editorial and personal voice, Fishbein also continually railed against "quackery." - Textbook of Natural Medicine Volumes 1-2 by Joseph E Pizzorno and Michael T Murray, page 35

In a brief twenty years, the AMA came to dominate medical practice through brute financial force, political manipulation, and professional authority enhanced by rising public favour with "scientific" medicine. The AMA emerged as the supreme arbiter of medical practice, making binding pronouncements regulating even the most picayune details. American medicine surged forward as a profit-driven enterprise of matchless scope. By the time Dr. Morris Fishbein assumed the mantle of Dr. Simmons, who had himself started out as a homeopath, the AMA was at the helm of a strapping new industry flying the allopathic flag. The code word for competition was quackery. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 291

Rife's discovery was mysteriously burned to the ground. Rife was dragged through the California court system on trumped-up charges. So powerful were Fishbein's connections to major medical groups of the day that many doctors who were successfully using the Rife Beam Ray had to cease their use of it for fear of being blacklisted. Because the Rife Beam Ray was suppressed by greedy, unscrupulous people, this cure for cancer was buried and nearly forgotten. It turns out that Rife was not the only researcher experimenting with using an electromagnetic field device to treat cancer. - Vibrational Medicine by Richard Gerber MD, page 516

Dr. Fishbein's crusade to eliminate the irregulars played no small part in the AMA's financial success by throttling economic competition. While member dues accounted for half the AMA's revenues, the balance flowed from the Journal, now the most profitable publication in the world. Flush with revenues, it soon became known as "the tail that wagged the dog." In addition, the Journal owned or controlled another half-dozen medical journals along with the thirty-five state society journals, with advertising revenues of over $2 million, a huge sum in those days. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 89

The AMA's core mission of preserving the power, privilege, and financial prosperity of doctors has established it as an organization "notorious for confrontation, ultimatums, and hardball politics".17 Its political action committee, AMPAC, has given over $100 million over the last twenty years to 83 percent of federal congressional representatives and senators. The AMA actually owns the very building in the nation's capital that the government leases for its federal political action committee monitoring program. - When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 330

Morris Fishbein became a lot more to the AMA than his title of Managing Editor would suggest. He was its chief executive and business manager. He brought in the money and he decided how it was spent. His investments on behalf of the Association were extremely profitable, so the grateful membership could not, or at least dared not, complain too bitterly. One of the reasons for this investment success was that over ten-million dollars of the organization's retirement fund had been put into leading drug companies. - World Without Cancer by G Edward Griffin, page 274 Perhaps, History’s Most Evil Man

Sunday, June 29, 2::8 from a blog called “Ridge’s Place”

When we think of bad, bad people, it doesn’t take a Spartan effort to start rattling off evil- doers. As Americans, we recite names beyond our own boundaries. As the list thins out, we may name American mass murderers, assassins, various politicians and greedy industrialists, until we resort to film villains and sports cheaters. The name of Morris Fishbein will never come up. But it should. I’m about to tell you about a man who is, perhaps, the most evil man to ever walk on American soil and should be included in any discussion of History’s Most Evil Men.. He is responsible for nothing less than a holocaust…one that continues to this very day…long after his own death in 1976… Born in 1889, Morris Fishbein had planned a life as a circus clown. Somewhere along the way, he found out that he could earn a far better living in the medical field. He entered medical school, where he failed anatomy and barely graduated. In his entire career as a doctor, he never treated a patient. He did, however, find his own niche in the medical field as the Director of the AMA and editor of the equally powerful Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) from 1924-1949. His predecessor at the AMA, George H. Simmons, was an abortionist. During Simmon’s tenure, the AMA began the accreditation process for medical schools, dismissing anything “homeopathic” as dogma. During this same period, forced enrolment in the AMA increased from 8000 members to 70,000. This increase in revenue, from enrolment and from advertising in the JAMA, did not go to research…it went directly to Simmons and the AMA. In 1913, Simmons created the "Propaganda Department”, which was designed to harass anyone who practiced unconventional medical and research methods. Fishbein headed up publicity for this department.

When the AMA was founded in 1847, its purpose was to meet and share information. When Fishbein took over the AMA, it became the clearinghouse through which drugs and medical devices would be approved and which ones would not. He was trained to use the media “to attack anyone who provided a real or perceived threat to conventional medicine”. Fishbein became the sole decision-maker. There were no testing agencies back then and his decisions were based on who paid for expensive ads in the JAMA…whether the drugs worked or not. His prime directive was driven by greed and personal gain.

The groundwork for Fishbein’s cash cow was laid before he entered the scene. The AMA was a good thing for medicine, until cliques divided the group and “clever ideas” were tabled, such as using the organization as a regulatory agency that would be used to do things such as limit the number of doctors that schools could release in order to increase the personal incomes of those who were allowed to practice, without considering how this would limit research and the expansion of an available medical database, which would have slowed genuine progress to a standstill.

In 19::, three doctors proposed converting the AMA into a “closed corporation”, giving the AMA and these three men complete control of what was allowed entry into medicine and what was not. In 1924, one of the three Lords of Medicine was forced to resign and Fishbein was named to replace him. Within ten years, Fishbein owned the AMA lock, stock and barrel (remember, it was a private corporation), extorting millions of dollars from doctors who would not have been allowed to practice without the “blessing” of the AMA’s Seal of Approval. The same process that was applied to medicine and research was, ultimately…and still is…applied to food products. But, his prime source of income was from advertising in the JAMA. The touch of Fishbein’s magic wand legitimized the tobacco industry, which was his largest and most generous client. ―"Just what the doctor ordered"…L’M cigarettes; and "For digestion's sake, smoke Camels"…because the magical Camel cigarettes would "stimulate the flow of digestive fluids".) It was this endorsement that forced Fishbein to resign from the AMA in 1950, when a medical student discovered that 96% of patients in cancer wards were smokers…after which, he accepted a lucrative position as a consultant to the tobacco industry, but not before this man…who shaped the American Medical Complex…was allowed to perpetrate what amounts to genocide on the American Public. The AMA had become an extortion house of ferocious magnitude and its tentacles reached into every area that affected the health industry.

Enter a man named Royal Raymond Rife, a bona fide scientific genius. There’s a reason why you have probably never heard of Rife and that reason is Morris Fishbein. Rife’s area of expertise encompassed optics, microscopes, electronics and microbiology and he has advanced many areas of technology that are still in use today. His first major invention was the first microscope that was powerful enough to see a virus without killing it. This was huge. The problem with his “Universal Microscope” was that it took an inordinate amount of time to bring a pathogen into focus. In 1932, after 12 years of attempting to correct this problem, he had finally perfected his machine. He was the first man to see a live virus and this technology has only recently been replaced with more powerful optics, much of which still cannot do what Rife’s microscope was capable of doing: seeing, but not killing a micro- organism. (He did this by replacing dyes, which were too large to enter the microorganism, with light from an infinite spectrum. He also contended, correctly, that standard chemotherapy was ineffective and that since cancer was anaerobic…as in requiring low oxygen saturation ―low pH‖ and that chemotherapy was also anaerobic…that chemotherapy was more than useless…it was, in itself, carcinogenic.‖

The point of departure for Rife, who could now see “the enemy”, was to learn enough about them to be able to turn healthy cells into pathogens, which he did after thousands of unsuccessful tries. He had identified what he believed to be a virus that he named the “BX virus”, which he also believed caused cancer. ―It turns out that he was wrong about it being a virus, but not wrong about it causing, or actually being a cancer.) He then subjected the BX “virus” to an array of radio frequencies to see how it would react. One product of this process was called the "Mortal Oscillatory Rate" (MOR).

Imagine this: You have three crystal glasses. The first one has a relative thickness of “1”. The second has a relative thickness of “2”. And the third has a relative thickness of “4”. You then create a machine that “taps” the glass with a little metal pin and you can control the force with which the pin strikes the glass. You start tapping glass #1 with the mildest force and increase the force of each tap until the glass shatters. Glass #1 requires a relative force of …let’s say…1.246. The second glass is twice as thick as the first, so you start at 1.246 and increase the force until it shatters, which we will say is 2.452. Shattering the third glass, which is twice as thick as the second, requires a force of 4.904. Now, convert the tapping machine into a machine that emits radio frequencies; the glasses with viruses and pathogens; “shatter” with “mortality”… and you have the Mortal Oscillatory Rate for viruses and pathogens. He found a way to use resonance to kill cancer with radio waves. This was over 70 years ago. And he found a way to do it for the cost of turning on a light bulb. ―I’ve seen videos of viruses exploding using this treatment.‖

After learning the Mortal Oscillatory Rate for over 50 infectious diseases, including herpes, polio, spinal meningitis, tetanus, influenza, pin worms, streptothrix (fungi), rabies and cancer, he treated 400 laboratory animals (after creating the cancer) and successfully eradicated the disease in all of them, without damaging any healthy cells. He did this by viewing the pathogens under his Universal Microscope while turning the dial on his frequency generator. When the cell exploded, or became "devitalized”, he noted the frequency. Once this was done, it was easy to duplicate. Over a forty-year period, Rife went on to discover the MOR for about 600 different forms of bacteria and viruses.

From a scientific model, there was no theory supporting his work, no peer-reviewed journals on the subject. He was ahead of his own curve. But it worked. In the political world of science, the rule of thumb is that if there is no precedent, it must not be valid. One influential dufus was Dr. Thomas Rivers, who had never looked through a Rife microscope and since he couldn’t see a live virus through his own equipment and hadn’t ever seen a live virus at all, he concluded that Rife’s work must be bogus, and there was "no logical basis for belief in this theory." (Rife was not alone in this area. There were a host of other researchers who were working independently and who were producing successful results, while working in more narrow parameters than Rife. One notable example would be Dr. Albert Abrams, who was killing tuberculosis and typhoid bacilli. These two pathogens, however, still exist and people still suffer from them.)

Confident that his resonance treatment would work on humans, the University of Southern California created a Special Medical Research Committee which imported16 terminally ill cancer patients and a medical team, which would participate and follow through with the patient’s progress. Included on this team were the Chief of Bacteriology (Mayo Clinic), the Director of the Northwestern Medical School, the President of USC and pathologists and physicians from the Children’s Hospital, N.Y, the Hooper Foundation, S.F. and Chicago University. After 90 days of treatment (3 minutes per day, every third day), 14 of the 16 patients were totally cured, while the other two required an additional four weeks of treatment. There was a 100% cure rate for the cost of a little electricity, with no pain and no side effects. Six independent doctors confirmed the results.

In 1937, Rife helped to establish the Beam Ray Company, which began producing the machines. It was immediately banned by the AMA (aka Morris Fishbein), even though at least one of the doctors, a presiding member of the Special Medical Research Committee continued to use a Rife frequency generator, successfully and “illegally”, for over 2: years.

As soon as Fishbein heard about Rife’s success, he sent an attorney to make an offer to buy-out Rife. This was not the first time that Fishbein pulled this stunt. His standard offer was :% of the profits for the first 9 years ―the “trial period”‖ and 1:% to the inventor there after). He had done this to a researcher and inventor named Harry Hoxsey who had developed an herbal cure for skin cancer. Fishbein testified in court that the cure worked, but when Hoxsey refused Fishbein’s offer, the AMA had Hoxsey arrested 125 times in less than a year and a half for “practicing without a license”. People like Hoxsey were lucky if Fishbein only placed them on the AMA’s Quackery List, or revoked their licenses, which he had the self-appointed power to do.

After failed attempts to get Rife to sell, lawsuits ensued until Fishbein bankrupted Rife and Beam Ray. Furthermore, a 1939 ruling resulted in the end of any further study of, or investigation into Rife’s technology. In spite of turning to alcohol, Rife teamed up with an electrical engineer named John Crane and continued to refine and build more advanced machines. Back in court, Fishbein sued the pair. Even though more than a dozen patients testified to the success of the treatments, Crane went to prison for over 3 years (the jury foreman was an AMA doctor‖ and the AMA shut Rife down. Rife’s lab was ransacked and all, or part of his equipment and 50 years records were seized and disappeared. Just before the Burnett Lab in New Jersey was to announce confirmation of Rife’s work, it was burned to the ground. Arson was confirmed. Also, Dr. Milbank Johnson, Rife’s biggest supporter was preparing a formal presentation of Rife’s work, when he suddenly died. By the time that Fishbein was done with Rife, proof of Rife’s work became as elusive and legendary as Atlantis. Rife crumbled and drank himself to death, dying in 1971. This is your American Medical Association at work.

(Royal Rife was not the first person in history to face the assassination of his credibility for working outside status quo. Semmelweis was persecuted for promoting the importance of sterilization in surgery; Pasteur for insisting that bacteria causes diseases; Roentgen for his X-rays, Morton for anaesthesia; Harvey for his theory of the circulation of blood. Many others, including W.F. Koch, Revici, Burzynski, Naessens, Priore, Livingston-Wheeler, and Hoxsey paid a heavy price for challenging the establishment.)

In 1931, Dr. Milbank Johnson, the man who created the Special Medical Research Committee that cured the 16 cancer patients, held "The End to All Diseases" dinner in Rife’s honour, with 44 medical professionals attending. After Fishbein sued Rife in 1939, all but two of those attendees would even admit that they knew Rife. Two of the lead players on the Special Medical Research Committee were silenced with enormous Depression Era grants ―one “retired” to Mexico‖, while the other 4: went along with the agenda and just continued prescribing the untested drugs that the AMA approved. Of note are Milbank Johnson and a Dr Couche, who continued to explore Rife’s work.

So, how does the world get to know about the work of Royal Rife? The answer was through the JAMA, whose chief editor was one…you guessed it…Morris Fishbein, which was controlled by the AMA and entirely owned by the same Morris Fishbein. The drug companies and the tobacco industry supported the JAMA, exclusively, and they had no vested interest in seeing people get healthy. So, Rife got buried.

Fishbein. Was. Good.

It should also be noted that the AMA has executed the same campaigns against chiropractics ―“medical quackery”, "a malignant tumour"), osteopathy, homeopathic and alternative forms of health care ―“cults”‖, health food stores, vitamins and supplements, as well as substances, such as Laetrile…even banning the importation and planting of Bitter Almond Trees, which contain the highest concentration of Laetrile, a substance that kills cancers. While Fishbein did alert the public to genuine quackery, he tagged all non- approved, unconventional medicine as quackery. Through his column, which was syndicated in over 200 newspapers and his nationally broadcasted radio show, he became the dominant force is shaping Modern American Healthcare.

So, what was the outcome of all of Fishbein’s greed? Let’s begin at the shallow end of the pool. For nearly 7 decades, medical students have been herded through schools without ever hearing of Royal Rife and went on to become professional “prescription writers” for drugs that are produced by the pharmaceutical companies that advertised in the JAMA. (Admittedly, we do now have the FDA for the testing of drugs, but the differences between the FDA and the AMA are about the same as the differences between crack dealers and meth dealers.) Instead of allowing cancer patients to spend 3 minutes, 2 or 3 times each week standing in front of what amounts to a bank of fluorescent bulbs…for pocket change ―and the patients get to keep their hair and their homes‖…the American medical industry has created the torturous chemo/radiation therapy gauntlet for those inflicted, at a cost of around $300,000 per patient for treatments that don’t work. Creative and beneficial medical research has been slowed to an excruciating pace, while <1::’s of billions of dollars are being funnelled through the AMA, the FDA, food and chemical companies and Big Pharma. Rife’s work would put a lot of wealthy people out of business, but, then again, barbers no longer take pints of blood from people with rheumatoid arthritis anymore, do they? You might also have to run interference with the insurance industry to get a real cure to market. In fact, the only people who will be overjoyed to talk to you will be sick people! Kind of puts into perspective who’s in control here, eh?

(After quite a bit of research on this subject, I have found few derogatory sources about Rife’s work. One is the Wikipedia entry on Rife, which fails to acknowledge any of Rife’s successes and was apparently written with a huge bias and some obvious and cheap shots. The other was a Google search entry which warns against purchasing a Rife machine. For <1.::, he’ll tell you why...)

If the medical establishment were to accept the fact that Rife’s work was legitimate, it would put an end to their gravy train…the one that pays for the research for cures for diseases that already have at least one a proven cure, and would make their acidic drugs obsolete Instead, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, AIDS, hepatitis, obesity and newly emerging diseases are epidemic. In Rife’s lifetime, the odds of getting cancer went from 1 in 24, to 1 in 3. Over 176,::: “cancer drugs” were submitted for approval. All that was required to get these drugs licensed were 'favourable' results in 1/6th of 1%’ of the cases. Nearly 20% of these drugs killed the patient, but the death report would state that at the time of death, the patient was “cured”, or “in partial remission” because the patient didn’t die from cancer. The world was denied a cure for cancer because it was not pharmaceutical-based and because Morris Fishbein could not find a way to profit from Rife’s work.

I did mention “holocaust” didn’t I? By 196:, more Americans had died from cancer than in all of the American wars, combined. This year alone (2008), it is projected that 1,772,000 American men, women and children will die from curable diseases and approximately 1,400,000 new cases will be diagnosed with some form of cancer, while The American Cancer Society remains the world’s wealthiest charity organization. Over the last 45 years, the incidence of all cancers has increased by 54.3% ―If the dominant form of cancer…lung cancer, is removed from the equation, the increase is still quite impressive, at 40.8%). Since 1975, at least 20 million Americans, who had never been given a chance to try alternative methods of treatment and cures that are known to work, have died from cancer. In the under-14 age group for children diagnosed with cancer, they will live, on average, 69 years less than a healthy person. The lifespan of an adult who is diagnosed with cancer will be more than 20 years less than a healthy adult. The equivalent of 2% of the U.S. GNP is spent on barbaric treatments that don’t differentiate between sick cells and healthy cells. By 1980, American citizens were being bombarded with the annual production of 500 billion pounds of industrial, synthetic and carcinogenic chemicals, which attack and weaken our immune systems…all of which were approved by the AMA, FDA, or EPA…and much of which ends up in our food and water. This answers the question of why various cancer rates have increased over the last 50 years by 44% to over 100%. Since this all seems to be about money and 1 penny is spent on prevention, to every 99 cents that is spent on treatment, we will all have to learn how to cope with cancer at some time in our lives until the AMA can find a way to make money on prevention or viable treatments that really offer cures. This sounds like a slaughter to me…

The AMA, with their approved medicines and treatments, do not have a clue of how to cure these people. Actually, it’s never been their business to cure people. Their business has been to make money extorting doctors, inventors, researchers, drug companies, food companies, chemical companies…a model that was set in stone in Fishbein’s dealings with the tobacco industry.

Can Morris Fishbein be compared to the likes of Adolf Hitler? Absolutely. The genocide, in both cases, was the result of what started out as bullying techniques, and then blossomed into full-fledged fear campaigns. The difference is that Fishbein has and will continue to kill more people than Hitler. Long after Fishbein’s death, his killing machine is still rolling, larger and more deadly than ever.

I’ve said, many times, that the Medical/FDA/AMA/Big Pharma/Food Complex has no interest in making you healthy and now you know why they do what they do, you know what they do and how they do it...and you know who is responsible for it.

And Rife? What if he was wrong? What if he didn’t have the cure for 6:: known diseases? What if it was only 20? Or 10? Or 1? - Thanks, Morris...you son of a bitch. I hope that you are forced to listen to accordions in hell...for eternity…

Do you remember the term pleomorphism that I told you to pay attention to earlier on?

TO BE OR NOT TO BE? 150 Years of Hidden Knowledge

By Christopher Bird 1991 Nexus Magazine April 1992

THE MYSTERY OF PLEOMORPHIC MICROBIAL ORGANISMS

"At the heart of science lies discovery which involves a change in worldview. Discovery in science is possible only in societies which accord their citizens the freedom to pursue the truth where it may lead and which therefore have respect for different paths to that truth," - John Polanyi, Canadian Nobel Laureate (Chemistry); commencement address, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, June 1990

What follows is an attempt to provide a brief overview of astounding findings made by a band of intrepid and heretical searchers in a field of knowledge that deals with the very smallest forms of life.

Hard as it is to believe, these findings, made over more than a century ago, have been consistently ignored, censored by silence, or suppressed throughout all of that time by ruling "opinion-makers", orthodox (R1) thinkers in mainstream microbiology.

Instead of being welcomed with excitement and open arms, as one would a friend or lover, the amazing discoveries have been received with a hostility unusually only meted out to trespassers or imposters.

To try to present the vastness of a multi-dimensional panorama, is a little like trying to inscribe the contents of thick manuscript onto a postage stamp, or reduce the production of an hour-long drama into a few minutes of stage time.

Involved on the one hand is not only the sheer volume of material, but with books on the subject being hard to obtain, it is also not easily accessible and is sparsely referenced in ordinary bibliographical sources.

On the other hand, the protagonists in what amounts to a gripping saga were, more often than not, completely isolated from one another in space, time or both. They, and their parallel work and research, were consequently often unknown to their potential colleagues and natural allies. It was as if they were adventurers who, thinking themselves to be the sole explorers in virgin territory, were actually all opening up various parts of the same terra incognita.

Furthermore, as we have already said, the reports of the discovery of a whole "New World" by these many "Columbus’s" were unwelcome, "Old World" cartographers had already made their maps and were satisfied with them. Therefore, since maps of this territory are sketchy at best, or nonexistent at worst, outsiders seeking to penetrate it should remember the Buddhist saying: "The only trails are those that are made by walking" And the ones upon which they set foot will be not so much selected by intention as stumbled upon by chance.

It is for such reasons that, when I thought about how I might approach this subject today, I decided to eschew the formality of any academic approach in favour of telling the tale of my own foray into the little known land of pleomorphic organisms as it actually unfolded. Unlike other speakers at this symposium, I am neither a scientist, an academic or a health professional, but a writer who, for some 20 years, has roved the "frontiers" of science.

I am certain that if any of you have been propelled by some similarly strange twist of fate to go on the same quest, you have taken a different trail from mine.

FIRST STEPS ON THE TRAIL: WILHELM REICH AND THE BIONS

My first exposure to the world of pleomorphic organisms - though I did not recognise it at the time - came in 1969 when, after returning to the United States from a stint as a foreign correspondent, I was asked by Peter Tompkins, an established author, to help him research a biography on the life and work of a "maverick" scientist, the late Wilhelm Reich M.D.

If "maverickness" is a quality attributable to innovators unafraid of developing new ideas and inventions - and often unscorched by the brand of any formal education into the subjects of their research - then that term suits Reich to a "T’.

After first making his mark in psychoanalysis as Freud’s protégé and leading collaborator, he abruptly broke with the International Psychoanalytic Movement to take up an independent career in an aspect of what today has come to be called biophysics. When he bolted the Freudian "herd" in the mid-193:’s, most of his colleagues became his bitter enemies.

Exiled from central Europe to Norway, he began working with an unusual microscope equipped with special lenses that could magnify living organisms to 2 - 3000X their normal size, well over twice the magnification achievable with the ordinary microscopes of his day.

Among his extraordinary discoveries were "vesicles," minuscule fluid containing bladder-like sacs, that appeared in infusions of hay and other substances such as animal tissue, earth and coal.

After much experimentation during which he noted a marked increase in the number of vesicles that could be cultured when the preparations containing them were boiled, he concluded that the strange forms he had discovered were "transitional" one lying midway between the realms of the animate and the inert.

To these heretofore unrecognized elementary stages of life, he gave the name: Bions.(1)

Most microbiologists, not to speak of other life-scientists, undoubtedly looked upon Reich’s new creatures as if they had come straight out of Walt Disney’s old film, Fantasia. If so, they were in for an even ruder shock. For when Reich poured some of his boiled preparations onto nutrient culture media, the cultures began to generate peculiar looking bacteria and amoebae, creating, as it were, well-known life-forms, at least forms akin to them.

There was, of course, the possibility that the newly generated "animacules" - as Leuwenhock, inventor of the microscope called them when he first viewed them - could have invaded the cultures from the ambient atmosphere or that they could have appeared because the culture media had been improperly sterilized. To rule these out, Reich superheated his bion cultures to find that the ostensibly "dead" mixtures still gave rise to the higher microbic forms. This led to the further conclusion that bions, as preliminary stages of life, were embodiments of an indestructible life force that defied death. This life energy he called "Orgone."

So apparently outlandish a discovery as that of a new "life energy" could not but rile biologists who had long sought to dispose of "vitalistic theories" such as those of the French philosopher, Henri Bergson, who postulated an elan vital, or the German biologist, Hans Driesch, who, borrowing the term from Aristotle, referred to entelechy. Biology was coming increasingly under the cold sway of a physics which adamantly rejected any "mystical" notions such as those of a "primal creator" or a "force of life", and therefore dutifully took its cue from the branch of science considered "first among peers."

Were all his disclosures not already so heretical as to alarm orthodox, or "correct opinion- making" science, to them Reich next added that microbial bion structures could also be detected in, and cultured from human blood, which, then as now, was and is considered to be sterile, an unchanging doctrine still taught in medical schools.

This, in turn, next led him to examine blood samples taken from persons suffering from cancer in which he saw extremely tiny bacterial forms that he connected to that lethal disease process. He therefore labelled them T - bacilli, the T standing for Tod which in Reich’s native German means "death."

It seemed to Reich that there was something unaccountable going on in the bodies of the cancer-afflicted, a degeneration causing healthy life-promoting bions to develop into a death-dealing T-bacilli. Since he had also found these "death bacteria" in the excreta of healthy people, he assumed that they were able to dispose of cancer causing particles, and that disposition to cancer was determined by a level of biological resistance to putrefaction.

It is at this juncture that I shall ask a leading question that only came into my mind many years after I had, via Reich, begun to delve into pleomorphic bacteriology and its connection with cancer and other degenerative diseases. I ask it because I later found that researchers working in this pioneering field who discovered microbes associated with cancerous states - to which each gave his or her own special nomenclature, thus creating a kind of "Tower of Babel" - instead of looking upon the appearance of the alien forms as an "alarm signs" or "warning light", that is an indicator of an incipient disease state, held them to be the cause of the disease.

The question, a central one in this discussion, therefore is: "Could germs appearing in the body be the result rather than the cause of afflictions, if not always, at least often?"

It may be that they are both.

Reich’s life ended tragically. For his pains, he was submitted anew to viciously virulent attacks for questioning sacred dogmas of medical science in general and cancerology in particular. The story of this towering, often cantankerous, scientist ended when he was brought to trial and sentenced to a term in a U.S. Federal penitentiary where, in 1964, he died.

The government of our American free republic also ordered that all of Reich’s publication on which they could lay their hands - including a privately printed journal, Journal of Orgonomy - be destroyed in a New York City incinerator. That order was carried out less than 2: years after the Nazi government in Germany had ordered all of Reich’s then existing publications burned on an enormous pyre in downtown Berlin.(R3)

SECOND STEPS ON THE TRAIL: ROYAL RAYMOND RIFE AND THE "UNIVERSAL" MICROSCOPE

For many reasons, our biography was never written (R4). Yet the two years spent researching it was hardly wasted, because it was through the opportunity given to delve into Reich’s fascinating research that I first fell, like Alice down the hole or through the looking glass, into a wonderland of scientific "no-no’s."

In many ways it was a thrilling, yet troubling experience. Disturbing because, as one long trained to accept things as they supposedly "were", I was brought face to face with an investigative world in which those same things actually "were not". As I went along my trail, I also found that there were many other "were nots" and "are nots" that were and are!

One question was especially rankling: What was preventing new discoveries from being recognised for what they were? Was this because "established" researchers, comfortable with orthodox scientific thinking, or "received knowledge", could not change their mini-sets, in Dr. John Polanyi’s words, their "worldview" to accommodate innovative thinking, or "vanguard knowledge?"

How was it that, in the precincts ruled by the "arbiters of knowledge", the evidencing of "unknown" things, instead of being viewed with excitement, was often castigated as "illusory" or tabooed as "fantasy"?

In 1965, I came across an article that more than just attracted my writer’s attention in that, in 1944, it was published in, not just one, but two prestigious journals, that of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. and that of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.

One third of its contents was devoted to the new electron microscope just put on the market by the Radio Corporation of America, the other two thirds, the lion’s share, to a "Universal Microscope" that had been designed and developed in the 192:’s by a Californian autodidact, Royal Raymond Rife.

The electron microscope, I knew, while capable of attaining magnifications surpassing 500,000X at excellent resolution, was incapable of examining living things because its radiation killed them.

But, as dearly stated in the article, Rife’s instrument was able to view living matter at unheard of magnifications reaching at least 60,000X, also at excellent resolution (R5).

With this extraordinary device, Rife could easily view a family of microbes in the blood of sick people which seemingly miraculously transformed, under various conditions, one into the other, like so many caterpillars metamorphising into so many butterflies. Sixteen stages in all, the same number in Gaston Naessens’ somatid cycle.

As a result, he came to the independent conclusion - to which as we shall see, others had come independently both before and after him -that, depending on its inner state, germs arose within the body itself that, in Rife’s opinion, were not the cause but the result of disease states.

That single conclusion completely overturned everything I had learned about bacteriology and disease during a four year course at general biology at Harvard.

Barely able to believe what I had read, and recalling what I had learned during my studies of Reich’s bion research, I dropped a book ―R6) I was working on to spend two months at the National Library of Medicine trying to track down everything I could on Rife and his superscope. Not only was there precious little printed on the subject but the microscope itself seemed to have vanished from the surface of the earth.

The story of my fruitless search has been told elsewhere (3), so here, I will simply say that my library research showed that for several decades up to 1930, a now all but forgotten, if not entirely lost, school of microbiologists had maintained that, far from holding everlastingly to one shape, bacteria could be caused, under the right conditions of culture, to metamorphose into forms small enough to pass through filters capable of blocking any microbe larger than a virus. Because of their sharp disagreement with a camp of orthodox bacteriologists known as non- filtrationists", these rebels were known as "filtrationists".

One of the earliest members of this school was a Swedish Ernst Bernhard Almquist, who, because he was also an Arctic explorer had islands off the north Siberian coast named after him.

Almquist made hundreds of observations of pleomorphic bacteria in his laboratory as did researchers in France, Italy, Germany, Russia and the United States and probably other countries. In 1922, after two long decades of work, Almquist came to the conclusion that "nobody can presume to know the complete life cycle and all the varieties of even a single bacterial species. It would be an assumption to think so."

The furore unleashed in the microbiological world of microscopic discoveries, as well as by his subsequent electromagnetically-based cure for cancer and other diseases, being put, like Reich, to trial by U.S. medical authorities. The trial proved so traumatic to the highly sensitive inventor (Rife) that it led, first to a total nervous breakdown, then to alcoholism (R7).

The opposite fates of two microscopes, the electron and the "Universal", have ever since continued to plague my mind, incessantly pricking it with a philosophical question: How was it that the first, able to see only inert, inanimate matter was universally adopted in the world’s laboratories while the second, able to view animate organism as they lived and breathed, went into universal limbo?

What did the triumphant success of the one, and the sad demise of the other, have to say about the basic 20th century outlook in the biosciences supposedly dealing with life?

While asking that question, let us add a few more. What is it about the "politics of science" that led two scientific titans - or three, if, by anticipation, we include our host, Gaston Naessens - men who were self-trained experts in microscopy, and cancerology, to be brought to trial?

How is it that the discoveries of all three have been put on an "Index" as bogus and worthless? What explains their being denounced, all three of them, as deceivers and charlatans in the United States, France and many other countries?

It would take a moment of silence to contemplate the answer to these questions." (R8)

THIRD STEPS ON THE TRAIL: GASTON NAESSENS AND THE SOMATID

From where it had first led to Reich, thence to Rife, my trail next took me, surprisingly enough, to Rock Forest, a small village in that portion of Quebec, just north of Vermont, that is called L’Estrie in French, and The Eastern Townships in English.

I was tipped off to the existence of Gaston Naessens by Eva Reich M.D., Wilhelm Reich’s daughter. Since part of the story of my initial meeting, and 12-year association, with him has been told in the first chapter of my book, I shall not repeat it here.

What I can, and should say, is that if my studies of Reich’s research had opened a narrow vista onto the world of pleomorphic microbiology, and those of Reich’s work had greatly widened it, then what I came to learn as result of my encounters with Naessens began to afford me a view of the whole horizon beyond it.

My first visit to see Gaston Naessens was in 1979, ten years after a footlocker of Reich’s writings had been handed to me by Peter Tompkins for study. During the next half decade I was to learn, through my own experience, the help of friends and particularly through hundreds of hours spent with Gaston Naessens and his wife, a great deal more about what he has discovered in his fascinating research life than is reported in my book. And to learn about the many vicissitudes he has gone through as a result.

As time went by, one of the main things that became most shockingly clear to me was the unwillingness, or the inability of many scientifically trained people to accept or believe what they were seeing through Naessens’ microscope.

Instead of heralding the somatidic forms as excitingly brand new, they simply wrote them off as artifact, something not naturally present but introduced in error." (R9).

A whole essay could be written about how such beliefs spring, within seconds, into the minds of so called "competent" observers the most authoritarian of whom pass along as "certainties" to their followers. All such observers - and they are the vast majority - have, if they have ever heard it, forgotten Reich’s dictum for scientific work: "Do not automatically believe in anything, especially what you are told. Convince yourself of something by observing it with your own eyes. And, after having perceived a new fact, do not loose site of it again until it is fully explained" (emphasis added)

If, in this connection, it appears that the aphorism, "seeing is believing", does not necessarily hold true, one may add that the same is the case for the reverse: "believing is seeing".

During one trip to Europe with the Naessens’ in the mid 198:s, we were privileged to meet a Swedish physician, Erik Enby MD. who had experience working with what I learned was one of the earliest, and most talented, pioneers in the field of pleomorphic microbial research.

This was a German zoologist of whom we shall say more of in a few moments.

It was because of the language barrier - Enby’s spoken English was halting and Enderlein’s publications were in German, a language I neither speak nor read - that I could not subsequently penetrate that part of the terra incognita where the German scientist had laboured, at least not until 1990.

The peaks in a mountain chain of discoveries made by Naessens have been reviewed in part one of my book. In retrospect, given the whole "patchwork quilt" or other discoveries in this field made by a small platoon of researches, I would say that his crowning find was to have traced the whole cycle back to its origin, the tiny form he calls the somatid and to show how that form not only is all but indestructible, but through experimentation, how it acts something like a "DNA precursor" (R10).

All this and more, raises the question as to whether Naessens, in addition to everything else he has done, including the development of a promising approach for the alleviation of degenerative disease, has not come as close as anyone to unravelling the skein within which lies hidden the very mystery of the origins of life that has for so long continued to confound science, as it still continues to confound it. I use the qualification "as close as" because the next twist in my trail was to confront me with the realization that another French scientist of rare genius might have been unravelling the same skein a century before Naessens began to take up the task

FOURTH STEPS ON THE TRAIL: BECHAMP AND THE MICROZYMAS

It was in France, in 1984, that I met a pharmacist, Marie Nonclerq, who after a life spent practising her profession, was spurred to write an award winning doctoral dissertation under the title: Antoine Bichamp, 1816-1908: The Man and the Scientist, and the Originality and Productivity of his Work’ ―4).

The disappearance of Rife’s microscope, along with most of his research documentation, constituted what amounted to a lost chapter in the history of microbiological science. What Nonclercq had been able to dredge up from the annals seemed to be no less than a whole lost book.

I had stumbled, again by happenstance, on a controversy involving a battle between two scientific titans that had for so long been swept from memory that several generation of scientists knew nothing about it.

One of the adversaries was Béchamp, the other, his nemesis, the world-famous Louis Pasteur whose name is inscribed on the lintels of research institutes all over the world. The controversy centrally involved their opposing views about the genesis of microbe-fostered disease.

Through a physician in Brittany, Nonclercq came across a thick tome on the history of a medicine (5) in which she read that, on his death bed, Louis Pasteur had declared: Claude Bernard war right... the microbe is nothing, the terrain is everything."

In his recantation, the father of the theory - still enshrined as gospel -that the primordial role in many diseases is played by germs invading the body from without, seemed to be submitting to evidence that, in actual fact, that role is often played by the body’s internal environment, its terrain, its "soil" if one wills, that, changing in nature due to various causes, fosters the development of germs from within.

What Pasteur omitted was that his confession had been based not on single insightful statement by France’s leading physiologist, Bernard, but by Antoine Béchamp, the man with whom he had been locked in struggle for decades.

Nonclercq’s painstaking digging into historical sources uncontestably proves that this battle was won, not on the basis of scientific facts, but by Pasteur’s being able to overcome his nemesis, a dedicated, but retiring, searcher with no flair for self-promotion, with his highly developed skills in what today is called "public relations."

If the justice of history prevails, the Pasteurian victory will one day prove entirely pyrrhic, at least in terms of the staggering losses suffered by medical science in having, for so long been constrained to follow the Pasteurian track.

Béchamp’s own trail of discoveries began when, attacking the problem of fermentation - chemical reactions that split complex compounds into relatively simple substances - he isolated from living organisms a series of "ferments" he called zymases (R11).

Working with a class of organisms called moulds, fungoid growths that disintegrate organic matter, Béchamp saw them to be formed by a collection of tiny "granulations" which, because of their connection to zymases, he called microzymas, or "tiny ferments", lexical forerunner of Naessens’ somatids ("tiny bodies") (6).

Very importantly, for the purposes of this narrative, he also found that these granulations, under certain conditions, evolved into single-celled bacteria and that, therefore "cells could no longer be regarded as the basic units of life", there being something far smaller to replace them.

More than that, the microzymas were seemingly so indestructible that Béchamp could find them even in limestone dating to a geologic period going back 60 million years during which the first mammals appeared on Earth. And he was astonished that all his efforts to kill them proved fruitless.

As he was to write, in his third masterwork, The Blood "I am able to assert that the microzyma is at the commencement of all organisation.

And, since microzymas in dead bacteria are also living, it follows that they are also the living end of all organisations, living beings of a special category without analogue."(7). Because microzymas appeared at the inception of the life process -for instance in an ovule that became an egg - and were also to be found, fully active, in decaying life-forms, Béchamp, in a biological parallel to Lavoisier’s chemical rule: "Nothing is lost, nothing is created ... all is transformed," was to state: "Nothing is the prey of death.. all is the prey of life."

This seems to recall the old biblical phrase: "Ashes to ashes, and dust to dust..." On the final page of The Blood, Béchamp was even more explicit:

"After death, it is essential that matter be restored to its primitive condition, for it has only been lent for a time to the living organised being ... Living beings, filled with microzymas, carry in themselves the elements essential for life, or for disease, for destruction and for death.

This variety of results need not surprise us for the processes are the same. Our cells - as can constantly be observed - are being continuously destroyed by means of a fermentation very analogous to that which follows death. If we penetrate into the heart of these phenomena we could really say, were it not that the expression is a trifle offensive, that we are constantly rotting!" (emphasis added).

FIFTH STEPS ON THE TRAIL: GUENTHER ENDERLEIN AND THE BACTERIAL LIFE CYCLE

It was only in the 1990 that, a year after our sequel (R12) to The Secret Life of Plants came out, and 22 years after I began studying Reich and the bions, I finally had access to the work of another researcher that made the chain of mountain peaks on the horizon of pleomorphic microbial research stand out in clearer historical detail. This access was provided by a book, the first in English on the subject, dealing with the research begun during World War I by German zoologist, Guenther Endedein, whose discoveries were characterised by the book’s author as "some of the most important ever made."

Working as a bacteriologist in a military hospital on the Baltic Sea, Enderlein, in 1917, finished a manuscript heralded by colleagues as "opening totally new observations of the microbe world." It revealed many different pleomorphic development phases of bacteria and showed that illnesses and their healing processes are bound to exact cyclical and morphological laws.

The manuscript was published as a book, Bakterien Cyclogenie, (The Life Cycle of Bacteria) in 1925, shortly after its author’s appointment as curator of the Zoological Museum in Berlin.

For inspiring his work, Enderlein gives great credit to Antoine Béchamp as well as several Germans who took up where Béchamp left off, including zoologist Robert Leuckart, founder of the science of parisitology, and Otto Schmidt, who first reported parasites in the blood of cancer patients as far back as 1901.

Given the focus of interest at this meeting on darkfield microscopy, it is of great interest to add here that only by working at this instrument did Enderlein learn that microorganisms go through a forming-changing cycle that, in his view, could take on countless variations leading him to label the phenomenon a "1000-headed monster."

He unequivocally asserted, while different types of microorganisms normally live within the body in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, with severe deterioration of the body’s environment they develop into disease-producing (!!) forms to create what he called dysbiosis, or "a fault in the life process."

Their action, said Enderlein, was not due to any perverse intent on the microbes part to harm it, but to their urge to survive at its expense! In their early development phases they lived in the blood to perform functions beneficial to health, in the later ones, they abandoned that role to assure their preservation.’ Since, today, Bakterien Cyclogenie has become virtually unknown, it is curious to note that, before World War II, it brought the researcher a modicum of international recognition. It was apparently well received at an international biological congress held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 193:, and Enderlein’s contributions were recognised by his being honoured, in 1939, at the Third Microbiological Congress held in New York City.

Despite personal attacks on him by powerful members of the orthodox German medical community, Enderlein was strongly supported by a few courageous colleagues such as the physician and microbial researcher, Dr. Wilhelm von Brehmer, who identified as causal agent in the uncontrolled and malignant growth of Cancerous cells."

Enby’s book also filled me in on historical aspects of how the doctrine that microbes were monomorphic - as opposed to pleomorphic- had risen to ascendancy, aspects which I had missed while researching my paper on Royal Raymond Rife.

This rise can be attributed not only to the influence of Pasteur (1822-1895), but also to that of Robert Koch (1843-1910), whose "principles" are one of the "Ten Commandments" in microbial research, and his compatriot the naturalist and botanist, Ferdinand Julius Cohn (1828-1898), who insisted upon the constancy of bacterial types and their Classification into rigidly set groups and species based on their structure and form.

Entrenched as dogma, the Cohn-Koch view was taught to many Americans who went to Germany to study medicine after the turn of the Century and who, in turn, brought it back to the United States where, becoming the ruling outlook, it brooked no opposition.

IN LIEU OF A CONCLUSION: THE TRAIL WINDS AHEAD

What I have presented to you is only an account of a personal trek into the mysterious country inhabited by pleomorphic organisms. I gave it to you "piecemeal" so that you could share the uncertainties and surprises met along the trail that are normal to any exploration.

The country surveyed has been only superficially charted but, as a result of my exploration, my knapsack is filled with a heap of sketches, that, given the time necessary to accomplish the task, would one day allow me to prepare a map of the territory in all detail.

In book form, this map could easily provide a tale as exciting as any told in the best detective thriller. All that is lacking is its ending, and the ending "devoutly to be wished" is that the labours of so many stalwart workers in the field of microbial pleomorphic research will find their fruits in the acceptance of their findings - and the applications of therapeutic modalities to which these have led - for the benefit of the sick and the suffering everywhere.

The first chapter of Dr. Enby’s book was entitled; "Origins of a Medical Revolution." That revolution, still in progress is not over. Since Enderlein’s book came out 65 years ago, its conclusions, like those of Béchamp before him, have continued to remain unacknowledged by the scientific community as a whole. This is not because many other researchers have not bent every effort to bring out the truth, to make the revolution happen. Consider, for instance that, way back in 1927, an American microbiologist, Dr. Philip Hadley, who much admired Enderlein’s work, published, in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, a 312 page article, "Microbic Dissociation", based on work conducted at the Hygienic Laboratory of the University of Michigan. In this article, Hadley foresightedly noted:

"It will probably be many years before a true appraisal of Enderlein’s contribution can be made. In the meantime, we may regard with not little admiration his manifestly careful attempt to put a degree of order into the chaotic state of the study of bacterial cells. I believe that Enderlein has blazed a trail which, at least, in many lines of advance, other bacteriologists sooner or later are sure to follow." Those words were written 64 years ago, but few have been the bacteriologists to take up Hadley’s challenge.

One who did take up that challenge was born only three years before Hadley laid it down. We are in his presence today. In a life of devotion and, isolation, half of it in his native France, the other half in Quebec, the land of his adoption, he has kept alight, and borne forward, the torch lit and carried before him by Béchamp, Enderlein, Rife, Reich and so many others.

Now he has emerged from cherished anonymity into the limelight at a symposium of his summoning to which you have come, many of you from far away, to bear what he has to say and to see what he has to show you.

It maybe that his discoveries will determine whether the field of microbial pleomorphic research will at last emerge onto scientific centre-stage.

Will that emergence soon happen"?

Is it "to be or not to be?" For that, as Hamlet put it in another context, is the question.

Let us salute Gaston Naessens and his triumphant accomplishments.

REFERENCES:

RI The word ‘orthodox’, stems from Greek ortho. ―meaning ‘correct’, or ‘right’, or even ‘upright’‖ mid doxa ―‘opinion‖, the latter coming from the verb, dokein ―‘to think,’ or ‘to seem’‖. Traced to its roots, orthodoxy thus connotes ‘opinions that seem, or are thought to be correct’

R2 Untranslatable into any other language, the word ‘maverick’ denotes one who refuses to abide by the dictates of his group, in other words, a’dissenter’. Most people do not know that its etymology comes straight out of the cowboy culture of the ‘Old West’ where the term was applied to an unbranded, or orphan, range calf or foal traditionally considered the property of the first person who brands it. The English speaking word is indebted to an early Texas cattleman, Samuel a Maverick (1809-1810) who did not brand his calves, for involuntarily donating his name to its lexicon.

R3 The world, and perhaps the only, expert on Reich’s bion research is Dr. Bernard Grad, professor of biological sciences recently retired from McGill University in Montreal. In his student days, Grad spent much time working with Reich at "Organon" the home and research laboratory Reich built in Rangeley, Maine. Grad has research, still awaiting publication, on his own bion research it relates to the origin of Life.

R4 Reich’s private archives were sealed by the sole trustee to his estate. His daughter, Eva, tried unsuccessfully to unseal them through court action.

R5 Rife’s genius also invented a camera which could clearly reveal the letters and numbers of an auto license plate from a mile away!

R6 The Diving Hand: The 500 Year Old Mystery of Dowsing (E.P. Dutton, New York, 1979; New Age Publications, North Carolina, 1985.)

R7 It was only through a fortuitous meeting in Kansas City that I was finally led to the San Diego garage of one of Rife’s lab assistants where I found the "Universal Microscope" in dilapidated condition. The publication of my article resulted in many phone calls from people who had been on the hunt for the microscope for years. One of the most interesting and ardent came from John Hubbard MD., State University of New York (Buffalo), who came to my house in Washington D.C. to look at documentation on RifeI had brought back from California. I had planned to write a book on Rife’s life and work, but other projects intervened. That book, The Cancer Cure that Worked, (Marcus Books, Queensville, Ontario, 1987) was written by Barry Lynes.

R8 For enlightening answers to these questions, see The Cancer Industry Unravelling the Politics, by Ralph W.Moss (Paragon House, New York, 1989).

R9 The word "artefact" stems from art, plus factum (the neuter past participle of the verb facere, "to make"), or "something made". In biology, it means "a structure or substance not normally present but produced by some external agency or action." Most of us have forgotten that the basic meaning of the word, art, is "human effort to supplement, imitate, alter or counterfeit the work of nature." The facile use of the word, "artefact," in addition to being able unjustly to dispose of new microscopic discoveries, has a kind of "overtone" suggesting an attempt to trick, feign, dissemble or to carry out a deception or engage in a fraudulent action. It fits well with accusations against Naessens of having done all those things over the years.

R10 His experiments on rabbit-to-rabbit somatid transfer as they apply to genetic characteristic change in living animals, and particularly to organ transplant with potentially no "rejection syndrome", are described in part 1 of my book.

R11 Enzyme complexes found in yeasts, bacteria and higher plants. Credit for their discovery went, not to Bechamp, but to a German scientist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 19:7 for making it. Béchamp’s conclusive paper, justifying his priority, was published in 1897 and the word zymase is found in the 1873 edition of the French Littre dictionary in connection with Bechamp’s first work on the subject.

R12 Secrets of the Soil, Harpercollins, New York, 1980.

1. Reich’s first book on this, written in German, was Die Bione ―The Bions‖ published in Norway in 1939. English language treatment of the subject is to be found in The Cancer Biopathy, ―first published in the 195:’s‖ 1973; and The Bion Experiments on the Origin of Life, 1979, both published by Farrar, Straus, Giroux.

2. "The New Microscopes"

3. "What Has Become of the Rife Microscope?" New Age Journal, Boston, Massachusetts, 197(r, also reprinted in The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naesens, NJ. Kramer inc,Tiburon, California, 1991, as Appendix "A".

4. Published as a book: Antoine Bechamp, 1816-1908 L’Homme et le Savant, Originalite et Fecondite de Son Oeuvre, Maloine, Paris, 1982.

5. Delhoume, Leon, De Claude Bernard a d’Arsonval. Lib Bailliere et fils, Paris, 1939, 595pp~

6. Béchamp’s two master works on this subject seer Les Microzymas, Blilliere, Paris, 1883, 992pages; and Microzymas et Microbes, Editions Dentu, Paris, 1893, 346 pages.

7. From Le Sang et son deme element anatomique, Paris

1899, translated as The Blood and the Third Anatomical Element by Montague R. Leverson MD., John Ouseley Limited, London 1912. In the 198:’s Alan Cantwell, M.D. reported that the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. had informed him that the book was to be found neither in its collection nor in any library in the United States. It has since been reprinted by Veritas Press, GPO Box 1653, Bundaberg, QId 1988.

8. Hidden Killers: The Revolutionary Medical Discoveries of Professor Gunther Enderlein, by Erik Enby MD., Sheehan Communications, 1990. The book may be obtained from raum&zeit, Box 1508, Mount Vernon, Washington D.C. 98273; Pb: 2064246025. 9. Enderlein who like Bechamp, lived for 96 years (he died in 1968), published many of his conclusions in Akmon – a journal he first issued in 1955.

10. In his book, Siphonospora polymorpha von Brehmer 1947, this researcher also noted that cancer can be prediagnosed in its earliest forms by measuring the pH value of the blood and the appearance in it of large amounts of rod-shaped siphonospora, as viewable under a dark-field microscope.

EXTREME PLEOMORPHISM AND THE BACTERIAL LIFE CYCLE: A FORGOTTEN CONTROVERSEY

MILTON WAINWRIGHT - Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 40,407-414, 1997

The first 40 years of this century witnessed bacteriologists involved in a debate which was fought with an intensity not seen since the arguments over spontaneous generation conducted during the last quarter of the 19th century. This now long-forgotten controversy concerned the question of whether or not bacteria exhibit extreme pleomorphism and go through complex life cycles. The term pleomorphism was used to refer to the supposed ability of bacteria to change shape dramatically, or to exist in a number of extreme morphological forms. Thus it was believed that bacteria could change from a single coccoid to complex filamentous forms and vice versa. In addition, rather than reproducing by single division, bacteria were thought to undergo complex life cycles involving single cells, spore, filaments, and ultra-filterable forms.

The debate split microbiologists into two opposing schools: the monomorphists and the pleomorphists. The monomorphists finally triumphed, but as we shall see, even today reports continue to appear apparently showing that bacteria exhibit extreme morphological variations and undergo complex life cycles.

Nearly all modern microbiologists belong to the monomorphic school; that is, they accept that, apart from minor variation, each bacterial cell is derived from a previously existing cell of practically the same size and shape. Cocci generally beget cocci, and rods give rise to rods. The monomorphist view, stressed by Virchow, Cohn and Koch, is that by binary fission most bacteria divide transversely to produce two new cells which eventually achieve the same size and morphology of the original. In the same way, a single spore germinates to give rise to a vegetative cell essentially the same as the cell from which the spore originated. Exceptions to this rule are accepted in certain so-called higher bacteria, including some actinomycetes. Simple bacteria, on the other hand, are generally regarded as showing only occasional, slight morphological variation. This view of bacterial morphology and growth is so enshrined in our view of these organisms that we rarely bother to think about it. Despite this, there are a small number of latter-day heretics who continue to provide evidence which, they claim, supports the pleomorphist heresy.

The Historical Literature on Extreme Pleomorphism and the Bacterial Growth Cycle.

The original pleomorphists were particularly active during the first three decades of this century. The basic tenet of their belief was that even common bacteria showed complex life cycles which often included a frequently pathogenic, filterable, or hidden phase [1]. Some even suggested that bacteria are merely rudimentary components of the fungal life cycle. The principal proponents of pleomorphism, such as Almquist, Bergstrand, Hort, Lohnis, Mellon, and Enderlein, have largely been forgotten. However, even renowned microbiologists like Ferdinand Cohn published evidence in support of extreme pleomorphism. Similarly, the eminent American bacteriologist, Theobald Smith, isolated a bacterium which apparently occurred in three forms: a bacillus, a coccus with an endospore or arthrospore, and a conglomeration of all three [2].

By 1928, in an article on morphology published in the monograph The Newer Knowledge of Bacteriology and Immunology, Clark could state that "bacteria, even amongst the Eubacteriales, do at times reproduce by means other than equal fission seems to me to be definitely proved" [4]. He quotes the work of Hort, who showed that under adverse conditions, colon-typhoid bacteria reproduce by budding, by producing Y-shaped and large aberrant forms and deeply staining granules which can be filterable [5, 6]. Hort went on to describe how these irregular bodies reproduced actively and so were not examples of so- called involution forms, a term used by the monomorphists to suggest that what the pleomorphists were seeing was merely a collection of freakish, unreproduceable forms produced by old cells. These were invariably sterile, incapable of taking up a stain, and were produced in old cultures by localised cell-wall lysis. However, such unusual forms could also be seen in young cultures [5, 6]. Alexander Fleming also described how one of his four-day- old cultures of an anaerobic streptococcus changed from its usual chains of cocci to a variety of strain shapes which he regarded as being involution forms [7].

Lohnis concluded that all bacteria live alternatively in first an organised and then an amorphous state [3]. The latter he called the "symplastic state," because at this point the living matter enclosed in separate cells apparently undergoes a thorough mixing, followed by the complete disintegration of cell wall, to form a non-stainable symplasm. Lohnis also suggested that direct union between two or more cells may occur by the process which he termed "conjugation.". He also stated that all bacteria multiply not only by fission, but by the formation of gonidia. These were sometimes seen to grow directly into full-sized cells, or to go through a symplasm stage. Such gonididia were either produced by partial or complete dissolution of the cell wall or developed while still united to the mother cell. Some of the gonidia were also filterable. Lohnis' main conclusion was that the life cycle of each bacterial species comprises several sub-cycles showing wide morphological and physiological variations, all being connected together by a symplastic stage.

The ultimate pleomorphist heresy was voiced by Wade and Manalang, when they stated that Bacillus influenzae (then thought to be the cause of influenza) could occasionally abandon it usual bacillary form, produce conidiophores, and grow as a "frank fungus" [8]. In the same year, the Swedish microbiologist Bergstrand journeyed all the way down this road by stating that bacteria are really Fungi imperfecti [9]. This view was also held by Melon, who stated that: bacteria in their fundamental biology are in reality fungi that have been telescoped down as it were, to a somewhat lower order, but this order is not so low as to preclude the preservation by the bacteria of the fundamental organisation characterising the fungi and higher plants [10].

Descriptions of pleomorphism in bacteria were often associated with bacteria isolated from tumours. There is an extensive literature implicating bacteria and other nonviral microorganisms in the etiology of cancer, many of which were said to be highly pleomorphic [11]. The best examples are provided by the work of Young, Clover and Gruner [12-14]. So impressed was the latter by the pleomorphic nature of his isolate that he named it Cryptomyces pleomorpha. Both Young and Clover provided illustrations showing complex life cycles, representing the passage of their cancer germs through a variety of stages including spores, bacilli, amorphous forms, and filamentous stages.

Not surprisingly, members of the monorphic school had a field day criticising the apparently absurd claims made by the pleomorphists. The most common criticism was that the pleomorphists exhibited poor technique, their delusions obviously resulting from contamination. Secondly, the pleomorphists were said to have merely arranged whatever they saw, either contaminants or the products of ageing cells, into convenient life cycles. Winogradsky, perhaps not surprisingly, was severely critical of the pleomorphists, but nevertheless suggested that "The observations may be correct, but the interpretation given to the diverse forms observed cannot be taken seriously [15, my italics].

Perhaps the most impartial historical analyses of pleomorphism are given by Handly and Henrici, with the first chapter of the latter's book providing a particularly useful introduction to the history of pleomorphism [16, 17]. Although he was essentially critical of the concept of extreme pleomorphism, Henrici did not dismiss it as readily as many of his contemporaries. He stated that "bacteria do change their morpholigic type and within very wide limits; and with this change may go at times important physiological modifications." Henrici particularly objected to the criticism that extreme pleomorphism always resulted from contamination; instead his opinion was that: anyone who will patiently study with the microscope his own cultures which he knows to be pure can quickly confirm the general observation that rod forms may appear in cultures of cocci, spherical forms in cultures of bacilli lateral buds and branches and internal globular bodies.

Henrici finally came to essential the same conclusion arrived at by Winogradsky, namely that "In undertaking a critical analysis of this work [of the pleomorphists] one cannot find fault so much with the actual data as to the logic followed in erecting the hypothesis [my italics].

The modern microbiologist, thoroughly schooled in monomorphism, can easily dismiss this historical literature as being absurd - merely the ramblings of some ancients who could not even avoid contaminating their cultures. While recognising that some of the early studies were undoubtedly flawed, Wuerthele-Caspe et al., summed up the pleomorphist counterargument as follows: "the faults of the enthusiastic early workers were certainly no greater than the errors both of commission and omission made later on by some of the monomorphists whose views today dominate our textbooks" [18].

Young similarly defences the pleomorphist's case in a short yet comprehensive review which concludes the following quote:

Is all this [the evidence which he cities in support of pleomorphism] and a hundred and one similar observations by other careful workers merely a tissue of a self-deceptions originating in an exuberant imagination and on faulty technique? Is it not rather one of those great facts that user in a new era? [191.

While no such new era was ever ushered in, microbiologists will doubtless be surprised to discover that papers continue to appear in support of pleomorphism.

Recent Claims in Support of the Existence of Extreme Pleomorphism

Examples of pleomorphism continued to be reported with surprising regularity throughout the I920s and 1930s. By 1940, however, opposition to the hegemony of the monomorphists was dead, if not yet buried. Textbooks on bacteriology nevertheless still gave token support to extreme pleomorphism even as late as the 1960s [20, 21]. During this period, work on L-forms appeared to substantiate some of the claims made by pleomorphists. Hieneberger- Noble, for example, suggested that L-forms correlated with the symplasm observed by Lohnis [22].. Bacterial conjugation, an idea that had been scoffed at by many monomorphists, was now taken seriously. Previously, Lohnis had been mocked when he had claimed that he, and numerous other workers including Potthoft, had observed conjugation tubes connecting two bacterial cells (see [23]).

Reports of the existence of limited pleomorphism continue to appear somewhat infrequently in the modern literature. Wood and Kelly, for example, recently showed that the morphology of a species of Thiobacillus varied in response to environmental conditions, while limited pleomorphism in Bradyrhizobium was reported by Reding and Leop to be induced by dicarboxylate [24, 25]. While claims for such limited pleomorphism offend no one, modern reports of extreme bacterial pleomorphism are likely to suffer derision, or more usually just be ignored.

The association between cancer etiology and bacteria continues to be the source of many of the claims made by modern pleomorphists. For example, an amazing series of papers linking extremely pleomorphic bacteria and cancer was reported in 1970 in a symposium in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. The first of these papers, by Wuetherle Caspe-Livingston, reported the isolation of a specific type of highly pleomorphic microorganism found consistently in human and animal cancers [18]. Due to its remarkable pleomorphism, the organism was described as an "unclassified mystery," but was apparently capable of resembling micrococci, diphtheroids, bacilli, fungi, viruses, and host cell inclusions. Of particular interest was the reported appearance of an L-form, symplasm stage. The following quote from this paper could just as easily have come from the historical literature:

The virus-like bodies present in tumour and culture filtrates can evolve after one or more months into larger mycoplasma-like L forms, and thence to frankly bacterial rods and filaments. Polar or peritrichous flagella can develop under favourable conditions, and motile rods exhibiting a tumbling appearance. Under certain conditions unfavourable to the organisms, large glovoid bodies and still larger cysts from as well as spore forms develop. When conditions again become favourable, small bodies bud off from the chromatin ring lining the cyst, and filaments also may sprout from the rim. The small bodies, often acid fast, lengthen out into rods and filaments.

It should be noted however, that this work and the approach to cancer management which has been developed from it have come in for considerable criticism [26]. In particular it has been suggested that the so-called cancer germ involved is not new, but merely a strain of Staphylococcus epidermidis.

White also suggests that within cancerous cells exists "a non-septic, or non-virulent cell-wall deficient or conidial like micrococcus" [27]. Similarly intriguing recent papers reporting a complex life cycle in bacteria were written by Pease and Pease and Tallack [28, 29]. They state that for over a century there have been reports of a widespread, possibly universal, endoparasitism in humans caused by a bacterium capable of passing through a complex life cycle. Not surprisingly, this reported complexity has made this organism difficult to study and sceptics have yet to be convinced of its validity. The organism which Pease and Tallack consider to be a silent but potentially important pathogen was also reported to be associated with cancer by Alexander-Jackson and by Livingston and Alexander-Jackson [30, 31]. Incredibly, it has even been suggested that the Rous sarcoma virus is simple a stage in the life cycle of a bacterium. A number of workers have isolated cell-wall deficient bacteria from material containing the Rous sarcoma virus, as well as the Bittner virus and Shope's Papilloma virus [32]. Eleanor Alexander-Jackson even claims to have repeatedly grown cell- wall deficient bacteria from the blood of chickens infected with rous sarcoma [3 1]. Macomber apparently stated the obvious when he said that it goes against common sense to suppose that a virus can turn into a bacterium [32]. Instead, he suggested that it is more likely that viruses can be incorporated into cell-wall-less bacteria associated with the virus. He then emphasised the importance of clarifying the exact relationship between cancer- associated cell-wall deficient bacteria and the oncogenic retroviruses.

Pleomorphic cell-wall deficient bacteria have also been associated with rheumatoid arthritis. Mattma, for example, has claimed that a bacterium of this type, which apparently causes this disease in chickens, can revert in culture to Proprionibactenum acne [33].

Conclusion

What can we make of all this? Most modern microbiologists, being monomorphists, would doubtless assume the examples of bacterial life cycles and extreme pleomorphism given here are merely the result of a mixture of wild speculation and contaminated cultures. (this was the view taken by Frobisher, who coined the word oligomorphism to describe the more readily acceptable examples, which clearly exist, of limited pleomorphism [20].) Yet most of the microbiologists who have reported examples of extreme pleomorphism went to considerable lengths to demonstrate the purity of their cultures. It is also worth remembering that they often spent more time-much more than most modern microbiologists do-just looking at bacteria. Likewise, they were generally more practised in the art of microscopy than are their modern counterparts. On the other hand, Holman and Carson showed that the work described by at least one researcher, who claimed to have demonstrated extreme bacterial pleomorphism, resulted from faulty bacteriological technique [32];.

Microbiologists of the past had no preconceived ideas about the nature of bacteria, and all possibilities were open to investigation. Of course, they lacked out technological sophistication - in particular, they knew nothing of the molecular approaches, which might be profitably used to study some of their apparently wild claims.

The literature on extreme pleomorphism remains intriguing, and some aspects of it may be worthy of reappraisal. By merely dismissing it, we may be ignoring something of fundamental importance. This is especially likely since examples of extreme variation in bacterial morphology continue to be linked with various diseases and cancer in animals and humans [33]. The use of molecular techniques should, however, help clarify any lingering uncertainties arising from the historical literature on extreme pleomorphism, although those certain of the phenomenon's validity would doubtless argue that their claims could be confirmed by simple, if thorough, microscopy. Perhaps it is now time to re-examine such claims with a non jaundiced eye.

REFERENCES

I. ALMQUIST, E. Variation and life cycles of pathogenic bacteria. J Infect. Dis. 31:483-293, 1922.

2. SMITH, T. A pleomorphic bacillus from pneumonic lungs of calves simulating actinomycoses. J Exper. Med. 28:333-334, 1919.

3. LOHNIS, F. Studies upon the life cycles of bacteria.Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci. 16: 1-246. 1921.

4. CLARKE. P. F. Morphological changes during the growth of bacteria. In The Newer Knowledge of Bacteria, edited by E. 0. JORDAN and I.S. FALK. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. 1928.39-45.

5. HORT. E. C. The life history of bacteria. Brit. Med. J 1:571-575, 1917.

6. HORT. E. C. The reproduction of aerobic bacteria. J lHyg. 18:369-408, 1920.

7. FLEMING, A. On the bacteriology of septic wounds. Lancet ii:638-643, 1915.

8. WADE, 11. W. and MANALANG, C. Fungous development forms of Bacillus influenzae. J Exper. Med. 31:95-103, 1920.

9. BERGSTRAND, H. On the nature of bacteria. J Infect. Dis. 27:1-22, 1920.

10. MELON, R.R. The life cycle changes of the so-called C. hodgkini and their relation to the mutation changes in the species. J. Med. Res. 52:61-76, 1920.

11. WAINWPIGHT, M. The return of the cancer germ. Soc. Gen. Microbial. Quart. 22:48-50, 1995.

12. YOUNG. J. Description of an organism obtained from carcinomatous growths. Edinburgh Med. J. 27:212-213, 1921.

13. GLOVER, T. J. The bacteriology of cancer. Canada Lancet Prac. 74:92-111, 1930.

14. GRUNER, 0. C. Crvptomyces pleomorpha: A new organism isolated from the blood of a case of metastasised carcinoma of the breast. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 3:15-19, 1935. 15. WINOGRADSKY, S. Microbiologie du Sol. Paris: Mason. 1949.136-149.

16. HADLEY, P. Microbic dissociation. J Infect. Dis. 40:1-312, 1927.

17. HENRICI, A. T. Morphologic Variation and the Rate of Growth of Bacteria. London: Balliere Tyndall and Cox, 1928.

18. WUERTHELE-CASPE LIVINGSTON, V., and ALEXANDER-JACKSON, E. A specific type of organism cultivated from malignancy: Bacteriology and proposed classification. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 174:636-654, 1970.

19. YOUNG, J. the alleged sterility of present day bacteriology. Lancet ii: 1207, 1924.

20. FROBISHER, M. Fundamentals of Bacteriology. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1949.

21. LAMANNA, C., and MALLETTE, ~ F. Basic Bacteriology. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1965.

22. HIEINEINBERGER-NOBEL, E. Filterable forms of bacteria. Bact. Rev. 15:77-103, 1951.

23. THORNTON, H.G. The life cycles of bacteria. In A system of Bacteriology in Relation to Medicine. London: HMSO, 1930.170-178.

24. WOOD, A. P., and KELLY, D. P. Re-classification of Thiobacillus thyasiris as Thibacillus thyasirae comb., nov., an organism exhibiting pleomorphism in response to environmental conditions. Arch. Microbial. 159:45-47, 1993.

25. REDING, H.K., and LEPO, J.E. Physiological characteristics of dicarboxylate induced pleomorphic forms of Bradyrhizobium japonicuni. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55:660-671, 1989.

26. Unproven methods of cancer management-Livingston-Wheeler-Therapy. CA Cancer. J Clin. 40:103-108, 1990.

27. WHITE. M. W. Pathway to carcinogenesis: The role of bacteria. Med Hypotheses 32:111- 119.1990.

28. PEASE, P. Discussion: Microorganisms associated with malignancy. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 174:782-785, 1970.

29. PEASE, P.E., and TALLACK, J. E. A permanent endoparasite of man. 1. The silent zoogleal/ symplasm/L-form phase. Microbios. 64:173-180, 1990.

30. ALEXANDER-JACKSON, E. A specific type of microorganism isolated from animal and human cancer: Bacteriology of the organism. Growth 18:37-51, 1954.

31. ALEXANDER-JACKSON, E. Mycoplasma (PPLO) isolated from Rous sarcoma virus. Growth 30: 1990-228,1966.

32. MACOMBER, P. B. Cancer and cell wall deficient bacteria. Med. Hypotheses 32:1-9, 1990.

33. HOLMAN, W. L., and CARSON, A. E. Technical errors in the study of bacterial variation. J Infect. Dis. 56:165-195, 1935.

34. MATTMAN, L. The role of pleomorphic organisms in disease. In Controversial Aspects of Aids, edited by J. MATTINGLY. New York: Hunter College, 1986.

Milton Wainwright, University of Sheffield, UK.

Germ Theories by Walene James GERM THEORY (Pasteur)

1. Disease arises from micro-organisms outside the body.

2. Microorganisms are generally to be guarded against.

3. The function of microorganisms is constant.

4. The shapes and colours of microorganisms are constant

5. Every disease is associated with a particular microorganism

6. Microorganisms are primary causal agents.

7. Disease can "strike" anybody.

8. To prevent disease we have to "build defences". CELLULAR THEORY (Bechamp)

1. Disease arises from micro-organisms within the cells of the body.

2. These intracellular microorganisms normally function to build and assist in the metabolic processes of the body.

3. The function of these organisms changes to assist in the catabolic (disintegration) processes of the host organism when that organism dies or is injured, which may be chemical as well as mechanical.

4. Microorganisms change their shapes and colours to reflect the medium

5. Every disease is associated with a particular condition.

6. Microorganisms become "pathogenic" as the health of the host organism deteriorates. Hence, the condition of the host organism is the primary causal agent.

7. Disease is built by unhealthy conditions.

8. To prevent disease we have to create health.

Antoine Bechamp

ACADEMIC RECORD

Master of Pharmacy

Doctor of Science Doctor of Medicine Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacy at Montpellier Fellow and Professor of Physics and Toxicology — Strasbourg Higher School of Pharmacy Professor of Chemistry at Strasbourg Professor of Biological Chemistry and Dean of Faculty of Medicine of Lille Chevalier of the Legion of Honour — Commander of the Rose of Brazil etc., etc.

Professor Bechamp's name has been covertly erased from medical history text books.

"These microorganisms (germs) feed upon the poisonous material which they find in the sick organism and prepare it for excretion. These tiny organisms are derived from still tinier organisms called microzyma. These microzyma are present in the tissues and blood of all living organisms where they remain normally quiescent and harmless. When the welfare of the human body is threatened by the presence of potentially harmful material, a transmutation takes place. The microzyma changes into a bacterium or virus which immediately goes to work to rid the body of this harmful material. When the bacteria or viruses have completed their task of consuming the harmful material they automatically revert to the microzyma stage".--Bechamp. Sourced: Vaccination The "Hidden" Facts by Ian Sinclair p62

Now hopefully with the next article you will begin to see the point of this pleomorphism...

Bacteria, Cancer & the Origin of Life

By Alan Cantwell, Jr., M.D.

Is new life merely just the beginning of eventual death, as scientists believe? Or is death the beginning of “eternal life,” as religions teach? Or could life be a never-ending cycle of life/death/life/death reincarnations? Can new life develop from non-living things? Or was all life and the universe created eons ago by the Creator, or through some freak accident of the cosmos? Where did I come from? What will happen to me after death? These are questions human beings have attempted to answer for centuries.

Nanobacteria, NASA and Astrobiology

Robert Folk is a geologist who specialises in microscopic examinations of limestone. Working in Italy in the 1980s with a new scanning electron microscope (SEM) with magnifications up to 1::,:::X, he repeatedly came across “hordes of tiny bumps and balls” entombed within the rock that he initially passed off as artefacts or laboratory contamination, as had every other geologist using the SEM.

However, after a year of doubts and some reading in microbiology, Folk learned that exceedingly small cells called ‘ultramicrobacteria’ did in fact exist. With further microscopic work, he realised the enormous numbers of tiny grape-like and chain-like clusters were indeed bacteria. Most amazing was these “nanobacteria” could be easily cultured as common forms of bacteria, known as cocci, bacilli, staphylococci and streptococci.

His first scientific presentation of these astounding findings was met with “stony silence” and “howls of disbelief” from many microbiologists. To this day, some scientists contend these so-called nanobacteria are simply too small to contain the necessary genetic material for life.

In microbiology, the ultramicroscopic bacteria are regarded as stressed or resting forms of big bacteria, and are thought to be both rare and dormant. Geologists prefer the spelling “nannobacteria” to conform with the spelling of extremely tiny “nannofossils”, a common term in geology dating back to the nineteenth century.

But Folk claims nanobacteria are enormously abundant in minerals and rocks and they form most of the world’s bio-mass. If so, how could they have been missed for so long? Folk says microbiologists have little or no interest in bacteria found in soils or rocks; and for fifty years it has been standard microbiological dogma that bacteria smaller than 0.2 micrometers cannot exist.

Size does matter, even when discussing the tiniest forms of life. The term “ultramicroscopic” is applied to bacterial cells smaller than :.3 micrometers. At this size, bacteria are still barely visible as the tiniest of dots discernable with the light microscope. The ordinary light microscope can magnify objects up to 1000X and objects smaller than 0.25 micrometers cannot be seen. The electron microscope is able to photograph objects at magnifications of 300,000X, or higher. Nanobacteria are the smallest of living creatures, measuring in the 0.05 to 0.2 micrometer range (a micrometer is 1/1000 of a millimetre). This puts nanobacteria as an intermediate life-form between normal bacteria and viruses. Viruses are around 0.01 to 0.02 micrometers in size and cannot be seen with the ordinary light optical microscope.

The size of bacteria, nanobacteria and viruses is exceedingly important to bear in mind because it is connected to more than a century of microscopic study into the germ origin of infectious disease. Furthermore, the “dividing line” between bacteriology and virology has been the customary “filter pore size” of :.2 micrometers. Microbiologists have always assumed such a filter pore will catch all bacteria, and fluid running through a 0.2 micrometer filter pore would be bacteria-free.

When geologists photographed :.1 micrometer “bumps” they passed them off as contamination, never believing they could be living bacteria. Folk says, “You see what you are looking for and what you have faith in!”

By the early 1990s these nanobacteria were investigated by a team of biologists in Finland, headed by Olavi Kajander. Since that time nanobacteria have been found in kidney stones, dental plaque, the gall bladder, in calcified arteries and heart valves, and in certain skin diseases. Kajander’s team also reported nanobacterial forms as small as :.:5 microns in human blood, and have retrieved DNA on particles as small as 0.2 microns. Most disturbing are reports showing nanobacterial contamination of foetal bovine serum used in the production of many viral vaccines. This adds concern to the controversial problem of “vaccine-induced illness” and the fear some people have of contaminated vaccines.

Are nanobacteria connected with the origin of life on Earth? Nanobacteria-like “fossils” have been observed in several meteors, such as the Martian meteorite found on the Antarctic ice shelf in 1984. This meteorite is believed to be 4.5 billion years old, and is thought to have left Mars 16 million years ago. Supporters of nanobacteria research insist these bacteria have implications for how life began on Earth and other planets like Mars.

NASA, the US space agency, has an Astrobiology Roadmap program, which consists of more than 200 scientists and technologists. Astrobiology addresses three basic questions: How does life begin and evolve? Does life exist elsewhere in the universe? What is the future of life on Earth and beyond?

According to Roadmap, there are revolutionary changes going on in the world of microbiology.

“Our ongoing exploration has led to continued discoveries of life in environments that have been previously considered uninhabitable. For example, we find thriving communities (of microbes) in the boiling hot springs of Yellowstone, the frozen deserts of Antarctica, the concentrated sulphuric acid in acid-mine drainages, and the ionizing radiation fields in nuclear reactors. We find some microbes that grow in the deepest parts of the ocean and require 5000 to 1000 bars of hydrostatic pressure. Life has evolved strategies that allow it to survive even beyond the daunting physical and chemical limits to which it has adapted to grow. To survive, organisms can assume forms that enable them to withstand freezing, complete desiccation, starvation, high levels of radiation exposure, and other physical and chemical challenges.”

In addition, astrobiologists tell us that huge amounts of bacteria and possibly viruses are contained in Earth’s upper atmosphere. It is estimated a ton of these organisms arrive on Earth every day!

Quorum Sensing and Communication Between Bacteria

In an amazing discovery, scientists have learned that bacteria can communicate with each other. When enough microbes gather to form a “quorum”, they release a hormone ―a pheromone‖ which allows them to “talk” to one another and plan strategies, and even make some genetic changes to allow survival. Not only do similar bacteria talk to each other, they also talk between species.

Barbara Bassler, a molecular biologist at Princeton University, is a leading pioneer in quorum sensing. Writing about her work for Wired magazine (April 2003), Steve Silberman says that communicating microbes are able to collectively track changes in their environment, conspire with other species, build mutually beneficial alliances with other types of bacteria, gain advantages over competitors, and communicate with their hosts – the sort of collective strategizing typically ascribed to bees, ants, and people, not to bacteria.”

Quorum sensing has profound implications in the war against disease, particularly now that so many bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics. According to Silberman, “Bassler’s research points to new ways of fighting disease that will aim not to kill but to scramble data in the bacterial network. One approach would be to block the receptors that receive the molecular signals so that cells never become virulent; another would target the DNA- replication mechanisms set in motion inside cells when the signals are received.”

Not everyone in microbiology is convinced bacteria can communicate. But if some clairvoyants can talk to dead people, why can’t bacterial cells talk to one another? And don’t all the cells in our body “talk” to each other in some way?

Viruses, Bacteria, and the Beginnings of Life

Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species was published in 1859 and is the seminal book giving rise to biology, as well as to the scientific and religious controversies that continue to this day. People were incensed to think humans could have arisen from monkeys and apes. Now some scientists think we developed side-by-side along with bacteria.

Every human, plant and animal cell has genetic material inside a nucleus. Surrounding the nucleus is a jelly-like cytoplasm which contains the “mitochondria”, which are considered to be tiny chemical factories that process the nutrients which provide energy to the cell.

Evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts believes the ancestors of all life are the bacteria, which fused into higher forms of life. Margulis follows in the footsteps of American biologist Ivan Wallin, who in 1927 first claimed mitochondria originated as free-living bacteria. Wallin thought ancient bacteria and their host cells evolved together to establish an inseparable symbiotic partnership. He even claimed to have removed mitochondria from cells and to grow them. Needless to say, Wallin’s ideas were ridiculed and almost universally rejected.

But Margulis also theorises the origin of the mitochondria in our cells is derived from separate organisms that long-ago moved into other cells and entered a symbiotic (sort of a co-dependant) relationship with multi-cellular forms of life. Remarkably, the DNA in the mitochondria is totally different from the DNA in the rest of the cell, which lends support to this idea.

Margulis subscribes to the vision that the Earth, as a whole, is a living being. In What is Life? (1955), co-written with Dorion Sagan, she maintains all life is bacteria – or descends from bacteria. In short, life is bacteria. And, as such, bacteria are closer to immortality than animals with bodies.

Bacteria account for the vast majority of life forms on Earth, and are essential to maintain the conditions for life on the planet. They are the smallest living cells that can replicate without a nucleus, and are indeed the building-blocks of life. In comparison, the fertilised human egg is about 150-200 micrometers in size – about the size of a grain of sand and barely visible with the naked eye. What can microbes tell us about our origin and our destinies? And could we be immortal like our one-celled ancestors?

Creating “life” in the Laboratory

What is the lowest form of life? And can life be created from non-life? Some scientists believe viruses are the lowest form of life. We are told viruses need to penetrate a cell and use the cell’s genes to survive. In the process, disease can be produced. But are viruses “alive” or “dead”? Scientists can’t agree.

In 1991 Eckard Wimmer and his associates created a polio virus for the very first time – outside a cell and in a test tube. They extracted a soup of proteins from human cells, and then added genetic material from a polio virus. After a few hours, assembled polio viruses appeared in the mix.

According to a New York Times report (Dec. 13, 1991), Wimmer was asked, is the product in the test tube living or nonliving? Some consider viruses to be simple living organisms, others consider viruses to be very complicated chemicals, said Wimmer. But “when it hits the cell it is very much alive. Some argue that one attribute of life is that it can reproduce itself. Well, that is what viruses do when they get into the cells. The debate on whether viruses are alive has been going on since they were discovered 1:: years ago.”

Although the cause of most cancers remains a mystery, research over the past half-century has focused on cancer viruses as a probable cause. With research focused on viruses, it would seem ludicrous to ask – can bacteria cause cancer?

The mere thought of bacteria causing cancer drives most cancer experts up the wall! However, with the recent interest in nanobacteria and their discovery in the blood and in various diseases of unknown origin, the question should not be so easily dismissed.

Furthermore, in the past decade physicians have come to accept the fact stomach ulcers can be produced by bacteria (Helicobacter pylori), and some ulcers eventually lead to stomach cancer. For many decades, it was dogma that bacteria could not live in the acid environment of the stomach. Also, pathologists could never see or detect bacteria in the stomach lining around ulcers. With the discovery of Helicobacteria and special staining techniques, doctors can now demonstrate bacteria in many ulcers – proving that microbiologists and pathologists were unable to “see” microbes, even though they are now clearly visible once they accepted the possibility microbes might be present.

Cancer, New Life, and Reich’s “T-Bacilli”

Although the origin and cause of cancer is mysterious, there is no doubt cancer is the body’s futile and often fatal attempt to create new life and new growth. That is why cancer is so intimately connected with theories about the origin of life.

One of the most controversial physicians of the last century was Wilhelm Reich (1897- 1957‖, a psychiatrist and cancer researcher who claimed to discover “orgone energy” – an energy that pervades the world and is intimately connected with our physical and mental well-being.

In The Cancer Biopathy (1948), he wrote that cancer is a systemic disease caused by emotional despair and resignation and the chronic thwarting of natural sexual functioning. And this was just a few of his highly unorthodox beliefs based on his many observations and experiments.

Reich also uncovered infectious “T-bacilli” ―bacteria‖ in cancer that resulted from the degeneration of cancerous tissue. In his view, these bacteria formed a bridge between the living and the non-living. The T-bacilli were present in the blood and tissue before the cancer tumour developed; and these microbes were intimately connected to “bions” and the loss of biological energy. Reich’s heretical bions were the carriers of biological energy; and the staphylococcus and streptococcus germs he found connected to cancer were actually formed from the degeneration of the bions.

Just as there is no clear dividing line between life and non-life, there is no clear boundary between healthy and diseased individuals. Reich claimed the cancer cell developed as the body’s attempt to resist the build-up of the T-bacilli in energy-depleted tissue.

“The first step in the development of the cancer tumour is not the cancer cell… it is the appearance of T-bacilli in the tissue or in the blood.” But T-bacilli were not only found in cancer; they were also present in the blood and tissues of both healthy and sick non- cancerous individuals. However, sick and cancerous patients showed a larger number of these forms, and Reich developed a blood test to show this. T-bacilli were always found where there is degeneration of protein, and in that respect, Reich wrote: “All humans have cancer.”

The orgone energy of the body determined the resistance of the body to these microbes. As long as the tissues and blood are “organotically strong, every T-bacillus will be destroyed and eliminated before it can propagate, accumulate, and cause damage”, wrote Reich. Because cancer germs were present in healthy people, Reich knew this would be a very difficult concept for physicians to consider and accept.

Reich wanted scientists to look at science in a new way and to try and see it from the point of view of “energetic functionalism.”

For example, “The bacteriologist, for instance, sees the staphylococcus as a static formation, spherical or oval in shape, about 0.8 micron in size, reacting with a bluish coloration to Gram stain, and arranged in clusters. These characteristics are important for orgone biophysics, but are not the essentials. The name itself says nothing about the origin, function, and position of the blue coccus in nature. What the bacteriologist’s calls ‘staphylococcus’ is, for orgone physics a small energy vesicle in the process of degeneration. Orgone biophysics investigates the origin of the staphylococcus from other forms of life and follows its transformation. It examines the staphylococcus in connection with the processes of the total biological energy of the organism and produces it experimentally through degenerative processes in bions, cells, etc.”

Through his scientific experiments with orgone energy, Reich hoped to harness orgone for the treatment of disease and the good of humanity.

Needless to say, Reich’s entire life’s work was considered hogwash, and a scientific inquisition eventually ensued. Branded a menace and a quack, he ran afoul of the US Food and Drug Administration ―FDA‖ which claimed his experimental “orgone accumulator” was being used illegally to treat cancer – and that it was nothing more than a perverted sex box.

Refusing to obey a court injunction, Reich was sentenced to prison. His books were burned, his equipment destroyed by FDA agents, and he died at the federal penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in March 1957, at age 60.

His research into the origin of life, and his belief orgone energy contained within the tiniest forms of life that could not be destroyed, make him one of the most misunderstood and hated physicians of the twentieth century.

But, as we shall discover, there are other heretics in medicine, now mostly ignored and forgotten, who also believed cancer was connected with bacteria of human origin. Like Reich, they claimed a study of these microbes would not only lead to the infectious cause of cancer – but to a cause of life itself.

After a century of “modern” medical science, we still don’t know the cause of cancer, heart disease, and many other chronic diseases that kill millions of people every year. The reason for this, in my view, is that medical science refuses to recognise the role that microbes (smaller than bacteria and larger than viruses) play in these diseases.

Much of the fault lies in the dogma left over from the nineteenth century by such scientific icons as Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, who are revered as fathers of microbiology and bacteriology. At a time when viruses, nanobacteria and astrobiology were unknown and when “the germ theory of disease” was in its infancy, both scientists held rigid views as to what was possible and not possible in biology. And neither Pasteur nor Koch could fathom the concept that living organisms might arise from non-living sources.

Unfortunately, Pasteur (1822-1895) had no medical training. He was consumed with fermentation experiments and with proving “air germs” were the basis for human disease, although he provided no explanation for the origin of atmospheric germs or how life began on Earth. Koch (1843-1910), who discovered the bacteria that caused tuberculosis, was obsessed with classifying microbes grown in the laboratory into exact species, depending on their size, structure, physical, and chemical properties. He insisted the species that were created were pure and stable; and that species were unable to change back and forth between each other. According to Koch, each species of bacteria produced a separate and distinct disease. Each germ also had to originate from similar “parent” germs – which reproduced by dividing in half by “binary fission.”

Not every physician of that era believed all the pronouncements of Pasteur and Koch. A few physician-scientists challenged them because they knew what was often “proven” in laboratory experiments might not always be applicable to what was going on with bacteria hidden within the human body.

Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908) was no slouch in the science department and was well- known as a scientific rival of the famous Pasteur. The Frenchman was not only a Doctor of Medicine and Science, but at various times was also Professor of Medical Chemistry and Pharmacology, and Professor of Physics, Toxicology, and Biological Chemistry. There is also some evidence that Pasteur plagiarised much of Bechamp’s original research.

Pasteur, however, is credited in history with saving the French beer and wine and silkworm industries, and with pasteurisation and vaccine research. Bechamp, despite his brilliance, was eventually eclipsed by the younger man. The details of the scientific controversy and plagiarism accusations are chronicled in E. Dougles Hume’s book, Bechamp or Pasteur?: A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology (1923), remarkably still in print.

Bechamp had his own ideas concerning the origin of life and the germ theory of disease. In animal and plant cells he observed infinitesimal microscopic “granulations” that he considered the incorruptible elements of all life. After many laboratory experiments and microscopic examinations of these granules, the physician-scientist claimed these so-called “microzymas” were capable of developing into common living organisms that go by the name of bacteria.

In his view, Pasteur’s “air germs” had nothing to do with the origin and appearance of these microzymas in tissue. In fact, Bechamp wrote that Pasteur’s air germs most likely derived from dying life-forms. Like Folk a century later [see Part One of this article], Bechamp found barely visible microzymas/bacteria in chalk and limestone that he interpreted as survivor life-forms of past ages. Although all the microzymes looked similar, they varied in their chemical abilities. Each tissue, or organ, or gland had microzymas that differed from each other.

Hume claims Bechamp and his colleagues showed these tiny microzymas were, in reality, “organised ferments” with the potential to develop into bacteria. In this development, they passed through certain intermediary stages. Some of these intermediate bacterial stages were regarded by people like Koch as different species, but to Bechamp they were all related and derived from microzymas. Adding more heresy to Pasteur’s dogma, Bechamp wrote that without oxygen, microzymas do not die – they go into a state of rest. Bechamp preached, “Every living being has arisen from the microzymas, and every living being is reducible to the microzymas.”

Like Bechamp, Henry Charlton Bastian’s ―1837-1915) studies investigating the origin of life were closely tied into his understanding of the origin of infectious disease. He was also the last of the great scientists to uphold the theory of “spontaneous regeneration”, by concluding that life could come from non-life. Like Reich a century later, he argued that microorganisms were produced as by-products of the disease process, not as opportunistic infections, but from degenerating tissue by a process Bastian termed “heterogenesis.” Heterogenesis is the idea that living organisms can arise without parents from organic starting materials – an idea certainly not in accord with Pasteur and Koch.

Bechamp and Bastian’s research was also a threat to the followers of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), whose evolution theories revolutionalised science. Like Pasteur, Darwin was not a medical doctor and had no training in human pathology. And while doctors like Bechamp and Bastian and others were discovering new forms of life emanating from human diseased tissue and from the bowels of limestone, Pasteur, Koch and the Darwinians simply disregarded all this in favour of their own research and pronouncements.

Bastian paid dearly for his unorthodoxy (and for some well-publicised but failed experiments) and his once-famous name is largely forgotten. Microbiologist and science professor James Strick has recently revived interest in Bastian’s books and research and his books on the origin of life; and a six-volume set reprinting much of his work has been recently published. Strick is also the author of Sparks of Life (2000), which chronicles the famous nineteenth century scientific and bacteriologic debates over Darwinism and spontaneous generation.

Pleomorphism and the Classification of Bacteria

Koch, famous for his tuberculosis discoveries, was rigid in his belief that a specific germ had only one form (monomorphism). And he opposed all research showing some germs had more than one form ―pleomorphism‖ and complex “life cycles.” Thus, from the very beginning of bacteriology there was conflict between the monomorphists and the pleomorphists, with the former totally overruling the latter and dominating microbiology to this day.

In the attempt to “classify” bacteria as the lowest forms of life known at that time, there was no consideration given to any possible “connection” between the various species of bacteria. The dogma was that a coccus remained a coccus; a rod remained a rod; and there was no interplay between them. There was no “crossing” from one species to another, and the research of the pleomorphists suggesting otherwise was ignored.

When viruses were discovered they were made separate from bacteria, although bacteria are also known to be susceptible to viral infection. Viruses were put in one box; bacteria in another. As a result, the spectacular number of “filterable” pleomorphic microbial forms that form a bridge between the “living” bacteria and the “dead” viruses are still largely unstudied and considered of no great importance in clinical medicine.

Most doctors simply want to know the name of the microbe, if any, cultured in the lab from their specimens; and what antibiotics the germ is “sensitive” to. Thanks to Pasteur, common “skin” bacteria like cocci and bacilli are often viewed as suspicious “contaminants” or “secondary invaders” or “opportunistic infections” of no great importance as etiologic agents.

Koch’s postulates became dogma to prove that certain bacteria cause disease, but the postulates did not work very well for viruses. And even when “filterable” pleomorphic bacteria were shown to cause disease and Koch’s postulates were fulfilled, the research was still generally ignored because such germs were not considered “valid” life-forms.

As a result of all this dogma and rigidity, medical thought was completely turned off to the possibility cancer was caused by bacteria. But to the minds of some medical heretics, these century-old scientific beliefs were wrong, wrong, wrong.

Cancer and the “Cancer Microbe”

As some scientists are finally realising, there is a large realm of microbial life-forms that lie between “bacteria” and “viruses.” It is this relatively uncharted never-never land of microbiology that lies at the heart of life, disease, cancer, death, regeneration, and perhaps even immortality.

In the life of every researcher there is a person or group of people to whom a great debt is owed. In my scientific life as a practising dermatologist and as a clinical researcher, there are four women who are my icons in medical science. All four I knew personally as valued friends, and each contributed greatly to my understanding of the greatest mystery of medical science: the origin and cause of cancer.

The combined reported research of Virginia Wuerthele-Caspe Livingston (a physician), Eleanor Alexander-Jackson (a microbiologist), Irene Diller (a cell cytologist), and Florence Seibert (a chemist famous for developing the TB skin test), is indeed a treasure-trove for anyone seeking to learn about “the cancer microbe” and the heretical microbiology of cancer. I wrote about these now deceased women in my book, The Cancer Microbe (1990), and I connected their cancer research to Bechamp’s and Bastian’s discoveries in the nineteenth century, as well as to Wilhelm Reich’s condemned cancer and orgone research.

In 1950, Wuerthele-Caspe Livingston and Alexander-Jackson, along with John A. Anderson (head of the Department of Bacteriology at Rutgers), James Hillier (head of electron microscopy at the RCA Victor Laboratories at Princeton), Roy Allen (a cell histologist), and Lawrence W. Smith (author of a well-known pathology textbook used in medical colleges), all combined their talents to write a paper entitled “Cultural Properties and Pathogenicity Obtained from Various Proliferative and Neoplastic ‗cancerous‘ Diseases,” published in the December issue of The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. The characteristics of the cancer microbe in blood, tissue, and culture, were described in detail; and the extreme pleomorphic nature of the organism was revealed in photos taken with the electron microscope at a magnification of 31,000X.

The cancer microbe (which she later called Progenitor cryptocides) was filterable through a pore designed to hold back bacteria. But in the filtrate were “virus-sized” microbial forms, which grew in time to the size of conventional bacteria. For the next two decades these four women and their colleagues continued publishing details about the microbiology of cancer. Livingston’s two books, Cancer: A New Breakthrough ―1972) and The Conquest of Cancer (1984) are unfortunately now out-of-print.

Livingston believed everyone carried cancer microbes in their blood and tissues. And the microbe was essential for life. In 1974, she discovered some cancer-associated bacteria produced an HCG-like hormone – the human choriogonadotropin hormone, which is an essential hormone needed to start life in the womb. But she also thought the microbe was the germ that did most people in as they aged. The microbe was Mother Nature’s built-in terminator to force old people off the planet and to make room for new life on the planet.

At the time of her death in 1990, Livingston was widely regarded among the cancer establishment as a quack. Even though her research was published for three decades in reputable medical journals, the American Cancer Society still claims her “cancer microbe” does not exist. An ACS-sponsored Internet web page states: “One report on the bacteria Progenitor cryptocides, which Dr. Livingston-Wheeler claimed caused cancer, found that the bacteria does not exist but is actually a mixture of several different types of bacteria which Dr. Livingston-Wheeler labelled as one.” Who was the author of the report claiming her microbe did not exist? According to the ACS, the author was “anonymous.”

Over the past four decades I have tried to keep this research alive by showing pleomorphic cancer bacteria in human cancer and in certain other diseases of unknown origin. For readers with Internet access, some of my photos of cancer microbes are presented on the web site of the on-line Journal of Independent Medical Research ( www.joimr.org ); and abstracts of my medical publications can be found on the National Library of Medicine’s “PubMed” web site ―www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ ‖. Simply type in “A Cantwell + cancer bacteria”.

In my research I have observed germs grown in the lab from cancerous tissue. Frequently they grow as simple round cocci, or as a mixture of cocci and rod-shaped bacilli, and rarely as streptococci. From diseases like scleroderma, I have seen “old” cultures evolve into peculiar and highly pleomorphic fungus-like “actinomycete” organisms, or evolve into bacteria resembling tuberculosis-type bacteria. Not infrequently, expert microbiologists could not agree on what to name these pleomorphic bacteria.

I have seen microbes change from one species to another, depending on what they are fed in the laboratory – staphylococcus germs that turn into rod-forms of corynebacteria and back again to “pure” staphylococcus, depending on the lab media for growth. But most importantly, I have seen these bacteria in specially-stained (acid-fast stain) tissue sections made from cancerous tissue, indicating these microbes are not contaminants falling out of the air. And decade after decade all cancer microbe research remains forgotten, ignored, and overlooked because physicians cannot conceive of such bacteria as causing cancer.

Milton Wainwright at the University of Sheffield, UK, is a rare microbiologist who has written sympathetically about the bacteriology of cancer, titling some of his recent publications: “Nanobacteria and associated ‘elementary bodies’ in human disease and cancer” ―1999‖; “The return of the cancer germ; Forgotten microbiology – back to the future” ―2:::‖; “Highly pleomorphic staphylococci as a cause of cancer” ―2:::‖; and “Is this the historical ‘cancer germ’”? ―2::3‖.

In, Can Bacteria Cause Cancer?: Alternative Medicine Confronts Big Science (1997), David J. Hess charts the history of bacteria as etiological agents in cancer. An anthropologist at Renssalear University, he claims this research has not only been forgotten or disregarded, but actively suppressed. Hess cites financial and professional interests, as well as more general cultural factors to help explain the suppression.

Body Blood Bacteria

The idea that the blood contains bacteria related to cancer has been repeatedly raised by various cancer microbe researchers. But the idea was never taken seriously because bacteria grown from cancer patients were never considered anything more than inconsequential bacteria like staph, strep, and various common bacilli of no etiologic significance. Furthermore, these bacteria are believed to be frequent laboratory ‘contaminants.’ Physicians still expect disease-causing bacteria to be of a specific species type and to cause a “specific” disease. And medical doctors believe each form of cancer is “different.” The variety of different species of pleomorphic bacteria recovered from various forms of cancer makes physicians highly dubious about a bona fide cancer microbe specific for cancer.

In a series of papers (1970-1979) using the electron microscope and various testing procedures, an Italian team of researchers headed by Guido G. Tedeschi showed that the erythrocytes (red blood cells) and the blood platelets of both normal and diseased patients are cryptically infected with pleomorphic bacteria. Electron-dense “granular bodies” were found within the erythrocytes, and a variety of microbial forms and species were reported as mycoplasma-like and corynebacteria-like L-forms of bacteria, staphylococcus epidermidis, micrococci, cocci, and cocco-bacillary forms.

Such microbes are similar to what various cancer microbe researchers have reported over the past century. Some of Tedeschi’s microbes were acid-fast, a staining quality characteristic of Livingston’s cancer microbe.

All of this indicates that human blood is definitely not sterile, and should raise suspicion these tiny blood bacteria could be involved in the production of disease – a conclusion Wilhelm Reich came to a half-century ago. Like Reich, Tedeschi’s team suggested the evolution of cocci and diphtheroids taking origin from cell-wall-deficient forms seems not to be related to a particular state of illness, but to be the consequence of a generalised crypto- infection.

A more recent study entitled “Are there naturally occurring pleomorphic bacteria in the blood of healthy humans?”, by R.W. McLaughlin and associates in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology (December 2002), confirms the presence of a wide diversity of microorganisms within the blood of healthy people. And with new research showing nanobacteria in the blood, it is apparent there is much to learn about the bacteriology of the blood and what it contains normally and what it contains in disease.

As they have done for a century, microbiologists will undoubtedly quibble about what to name these organisms. But what is much more important than a name is to determine what they “do” – not in the laboratory, but in the human body. What is the energy force that allows these microbes to exist in harmony with us? And what turns them into killers?

Science has little or nothing to say about spirit, soul, and the hereafter. And sceptics are always seeking “proof.” But if a disease like cancer is indeed caused by microscopic bacteria, it would indicate physicians have been unable to see what was quite plain for some nineteenth and twentieth century scientists to observe using simple light microscopy. And with powerful electron microscopes there is now little excuse for not “seeing” bacteria. With this in mind, it would behove scientists, especially cancer experts, to do a little soul- searching (pun intentional).

All Human Blood Is Infected With Bacteria by ALAN CANTWELL, MD

(8-2-07)Bacteria are everywhere. Our mouths, throat, nose, ears all harbour germs. A few bacteria in the urine are considered normal; and faecal material is largely composed of bacteria. But what about the blood?

Under "normal" conditions physicians generally believe human blood is "sterile." The idea of bacteria living in the blood normally is largely considered medical heresy.

Recently Tom Detwiler of West Sayville, New York, sent me an email with three microphotographs he took from a video of a drop of his blood studied with "phase contrast" and a "dark field microscope." The photos clearly showed round and beaded forms emanating from red blood cells (erythrocytes), strongly suggesting the appearance of bacteria. (Figures 1-3.) Detwiler is a biochemist with 18 years experience working as a microbiologist for a pharmaceutical company.

He has an avid interest in dark field microscopy and microphotography. His blood findings were in accord with my own research documenting and photographing bacteria in many forms of cancer and other immune diseases.

The idea that bacteria cause cancer is considered medical heresy. However, continuing research dating back to the late nineteenth century indicates that "pleomorphic" (variably- appearing) bacteria are implicated in cancer. Over the past few decades more and more studies have confirmed that similar bacteria can be found in the blood.

Details of a century of research showing bacteria in cancer can be found in my two books: The Cancer Microbe and Four Women Against Cancer: Although I personally have no experience with blood research and dark field microscopy, there are studies in the scientific literature that support Detwiler's observations.

The evidence for blood bacteria

In a series of papers from 1972-1979, the late Guido Tedeschi and his colleagues at the University of Camerino in Italy presented remarkable findings indicating universal infection of the blood with staphylococcus-like and streptococcal-like microbes.

In 1977 Domingue and Schlegel confirmed "the existence of a novel bacteriologic system" in the blood. They cultured staphylococcal-like bacteria and filamentous cocco-bacillary forms from 71% of the blood specimens from ill patients; and from 7% of supposedly healthy people. These pleomorphic bacteria grew out of round complex "dense bodies" and developed into "ordinary bacteria." The authors concluded: "These organisms may represent an adaptation of certain bacteria to life in the blood." Their full report, which contains pictures (full-screen) of the bacteria grown from blood, is online at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=421412&pageindex=1#page

In the 1990's microbiologists Phyllis E Pease and Janice Tallak termed these blood bacteria as "the human bacterial endoparasite." Finnish researchers Kajander et al. describe them as "novel bacteria-like particles," which are staphylococcal-like. Like viruses, these tiny bacterial forms were able to pass through bacterial filters, and were exceedingly difficult to culture. The Finnish team called them "nanobacteria" and proposed a tentative name for the novel agent: Nanobacterium sanquineum.

In 2002 McLaughlin et al. presented a study entitled "Are there naturally occurring pleomorphic bacteria in the blood of healthy humans?" The researchers were surprised to discover bacteria in the blood "since it is generally acknowledged that the blood stream in healthy humans is a sterile environment, except when there is a breach in the integrity of the tissue membranes." A few critics claim that Detwiler's forms are contaminating bacteria or "artefacts" that are not microbial in origin. However, in view of recent studies, it is clear that bacteria do exist in human blood. Furthermore, bacteria are large enough to be observed microscopically. Thus, Detwiler's observation of bacteria appears credible.

Bechamp, Enderlein, and Reich

In actuality, the study of the blood and the microbes that emanate from blood cells was the subject of extensive examination in the late nineteenth century by Antoine Bechamp (1816- 1908). At the time, it was widely believed that the cell was the smallest unit of life. But the French professor insisted it was the tiny granules within the cell (which he called "microzymas") which comprised the smallest unit of life. In Bechamp's heretical view, bacteria could develop from these microzymas under appropriate conditions. His book, The Blood and its Third Element, is still in print.

German zoologist Gunther Enderlein (1872-1968) devoted many years to the dark field microscopic study of the blood. The complicated "life cycle" of these blood bacteria is described in his book Bacterien-Cyclogenie (1925).

A controversial blood test is named after Enderlein; and in 1993 a bi-lingual German and English translation of his research was published entitled: Blood Examination in Darkfield: According to Prof. Dr. Gunther Enderlein. The book is heavily illustrated with colour photos of bacteria in the blood. Although it is a difficult read due to Enderlein's complex terminology of the various pleomorphic blood forms, it is considered an essential work for practitioners performing the highly controversial "live blood cell analysis" of human blood. Enderlein believed that the sterility of the blood was an invalid assumption on the part of medical science. He claimed the blood elements of all vertebrates, up to and including man- even the healthiest-have been subjected to a massive infestation of primitive-phase "endobionts."

The infection of the blood by bacteria is commonly accepted as fact by some alternative medical practitioners. However, attempts to make a medical diagnosis by dark field examination of the patient's blood is considered a scam and "sheer hokum" by most medical doctors. A highly critical review of this procedure entitled "Live blood cell analysis; Another gimmick to sell you something," by Stephen Barrett MD, can be found on quackwatch.org.

Other controversial researchers who made outstanding contributions to the study of pleomorphic microbes in human disease include Raymond Royal Rife, Wilhelm Reich and others. (For details of the scientific achievements of these men, Google bechamp.org; professorenderlein.com; rife.org and wilhelmreichmuseum.org. Also see: "Synthesis of the work of Enderlein, Bechamp, and other pleomorphic researchers", by Dr Karl Poehlman at: http;//www.explorepub.com/articles/enderlien3.html; "Raymond Royal Rife" by Jeff Rense at: http://www.rense.com/health/rife.htm; and "Dr. Wilhelm Reich: Scientific Genius or Medical Madman"? by Alan Cantwell at http://whale.to/a/cantwell.html ) In addition, the exhaustive and highly controversial "somatid" work of Quebec biologist Gaston Naessens should be noted; and details of his research can be found on the Internet.

Pitfalls in the microbiology of the blood

The microbiology of the blood is intimately related to the proposed bacterial cause of cancer. The highly controversial microbiology of cancer was fully explored during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s by four largely ignored women scientists, namely Virginia Livingston MD, microbiologist Eleanor Alexander-Jackson PhD, cell cytologist Irene Diller PhD, and biochemist Florence Siebert PhD. These four remarkable scientists all recognized the extreme importance of bacteria in the blood. Details of their research appear in Four Women Against Cancer, and subtitled Bacteria, Cancer and the Origin of Life.

Much of the criticism against bacteria in cancer and in human blood revolves around the inability of scientists to precisely identify the species and/or multiple species of bacteria involved in the process. Human blood is undoubtedly an aquarium for multiple kinds of bacteria, all intimately interacting with each other and presumably passing genetic material back and forth between each other (via "plasmids" and "bacteriophages").

In 2001, a molecular study by Nikkari et al. found bacterial DNA in the blood. The inconclusive report was titled, "Does blood of healthy subjects contain bacterial ribosomal DNA?" The researchers were unsure of the origin of these bacterial genetic sequences. Not surprisingly, none of the published blood research cited in this present report was mentioned by Nikkari.

Further complicating the question of blood bacteria is the century-old unresolved controversy of bacterial monomorphism versus pleomorphism. Most microbiologists and doctors believe bacteria multiply by simply dividing in half (binary fission). But pleomorphists believe that the reproduction of bacteria is highly complex and involves various growth forms within the body that are not recognized and accepted by traditional science. It is not possible to study the microbiology of blood (and cancer) without a knowledge of bacterial pleomorphism.

Yet another stumbling block is the terminology used to describe the various bacterial forms seen in the blood and the tissue. Bacteria in the blood have been described by various researchers as mycoplasma, L-forms, cell wall deficient bacteria, nanobacteria, and a host of other confusing and often synonymous terms.

Blood bacteria are thought to be connected with the origin of life. Livingston (1906-1990) believed these microbes were responsible not only for the initiation of life, but also acted as terminators leading to death, admittedly a difficult concept for most people to consider. Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) referred to bacteria emanating from energy-depleted cells as "T-bacilli", the "T" derived from the German word "Tod", meaning death. He found T-bacilli in both healthy and sick individuals. However, in the blood of sick people they were more numerous. Reich devised a blood test to measure the vitality of blood. (For details, Google: Reich blood test)

Detwiler feels that the demonstration of bacteria in normal blood is frightening to many people, who would prefer not to know such things. In addition, the idea might be scary for people who receive blood transfusions. Is human blood sterile?

Although it may be comforting to believe that human blood is sterile, common sense indicates it isn't. According to bloodbook.com, five to ten percent of the cases of HIV infection are transmitted worldwide through the transfusion of infected blood or tainted blood products. Other diseases that can be transmitted by transfusion include viral, hepatitis B and C, syphilis, malaria and Chagas' disease. Each year bad transfusions cause an estimated 8 to 16 million hepatitis B virus infections, 2.3 to 5 million hepatitis C virus infections and 80,000 to 160,000 HIV infections.

Currently in the U.S. all blood donors are tested for HIV-1 and HIV-2, HTLV-1, hepatitis B and C, and syphilis. Excluded from donating blood are people with a history of IV drug abuse and hepatitis, and those with male homosexual activity since 1977. Blood is not tested for West Nile virus, nor for herpes viruses such as human herpes-8 virus, the virus causing Kaposi's sarcoma.

Many blood banks encourage patients to donate their own blood prior to the scheduled date of an elective surgery, in order to minimize the possibility of transfer of viruses. Blood bacteria and human disease

Despite a century of modern medicine we know little about the cause of cancer and the many chronic diseases that accompany old age. Heart and blood vessel disease (arteriosclerosis) are the most common causes of death in the elderly. Could blood bacteria contribute to the cellular changes in the heart and blood vessels?

It is said that if he lives long enough every man will develop prostate cancer. Thus, there must be something intrinsic in every man that causes this. Could it be the build-up of bacteria in the blood, coupled with declining cell vigour, as claimed by Reich? For new research pointing to the possible connection between bacteria and prostate cancer, go to: http://www.rense.com/general67/four.htm

Dr. Virginia Livingston thought blood bacteria served as a way for Mother Nature to force old people off the planet in order to make more room for younger and healthier people.

Pleomorphic bacteria have a "life cycle" and so do we. We ourselves are "pleomorphic" in that we begin life as microscopic beings and grow to produce new life by mixing our genetic material with others. When we die, we hope to continue as "spirit" with eternal life. In his experiments Wilhelm Reich was astonished to discover that it was impossible to destroy the smallest living forms of life.

The inability of modern medicine to recognize the reality and importance of blood bacteria is the great tragedy of modern science.

Hopefully, this communication and the intriguing photo by Tom Detwiler will encourage others to explore the evidence for bacteria in the blood - and the idea that these bacteria are connected with the origin of life itself.

Bacteria: The Ultimate Cause of Cancer?

By Alan Cantwell New Dawn No. 76 (January-February 2003)

As a physician-dermatologist I have studied various aspects of the cancer microbe for over 30 years. In my book, The Cancer Microbe (Aries Rising Press, 1990), I recount a century of research by various scientists who have documented the reality and importance of bacteria associated with cancer. Despite a wealth of information on the microbiology of cancer, this body of work has been largely ignored.

Why would medical science overlook the finding of bacterial elements in cancer, particularly when the treatment of advanced cancer is often abysmal and when the cause (or causes) of many types of cancer remain unknown? If and when the bacterial cause of cancer is widely accepted, it will be left to medical historians to determine why the medical community failed to recognise cancer bacteria. At the present time, it is fair to say that most physicians are either unaware of cancer microbe research, or ignore the published findings, or are openly hostile to this research.

Unfortunately, medical doctors are limited by dogma about cancer-associated bacteria that eliminated a bacterial cause for cancer a century ago. In the late nineteenth century, when the bacterial cause of many infectious diseases was discovered, it was decided that cancer did not act like an infectious or contagious disease, and therefore it was concluded that bacteria were not causative.

Although a few scientists later found highly unusual and pleomorphic bacteria, these bacteria were simply dismissed as “contaminants” – or as microbes that had “secondarily infected” cancerous growths. Furthermore, there was no single or consistent type of microbe found, and animals experimentally infected with cancer microbes did not give develop cancer. Thus, decades before the rise of virology and molecular biology, and at a time when “mycoplasma” forms of bacteria were not known, the medical establishment concluded that bacteria were not involved as a cause of cancer in any way. This conclusion has coloured medical thought about cancer to this day.

Historically, it took centuries for doctors to recognise microbes as the cause of any disease. By the use of lenses, germs were discovered 200 years before physicians finally understood that microbes were capable of causing disease. For two centuries the dogma was that those exceedingly tiny “animacules” could not possibly be a threat to a grown person.

Once something becomes dogma in medical science, it is very difficult to change medical thinking. Ordinarily, infectious bacteria can be easily recognised in disease because they can be seen microscopically in tissue sections from disease states. Sometimes careful “special staining” of tissue sections is necessary to make microbes more visible and more easily identifiable. (In cancerous tissue, the cancer microbe is most easily viewed with an “acid-fast” tissue stain, like the special stain employed to identify the mycobacteria that cause tuberculosis and leprosy).

In this so-called modern era of medical science, one would think it impossible for disease experts to overlook disease-causing bacteria. However, when a new and deadly lung disease broke out among legionnaires in Philadelphia in July 1976, two hundred twenty-two people became ill and thirty-four died. The cause of the lung disease remained a medical mystery for over five months. Bacterial infection was ruled out when all tests were reported as negative. Fortunately, one astute and careful microbiologist finally discovered bacteria. Joe McDade at the Leprosy Branch of the CDC, was able to detect “unusual bacteria” in guinea pigs experimentally infected with lung tissue from the dead legionnaires. Further modification of bacterial culture methods finally allowed the isolation of causative bacteria, now known as Legionella pneumophila.

Yet another modern example of dogma-defying research is provided by recent studies proving that bacteria (Helicobacter pylori) are a common cause of stomach ulcers, which can eventually lead to stomach cancer and lymphoma. When I went to medical school, stomach ulcers were thought to be due to stress, lifestyle, or improper diet, and it was not uncommon to send ulcer patients to psychiatrists for analysis.

For a century, physicians refused to believe that bacteria could cause ulcers because they thought bacteria could not live in the acid environment of the stomach. In 1982 a researcher, who was unable to convince his colleagues that bacteria could cause ulcers and gastritis, actually proved his case by drinking a culture of H. pylori. When he rapidly became ill with stomach symptoms, he admitted himself to the hospital where these bacteria were found to be associated with his gastric disease. It also turned out that these bacteria could indeed be detected in the stomach lining of stomach ulcers, but only when the tissue was stained in a special way to detect the bacteria. The CDC now claims that H. pylori causes more than 90% of duodenal ulcers and 80% of gastric ulcers. Approximately two- thirds of the world’s population is infected with these microbes.

The present experience with ulcer-causing microbes proves that bacteria can indeed pop up in diseases where they are least expected. Such a caveat is appropriate for doctors who think they know everything about cancer and who pooh-pooh all aspects of cancer microbe research.

THE CANCER CONSPIRACY by Alan Cantwell Jr

Why does the medical establishment ignore "cancer microbe" research that could lead to a cure for mankind's most dreaded disease?

A century ago physicians began to realise that diseases like tuberculosis, leprosy, and syphilis were caused by bacteria. At the time, some scientists believed cancer was also caused by microbes. However, although bacteria were cultured from some cancers, no consistent microbe was found. Because cancer did not act like a contagious and infectious disease scientists finally declared that there was no germ in cancer. After the turn of the century, physicians who continued to believe in the existence of a cancer microbe were considered to be of unsound mind.

...

Although viruses are now accepted as a cause of some cancers a small group of physicians and scientists believe cancer is caused by bacteria. No one has done more to popularize the "cancer microbe" theory of cancer than Virginia Livingston-Wheeler. M.D., who died in 1990.

Livingston first discovered bacteria in an auto-immune disease called scleroderma in 1947. Like the bacteria that caused tuberculosis and leprosy, the scleroderma microbes were rod- shaped and stained "acid-fast." Aided by a team of pathologists, dermatologists and microbiologists, Livingston also discovered similar acid-fast bacteria in various forms of cancer.

The bacteria isolated from cancer and scleroderma were most unusual. Depending on their environment in laboratory culture the microbes had a peculiar ability to change size and shape-a biologic characteristic known as pleomorphism. The most common forms resembled round-shaped staphlo coccus bacteria or rod-shaped bacteria. Larger forms of the microbe resembled yeast and fungi. The tiniest forms were virus-like and too small to be seen in an ordinary microscope, but they could be visualized with an electron microscope that magnified the microbes thousands of times.

...

In scientific publications Livingston and her colleagues showed that the cancer microbe could appear as a bacterium, a virus, a fungus or a yeast - but in actuality they were all growth forms of the same germ. The microbe was found in the blood of normal and healthy people. but in the blood of terminal cancer patients the microbes were greatly increased in number.

...

In healthy individuals with normal immune systems, the microbe lived in harmony. However, when the immune system was damaged. the microbe became aggressive.

....

Published in medical journals are my reports and photos of bacteria discovered in various forms of cancer, including breast cancer and lymphoma. Pertinent to AIDS were published papers showing bacteria in AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma (so-called "gay cancer") and in the swollen lymph glands of patients with AIDS-related complex. My book, The Cancer Microbe (1990), contains photos of this hidden killer in cancer, AIDS, and auto-immune disease, and documents a century of cancer microbe research. It includes the life stories and achievements of Livingston and Reich, and other scientists whose brilliant discoveries helped unlock the mystery of cancer by identifying the germ that causes it.

Scientists on the cutting edge of cancer research now consider cancer to be a genetic disease. According to Richard D. Klausner, the new director of the National Cancer Institute, all the body's cells constantly scan themselves for genetic mistakes and damage caused by environmental factors, such as smoking. These cells are supposedly programmed to kill themselves when they find something wrong. Klausner believes that chemotherapy has worked "not because we gave poisonous agents that killed the cancer cells, but because it triggered the cancer cells to commit suicide." Billions of dollars have been spent on the so-called War on Cancer. Yet people who have watched friends and family die of cancer know the treatment of advanced cancer is abysmal. Undoubtedly, the recognition of microscopic cancer bacteria at this late date would be an embarrassment to the medical profession. And expensive and questionable cancer therapies, such as radiation and chemotherapy, would have to be re-evaluated in terms of their effect on cancer microbe activity. However, ignoring cancer microbe research does the patient a great disservice because better treatment and a possible cure might result from the recognition of bacteria as causative agents in this disease.

While patiently waiting "for cancer cells to commit suicide", It would seem prudent for physicians and other health providers to become acquainted with cancer microbe research.

Hypothesis: The Microbiology of Cancer and its Potential Implications for Early Intervention

DISCLAIMER: The following hypothesis does not solely represent our opinion, nor does it represent any treatment recommendation, implied or otherwise on the part of the Cancer Bacteria Homepage or its author, Ron Falcone. The following hypothesis and the ideas presented herein represent a composite, based on our conversations and interviews with health care practitioners, scientists, and commentators involved in cancer bacteria research. In this regard, we seek to present a synthesis of general themes and ideas as culled from many published articles, historical documents and medical/scientific archives spanning a century. In effect, we at the Cancer Bacteria Homepage are trying to provide readers, and the general public, with a synthesis of what we have learned about cancer bacteria during our many years of researching the subject.

The following hypothesis and any potential therapies discussed have not been endorsed by mainstream cancer agencies, and are not being included here as recommendations or suggestions. It must be emphasized that any adjuvant, standard, or hypothetical therapies discussed herein are only mentioned for the sake of discussion, and as material for further research. They are not meant to serve as the basis for an actual treatment program. The therapeutic benefits of any therapies discussed herein is open to intelligent debate, discussion and clinical trial evaluation.

Ron Falcone and The Cancer Bacteria Homepage are not in any way responsible for the choice of therapies adopted by any patient, physician or health-practitioner whatever similarities might be construed based on information provided in this website.

Introduction

The century's old debate as to whether bacteria are simply opportunistic infections "after the fact" or whether they can initiate cancer has been a contentious one. As early as the 1920's, Thomas Glover isolated a bacterium which he named "Glover's organism". Two decades later, Virginia Livingston believed that a single, ubiquitous pathogen she identified as a Mycobacterium (and which she named Progenitor cryptocides) was the primary cause of most human cancer. A handful of others also claimed discovery of a cancer- causing organism which appeared cameleon like, and seemed to defy one, universal taxonomy. From a mainstream standpoint, scientists disagreed with Glover and his later contemporaries, instead arguing that cancer-related pathogens were simply opportunists, contaminating diseased tissues after the fact. But in the 1990's, Shy Chung Lo of the Armed Services Institute of Pathology cultured Mycoplasma fermentans from cancer, injected the organism into animals, and was then able to induce cancer; in effect, Lo had established Koch's Postulates, proving that bacteria were indeed able to directly cause cancer [1].

Other investigators corroborated Lo's Mycoplasma research. For example, Chan reported the prevalence of mycoplasmal DNA in ovarian cancer[2]; Schmidhauser demonstrated that the p37 gene associated with mouse sarcoma originates from Mycoplasma and that a proportionate increase in malignant invasiveness was related to such exposure[3]; Ushio found that Mycoplasma-infected cells have a higher ability to metastasize in vivo than non-infected cells[4]; and Bogoch demonstrated that Mycoplasma secrete a similar polysaccharide used by cancer antigens to avoid immune- system recognition.

Although mainstream scientists generally disregarded the notion of a "cancer germ"---even as late as the 1990's---conclusive evidence now linking H.pylori with stomach cancer has rendered this position obsolete. In addition, science now appears to be moving toward a greater acceptance of multiple species of cancer bacteria implicated in different forms of cancer. For example, Salmonella typhi, Streptococcus bovis and Chlamydia penumoniae[5] are being associated with gallbladder, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively. And a percursory review of the scientific literature clearly has shown an exponential increase in cancer bacteria-based findings, beginning in the early 1990's and continuing through to the present.

As the evidence continues to accumulate, the long held paradigm of microbiology that consigns a specific bacterium to a specific infectious disease may not correlate with the multiple species of bacteria now being associated with cancer.

REFERENCES

1. Tsai S, Wear DJ, Shih JW, Lo SC. "Mycoplasmas and oncogenesis: persistent infection and multistage malignant transformation." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 92(22):10197-201 1995.

2. Chan PJ et al. "Prevalence of mycoplasma conserved DNA in malignant ovarian cancer detected using sensitive PCR-ELISA." Gynecol Oncol, 1996 Nov, vol. 63, pp.258-260.

3. Dudler R, Schmidhauser C. "A mycoplasmal protein influences tumour cell invasiveness and contact inhibition in vitro." J Cell Sci 1990 Mar;95 ( Pt 3):499-506.

4. Ushio S, Iwaki K, et al. "Metastasis-promoting activity of a novel molecule, Ag 243-5, derived from mycoplasma, and the complete nucleotide sequence." Microbiol Immunol 1995;39(6):393-400.

5. Mager DL "Bacteria and cancer: cause, coincidence or cure? A review". (2006). J Transl Med 4: 14.

Rowan Hooper, writing in Wired News about new research at Imperial College London, notes:

"Most of the cells in your body are not your own, nor are they even human. They are bacterial. From the invisible strands of fungi waiting to sprout between our toes, to the kilogram of bacterial matter in our guts, we are best viewed as walking 'superorganisms,' highly complex conglomerations of human cells, bacteria, fungi and viruses.

More than 500 different species of bacteria exist in our bodies, making up more than 100 trillion cells. Because our bodies are made of only some several trillion human cells, we are somewhat outnumbered by the aliens. It follows that most of the genes in our bodies are from bacteria, too. Luckily for us, the bacteria are on the whole commensal, sharing our food but doing no real harm." There is also recent evidence that bacteria and human cells constantly "swap genes", much like the AIDS retrovirus swaps its genetic material with human cells.

Despite all that has been published on the cancer microbe, I am aware of microbiologists and pathologists and cancer experts who demand "proof" that these tiny round microscopic forms are indeed bacteria and infectious agents.

But these forms can be seen in the earliest phases of cancer, and when the cancer appears in new areas and, most importantly, can be seen abundantly at autopsy.

Nevertheless, most doctors are adamant in their belief that bacteria are not involved in the cause of cancer.

(Yet, amazingly, most believe in viruses, even though most doctors have never seen one.)

I contend that after attending medical school physicians should be able to recognize bacteria when they see them. Surely these "forms" reported for a century should be recognized and deserve careful study. The disinterest of the medical and microbiologic community in investigating bacteria in HD and other forms cancer is not in the tradition of good science.

The microbiology of cancer and the Internet

The bacterial cause of cancer has a rich history dating back to the nineteenth century. Anyone interested in the bacterial cause of cancer can now easily research it on the computer. An Internet search, using key words such as: cancer microbe, cancer bacteria, pleomorphism, and nanobacteria + cancer, provides a good introduction to the microbiology of cancer. In addition, I suggest Googling cancer research workers, such as Virginia Livingston, Erik Enby, Guenther Enderlein, Alan Cantwell, Lida Mattman, Wilhelm Reich + T Bacilli, Raymond Royal Rife, and others.

There is no longer any excuse to be ignorant of research pointing to bacteria as a possible cause of cancer, particularly when evidence of such bacteria resides in the medical literature.

Previously, the contents of medical journals were closed to the public because most people were not granted access to, medical libraries.

Now all that has changed. By use of the PubMed website, published medical literature is now easily available to everyone via the click of a mouse.

Now ladies and gentlemen, the main point I would like you to carry forward from this part on cancer (Ignoring the trivial fact that this guy was curing cancer of course) is this:

1. It can become a fungus.

The reason for that will become very apparent to you in our next part.

Chapter on Forty One - Part Three - the cures!

Cancer affects practically all of us, nobody in the developed world has a family that has not been touched by this most terminal of conditions, it is for that reason that you had better pay particular attention to what follows.

Be aware first and foremost, the man you are about to read about is an ONCOLOGIST (a professional doctor of cancer!) Not some fruitcake with some snake-oil to sell you.

The cure he has costs nothing, uses the most simple and rudimentary (AND THEREFORE UNPATENTABLE) of substances – baking soda, sodium bicarbonate.

Yet it CURES CANCER WHEN ADMINISTERED DIRECTLY INTO ANY TUMOUR, OR INDEED ORGAN INFECTED, IT IS EVEN SIMPLER FOR BLOOD CANCER, AS YOU JUST INJECT A SOLUTION OF THIS 100% HARMLESS SUBSTANCE INTO YOUR BLOODSTREAM, WHICH A G.P. CAN DO!

THINK ABOUT IT, WHY WOULD AN EXPERT IN THE SUBJECT WHO IS GOING TO MAKE NO MONEY FROM THIS, WHY WOULD HE BE SAYING THIS WORKED IF IT DIDN´T, I have seen a very rare video of him on a US SHOW, HE SEEMS A GENUINE CARING THOUGHTFUL AND GOOD NATURED MAN, WHY WOULD HE RISK HIS CAREER, HIS LIVELIHOOD AND MOST IMPORTANTLY PEOPLE´S LIVES, IF WHAT HE KNEW WAS FALSE?

YET FOR SOME REASON NO-ONE IN PRESS LAND SEEMS TO BE LISTENING TO HIM, THE INTERVIEWER ON THE US SHOW EVEN REMARKED ON THIS FACT BY SAYING I EXPECTED ONE OF THE BIG GUYS TO PICK THIS STORY UP, THIS VIDEO IS A FEW YEARS OLD NOW, WHY IS THIS STORY BEING IGNORED??????????????????????????????????????????????

Based in Rome, Italy, Dr Tullio Simoncini is a medical doctor and surgeon specialising in oncology, diabetology and metabolic disorders. He is also a Doctor of Philosophy. An humanitarian, he is opposed to any kind of intellectual conformity, which he sees as often based on suppositions without foundation or, worse, on lies and falsehoods. Dr Simoncini regularly attends medical conferences and does interviews to explain what's wrong with conventional cancer theories and treatments, to present his fungal theory of cancer and to describe case studies involving patients healed with sodium bicarbonate, a powerful antifungal. His book, Cancer is a Fungus: A revolution in the therapy of tumours (Edizioni Lampis), is available in Italian, Dutch and English from the website http://www.cancerfungus.com/.

Is the Cause of Cancer a Common Fungus? http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/CancerIsAFungus.html

Is the Cause of Cancer a Common Fungus?

According to this hypothesis based on years of scientific and clinical research, the cause of cancer is infection by a common fungus, Candida Albicans. The good news is that it can be treated with a powerful antifungal agent that can't be patented.

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 14, Number 5 (August - September 2007) PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. [email protected] Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381 From our web page at: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/ by Dr Tullio Simoncini ©2007 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.cancerfungus.com/

My idea is that cancer doesn't depend on mysterious causes (genetic, immunological or auto-immunological, as the official oncology proposes), but it results from a simple fungal infection whose destroying power in the deep tissues is actually underestimated.

The present work is based on the conviction, supported by many years of observations, comparisons and experiences, that the necessary and sufficient cause of the tumour is to be sought in the vast world of the fungi, the most adaptable, aggressive and evolved micro- organisms known in nature.

I have tried many times to explain this theory to leading institutions involved in cancer issues (the Ministry of Health, the Italian Medical Oncological Association, etc.), elaborating on my thinking, but I have been brushed aside because of the impossibility of setting my idea in a conventional context. A different, international audience represents the possibility of sharing a view about health which differs from what is widely accepted by today's medical community, either officially or from the sidelines.

There is an opposition between the allopathic and the Hippocratic medical ideal. The position that I promote represents instead a meeting point of these two conceptions of health, since from the conceptual point of view it sublimates and adds value to both, while highlighting how they both are victims of a common conformist language.

The hypothesis of a fungal aetiology in chronic-degenerative illness, able to connect the ethical qualities of the individual with the development of specific pathologies, reconciles the two orientations (allopathic and holistic) of medicine. The hypothesis is a strong candidate for being that missing element of psychosomatics that was sought but never found by one of the fathers of psychosomatics, Viktor von Weiszacker.

In considering the biological dimensions of the fungi, for instance, it is possible to compare the different degrees of pathogenicity in relation to the condition of organs, tissues and cells of a guest organism, which in turn also and especially depend on the behaviour of the individual.

Each time the recuperative abilities of a known psycho-physical structure are exceeded, there is an inevitable exposure, even considering possible accidental co-founders, to the aggression--even at the smallest dimensions--of those external agents that otherwise would be harmless. In the presence of an indubitable connection between patient morale and disease, it is no longer legitimate to separate the two domains (allopathic and naturopathic) which are both indispensable for improving the health of individuals.

Flaws in mainstream theories on cancer causation

When facing the most pressing contemporary medical problem, cancer, the first thing to do is to admit that we still do not know its real cause. However treated in different ways by both official and alternative medicine, cancer has an aura of mystery that still exists around its real generative process.

The attempt to overcome the present impasse must therefore and necessarily go through two separate phases: a critical one that exposes the present limitations of oncology, and a constructive one capable of proposing a therapeutic system based on a new theoretical point of departure. In agreement with the most recent formulation of scientific philosophy, which suggests a counter-inductive approach where it is impossible to find a solution with the conceptual tools that are commonly accepted,1 only one logical formulation emerges: to refuse the oncological principle which assumes that cancer is generated by a cellular reproductive anomaly. However, if the fundamental hypothesis of cellular reproductive anomaly is questioned, it becomes clear that all the theories based on this hypothesis are inevitably flawed.

It follows that both an auto-immunological process, in which the body's defence mechanisms against external agents turn their destructive capacity against internal constituents of the body, and an anomaly of the genetic structure implicated in the development of auto- destruction are inevitably disqualified.

Moreover, the common attempt to construct theories about multiple causes that have an oncogenic effect on cellular reproduction sometimes seems like a concealing screen, behind which there is nothing but a wall. These theories propose endless causes that are more or less associated with each other; and this means in reality that no valid causes are found. The invocation in turn of smoking, alcohol, toxic substances, diet, stress, psychological factors, etc., without a properly defined context, causes confusion and resignation, and creates even more mystification around a disease which may turn out to be simpler than it is depicted to be.

As background information, it is important to review the picture of presumed genetic influences in the development of cancer processes as they are depicted by molecular biologists. These are the scientists who perform research on infinitesimally small cellular mechanisms, but who in real life never see a patient. All present medical systems are based on this research, and thus, unfortunately, all therapies currently performed.

The main hypothesis of a genetic neoplastic causality is essentially reduced to the fact that the structures and the mechanism in charge of normal reproductive cellular activity become, for undefined reasons, capable of an autonomous behaviour that is disjointed from the overall tissular economy. The genes that normally have a positive role in cellular reproduction are, then, imprecisely referred to as "proto-oncogenes"; those that inhibit cellular reproduction are called "suppressor genes" or "recessive oncogenes". Both endogenous (never demonstrated) and exogenous cellular factors--that is, those carcinogenic elements that are usually invoked--are held responsible for the neoplastic degeneration of the tissues...

From a very superficial analysis of the presumed oncological picture, however, it seems to be clear how the assertion of all this unstoppable genetic hyperactivity can do nothing more that unveil the abysmal stupidity that is at the basis of this way of conceiving things.

All those who work in the field do nothing but repeat the stale litany of reproductive cellular anomalies on a genetic basis. It is better to look for new horizons and conceptual instruments that are capable of unearthing a real and unique neoplastic aetiology.

Back to taxonomy

In order to find the possible carcinogenic ens morbi on the horizon of microbiology, it appears useful to return to the basic taxonomical concepts of biology where we can see, incidentally, the existence of a noticeable amount of indecision and indetermination. Already in the last century, a German biologist, Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), departing from the Linnaeian concept that makes for two great kingdoms of living things (vegetable and animal), denounced the difficulties of categorising all those microscopic organisms which, because of their characteristics and properties, could not be attributed to either the vegetable or the animal kingdom. For these organisms, he proposed a third kingdom, Protista (protists).

"This vast and complex world includes a range of entities beginning with those that have sub-cellular structure--existing at the limits of life--such as viroids and viruses, moving through the mycoplasms to, finally, organisms of greater organisation: bacteria, Actinomycetes, Myxomycetes, fungi, protozoa and perhaps even some microscopic algae."2 The common element of these organisms is the feeding system, which, being implemented (with very few exceptions) by direct absorption of soluble organic compounds, differentiates them both from animals and vegetables. Animals also feed as above, but especially by ingesting solid organic materials that are then transformed through the digestive process. Vegetables, by utilising mineral compounds and light energy, are capable of feeding by synthesising the organic substances.

The contemporary tendency of biologists is once again to pick up, though in a more sophisticated way, the concept of the third kingdom. One goes even further, however, arguing that within that kingdom, fungi must be classified in a distinct category. O. Verona3 says that if we put multicellular organisms provided with photosynthetic capabilities (plants) in the first kingdom and the organisms not provided with photosynthetic pigmentation (animals) in the second kingdom--and organisms from both these kingdoms are made of cells provided with a distinct nucleus (eukaryotes)--and, furthermore, if we put in another kingdom (protists), those monocellular organisms that have no chlorophyll and have cells that are without a distinct nucleus (prokaryotes), the fungi can well have their own kingdom because of the absence of photosynthetic pigmentation, the ability to be monocellular and multicellular, and, finally, their possession of a distinct nucleus.

Additionally, fungi possess a property that is strange when compared to all other micro- organisms: the ability to have a basic microscopic structure (hypha) with a simultaneous tendency to grow to remarkable dimensions (up to several kilograms), keeping unchanged the capacity to adapt and reproduce at any size.

From this point of view, therefore, fungi cannot be considered true organisms, but cellular aggregates sui generis with an organismic behaviour, since each cell maintains its survival and reproductive potential intact regardless of the structure in which it exists. It is therefore clear how difficult it is to identify all the biological processes in such complex living realities. In fact, even today, there are huge voids and taxonomical approximations in mycology.

Fungi characteristics

It is worthwhile to examine more deeply this strange world, with such peculiar characteristics, and try to highlight those elements that somehow may be pertinent to the problems of oncology.

1) Fungi are heterotrophic organisms and therefore need, as far as nitrogen and carbon are concerned, pre-formed compounds. Of these compounds, simple carbohydrates, for example monosaccharides (glucose, fructose and mannose), are among the most utilised sugars. This means that fungi, during their life cycle, depend on other living beings which must be exploited in different degrees for their feeding. This occurs both in a saprophytic way (that is, by feeding on organic waste) and in a parasitic way (that is, by attacking the tissue of the host directly).

2) Fungi show a great variety of reproductive manifestations (sexual, asexual, gemmation; these manifestations can often be observed simultaneously in the same mycete), combined with a great morphostructural variety of organs. All of this is directed toward the end of spore formation, to which the continuity and propagation of the species is entrusted.

3) In mycology, it is often possible to observe a particular phenomenon called heterokaryon, characterised by the coexistence of normal and mutant nuclei in cells that have undergone a hyphal fusion. Nowadays, phytopathologists are quite worried about the creation of individuals that are genetically quite different even from the parents. This difference has taken place by means of those reproductive cycles, which are called parasexual. The indiscriminate use of phytopharmaceuticals has in fact often determined mutations of the nuclei of many parasitic fungi with the consequent creation of heterokaryon--and this is sometimes particularly virulent in its pathogenicity.4

4) In the parasitic dimension, fungi can develop from the hyphas more or less beak-shaped, specialised structures that allow the penetration of the host.

5) The production of spores can be so abundant as to include always, at every cycle, tens, hundreds and even thousands of millions of elements that can be dispersed at a remarkable distance from the point of origin5 (a small movement is sufficient, for example, to implement immediate diffusion).

6) Spores have an immense resistance to external aggression, for they are capable of staying dormant in adverse conditions for many years while preserving unaltered their regenerative potentialities.

7) The development coefficient of the hyphal apexes after the germination is extremely fast (100 microns per minute under ideal conditions) with ramification capacity, thus with the appearance of a new apex region that in some cases is in the neighbourhood of 40-60 seconds.6

8) The shape of the fungus is never defined, for it is imposed by the environment in which the fungus develops. It is possible to observe, for example, the same mycelium in the simple isolated hyphas status in a liquid environment or in the form of aggregates that are increasingly solid and compact, up to the formation of pseudoparenchymas and of filaments and mycelial strings.7

9) By the same token, it is possible to observe in different fungi the same shape whenever they must adapt to the same environment (this is called dimorphism). The partial or total substitution of nourishing substances induces frequent mutations in fungi, and this is further proof of their high adaptability to any substrata.

10) When the nutritional conditions are precarious, many fungi react with hyphal fusion (among nearby fungi) which allows them to explore the available material more easily, using more complete physiological processes. This property, which substitutes co-operation for competition, makes them distinct from any other micro-organism, and for this reason Buller calls them social organisms.8

11) When a cell gets old or becomes damaged (e.g., by a toxic substance or by a pharmaceutical), many fungi whose intercellular septums are provided with a pore react by implementing a defence process called protoplasmic flux, through which they transfer the nucleus and cytoplasm of the damaged cell into a healthy one, thus conserving unaltered all their biological potential.

12) The phenomena regulating the development of hyphal ramification are unknown to date.9 They consist of either a rhythmic development or in the appearance of sectors which, though they originate from the hyphal system, are self-regulating,10 that is, independent of the regulating action and behaviour of the rest of the colony.

13) Fungi are capable of implementing an infinite number of modifications to their own metabolism in order to overcome the defence mechanism of the host. These modifications are implemented through plasmatic and biochemical actions as well as by a volumetric increase (hypertrophy) and numerical hyperplasy of the cells that have been attacked.11

14) Fungi are so aggressive as to attack not only plants, animal tissue, food supplies and other fungi, but even protozoa, amoebas and nematodes.

Fungi hunt nematodes, for example, with peculiar hyphal modifications that constitute real mycelial criss-cross, viscose or ring traps that immobilise the worms.

In some cases, the aggressive power of the fungus is so great as to allow it--with only a cellular ring made up of three unit--to tighten its grip, capture and kill its prey within a short time, notwithstanding the desperate struggling of the prey.

From the short notations above, it therefore seems fair to dedicate greater attention to the world of fungi, especially considering the fact that biologists and microbiologists constantly highlight large deficiencies and voids in all their descriptions and interpretations of fungi's shapes, physiologies and reproductions.

So the fungus, which is the most powerful and the most organised micro-organism known, seems to be an extremely logical candidate as a cause of neoplastic proliferation. Imperfect fungi (so called because of the lack of knowledge and understanding of their biological processes) deserve particular attention, since their essential prerogative sits in their fermentative capacity.

The greatest disease of mankind may therefore hide within a small cluster of pathogenic fungi, and may after all be located with just some simple deductions able to close the circle and provide the solution.

Candida albicans: a necessary and sufficient cause of cancer

Considering that among the human parasite species the Dermatophytes and Sporotrichum demonstrate an excessively specific morbidity, and that experience shows that Actinomycetes, Toluropsis and Histoplasma rarely enter the context of pathology, the Candida albicans fungus clearly emerges as the sole candidate for tumour proliferation. If we stop for a second and reflect on its characteristics, we can observe many analogies with neoplastic disease. The most evident are:

1) ubiquitous attachment--no organ or tissue is spared; 2) the constant absence of hyperpyrexia; 3) sporadic and indirect involvement of the differential tissues; 4) invasiveness that is almost exclusively of the focal type; 5) progressive debilitation; 6) refractivity to any type of treatment; 7) proliferation facilitated by multiplicity of indifferent co-founders; 8) Symptomatological basic configuration with structure tending to the chronic.

Therefore, an exceptionally high and diversified pathogenic potentiality exists in this mycete of just a few microns in size, which, even though it cannot be traced with the present experimental instruments, cannot be neglected from the clinical point of view.

Certainly, its present nosological classification cannot be satisfactory because, if we do not keep the possibly endless parasitic configurations in mind, that classification is too simplistic and constraining. We therefore have to hypothesise that Candida, in the moment it is attacked by the immunological system of the host or by a conventional antimycotic treatment, does not react in the usual, predicted way but defends itself by transforming itself into ever-smaller and non-differentiated elements that maintain their fecundity intact to the point of hiding their presence both to the host organism and to possible diagnostic investigations.

Candida's behaviour may be considered to be almost elastic. When favourable conditions exist, Candida thrives on an epithelium; as soon as the tissue reaction is engaged, it massively transforms itself into a form that is less productive but impervious to attack: the spore. If, then, continuous subepithelial solutions take place, coupled with a greater activity in that very moment, the spore gets deeper into the lower connective tissue in such an impervious state that colonisation is irreversible.

In fact, Candida takes advantage of a structural interchangeability, utilising it according to the difficulties, e.g., in feeding, to overcome its biological niche. In this way, Candida is free to expand to maturation in the soil, air, water, vegetation, etc.--that is, wherever there is no antibody reaction. In the epithelium, instead, it takes a mixed form, which is reduced to the sole spore component when it penetrates the lower epithelial levels, where it tends to expand again in the presence of conditions of tissular activity.

The initial mandatory step of an in-depth research endeavour would be to understand if and in which dimensions the spore transcends, what mechanisms it engages to hide itself or, again, to preserve its parasitic characteristic, or if it has available a neutral quiescent position which is difficult or even impossible to detect by the immunological system.

Unfortunately, today we do not have the appropriate means, either theoretical or technical, to answer these and similar questions, so the only valid suggestions can come solely from clinical observation and experience. While not providing immediate solutions, these sources can at least stimulate further questions.

Assuming that Candida albicans is the agent responsible for tumour development, a targeted therapy would take into account not just its static and macroscopic manifestations but even the ultramicroscopic ones, especially in their dynamic valency, that is, the reproductive. It is very probable that the targets to attack are the fungi's dimensional transition points in order to perform a decontamination with such a scope as to include the whole spectrum of the biological expression--parasitic, vegetative, sporal and even ultradimensional and, to the limit, viral.

If we stop at the most evident phenomena, we risk administering salves and unguents forever (in the case of dermatomycosis or in psoriasis), or clumsily attacking (with surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy) enigmatic tumoural masses with the sole result of facilitating their propagation, which is already heightened in the mycelial forms.

Why, one may ask, should we assume a different and heightened activity of Candida albicans, since it has been abundantly described in its pathological manifestations? The answer lies in the fact that it has been studied only in a pathogenic context, that is, only in relation to the epithelial tissues.

In reality, Candida possesses an aggressive valency that is diversified in function in the target tissue. It is just in the connective or in the connective environment, in fact, and not in the differentiated tissues, that Candida may find conditions favourable to an unlimited expansion. This emerges if we stop and reflect for a moment on the main function of connective tissue, which is to convey and supply nourishing substances to the cells of the whole organism. This is to be considered as an environment external to the more differentiated cells such as nervous, muscular, etc. It is in this context, in fact, that the alimentary competition takes place. On the one hand, we have the organism's cellular elements trying to defeat all forms of invasion; on the other hand, we have fungal cells trying to absorb ever-growing quantities of nourishing substances, for they have to obey the species' biological imperative to form ever larger and diffused masses and colonies.

From the combination of various factors pertinent to both the host and the aggressor, it is possible to hypothesise the evolution of a candidosis.

First stage: Integer epitheliums, absence of the debilitating factors. Candida can only exist as a saprophyte.

Second stage: Non-integer epitheliums (erosions, abrasions, etc.), absence of stage debilitating factors, unusual transitory conditions (acidosis, metabolic disorder, and microbial disorder). Candida expands superficially (classic mycosis, both exogenous and endogenous).

Third stage: Non-integer epitheliums, presence of debilitating factors (toxic, stage radiant, traumatic, neuropsychic, etc.). Candida goes deeper into the subepithelial levels, from which it can be carried to the whole organism through the blood and lymph (intimate mycosis).12

Stages one and two are the most studied and understood, while stage three, though it has been described in its morphological diversity, is reduced to a silent form of saprophytism. This is not acceptable from a logical point of view, because no one can demonstrate the harmlessness of the fungal cells in the deepest parts of the organism.

In fact, the assumption that Candida can behave in the same saprophytic manner that is observed on integer epitheliums when it has successfully penetrated the lower levels is at least risky, because the assumption would have to be sustained by concepts that are totally aleatory (i.e., dependent on chance).

In fact, we are asked not only to accept a priori that the connective environment is (a) not suitable to nourish the Candida, but also at the same time to accept (b) the omnipotence of the body's defence system towards an organic structure that is invasive but that then becomes vulnerable once lodged in the deeper tissues.

As for point (a), it is difficult to imagine that a micro-organism so able to adapt itself to any substrata cannot find elements to support itself in the human organic substance; by the same token, it seems risky to hypothesise that the human organism's defence system is totally efficient at every moment of its existence.

As for point (b), the assumption that there is a tendency to a state of quiescence and vulnerability in the case of a pathogenic agent such as fungus--the most invasive and aggressive micro-organism existing in nature--seems to carry a whiff of the irresponsible. It is therefore urgent, on the basis of the abovementioned considerations, to recognise the hazardous nature of such a pathogenic agent which is capable of easily taking the most various biological configurations, both biochemical and structural, regardless of the conditions of the host organism.

The fungal expansion gradient in fact becomes steeper as the tissue that is the host of the mycotic invasion becomes less eutrophic and thus less reactive.

Benign tumours To that end, it seems useful to consider briefly the "benign tumour" nosological entity. This is an issue that always appears in general pathology but is brushed aside most of the time too easily, and it is overlooked because it usually doesn't create either problems or worries. It constitutes one of those underestimated grey areas seldom subjected to rational, fresh consideration.

If the benign tumour, however, is not considered a fully fledged tumour, it would be advantageous, for clarity, to categorise it in an appropriate nosological scheme.

If it is thought that, instead, it fully belongs to neoplastic pathology, then it is necessary to consider its non-invasive character and consequently to consider the reasons for this.

It is in fact evident how in this second scenario, the thesis based on a presumed predisposition of the organism to auto-phagocytosis, having to admit an expressive graduation, would stumble into such additional difficulties such as to become extremely improbable.

By contrast, in the fungal scenario, the mystery of why there are benign and malignant tumours is exhaustively solved, since they can be recognised as having the same aetiological genesis.

The benignity or malignancy of a cancer in fact depends on the capability of tissular reaction of a specific organ expressing itself ultimately in the ability to encyst fungal cells and to prevent them from developing in ever-larger colonies. This can be achieved more easily where the ratio between differentiated cells and connective tissue is in favour of the former.

Situated between the impervious noble tissues, then, and the defenceless connective tissues, the differentiated connective structures (the glandular structures in particular) represent that medium term which is only somewhat vulnerable to attack because of an ability to offer a certain type of defence.

And it is in these conditions that benign tumours are formed; that is, where the glandular connective tissue is successful in forming hypertrophic and hyperplastic cellular embankments against the parasites. In the stomach and in the lung, instead, since there are no specific glandular units, the target organ, provided with a small defensive capability, is at the mercy of the invader.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning how several types of intimate fungal invasion do not determine the appearance of malignant or benign tumours but a type of particular benign tumour (specific degenerative alterations), as is the case with some organs or apparatuses that do not have peculiar glandular structures but nevertheless are attacked in their connective tissue, although in a limited way.

In fact, if we consider multiple sclerosis, SLA, psoriasis, nodular panarthritis, etc., the possible development of the fungus in a three-dimensional sense is actually limited by the anatomic configuration of the invaded tissues, so that only a longitudinal expansion is allowed.

Going back to the precondition of are activity that is necessary for neoplastic development in a specific individual, it is permissible to affirm how in the human body each external or internal element that determines a reduction of well-being in an organism, organ or tissue possesses oncogenic potentiality. This is not so much because of an intrinsic damaging capability as much as a generic property of favouring the fungal (that is, tumoural) flourishing. Then the causal network so much invoked in contemporary oncology, which involves toxic, genetic, immunological, psychological, geographical, moral, social and other factors, finds a correct classification only in a mycotic infectious perspective where the arithmetical and diachronic summation of harmful elements works as a co-factor to the external aggression.

Conventional treatments vs. antifungal therapy

With the theoretical basis of the tumour/fungus equivalency demonstrated, it is clear how this interpretative key offers a long series of questions concerning contemporary therapies, both oncological (used without reference indexes) and antimycotic (utilised only at a superficial level).

Which path is best to walk today, then, when faced with a cancer patient, since the conventional oncological treatment, not being aetiological, can only occasionally have positive effects and most of the time produces damage?

In the fungal perspective, in fact, the effectiveness of surgery is noticeably reduced because of the extreme diffusibility and invasiveness characteristic of a mycelial conglomerate.

Surgery to solve the problem is therefore tied to the case; that is, to conditions in which one has the luck to be able to remove the entire colony completely (which is often possible in the presence of a sufficient encystment, but only where benign tumours are concerned). Chemotherapy and radiotherapy produce almost exclusively negative effects, both for their specific ineffectiveness and for their high toxicity and harmfulness to the tissues, which in the last analysis favours mycotic aggressiveness.

By contrast, an antifungal, antitumour-specific therapy would take into account the importance of the connective tissue together with the reproductive complexity of fungi. Only by attacking the fungi across the spectrum of all its forms, at points where it is most vulnerable from the nutritional point of view, would it be possible to hope to eradicate them from the human organism.

The first step to take, therefore, would be to reinforce the cancer patient with generic reconstituent measures (nutrition, tonics, regulation of rhythms and vital functions) that are able to enhance the general defences of the organism.

Concerning the possibility of having available pharmaceutical cures, which unfortunately do not exist today, it seems useful, in the attempt to find an antifungal substance that is quite diffusible and therefore effective, to consider the extreme sensitivity of Candida towards sodium bicarbonate (i.e., in the oral candidosis of breastfed babies). This is consistent with the fact that Candida has an accentuated ability to reproduce in an acid environment. Theoretically, therefore, if treatments could be found that put the fungus in direct contact with high sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) concentrations, we should be able to see a regression of the tumoural masses.

And this is what happens in many types of tumour, such as colon and liver--and especially stomach and lung, the former susceptible to regression just because of its "external" anatomic position, and the latter because of the high diffusibility of sodium bicarbonate in the bronchial system and for its high responsiveness to general reconstituent measures. By applying a similar therapeutic approach, it has been possible in many patients to achieve complete remission of the symptomatology and normalisation of the instrumental data. It is important to emphasise that these cases are just an example of what could be a new way of perceiving the complexity of medical problems, especially in oncology. [Reports of seven cases of patients, several of whom have been documented for 10 years following sodium bicarbonate treatment, are summarised in the complete article at the web page http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/simoncini-writes.html; Editor]

Critical considerations

It seems appropriate to analyse, in a critical and self-critical spirit, what may emerge in neoplastic pathology that is new and concrete. If we closely observe the proposed therapeutic approach, it is possible to see that, independently of its real effectiveness, it has value as an innovative theory. First, it challenges the present methodology and especially its assumptions. Second, it offers a concrete alternative proposal to a mountain of conjectures and postures that sound authoritative but are too generic and therefore ineffective. The identification of one tumoural cause, even with all the possible general provisos, would represent a step forward that is indispensable for escaping that passivity determined by a lack of results, and which is responsible for medical behaviours that are based too much on faith and not enough on real confidence.

Given, therefore, that an unconventional medical approach can benefit some patients better from any point of view than the official treatments, and since valuable results can be demonstrated, this should stimulate us to pursue further research while avoiding patronising postures that are both limiting and non-productive.

We can therefore discuss whether or not sodium bicarbonate is the real reason for the recoveries or if, instead, those recoveries are due to the interaction of a number of conditions that have been created, the results of unidentified neuropsychic factors, or maybe the results of something totally unknown. What is beyond question, however, is the fact that a certain number of people, by not following conventional methods, have been able to go back to normality without suffering and without mutilation.

The message of this experience is therefore a call to search for those solutions that are in accord with the simple Hippocratic obligation to man's "well-being"; that is, we must be stimulated to a critical evaluation of our contemporary oncological therapies which indubitably can guarantee suffering. When we group together both malignant tumours that are occasionally or never healed (such as lung and stomach) and tumours that border with benignity (such as the majority of thyroid and prostatic tumours, etc.) or put them together with those that have an autonomous positive outcome notwithstanding chemotherapy (i.e., infantile leukaemia)-all of this appears to be devious and misleading, having only the purpose of forging a consensus that would otherwise be impossible to obtain with intellectually ethical behaviour.

The fact that modern medicine not only cannot offer sufficient interpretative criteria but even uses dangerous methodologies that are also harmful and meaningless-even if carried out with good faith is something which must push us all to search for humane and logical alternatives. At the same time, it is necessary to carefully, open-mindedly and logically consider any theory or point of view that is dared to be advanced in the battle against that monstrous and inhuman yoke that is the tumour.

To this end, a note of acknowledgement is to go to all those who are aware of the harmfulness of conventional therapeutic methods and constantly try to find alternative solutions. People like Di Bella, Govallo and others, although guilty of utilising the same inauspicious principles of official medicine (thus showing an excessively conformist mindset), are actually using common sense by trying to relieve the suffering of cancer patients through the use of painless methodologies, and in some cases are able to achieve remissions, even though they're in the dark about the real causes of cancer. In an alternative perspective, then, it would be necessary to conceive a new approach to experimentation in the oncological field, setting epidemiological, aetiological, pathogenic, clinical and therapeutic research in line with a renewed microbiology and mycology that would probably drive us to the conclusion already illustrated: that is, the tumour is a fungus Candida albicans.

The possible discovery that not only tumours but also the majority of chronic degenerative disease could be reconciled to mycotic causality would represent a qualitative quantum leap, which, by revolutionising medical thinking, could greatly improve life expectancy and quality of life. Such reconciliation might include a wider spectrum of fungal parasites (for example, in diseases of the connective tissues, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, some epileptic forms, diabetes type 2, etc.).

In closing, considering that the world of fungi-those most complex and aggressive micro- organisms-has been bypassed and left unobserved for far too long, the hope of this work is to promote awareness of the hazards of these micro-organisms so that medical resources can be channelled not up blind alleys but towards the real enemies of the human organism: external infectious agents.

Addendum: A Note on Cancer Treatment

The implications from my hypothesis that cancer is a fungus which can be eradicated with sodium bicarbonate are that:

1) eighty years of genetic study and application has been for nothing, especially considering that the genetic theory of cancer has never been demonstrated;

2) the loss of millions, if not billions, of lives with all the suffering has been for nothing;

3) the billions of dollars spent on chemotherapy medicine, radiotherapy, etc. has been for nothing;

4) the recognition and prizes given to eminent researchers and professors has been for nothing;

5) the oncologist could be replaced by the family doctor; and

6) the pharmaceutical industry will incur tremendous financial losses (sodium bicarbonate is inexpensive and impossible to patent).

My methods have cured people for 20 years. Many of my patients recovered completely from cancer, even in cases where official oncology had given up.

The best way to try to eliminate a tumour is to bring it into contact with sodium bicarbonate, as closely as possible, i.e., using oral administration for the digestive tract, an enema for the rectum, douching for the vagina and uterus, intravenous injection for the lung and the brain, and inhalation for the upper airways. Breasts, lymph nodes and subcutaneous lumps can be treated with local perfusions. The internal organs can be treated with sodium bicarbonate by locating suitable catheters in the arteries (of the liver, pancreas, prostate and limbs) or in the cavities (of the pleura or peritoneum). (Note that sodium bicarbonate should not be used as a cancer preventive.)

It is important to treat each type of cancer with the right dosage. For phleboclysis (drip infusion), 500 cc given in a series of intervals-5% strength on one day and 8.4% the next-is required, depending on the patient's weight and condition; the stronger dose may perhaps be needed in cases of lung and brain cancers according to the tumour type (primary or metastatic) and size. For external administrations, it is enough to taste if the solution is salty. Sometimes it is judicious to combine different administrations.

For each treatment, take into consideration that tumour colonies regress between the third and fourth day and collapse between the fourth and fifth, so a six-day administration is sufficient. A complete, effective cycle is made up of six treatment days on and six days off, repeated four times. The most important side effects of this care system are thirst and weakness.

For skin cancers (melanoma, epithelioma, etc.), a 7% iodine tincture should be spread on the affected area once a day, 20-30 times consecutively in one sitting, with the aim of producing a number of layers of crust. If, after one month of treatment, the first crust is gone and the skin is not completely healed, then the treatment should be continued in the same manner until the second crust forms, heals and then comes loose without any assistance. (The procedure is also applicable for treating psoriasis.) After this treatment, the cancer will be gone and stay away forever.

For more information, see "Protocol Treatments with sodium bicarbonate solutions" at http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/cancer-therapy-simoncini-protocol.html and FAQ sections at http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/.

Editor's Note: Due to space constraints, we are unable to reprint Dr Simoncini's paper in full. To download the complete paper including case study summaries, go to the web page http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/simoncini-writes.html.

Endnotes

1. Feyerabend, P.K., Contro il metodo ("Against Method"), Feltrinelli, Milano, 1994, p. 26

2. Verona, O., Il vasto mondo dei funghi ("The Vast World of Fungi"), Edizioni Nuova Italia, Firenze, 1973, p. 1

3. op. cit., p. 2

4. Rambelli, A., Fondamenti di micologia ("Basics of Mycology"), Edizioni Guida, Napoli, 1972, p. 35

5. op. cit.

6. op. cit., p. 28

7. Verona, op. cit., p. 5

8. Rambelli, A., op. cit., p. 31

9. op. cit., p. 28

10. op. cit., p. 29

11. op. cit., p. 266

12. op. cit., p. 273 You guys will hopefully have picked up by now (over 2000 odd pages without one) that I don’t do advertising in my work ―minus Dave McGowan but that’s because I nicked so much of his really good work). - But I’m making an exception for this next article ―or book if you prefer Clare‖. Maybe it’s because she’s Scottish, maybe it’s because she’s tidy, ―if that’s her in the photo at the beginning of her “book”‖. I don’t know. - In truth it’s simply because I know that this will work.

The Candida Revolution

How you can prevent cancer

In this book I are going to tell you about a doctor who has made it his life’s work to prove that cancer can be prevented quite easily. Yes he was ridiculed when he first suggested it twenty years ago.

Today more and more scientists, doctors and patients are coming forward to stand up and say this man is correct!

I am going to show you how you can protect yourself and your family from the unnecessary suffering and trauma that is faced by the patient and their friends and family by going through the ordeal of cancer.

Does this involve any punishing lifestyle change you ask? –No

Is it going to be painful? –No

Ah, I bet it is going to be expensive, right? – No

What’s more, this book will prove you with scientific evidence and references!

At the end of this book you will find a multitude of references to scientific papers and articles that are now surfacing that are challenging the way we think today about cancer. Feel free to browse these and read for yourself how doctors and scientists are now challenging the truth we believe to be true…. And it is now time for ideas about cancer to change.

These doctors and scientists are now showing us that we can protect ourselves from cancer by simply eliminating the precursor to the illness - known as Candida Albicans.

CHAPTER ONE

The story behind this book

Firstly, my name is Clare Davidson and I come from the north of Scotland. I did not just stumble upon this preventative treatment which I am going to discuss purely by chance; it was a long and sometimes painful journey.

I have tried to keep the technical and medical references in this book as easy to understand as possible so that anyone reading will be able to follow the principles discussed...I have added chapters with the real science for those who want to understand more but in essence I have tried to keep the information in this book as easy to understand and follow as possible. I myself have come from a family with a long line of cancer sufferers, some that have made it through and some that have not and were taken from us long before their time. This was probably what drew me towards doing a medically related degree. Early on in my life I wanted to be a doctor and decided to study biology and genetics with a minor in business studies at The University of Sussex to which I passed a 2.1 BSc Hons.

I found the science of genetics fascinating and at that time it was a relatively new field so it was exciting to be learning such cutting edge knowledge.

However, I did already at that stage 15 years ago, see a rather dark side to the medical ‘industry’ during my business part of my degree. The idea then being proposed of genetic testing for insurance quotes for example was tossed around for ethical argument sickened me….I could also see just how much power and money is made by the medical industry for the treatment of the sick – NOT or the prevention of becoming sick. I could see that the medical industry was going to be a powerful Goliath that no David would dare to stand up to in the years to come. This made me question if the medical profession was really a career choice for me.

Moving on, I like anyone young and healthy didn’t put that much thought to cancer. Isn’t it funny how in our youth we all believe ourselves to be indestructible? Then the crunch came. My mother found a lump in her breast. She was devastated, as were we all. Her sister had died from this disease at a young age and we all were facing this journey with fear for the worst. Luckily my mother had been vigilant and we caught it at stage one. She had it removed quickly and radiotherapy followed by five years of hormones to suppress oestrogen.

We moved to a different warmer climate for both recovery of my mother’s health and just plain defiance of the English weather. Due to the island Koh Samui (in Thailand) being very much into holistic healing and alternative medicine, I became interested in the various treatments that were available for a whole range of illnesses.

Many of my friends had stories to share of miracle cures they had taken and to be honest I was somewhat sceptical – I probably still am to be quite frank.

Then it was my turn. I discovered a lump in my right breast.

I faced a choice of returning to the UK or having it removed in a somewhat less advanced second world country hospital. After much thought and tears I finally chose the latter and went through the operation with no sedation and minimal anaesthetic, something I would not recommend to anyone!

I remember the doctor removing the lump and showing it to me and seeing immediately it was white in colour. I had always imagined cancers to be somewhat of a horror and was expecting to see some kind of rancid black or green monster in front of me....but no, this small chewing gum sized lump of flesh looked harmless....and to my great relief the biopsy came back as a benign tumour.

After this ordeal I was determined to find a way to keep myself as healthy as I could and take all precautions against cancer. I approached my holistic friends who all had a multitude of suggestions ranging from a complete raw food diet to ingesting my own urine everyday!

I was then introduced to a very interesting young man called Jason. We chatted for some time and met on occasions at a local restaurant in the nearby natural health spa and became good friends. One day out of the blue he contacted me to say that he had found an amazing new treatment he had to discuss with me.

And this is where the real story of ‘how you can prevent cancer’ really begins...

Beauty And The Yeast

On meeting Jason I could quickly see that this was a person who liked to know what he was talking about, and by that I mean REALLY know it. The depth of knowledge he had on subjects of all sorts astounded me.

We spent weeks talking about various topics and themes that affect us and where we lived.

I should say at this point I was living on an island that is very much geared towards the spa and healing market.

This place had plenty of holistic treatments to suit all sorts of ailments and to improve a person’s beauty both in and out.

The majority of the practitioners I met were through a local spa resort, which had one of the best restaurants I had come across in the world! This particular spa specialised in detox treatments varying in intensity for both the experienced and the beginner.

You could relax and be pandered to, as every effort to de-age and refresh you was made.

The practitioners were all amazing at what they did, and so many people who had come to be rejuvenated left feeling years younger.

It was the spa that had first brought Jason to the area we both lived in and he then fell in love with it just as I had.

Continuing on with his voracious thirst for knowledge on healing and general wellbeing, he had begun studying what is known as a Candida cleanse the spa provided.

Jason had long suffered some health issues and so began his usual in depth examination of this cleanse and even more in depth examination of what a Candida was, and why were people at the spa concerned about removing it?

Upon talking to his female friends it was quickly established that the women were more aware of Candida as most had suffered from a form of it and knew it as thrush or a yeast infection.

It was at this point that Jason started discussing Candida with me.

Rather than put you through our long and rambling research and discussions that followed, I have condensed this information into the next few chapters.

Curious About Candida

Candida Albicans is a fungal yeast that is present naturally in the human gut; everyone has Candida albicans living within them to some extent. Our gut is also full of natural bacteria that feed on the yeast and so keep levels to a low number and stop it from becoming a problem. The yeast becomes problematic when it grows beyond normal levels and spreads throughout the gastrointestinal tract, into the bloodstream and from there throughout the body. The yeast then does something remarkable and changes into fungus This fungus now settles itself into the tissue and a fungal colony quickly spreads. The fungus is protected from the environment as it has now left the gut and does not have the challenge of the gut bacteria trying to consume it. The risk for the Candida fungus is the human immune system. The immune system would normally identify and fight off this fungal intruder without too much effort.

Sadly more and more people suffer from low immune systems due to stress, bad diet or general ill health.

This means the immune system is not as strong as it needs to be to fight the Candida fungus colony. The Candida fungus is protected from the immune system attack by its cellular membrane.

This membrane is comprised of a layer formation called chitin. Your own cells when the immune system is strong and healthy fight Candida by producing an enzyme called chitinase which breaks down the yeast cell wall exposing it and making it vulnerable to attack by the body’s immune system. In a system wide infection there is simply too much of the yeast for the body to fight and it is at that point we begin to see symptoms of the yeast infection.

In simple English - imagine the fungus is wearing a suit of armour that your immune system cannot punch through if it is weak.

You can find a detailed video explanation on our website www.yourhealthandwellnessstore.com

The Usual Suspects

There are several reasons for Candida to spread and become problematic.

Diet

Over the past few decades the diet in the west has changed dramatically. We now consume far more sugar and refined food than we ever have before. Even those of us that have strict diets do succumb to fast food and sugar treats!

Candida thrives on sugar. With a diet high in sugar and refined food it will grow exponentially, it is almost as if our diet in the western world is a super food for the yeast. Items such as sugar, alcohol, chocolate, bread, pasta, coffee, tea, fast food and any refined food all contribute to Candida growth.

Antibiotic Use

No one is disputing the need for antibiotics – they are one of the greatest medical discoveries made and without them we would be in a lot of trouble! However, broad spectrum antibiotic use does have a profound effect on our natural defences against Candida infection.

These antibiotics kill all bacteria, including the good bacteria in our gut that maintain a healthy balanced state. Without these bacteria the yeast is free to grow and spread within the body. Immune Compromised system

Our cells naturally produce a substance called chitinase.

This enzyme breaks down the protective layer around the yeast and allows our immune system to attack the yeast if it is growing out of control. When an immune system is in a weakened state then it does not have the capability to attack the yeast and so its growth is not regulated.

Any single or combination of these elements provides the Candida yeast with the perfect breeding ground within the human body and results in you becoming sick.

The Symptoms

I know when you read the following you may be sceptical and say ’oh, but these symptoms can be caused by many different things’ and yes you would be right. A quick search on medical website or wiki for example will these symptoms and more, in fact there are thought to be over 100 different symptoms that can be expressed in someone with candida.

They will not have all the symptoms as there are different symptoms to where the fungus is located. For example expression of depression and psychological symptoms usually symptoms related to the fungus being located in the brain....similar situation with other symptoms and the location of the fungi colony.

The initial stages of a Candida infection will very often involve the gut, mouth and urinary tract.

Most common symptoms that indicate a Candida infection are:

· Thrush

· Sore throat

· Bloating

· Gas

· Constipation

· Diarrhea

· Ear ache

Once the infection has reached the bloodstream it can travel all round the body to other vital systems. These include the brain, the reproductive system, the nervous system and more. As the infection becomes more widespread the symptoms become more varied and include:

· Sugar and alcohol cravings

· Migraines

· Anxiety · Depression

· Fatigue

· Vaginitius

· Foggy thinking

· Itching

· Acne

· Hyperactivity

· Sinus inflammation

· Irritability

· Dizziness

· Low sex drive

· Ear ache

· Skin infections such as athlete’s foot

· Chronic pain

· Muscle weakness

As more studies are done on Candida infection, it is being realized that this yeast is a serious contributor to many illnesses that now include:

· Alcoholism

· Asthma

· Addison’s disease

· Chronic fatigue syndrome

· IBS

· PMS

· Depression

· Anxiety disorders

· Psoriasis

· Arthritis The medical profession is now much more aware of the problems Candida causes and will urge you to take action quickly if you have a Candida infection to prevent serious complications.

Time For Us To Become Candida Free!

It was at this point Jason decided to go for the cleanse.

He did the total body cleanse that the spa did but he also decided to try an alternative Candida treatment.

During his studies on line of the Candida organism he had come across a substance call Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor.

This compound had been used for years in a much lower does in farming as a fungicide and also in a higher dose in pets to combat insect pests. The correlation between both small insects and this fungus was that chitin is used by both fungus and certain insects as a suit of armour, a type of exoskeleton to protect them. The type of chitin synthesis inhibitor used however is very different for both.

In farming it is a low grade concentration made with organic solvent that is not suitable for consumption by animals or humans. We consulted with the scientists at the production company and they confirmed with us there was a different type of chitin synthesis inhibitor compound made that was the one approved by the FDA for pharmaceutical grade. The way the second compound is made is very different to the one used in farming.

Firstly it is made using natural oils, NOT solvents. Another differential is that with the second chitin synthesis inhibitor there must be a purity level produced of 93% whereas the one used in farming was 5%.

Jason researched the dosage and the correct compound for many months and then found a pharmaceutical company that produced it. He managed to acquire a ‘small’ sample of around 200 grams – he calculated he only needed 15! This was done by looking at human body weight and the approved dosage on the approved patent. He took the protocol that we will discuss later and within 8 weeks we had a new Jason! He felt cleaner and healthier, more life in him than he had in years he told me.

Astounded by the change I could see in him I agreed also to take the course. I had a few of the Candida symptoms and was curious as to see if they would dissipate after the treatment.

I was amazed at how much healthier I felt both physically and mentally after a month or so. My memory improved and I found my thinking to be clearer. I also suffered from depression at times and felt that fog lifting from my brain.

I was more than overwhelmed with the results and so Jason and I discussed spreading the word of this treatment out to other people. This was about one year ago. The story continues from there basically in us testing the formula on ourselves and tweaking the formula. This went on for several months and then we came across an article about an incredible oncologist in Italy called Tullio Simoncini.

Some Basic Knowledge About Cancer

Before we discuss Mr Simoncini we should take a closer look at the problem of cancer. At the beginning of the 1900s, one person out of 100 died of cancer; today it is one out of three. We foresee that within a few years one out of two people will die of cancer. Why has cancer diagnosis and death rates soared in this short time? Of course some cases are genetic but they are actually only a small percentage of the vast numbers diagnosed.

Cancer is the most important problem in medicine, not only because of its size, but especially because of the long symptomatological line that comes with this disease, especially in its more advanced phases, and the state of extreme psychological suffering which both the patient and their relatives are victims of.

A fungus infection – that of the Candida species – could supply the explanation for why a tumour occurs.

In recent years, we have observed a crescendo of voices addressing this terrible fungus to the point of defining it as ‘the most important and most urgent problem that oncology has to solve’.

Here is some more in-depth and technical information on cancer.

The following figures concerning the coexistence of Candida and cancer have been collected by several authors, the following figures show the percentage of tumours that show Candida present in cancer tumours post mortem:

R.L. Hopfer: 79%

Kaben: 80%

W. T. Hughes: 91 %

T.E. Kiehn: 97%

The percentages observed are truly impressive, especially when considering the difficulty of seeing Candida in the organic materials to be examined.

The positive results quoted allow us to confirm that Candida is almost always present in the tissues of cancer patients. The phenomenon is usually interpreted as a consequence of the weakening and of the exhaustion of the organism because of neoplastic lesions. This means that they are suggesting that the Candida somehow makes its way into the tumour through the fissures that appear during its growth. However, we have to believe that the aggression of Candida takes place in the carcinogenic sense.

We can follow the pattern of development of Candida yeast to fungus to cancer below:

Rooting in the deep connective tissue (in the various organs)

Expansion with evoking of an organic reaction that attempts to encyst the fungi colonies, with the outcome being the formation of neoplasias. i.e. a tumour develops around the fungus.

Growth both in the surrounding tissue and other areas of the body (metastasis).

Progressive exhaustion of the body with consequential total body invasion.

The answer is to prevent this fungus from invading our bodies and provoking cancerous growths. We are on the verge of a medical revolution; it is possible to prevent you and your loved ones developing cancer! The Fungal Hypothesis - How Does Candida Relate To Cancer?

Italian oncologist, Tullio Simoncini, has long been an advocator of the fungal hypothesis in regards to cancer.

Although he may have been one of the first, he is certainly not the last as more and more evidence comes to light from scientists all round the world regarding the correlation between Candida albicans and cancer.

Dr Simoncini is well aware of the epidemic of Candida in the world that is going untreated. He believes that the fungus is underestimated as so little is understood about it. His research began when he decided that there was a somewhat strange correlation with all cancers in that they all behave in the same way despite them occurring in the widest variety of locations and systems.

He then began to search for a common denominator within all these different cancers and believed he had found it when he saw that most cancers appear white in colour. These white masses are fungi.

White – just like Candida albicans. The literal translation for Candida albicans in Latin is ‘glowing white’.

The presence of these fungi in all tumours’ is nothing surprising in the medical world. The official word from mainstream oncology is the reason this happens is that the Candida is an opportunistic organism that finds root within the existing developing tumours and grows.

This belief, however, is contradicted by the study of the effect of Candida within the bloodstream when it progresses into candidiasis.

The problem is that these yeasts get everywhere. Whilst they might start off in your gut, they soon pass into the blood stream and then, like Alien, they are loose in the mother ship.

And they make an alcohol as a by-product of their very existence, and this alcohol feeds cancer cells.

Moreover fungi are anaerobes - they don´t use oxygen to metabolize and survive. If they move round your body and colonize an area of your breast or prostate they set up anaerobic conditions. And cancer thrives in situations where oxygen levels are lowered.

In simple plain English - Candida Fungus creates an environment in the tissue that it inhabits that causes mutation of cells and cancer tumours to develop.

Candida Is The Primary Killer Of Post Care Chemotherapy And Radio Therapy Patients

Surprised? I was!

Try this for size: ´Cancer patients undergoing radio or chemotherapy did not finally succumb to the cancer itself, but to an infestation of Candida albicans´.

That was taken from Contemporary Oncology Magazine 1993 in the USA.

Doctors rarely, if ever, stop to think about Candida, or parasite infection. And as a result their medicines only treat part of the cancer equation. In other walks of life it would be called: “Neglect”. There, I´ve said it.

After a recent trip to a cancer clinic in the USA, and to the Dove Clinic in the UK, I discovered one thing when I talked to the nurses.

Every Cancer patient they see, man or woman, has bad Candida.

They were unanimous. Whether it is breast cancer, liver cancer or prostate cancer. It does not discriminate.

And the real kicker is - Cancer Treatments Make Matters Worse!

I cannot stress this enough so I will say it again: “cancer treatments make matters worse!”

Steroids and chemotherapy, for example, both heighten the effect of the yeasts, worsening the cancer cell feeding. It´s like throwing babies to the sharks.

Add to the problem your weakened immune system due to chemotherapy and radiotherapy and you have a disastrous and possibly lethal situation

IF YOU HAVE HAD CHEMOTHERAPY THEN YOU MUST

PREVENT CANDIDA INFECTION AT ALL COSTS!

The Epiphany

At this point Jason and I had completed our testing and had finished our product to wage battle for Candida sufferers. The article we came across involving Dr Simoncini was a revelation to us. While this doctor was developing a way to treat existing cancers under the belief of them being fungus.

We had amazing feedback and results from people who had tried our new Candida product. One single woman who had been a sufferer of Candida for many years returned to us and bought our entire stock that we had left for her friends!

Upon studying the research and many medical texts we realised that we basically had a potential preventative treatment for cancer sitting in front of us!

It is quite a simple equation

Candida yeast = Candida Fungus = Cancer

By taking our treatment you would be dramatically attacking the Candida fungus throughout your entire body, and so you would in effect be treating any sites for potential tumours to grow due to the fungus.

This was a revelation to both of us.

We had initially developed this product to kill the Candida fungus and we just might have found a real treatment that prevents most cancers! We could see that by eliminating the Candida from a person’s body we were also preventing a cancer development due to that Candida fungus. Before I go on to talk about the treatment that we developed, I’m sure that you want to ask me one very important question – how can I get tested for Candida!

Available Tests

If you suspect you have a Candida infection then you will want to be tested as quickly as possible to get confirmation. The trouble with this is that as I have said everybody has Candida present in their bodies to some degree.

By far the most reliable way to be tested for infection is to see your doctor. They will be able to give you a Candida Immune Complexes blood test. The other option from your doctor will be the combination of IgA, IgG and IgM tests. Unfortunately these tests will likely be expensive if you are not covered by health insurance.

They range between $100 and $300 plus the doctors charge. It can also be a battle to get your doctor to do the tests with many making the patient believe they are a hypochondriac! Be insistent if you feel you really need medical confirmation of your infection.

Spit Test

The second option available is the spit test or saliva test.

It is not reliable or conclusive and should not be taken as a guaranteed result, but for many it is the first stage of suspecting their infection.

First thing in the morning, before you put ANYTHING in your mouth, get a clear glass and fill with water.

Work up a bit of saliva, and then spit it into the glass of water. Check the water after 2-3 minutes, then every 15 minutes.

A Candida yeast infection will have specific signs after you have spat in the glass of water. The saliva will develop strings, like cloudy legs, travelling down into the water from the saliva floating on the top. Another possibility is that the “cloudy” saliva will sink to the bottom of the glass. A third possibility is that cloudy specks will seem to be suspended in the water. All of these indicate the possible presence of a Candida infection. The more strings and cloudiness there is and the faster it develops, the greater the overgrowth.

If there are no strings and the water is as clear as it was before you spat in the glass and the saliva is still floating after at least one hour, you are likely to not have a Candida yeast infection. This test is not 100% reliable, please see your doctor if you feel you need 100% confirmation.

Traditional Options For Treatment Of Candida

Candida Diet

A special diet can be tailored to reduce the infection though you will have to be prepared to give up many foods that you eat on a regular basis. This diet involves no sugar, alcohol, bread, coffee, tea, pasta and refined foods. Many find that this diet simply is not realistic to fit in with their lifestyles. Sometimes people even suffer from some degree of malnutrition with long term use of the Candida diet. Unfortunately the Candida will flare up if you do stray from this diet. This makes this option one for only those who are very dedicated and have strong willpower. Antifungal Medications

If your doctor has diagnosed Candida then he will probably offer you antifungal medications and also recommend the diet as a method of maintenance. The problem with medications such as azole anti fungals is that they place a great deal of stress on the kidneys and liver. The side effects include headaches and nausea and it is simply not practical to take these with any frequency as you will risk liver damage.

AND NOW OUR REVOLUTIONARY NEW TREATMENT

Finally I hear you say! We are going to talk about how I can prevent cancer! I know a lot of people are not interested in understanding how something works – they just want to know it works! It has, however, been important for me to explain how we got to this point.

Our discovery is not a vaccine or a cancer cure. We have discovered a simple safe and affordable treatment that kills Candida quickly and easily..... oh and it just so happens that Candida albicans causes most cancers so without Candida poisoning your body you have no chance of developing Candida based cancers!.

So let me tell you about Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor

It involves no special diet or restrictions though a diet high in vegetables/antioxidants will help assist the body to fight off the fungus and die-off It is completely safe on your liver and kidneys It is a fraction of the price you would pay seeing doctors repeatedly and being on continual medication.

What Is Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor?

Chitin synthesis inhibitor works by inhibiting the production of something called CHITIN. Chitin is found in insects and fungus and it is created by these organisms as an exoskeleton. Think of it as a natural armour suit.

The yeast Candida also produces its own layer of chitin in its cell wall; this is the reason why it can be so hard for the human body’s immune system to attack it.

Chitin synthesis inhibitor is a compound that prevents the yeast from producing this layer of chitin to protect itself and without this protection your body can naturally attack and kill the fungus.

What makes this compound such a great solution to your Candida infection is that it is a totally inert chemical that has no effect on ANY of the human systems.

As humans have no body processes that involve the creation of chitin, then taking a chitin inhibitor will have no effect on the human body - it will however make the yeast vulnerable that’s infecting your system. The compound has been tested for many years on mammals and has shown consistently to have zero adverse effects, even when taken in massive dosages.

Chitin synthesis inhibitor also has no known drug interactions as it is an inert compound.

Even if you have not had a test for the Candida yeast but still suspect it is causing you ill health, taking chitin synthesis inhibitor will not affect you negatively if you do not have Candida. If you think you have the slightest chance of an infection of this yeast then to go ahead and take the chitin synthesis inhibitor as it is completely safe and harmless to humans and mammals! Chitin synthesis inhibitor really is the safest and easiest treatment that you will find for Candida albicans.

In plain English – The fungus that previously was protecting itself from your immune system has now lost its armour and ready to be knocked out of your body.

We have provided some more in depth material below on CHITIN SYNTHESIS INHIBITOR There is a field-proven, safe, over-the-counter offlabel treatment available to those who need help in their battle against Candida albicans infection. When Probiotics and essential oils don’t do the job or even prescription antifungal medicines have failed, Chitin synthesis inhibitor will be able to remove the chitin layer from the fungus allowing your immune system to finally be able to attack the fungus.

Chitin synthesis inhibitor has for decades been widely used over-the-counter as a veterinary remedy available in pet shops under the name ‘PROGRAM’ and is given to dogs or cats once a month and it prevents flea larvae from growing into adult fleas by interfering with their Chitin synthesis. Chitin is the hard substance the exoskeleton of insects is made of.

In actuality you could actually buy ‘PROGRAM’ and use this to treat yourself as it is approved for human consumption. However, in order to buy the correct dosage for your weight it would end up costing you thousands of dollars.

The interesting fact about Chitin is that it is not just used by insects and arthropods; it also is a key part of the fungal cell wall of many fungal species.

Fungi - including Candida albicans - quickly die when there are holes in their cell walls, and that is what quickly happens when their Chitin production is stopped. The fungus “bleeds” to death: Its protoplasm simply escapes due to the intracellular pressure.

Candida forms long mycelia strands in human tissue but it is under constant environmental stress. It has to constantly replace damaged cell wall due to mechanical friction, chemical degradation and immune system action. If Candida is prevented from repairing its cell wall, holes will ensue within hours. What happens is that instead of producing a strong Ergosterol - Chitin cell wall matrix, the Candida produces a weak, “leaky” Ergosterol cell wall with holes where the Chitin should have been, quickly leading to catastrophic failure of its cell wall in multiple spots, causing its contents to run out, killing the Candida fungus.

In some serious cases, a chronic Candida infection merely becomes temporarily suppressed and will come back less virulently, because the Candida, when it manages to acquire resistance, is forced to mutate into a form that does not use Chitin, resulting in a weaker Candida version, easier to get rid off by the immune system or with Ergosterol-targeting antifungals ―the “azoles” such as Diflucan‖.

The Evidence

Chitin synthesis inhibitor is increasingly used to treat all kinds of fungal infections in animals such as dogs, cats, horses and chimpanzees and finally now humans.

Chitin synthesis inhibitor works against fungal infections in mammals, and humans are mammals so it works in humans too.

US patent nr. 6110971 that mentions Chitin synthesis inhibitor as an effective antifungal in humans, including against Candida albicans infection: US Patent 6110971 - Fungicide composition comprising a benzoylphenylurea Chitin synthesis inhibitor was designed to prevent the production of this chitin compound that is found in insects and fungus. By preventing the chitin layer from being created the yeast becomes weak and exposed to your natural defences that will attack and kill the Candida.

The Candida yeast protects itself from your own body’s defences by producing a layer of chitin around its cell walls. It is this chitin layer that makes it so difficult to kill the yeast without taking some very strong medications that put your liver and kidneys at risk.

There are other fungicides out there but THIS chitin synthesis inhibitor is the only one that is proven to be uniquely non toxic to humans!

The chitin synthesis inhibitor is absorbed into your fatty tissue and released slowly over several weeks.

We all have a small level of this yeast in our bodies - it does not harm us as long as it stays at those small levels.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY NORMAL AND, IN FACT, ESSENTIAL TO HAVE CANDIDA YEAST IN SMALL AMOUNTS IN OUR BODIES.

Our diets, antibiotic use and lifestyles mean, although it is unlikely, Candida can return. However the big bonus with chitin synthesis inhibitor is that you can take it again.

Things You Must Know About Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor

The Candida fungus CANNOT survive after treatment with Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor. The treatment is taken over several weeks to allow for complete absorption.

Chitin synthesis inhibitor is an inert compound that works on Chitin only – no system in the human body uses chitin so it has zero affect on our vital systems. No side effects!

Why has this treatment not been available till now?

That is something to be asked of the pharmaceutical companies. It is far better for them to treat the symptoms than cure the disease. A simple one time treatment would deprive them of selling multiple prescriptions of expensive anti fungal medicines and creams.

This shameful truth of profit over a person’s health and well being is one that big pharmacy has no problem living with. Years of research and testing of the chitin synthesis inhibitor has proven its effectiveness.

I talked earlier in the first chapter about how I could see a future where it would be more beneficial financially to allow a person to become sick than to keep him healthy.

Pharmaceutical companies are the biggest industry on the planet and one of their mainstream cash flows is the treatment of cancer. Can you imagine their horror at a treatment becoming available for under one hundred dollars to treat Candida and as a result destroy what is now being thought to be the protagonist to cancer mutations!

You may also ask well why don’t the pharmaceutical companies release this treatment themselves. Ah, now here we come into patent law....the patent has expired on this compound which means that no one can put a stamp on this compound and inhibit others producing it. Translated this means that as this will not make them big profits then it is not worth producing!

Is Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor Safe To Take?

Absolutely!

The chitin synthesis inhibitor will begin dissolving the protective coating of the fungus within the first few days of you taking the course. Quite often at this point you will experience something called a healing crisis which is explained below. This occurs in people who have extensive fungal infection throughout their bodies. Once the healing crisis is over (usually in a few days) then you will feel more energy and better health than you have in a long time.

The Candida yeast protects itself from your own body’s defences by producing a layer of chitin around its cell walls. It is this chitin layer that makes it so difficult to kill the yeast without taking some very strong medications that put your liver and kidneys at risk.

There are other fungicides out there but THIS chitin synthesis inhibitor is the only one that is proven to be uniquely non toxic to humans! Humans do not produce chitin anywhere in their body. Taking this inhibitor will have the equivalent effect of taking flour or charcoal – zero effect on biological human functions – it will only affect the fungus.

What Is A Healing Crisis?

As we have said, chitin synthesis inhibitor is completely non toxic to humans and has no side effects at all.

That been said, many people who have a serious Candida infection do find that when they take the chitin synthesis inhibitor they find that they feel worse before they feel better. This is completely normal and is known as a ‘healing crisis’ or a ‘Jarisch-Herxheimer’ reaction.

What is basically happening is that the chitin synthesis inhibitor is doing its job and destroying the chitin protection of the fungus. This means that your body now is able to attack the fungus and kill it.

This rapid killing off of the Candida means that toxins are released into the body which can make you feel a bit poorly. This is only temporary as very quickly the treatment will have killed the majority of the fungus and within a few days of the die off reaction you will be feeling a LOT better than you did before!

First Example

Well, firstly was myself. I felt no healing crisis other than a bit of tiredness for the first few days.

Second example

Well this would be Jason. Jason had a real Candida problem. He had many of the classic symptoms of Candida fungal infection. He then did the spit test which did indicate a large infection. Finally he had it confirmed by paying for a private test to be done at the hospital. He felt the healing crisis quite substantially. It took about 2 weeks to clear in which he felt almost flu like symptoms. After that however it was nothing but leaps in bounds in his health both mentally emotionally and physically.

Third example

I want to give you a clear idea of the range of healing crisis people face when taking Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor.

After much testing I gave my own mother who had had breast cancer previously the Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor.

The following healing crisis was quite extreme. Within a day she started to feel nauseous and tired. After 7 days she experienced a complete thrush/yeast infection breakout in her mouth and vagina. The reason for this extreme reaction was that the Candida fungus has spread many colonies throughout her body and as the chitin synthesis Inhibitor was removing the armour protecting the fungus and my mother’s immune system had launched an all out war on the fungus. This had resulted in the release of spores (the yeast and thrush infection. It became quite severe and we decided that an over the counter yeast treatment was needed to treat the external expression of the fungus dying.

Inside her the Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor was killing the fungus. Within a few weeks the yeast infections had all dissipated. Within 8 weeks her arthritis had improved 90% and her sleepless nights had gone. I am sure that this treatment has extended my mother’s life dramatically and will reduce the chance of reoccurrence of her cancer.

Where Can You Get Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor

Well at the moment we are currently the first suppliers that have created a treatment plan and capsulated the compound to make it easy to take with minimum change to your diet. It comes in three bottles so that you know when you have finished one bottle you have finished one third of the treatment One thing you must stick to is the instructions for when to take the treatment and not to miss a day during your course.

You can order it online at our website www.yourhealthandwellnessstore.com

We have kept the costs as low as possible and it works out as just $0.26 cents a day a year to protect yourself.

You can also see further videos and information on Candida and cancer at our website and we would encourage you to visit and learn as much as possible.

The course is easy to take, just one tablet a day with every meal for five days. You then take a break for ten days and then open the second bottle of your course.

This again is five days of tablets at breakfast lunch and dinner then ten days rest. You then open the third bottle of Chitin Synthesis Inhibitor and take for the following 5 final days. That’s it. You have completed your cleanse.

We have a full and comprehensive FAQ and common questions and answers on our website so feel free to browse and learn more. I hope this book has helped you and encouraged you to rid your body of Candida. With this treatment it is simple and easy and you will be amazed at how many aches and pains you regularly suffer will disappear as their true cause was Candida! To add to that you can also feel reassured that you are protecting yourself from going through the trauma of cancer.

REFERRENCES:

After reading through our pages you will no doubt now understand why it is so important to rid your body of Candida fungus.

Below are many independent references to this topic further expanding and verifying the information we have looked at in this book. ―My Note. This isn’t a book dear THIS is book!‖

Chronic Candidiasis | source: Doctorfungus.org cancerisafungus.com | The book Cancer is a Fungus by Dr. Simoncini

Breast Cancer Conquered Without Toxic Drugs | source: usanews.net

Fungi and Disease | source: Nutramed.com

Nexus Magazine | by Nexus

Chemo drugs destroy brain cells | source: BBC UK

Is cancer a fungus? | source: AssociatedContent.com

International Medical Veritas Association | source: IMVA

Breastcancer2008 | source: PR.com

On-line reference to all things mycological | source: doctorfungus.com

Dimorphic fungi | source: pathmicro.com

How the Cancer Industry Suppresses The Truth | source: cancertutor.com dynamic connection between fungi and cancer by Phillip Day | source: campaignfortruth.com

Mycotoxins by Charles P. Woloshuk | source: Purdue University

The fungus link – a book by Doug Kaufmann | source: curecancernatural.com

Scientists at UC Santa Barbara about cancer and fungus | source: ia.ucsb.edu

Sunlight emerging as proven treatment for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other cancers

Monday, July 11, 2005 by: Staff writer naturalnews.com

Taking a daily 10 to 15 minute walk in the sun not only clears your head, relieves stress and increases circulation – it could also cut your risk of breast cancer in half. At least that's what Esther John, an epidemiologist at the Northern California Cancer Centre, recommends. And there's plenty of proof to back her up. One study found that sunlight exposure lowered the risk of breast cancer by 30 to 40 percent. In The Breast Cancer Prevention Diet, Dr. Robert Arnot claims that national rates of breast cancer inversely correlate to solar radiation exposure. In other words, breast cancer occurs at a much higher rate in colder, cloudier northern regions than in sunnier southern regions. Johns Hopkins University Medical School conducted a ten-year epidemiological study that showed exposure to full- spectrum light (including the ultraviolet frequencies) is positively related to the prevention of breast, colon and rectal cancers.

How does this work? There is in fact a scientific answer. The sun stimulates production of a hormone in your skin. Ultraviolet B rays, the kind of rays that give you sunburns, interact with a special cholesterol in unblocked skin. Once stimulated, this cholesterol triggers your liver and kidney to make vitamin D3. Vitamin D3 isn't exactly a vitamin, but rather a type of steroid hormone that can drastically improve your immune system function.

Vitamin D3 also controls cellular growth and helps you absorb calcium from your digestive tract. Most importantly, this hormone/vitamin inhibits the growth of cancer cells. In laboratory tests performed on animals, vitamin D3 inhibited the growth of malignant melanoma, breast cancer, leukaemia and mammary tumours. Vitamin D3 also slowed down angiogenesis, which aids the growth of cancer cells. Vitamin D3 stops cancer-aiding blood vessels from being formed, curbing the tumour’s ability to spread and disrupt other functions in the body. Donald R. Yance Jr. writes that vitamin D3 may also inhibit the activity of hormones such as estrogen in breast cancer, thereby decreasing its spread.

Since high doses of vitamin D3 are toxic, scientists have formulated vitamin D derivatives that can be administered to breast cancer patients. In tests, these derivatives have stopped the proliferation of breast cancer cells and sometimes have actually decreased the size of experimental mammary tumours. Further findings like these might point to yet another undiscovered function of vitamin D3: regulating the expression of protein products that prevent and even inhibit breast cancer.

There is a concern relevant to this issue. Haven't we been told for the last 10 years to stay out of the sun? What about skin cancer? Dr. Richard Hobday, author of The Healing Sun, says our fear of the sun does more harm than good. Most recommended daily sunscreens block ultraviolet B rays, the same rays that trigger the production of vitamin D. The number of people who die from breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis and osteoporosis -- all maladies that sunlight could benefit -- is far greater than the number of deaths from skin cancer. After reviewing 50 years of medical literature on cancer, Dr. Gordon Ainsleigh concluded that the benefits of regular sun exposure outweigh the risks of squamous-basal skin cancer, accelerated ageing and melanoma.

Despite the obvious advantages, most Americans are not getting enough vitamin D. Massachusetts General Hospital recently found that 59 percent of hospitalized patients had too little vitamin D in their bloodstream. Many experts infer that the Massachusetts vitamin D deficiency is almost as widespread in the general American population. Evidence also suggests that people with heavily pigmented skin (darker skin colour) require more sunlight for adequate vitamin D production.

Given the obvious need for vitamin D, many researchers are looking for other sources for providing it to patients. While sunlight is the best naturally occurring source of vitamin D3 for humans, there are alternatives to a leisurely walk in the sun. Sheldon Saul Hendler, MD, PhD, describes an interesting paradox: While people living in Japan are exposed to relatively low levels of sunlight, the incidence of cancer among Japanese is very low. Hendler claims that the resistance to cancer apparent among the Japanese is explained by their diet, which includes large quantities of fatty fish that are rich in vitamin D.

Other sources of vitamin D include salmon, tuna, fish oils and vitamin D supplements. If you plan on drinking vitamin D fortified milk, however, be warned: Researchers at Boston University School of Medicine found the labels misleading. 80 percent of milk samples contained either 20 percent less or 20 percent more vitamin D than the amount advertised on labels. Too much vitamin D can be toxic and cause calcification in the kidneys and heart. So watch for the warning signs: anorexia, disorientation, dehydration, fatigue, weight loss, weakness and vomiting.

The experts speak on sunlight and breast cancer

The annual death rate from breast cancer varies considerably from region to region, practically doubling from the US South and Southwest to the high-risk Northeast. In addition, the risk of fatal breast cancer in the major cities is "inversely proportional to intensity of local sunlight." It increased in low sunlight areas and decreased in sunnier climes. Vitamin D, created in the course of exposure to sunlight, is thus associated with a low risk of fatal breast cancer. The Garlands concluded that differences in the amount of ultraviolet light reaching the population may account for the striking regional differences in breast cancer deaths (5). The same was true in the Soviet Union (6). Cancer Therapy by Ralph W Moss PhD, page 67

In tropical nations, where exposure to sunlight is normal, the incidence of osteoporosis, hip and spinal fracture, cataracts, and colon and breast cancer is less common. The lack of sunlight seen in cold climates in winter causes a failure of adequate vitamin D production which damages the immune system and may lead to more cancer than is seen in warm climates where vitamin D levels tend to be higher. A Physicians Guide To Natural Health Products That Work By James Howenstine MD, page 173

Cancer: A ten-year epidemiological study conducted at Johns Hopkins University Medical School, in Baltimore, Maryland, showed that exposure to full-spectrum light (including the ultraviolet frequency) is positively related to the prevention of breast, colon, and rectal cancers. Another report found that exposure to full-spectrum sunlight reduced the risk of developing breast cancer. In Russia, a full-spectrum lighting system was installed in factories where colds and sore throats had become commonplace among workers. This lowered the bacterial contamination of the air by 40%-70%. Workers who did not receive the full-spectrum light were absent twice as many days as those who did. Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 305

Sunlight stimulates a hormone in skin that triggers the liver and kidney to make the active form of vitamin D3. Two equally effective sources of vitamin D in humans are derived from plant ergosterol, which is converted to ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) and cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) by the action of sunlight on the skin. The body uses vitamin D3 for normal immune system function, to control cellular growth, and to absorb calcium from the digestive tract. Vitamin D3 can inhibit the growth of malignant melanoma, breast cancer, leukaemia, and mammary tumours in laboratory animals. Vitamin D3 can also inhibit angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels that permit the spread of cancer cells through the body. In warm weather, about 10-15 minutes of direct sun (in morning or late afternoon, to avoid skin damage) two to three times a week can produce sufficient vitamin D. As we age, however, our skin becomes less efficient at making vitamin D. People who live in cloudy climates with long winters may not get enough vitamin D. Many health experts believe that adults may benefit from 400 to 800 international units of vitamin D. But don't exceed this amount without your doctor's advice, since too much vitamin D can be toxic. Vitamin D can cause calcification in the kidneys, heart, and other tissues. Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity include anorexia, disorientation, dehydration, fatigue, weight loss, weakness, and vomiting. Permanent Remissions by Robert Haas MS, page 215

Vitamin D may have the ability to inhibit the proliferative activity of hormones, such as estrogen in breast cancer, and has been shown to suppress breast and prostate cancer growth. Sunlight exposure, which leads to an increased level of vitamin D, correlates with a reduced risk of breast cancer. I usually recommend small amounts of vitamin D (400 to 1,000 IU) for those people without sunlight exposure, especially during the winter. I also occasionally recommend cod liver oil during the winter months as a source of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids. Vitamin D deficiency is very common in the elderly and in people who live in parts of the world with little sunlight; it is also one of the major contributing factors to osteoporosis. Herbal Medicine Healing Cancer by Donald R Yance Jr, page 186

Vitamin D3 can be toxic in doses required to slow down the spread of breast cancer, so scientists have formulated vitamin-D derivatives that inhibit the proliferation of breast cancer cells and cause regression of experimental mammary tumours. Taken together, these facts suggest that vitamin D and its derivatives may play a role in regulating the expression of genes and protein products that prevent and inhibit breast cancer. The cancer-stopping power of vitamin D has been documented in osteosarcoma (bone cancer), melanoma, colon cancer, and breast cancer. These cancer cells contain vitamin-D receptors that make them susceptible to the anticancer effects of this vitamin-hormone made by the skin when it is exposed to sunlight. Vitamin D-rich foods include salmon, tuna, fish oils, and vitamin D-fortified milk and breakfast cereals. Caution: Since vitamin D can be toxic in high doses. Permanent Remissions by Robert Haas MS, page 108

A study comparing the health habits of 133 breast cancer patients with women who did not have the disease found that exposure to sunlight lowered the risk of breast cancer by 30 to 40% or more. In reaction to sunlight exposure, the body manufactures vitamin D, which is thought to confer the protective effect. Reducing Cancer Risk by Richard Harkness Pharm FASCP, page 98

Women who live in southern states are known to get breast cancer significantly less than those who live in the North. Some northern states don't get enough sun from November to February to make the required levels of vitamin D. "It's possible that all it takes is 10 or 15 minutes outside in bright sunlight to get a benefit," said Esther John, an epidemiologist at the Northern California Cancer Centre. "And that's just casual exposure. The sunlight you get on your face and neck and arms and hands when you're regularly dressed." So while the exact dose of sunlight needed is not known, a brief outdoor stroll might do it. She said the amount needed to protect against breast cancer is probably not enough to cause skin damage. Sunscreens that block ultraviolet rays would also block the formation of vitamin D. However, we don't really know for sure if the benefits of sunlight are actually due to vitamin D. Other unrecognized factors may be involved. Reducing Cancer Risk by Richard Harkness Pharm FASCP, page 98

However, there is mounting evidence that vitamin D from sunlight and fish oil may reduce the incidence of certain cancers, such as breast cancer. Hence, some vitamin D residuals in the fish oil may actually increase its protective value against cancer as well as CHD. Textbook of Natural Medicine Volumes 1-2 by Joseph E Pizzorno and Michael T Murray, page 735

Numerous research papers have shown that metabolites (breakdown products or derivatives) of active vitamin D can actually suppress the growth and spread of malignant melanoma cells. Your eyes aren't playing tricks on you. We indeed just said that active vitamin D can retard the development and spread of melanoma. It is a tumour-inhibiting hormone. And what's more, its effects reach much farther than the skin; research has shown that active vitamin D can also impede the growth and development of breast cancer, colon cancer, and cancer of the prostate. And where do we get active vitamin D? From the sun—from the interaction of the UVB portion of sunlight with the special cholesterol in our unblocked skin. If adequate sunshine and vitamin D production can impede the development of these malignancies, then it stands to reason that inadequate amounts may promote them. And indeed that appears to be the case. Some researchers have even speculated that the inadequate vitamin D production that occurs in people with heavily pigmented skin living in geographic locations with limited sunlight, such as in northern latitudes and in the winter, might in part explain why these cancers behave so much more aggressively in black Americans (who, because of heavier pigment, may require more sunlight for adequate vitamin D production) than in white ones. (The same might be true for the millions of people who would never dream of going outside without covering every exposed inch of skin with a strong sunblock to "protect them.") The Protein Power Lifeplan by Michael R Eades MD and Mary Dan Eades MD, page 242

Breast cancer rates vary directly with the amount of solar radiation. The colder, cloudier Northeast has a higher rate of breast cancer than the warmer, sunnier South. What's the connection? Exposure to sunlight helps the body manufacture vitamin D. Women in the Northeast manufacture less vitamin D because they are exposed to less natural sunlight, especially in the winter season. Here's how researchers made the connection. They graded a woman's exposure to the sun by the amount of skin damage she had suffered. Those with the most severe loss of elasticity in the skin had, paradoxically, the lowest risk of breast cancer! You might wonder why women didn't make up for the lack of vitamin D through sunlight by eating the right kinds of vitamin D-rich foods. A recent study from Massachusetts General Hospital showed that 59 percent of hospitalized patients had too little vitamin D in their bloodstream. That leads many experts to conclude that vitamin D deficiency is widespread in the general American population. The Breast Cancer Prevention Diet by Robert Arnot MD, page 150

To put it bluntly; your life could depend on it. Sunlight may cause skin cancer, but there is also evidence that it could prevent a number of very common and often fatal diseases: breast cancer; colon cancer; prostate cancer; ovarian cancer; heart disease; multiple sclerosis; and osteoporosis. When combined, the number of people who die from these conditions is far greater than the number of deaths from skin cancer; which is why the current bias against sunlight needs, in my opinion, to be redressed, and why I would advise you to read this book. The Healing Sun by Richard Hobday, page 11

There have been a number of scientific studies in the last 20 years that support the view that sunlight can inhibit cancer, and it is clear that the mortality and incidence of breast cancer and colon cancer in North America and other areas of the world increases with increasing latitude. In 1992, Dr Gordon Ainsleigh published a paper in the journal Preventive Medicine in which he reviewed 50 years worth of medical literature on cancer and the sun. He concluded that the benefits of regular sun exposure appear to outweigh by a considerable degree the risks of squamous-basal skin cancer, accelerated ageing, and melanoma. He found trends in epidemiological studies suggesting that widespread adoption of regular moderate sunbathing would result in approximately a one-third lowering of breast and colon cancer death rates in the United States. Colon cancer and breast cancer are the second and third leading causes of cancer deaths in North America and Dr Ainsleigh estimated that about 30,000 cancer deaths would be prevented each year if moderate sunbathing on a regular basis became the norm. The Healing Sun by Richard Hobday, page 68

Interestingly, a country which is an exception to the link between low sunlight exposure and high incidence of colorectal and breast cancer is Japan. Even though people living in Japan are exposed to the low amount of sunlight, which is associated with these cancers in other areas, the incidence is very low in that country. This is undoubtedly because the Japanese eat a large quantity of fatty fish, which is rich in vitamin D. Vitamin And Mineral Encyclopaedia by Sheldon Saul Hendler MD PhD, page 98

Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women, causing about 370,000 deaths annually worldwide. Each year some 220,000 women in Europe and 180,000 women in North America are diagnosed with the disease. About 15,000 British women die of breast cancer annually, a death rate that is higher than elsewhere in Western Europe. One in 12 British women will develop breast cancer at some time in their lives and, as we have already seen, the incidence of breast cancer is increasing. The reasons for this are not altogether clear, but lack of sunlight could be a factor. In 1989 the Drs Garland, together with Dr Edward Gorham, published the first ever epidemiological work on the relationship between sun exposure and breast cancer (see Table 4). Their research demonstrated that, as in the case of colon cancer, there was a strong negative correlation between available sunlight and breast cancer death rates. The chances of women from areas of the United States with less available sunlight dying of breast cancer were 40 per cent higher than those of women who lived in Hawaii or Florida. The Healing Sun by Richard Hobday, page 70

Since vitamin D can be toxic in doses that greatly exceed this value, researchers have developed synthetic analogues of vitamin D that retain the ability to inhibit cancer cell growth without the toxicity associated with high doses. These analogues have been successfully used in animal models of leukaemia and breast cancer. Vitamin D may be related to other cancers. One study found that women who get low levels of sunlight experience high rates of breast cancer, suggesting that low vitamin D levels may play a preventive role in the disease. Low blood levels of vitamin D have been found in people with colon cancer. Permanent Remissions by Robert Haas MS, page 132

New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention

Friday, June 08, 2007 by: Mike Adams naturalnews.com

Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer. This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.

The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily) while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation. (The full press release of this study is included below. It provides more details about the findings.)

Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate, aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent reduction recorded in this study. American Cancer Society opposes vitamin D

This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer Society, of course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson, Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, flatly stated that nobody should take supplements to prevent cancer.

If it seems surprising to you that the American Cancer Society -- which claims to be against cancer -- would dissuade people from taking supplements that slash their cancer risk by 77 percent, then you don't know much about the ACS. In my opinion, the ACS is an organization that actually prevents prevention and openly supports the continuation of cancer as a way to boost its power and profits. The ACS is the wealthiest non-profit in America and has very close ties to pharmaceutical companies, mammography equipment companies and other corporations that profit from cancer. Notice the name, too: It isn't the American Anti-Cancer Society, it's the American Cancer Society! What they really stand for is right in the name!

The cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and I've written extensively about the criminal organizations that protect and promote the industry. Just about everything the public is told about cancer by these cancer institutions is a lie. Those "race for the cure" cancer walks are a complete scam (they really aren't searching for any way to prevent cancer or cure cancer, they're only searching for new patented drugs to profit from cancer).

This research on vitamin D is a huge threat to the cancer industry profit mongers because it reveals a way to prevent cancer for free -- by seeking natural sunlight exposure and letting your skin manufacture your own powerful anti-cancer medicine (vitamin D). The idea that the cancer industry could lose 80% of its patients due to widespread education about vitamin D and sunlight scares the living daylights out of the cancer industry. Billions of dollars in cancer profits are at stake here, so the pro-cancer groups have to do everything they can to discredit vitamin D by creating doubt and confusion. The degree of dishonesty at work here is almost unbelievable to those who don't really know what's happening in the cancer industry.

Ten questions to ask yourself about the cancer industry

Consider these questions:

#1: Why does the cancer industry refuse to educate people about cancer prevention?

#2: If people keep donating money for the "search" for a cancer cure, why won't drug companies pledge to "open source" their patents on cancer drugs to benefit the people whose donations funded them in the first place? In other words, why do people donate money for cancer research but then get charged for cancer drugs?

#3: Why does the entire cancer industry so strongly dissuade people from using sunlight exposure to dramatically reduce their cancer risk? (Hint: Follow the money to the sunscreen industry...)

#4: Why have all the really good cancer supplements, clinics and naturopaths been banned, arrested or run out of the country? (Look up the FDA's oppression of Lane Labs over MGN-3 for a fascinating review of this...)

#5: The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into the cancer industry over the last three decades. Cancer cures were promised in the 1970's. Why are cancer rates still essentially the same today as they were in the 1970's?

#6: Why does the cancer industry continue to use chemotherapy, radiation and other toxic procedures to "kill tumours" when the latest science clearly shows that cancer tumours are only the symptoms, not the cause, of cancer? Chemotherapy destroys immune function and causes permanent damage to the heart, brain and liver...

#7: The World Health Organization says that 70% of all cancers are easily preventable through dietary and lifestyle changes. This latest research shows that sunlight and low-cost calcium supplements can slash cancer risk by 77% in women. Why won't conventional medicine embrace this low-cost, safe and highly effective method for preventing cancer?

#8: The cancer industry routinely attacks anti-cancer herbs, superfoods and supplements. Why is the cancer industry opposed to anti-cancer nutrition? Why does it believe that only man, not nature, can manufacture anti-cancer medicines?

#9: Dark skin pigmentation blocks ultraviolet radiation, meaning that people with black skin need far more time under the sun to generate the same amount of vitamin D as someone with white skin. Not surprisingly, black women suffer extremely high rates of breast cancer while black men show similarly high levels of prostate cancer. The white- dominated medical industry pretends to be "mystified" by all this. Why won't conventional medicine simple tell black people the truth about vitamin D, skin pigmentation and cancer? Why do oncologists try to keep black people ignorant about their vitamin D deficiencies?

#10: Why is it illegal for nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their products? Broccoli, garlic, onions and sprouts all have powerful anti-cancer effects, as do dozens of rainforest herbs (Cat's Claw, for example), Chinese herbs and Western herbs. But the FDA threatens and censors any company that dares to mention cancer prevention on its supplement products. Why is the FDA enforcing a policy of nutritional ignorance with U.S. consumers? Why does the federal government want people to remain ignorant of methods for preventing or treating cancer?

You probably already know the answer to all these questions, because the answer is the same for each one: Corporate profits. Cancer is hugely profitable to treat. Substantially preventing cancer would result in a loss of billions of dollars in profits for the oncologists, drug companies, hospitals and clinics that currently prey upon the finances of cancer victims.

The cancer industry is operated like a criminal racket, using false information, intimidation, political pressure and propaganda to protect its power base and keep its corporations profitable. And that, my friends, is exactly why the industry is against the use of sunlight to prevent cancer. Free medicine from the sky? The very thought of it makes the cancer industry cringe. Sunlight doesn't even need a prescription, you see, and it can't be patented, either.

Preventing cancer the healthy way

Let me tell you how I prevent cancer. I take long walks in the desert with no shirt on, and I don't wear sunscreen. I soak up the sun's rays for many hours each week, and I never get a sun burn because I eat lots of antioxidant-rich superfoods, berries and fresh produce.

I drink a raw superfood smoothie each morning, made of fresh produce and superfoods. My two favourite recipes are chocolate (with raw cacao, coconut oil or macadamia nut oil, raw avocado, spirulina, quinoa, banana and almond milk) and super berry (fresh berries, freeze- dried berries, egg white protein, stevia, aloe vera gel, fresh cucumber or watermelon, celery).

I put no personal care products on my skin whatsoever: No deodorants, no fragrance, no skin creams, no cosmetics and no sunscreen. This alone saves me from exposure to hundreds of cancer-causing toxic chemicals added to personal care products. I refuse to use chemical laundry detergent and, instead, use natural laundry soap that grows on trees: Corporate-controlled U.S. government doesn't want to prevent cancer

The U.S. government doesn't want the population to be free of cancer. That's a strong statement, so let me offer you an undeniable piece of strong evidence to back that up: The artificially low RDA numbers for vitamin D.

One of the best ways to keep the population suffering from cancer is to enforce long-term nutritional deficiencies that lead to cancer. The US government accomplishes this by keeping the recommendations for vitamin D artificially low, practically guaranteeing that anyone who follows the recommendations will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. Vitamin D deficiency is the leading cause of breast cancer.

Most educated nutritionists agree that the daily dose of vitamin D for an adult should be at least 1000 IUs, perhaps as high as 1400. But the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IoM), which controls the recommendations on these things, currently states that adults under 50 only need 200 IUs of vitamin D a day. This policy is, in my opinion, an organized conspiracy to keep the American people diseased by making sure they stay deficient in anti-cancer nutrients. It serves the interests of all the powerful corporations and non-profits that run Washington. And yes, it is a conspiracy. I've documented it in far more detail in my book, Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them, which reveals shocking details, documents and photographs showing how modern medicine is a system that's literally designed to keep the people in a state of chronic disease.

The FDA doesn't want people to prevent cancer either. That's why they've aggressively attacked companies offering anti-cancer nutrients, and completely censored the very mention of the word "cancer" by supplement companies. In fact, the only reason I can print the information you're reading right now is because I sell no food or supplements and my free speech writing is not regulated by the FDA. If I were selling supplements and writing these same words you're reading right now, I would be arrested, charged with federal crimes, and put out of business by state and federal authorities. That's the reality of the oppressive medical environment under which we live today: Health is outlawed, and only disease is allowed to be promoted.

The cancer industry, you see, is not merely incompetent; it is criminal. Intentionally keeping a population sick so that you can profit from disease is a crime against humanity. And yet this is business as usual in America's modern cancer industry.

Discrediting simple, free and safe cancer prevention strategies is also criminal, and yet this is what the American Cancer Society seems to do at every opportunity.

Plotting to profit from the suffering of other human being’s is evil. And yet the entire revenue base of the cancer industry is based on precisely that: Keeping people alive long enough to "treat" them with overpriced toxic chemicals that can be billed to Medicare at 50,000% mark-ups over their manufacturing cost.

Cancer is big, big business. And curing cancer is a threat to all the criminals participating in that industry: The non-profit employees, oncologists, doctors, federal regulators, drug company executives, med school propaganda teachers, pharmaceutical reps and many others. These people cannot allow cancer to be prevented or cured. Their jobs and careers are at stake.

Another outstanding source for learning more about the evils of the cancer industry is G. Edward Griffin.

A world free from cancer and full of abundance Personally, I believe we could create a world virtually free of cancer. We could accomplish it in two generations by taking tough action to outlaw cancer-causing chemicals and investing in genuine cancer prevention education. Drug companies would lose trillions of dollars in profits, hospitals would lose huge amounts of patients, and pro-cancer non-profit groups would lose power, money and prestige. But guess what? We'd all be better off without cancer.

Here's a startling statistic: Did you know that reducing the cancer death rate by just 1% would be worth almost $500 billion to the U.S. economy over the next hundred years or so? (Source: Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) Drop the cancer rate by 10% and it's worth $5 trillion dollars to the economy. (These gains are due to increased productivity and life spans of working, contributing people.)

We know right now that vitamin D and calcium can slash cancer rates by 77 percent. Do the math on that, and you realize that sunlight and calcium could result in a $38.5 trillion boost to the U.S. economy over the next century.

That's enough economic productivity to pay off our entire national debt, build new schools in every town and city in the country, provide free college educations to all young people who wish to go to college, invest billions in new energy technologies and even fund massive health education campaigns to keep our population healthy. $38 trillion is a lot of money. With that kind of increased abundance, we could build a whole new society of health, wealth and education.

But guess what? The cancer industry won't let that happen. There's too much short term profit to be made in keeping everybody sick. The cancer industry is so evil that it will sell out our future in order to maintain power, profits and control over the people today. The cancer industry doesn't want cancer rates to go down, regardless of the benefits to society or individual lives. The cancer industry wants there to be MORE cancer, which is exactly why it opposes commonsense prevention strategies that would reduce cancers. (It's true, this industry actually opposes removing cancer-causing chemicals from the workplace...)

Read more at Dr. Sam Epstein's website: http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/

The bottom line in all this? New research shows us that using low-cost calcium and vitamin D supplements (or just natural sunlight), we could slash cancer rates by an astonishing 77 percent. The cancer industry opposes this and is firmly positioned as an opponent of cancer prevention. The industry depends on cancer to grow its own power and profits, and it will invest in the de-education of the public in order to maximize its own revenues.

Cures for cancer exist all around us: Sunlight, rainforest herbs, anti-cancer foods and superfoods, etc. The causes of cancer are well known: Toxic chemicals in foods, cosmetics, personal care products, home cleaning products, and so on. So why don't we, as a nation, take steps to outlaw the things that cause cancer while promoting the things that prevent cancer?

The reason, once again, is because there's too much money at stake here. The corporations are in charge, and as long as they're running the show, cancer cures or prevention strategies that really work will simply not be tolerated.

Creighton press release

Here's the original press release about the new findings on vitamin D and cancer prevention:

OMAHA, Neb., June 8 -- Most Americans and others are not taking enough vitamin D, a fact that may put them at significant risk for developing cancer, according to a landmark study conducted by Creighton University School of Medicine.

The four-year, randomized study followed 1,179 healthy, postmenopausal women from rural eastern Nebraska.* Participants taking calcium, as well as a quantity of vitamin D3 nearly three times the U.S. government's Recommended Daily Amount (RDA) for middle-age adults, showed a dramatic 60 percent or greater reduction in cancer risk than women who did not get the vitamin.

The results of the study, conducted between 2000 and 2005, were reported in the June 8 online edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

"The findings are very exciting. They confirm what a number of vitamin D proponents have suspected for some time but that, until now, have not been substantiated through clinical trial," said principal investigator Joan Lappe, Ph.D., R.N., Creighton professor of medicine and holder of the Criss/Beirne Endowed Chair in the School of Nursing. "Vitamin D is a critical tool in fighting cancer as well as many other diseases."

Other Creighton researchers involved in the study included Robert Recker, M.D.; Robert Heaney, M.D.; Dianne Travers-Gustafson, M.S.; and K. Michael Davies, Ph.D.

Research participants were all 55 years and older and free of known cancers for at least 10 years prior to entering the Creighton study. Subjects were randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium, 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D3, or placebos. National Institutes of Health funded the study.

Over the course of four years, women in the calcium/vitamin D3 group experienced a 60 percent decrease in their cancer risk than the group taking placebos.

On the premise that some women entered the study with undiagnosed cancers, researchers then eliminated the first-year results and looked at the last three years of the study. When they did that, the results became even more dramatic with the calcium/vitamin D3 group showing a startling 77 percent cancer-risk reduction.

In the three-year analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in cancer incidence between participants taking placebos and those taking just calcium supplements.

Through the course of the study, 50 participants developed nonskin cancers, including breast, colon, lung and other cancers.

Lappe said further studies are needed to determine whether the Creighton research results apply to other populations, including men, women of all ages, and different ethnic groups. While the study was open to all ethnic groups, all participants were Caucasian, she noted.

There is a growing body of evidence that a higher intake of vitamin D may be helpful in the prevention and treatment of cancer, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases.

Humans make their own vitamin D3 when they are exposed to sunlight. In fact, only 10-15 minutes a day in a bright summer sun creates large amounts of the vitamin, Lappe said. However, people need to exercise caution since the sun's ultraviolet B rays also can cause skin cancer; sunscreen blocks most vitamin D production.

In addition, the latitude at which you live and your ancestry also influence your body's ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D. People with dark skin have more difficulty making the vitamin. Persons living at latitudes north of the 37th parallel -- Omaha is near the 41st parallel -- cannot get their vitamin D naturally during the winter months because of the sun's angle. Experts generally agree that the RDA** for vitamin D needs to be increased substantially, however there is debate about the amount. Supplements are available in two forms -- vitamin D2 and vitamin D3. Creighton researchers recommend vitamin D3, because it is more active and thus more effective in humans.

* Study participants came from the Nebraska counties of Douglas, Colfax, Cuming, Dodge, Saunders, Washington, Sarpy, Burt and Butler. ** RDA recommendations for vitamin D are 200 IU/d, birth-age 50; 400 IU/d, 50-70 years; and 600 IU/d, 70 years and older.

Sun exposure cancer warnings 'lead to Vitamin D deficiencies'

Public health warnings about skin cancer have led to a rise in Vitamin D deficiency through lack of sunlight, according to a controversial study into the effects of ultraviolet exposure.

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent The Telegraph Published: 9:30AM BST 09 Aug 2009

Vitamin D, produced by the body in response to sunlight, helps protect against cancer.

But now, a controversial new study has blamed the same public health messages for causing growing numbers of people to suffer from vitamin D deficiency, because they are failing to get enough sunlight on their skin.

Vitamin D is produced by the body in response to exposure from ultraviolet radiation from natural sunlight. It helps protect against cancer and is also thought to be important in helping to prevent bone disease such as osteoporosis, as well as autoimmune diseases, asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, depression, Parkinson's disease and Multiple Sclerosis.

The researchers are now calling for guidelines on sunlight exposure to be reviewed to ensure people receive enough vitamin D.

Dr Veronique Bataille, who led the study, said: "There has been so much effort put into telling people about the damaging effects of ultraviolet light from sunshine, many now take extreme measures to ensure they don't get exposure by wearing moisturisers with factor 15 all year round.

"We don't want to say that sunbathing is healthy as there is clearly a risk, but people do need a bit of sunshine to stay healthy."

Dr Bataille and her colleagues measured vitamin D levels in the blood of 1,414 white women in the UK and compared this to their skin type and details about the number of foreign holidays, sunbed use and the number of times they had been sunburnt.

They found that those with the fairest skin, who usually have red or blonde hair, had the lowest levels of vitamin D.

Conventional scientific thinking suggests this should not be the case.

People with greater levels of melanin which is the pigment which causes darker colour in skin make less vitamin D and there is evidence to show that those with Asian and Afro- Caribbean backgrounds have trouble producing the vitamin. Dr Bataille, a consultant dermatologist at Hemel Hempstead General Hospital and a researcher at Kings College London, also found that those with fair skin also had the lowest levels of sun exposure through the number of holidays they had abroad and sunbed use.

The researchers concluded that people with fair skin actively avoided sun exposure more, due to their increased sensitivity and so produced less vitamin D. They added, however, there may also be a genetic element that means people with fair skin metabolise vitamin D differently.

The findings come after another study by Dr Bataille's group that showed sunlight may not be the main cause of melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer. Instead they concluded that the number of moles on the skin was a better indicator of risk.

"The advice on sun exposure needs to be reviewed," said Dr Bataille. "It is potentially harmful if people are getting the message that they should completely avoid the sun. The advice needs to be better tailored to the differences in skin type and sun levels around the country."

Experts claim that excessive avoidance of the sun has stemmed from confusing official guidance on sun exposure which has unduly raised fears about the risk of being outside in the sunshine.

Advice on the Health Protection Agency's website states that people should limit unprotected personal exposure to solar radiation, particularly during the four hours around midday, even in the UK. It even warns that sunburn can occur when in the shade or when cloudy.

Cancer Research UK used to advice that people stayed in the shade between 11am and 3pm, the time when the sun is at its hottest and the best time for making vitamin D according to experts. They recently changed their advice to "spend time in the shade between 11am and 3pm" and "aim to cover up".

Vitamin D can be obtained from food, including oily fish and eggs, but it is harder for the body to obtain enough from these sources and consumption of these products in the UK has dramatically declined.

Dr Bataille believes people can make enough vitamin D from just 15 minutes exposure to sunlight while wearing a T-shirt, but added that this would need to be increased for those with dark skin or during the winter months when sunlight is lower.

According to a separate recent study at University College London, 20 per cent of women and 12 per cent of men are now classed as being clinically vitamin D deficient, while levels of the vitamin in nearly two thirds of women and 57 per cent of men are "insufficient".

Dr Vasant Hirani, who led the study, added: "The advice on sun exposure does need to be clarified."

The British Association of Dermatologists has recently issued guidance with the National Osteoporosis Society that recommends people get 15 to 20 minutes of sun exposure a day.

Nina Goad, from the Association, said she doubted public health messages were responsible for causing vitamin D deficiency.

"Vitamin D deficiency is likely to be due to our lifestyles meaning we spend a lot of time indoors, to a lack of vitamin D in our diets, and to our climate meaning we have limited sun exposure for much of the year," she added. A spokesman for the Health Protection Agency said: "We are not saying that people should avoid all sunlight. Indeed a small amount can help to maintain vitamin D levels.

"Sunbathing incurs the potential hazard without adding to vitamin D levels."

Vitamin D conspiracy leads straight to Big Pharma

By Dr. Allan Spreen on 02/19/2011

You've probably heard about the bad rap vitamin D has been getting lately. The argument goes something like this...the vitamin D crisis isn't as bad as we thought. You probably don't need as much of it as we thought. But it's a free country. So go ahead and take 400 IU of it per day, if you want. That's more than enough. Just don't go over 4,000 IU per day. "High doses" like that can increase your risk for "harm"

These new guidelines come from the U.S. Institute of Medicine (or IOM), a powerful non- profit agency that advises the nation of matters of health. But here's the problem: Their report is pure propaganda.

In fact, I believe these low doses of vitamin D are a deliberate attempt to keep the American public needing more drugs until the day they die. (I'll admit, that sounds a tad paranoid. But I'll explain why my paranoia is well-founded a moment.)

First, let's look at the three major problems with the IOM research.

Leave it to the IOM to redefine "majority"

First off, the IOM report states that the "majority" of adults living in the U.S. get enough vitamin D...and that's just nonsense.

As you'll recall, last week I told you about a major CDC study that found almost 80 percent of Americans don't get enough vitamin D. Plus, another major study published late last year by researchers from the University of Tennessee came up with similar results. In fact, this time researchers found that 87 percent of the general population is mildly to severely deficient in vitamin D. Even the most conservative estimates put vitamin D deficiencies at about 50 percent of the population.

So how the IOM can confidently claim the "majority" of Americans get enough vitamin D, I have no idea!

Spend a minute in the sun each day

The IOM report also states that "North Americans need on average 400 International Units (IUs) of vitamin D per day. People age 71 and older may require as much as 800 IUs per day because of potential changes in people's bodies as they age."

Again, this is pure nonsense. But before I go any further, here's a quick biochemistry primer...

The IOM says you only need 400 IU of vitamin D. But they actually mean 400 IU of vitamin D3 (or cholecalciferol). Your skin makes this natural form of vitamin D when exposed to sunlight. In fact, spending just 30 minutes in the sun without sunscreen, your skin will produce anywhere from 10,000 IU to 50,000 IU of D3! Plus, you can also take D3 as a supplement. Next...

Vitamin D3 passes through your liver and it turns into a pre-hormone called 25- hydroxycholecalciferol. This is abbreviated as 25(OH)D.

When you get a vitamin D blood test, we really want to see how much 25(OH)D is in your blood. We measure 25(OH)D in nanomoles per litre or nmol/l.

Now, stick with me, because here's where it gets interesting...

According to the IOM report, taking just 400 IU of vitamin D3 per day will give 97 percent of us a blood serum level of 50 nmol/l. And that level will protect us from fractures. Sounds okay, I guess. But let me put this another way to show you just how silly the IOM recommendation really is...

Let's assume that your body makes 10,000 IU of D3 for every 30 minutes spent in the sun without sunscreen. (Most experts say you make at least twice that much...but let's not get picky.) So, how long does it take for your body to make 400 IU of D3?

Hurray! Just 1.2 minutes in the sun! That's all you need to keep your bones strong.

Is it me, or does that just sound wrong?

Well, here's the good news. It isn't just me. It is wrong. And there's some solid scientific proof to back me up...

IOM gets their numbers wrong

Two major meta-analysis' from 2009 found that 50 nmol/l of 25(OH)D in your blood isn't enough to protect you from a fracture or a fall. In fact, 28 separate studies found that 50 nmol/l isn't enough!

Plus, the International Osteoporosis Foundation recommends men and women have 75 nmol/l of 25(OH)D. This is what it takes to protect you from accidental falls and fractures. Lastly, numerous studies over the years show that the more 25(0H)D in your blood, the greater your bone density. But to get up to those higher levels of 25(OH)D, you need more D3.

Plus, here's another interesting twist. The authors of the IOM report most likely knew about all this research...they just chose to ignore it.

You see, before publishing the new vitamin D guidelines, the IOM board consulted with Dr. Walter Willet. The board even thanked Dr. Willet at the end of their report.

So who's Dr. Willet?

He's a vitamin D expert and Chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard. He also co- wrote one of the 2009 reports on vitamin D I mentioned earlier. The IOM, however, ignored his findings.

But don't feel bad, Dr. Willet. Yours isn't the only research the IOM ignored...

IOM report ignores research on vitamin D and disease Remember how I told you the IOM said 400 IU of D3 is enough to protect you against osteoporosis? Well, what about everything else...like cancer and heart disease?

In a press conference, IOM chair Dr. Catherine Ross said "We could not find solid evidence that consuming more [vitamin D] would protect the public from chronic disease ranging from cancer to diabetes to improved immune function." And with that simple statement, Dr. Ross lost all credibility.

Here are some of the best studies linking vitamin D and major diseases:

Breast cancer: Women with vitamin D blood serum levels less than 50 nmol/mL are eight times more likely to develop an aggressive form of breast cancer.

Colon cancer: Men and women with the highest vitamin D levels cut their colon cancer risk by 40 percent.

Heart Disease & Stroke: Men and women with low vitamin D double their heart attack or stroke risk.

Cognitive decline: Older women with low vitamin D are twice as likely to suffer cognitive impairment.

Diabetes: A whopping 91 percent of diabetics have low levels of vitamin D in their blood. Plus, the less vitamin D in their blood, the greater their blood sugar problems.

And I'm just scratching the surface here! If you want to look at all the scientific data on vitamin D, the Vitamin D Council is a good place to start. They list the studies by disease, so you can see all the scientific data Dr. Catherine Ross and her colleagues missed.

In closing, there's one last reason why the IOM report has the pungent smell of propaganda...

There's a rat in the house

Glenville Jones, PhD is one of the authors of the IOM report. He's a scientist and also the co- inventor of drug made by a company called Cytochroma. This drug is still in development...but what condition will they treat with their top-secret drug?

You got it.

Vitamin D deficiencies!

(I'm not making this stuff up. You can see the patent for yourself at the U.S. Patent Office website.)

Dr. Jones also sits on the scientific advisory board of a drug company called Receptor Therapeutics. These guys also made a synthetic vitamin D treatment for cancer...in fact THREE synthetic vitamin D treatments for cancer. (Drug companies use synthetic vitamin D because they can patent it and make a huge profit. You can't patent natural vitamin D.)

Well, isn't that so thoughtful...

You don't need to take vitamin D. But if you do happen to get cancer...guess who plans to have a vitamin D drug you can take? Here's the bottom line for you: Ignore anything published by the IOM. Take up to 5,000 IU of natural vitamin D3 each day. And avoid anything made by Cytochroma and Receptor Therapeutics. - From healthiertalk.com

Vitamin D and Cancer – Vitamin D Outperforms Pharmaceuticals at Treating Cancer

Mike Barrett NaturalSociety June 1, 2012

Vitamin D and Cancer

Vitamin D Outperforms Pharmaceuticals at Treating CancerEveryone is deathly afraid of coming down with cancer, yet the very lifestyle that promotes cancer is the most popular. Cancer has been one of the leading causes of death in the United States, UK, and many other nations for years. Something is terribly wrong, as the war on cancer is failing miserably. The use of pharmaceutical drugs is not the answer, and the idea of prevention is seldom voiced. Luckily, making some dietary changes can reduce your cancer risk significantly. One example is showcased with research showing that a relationship between vitamin D and cancer exists; raising vitamin D levels can be more effective and much safer than dangerous pharmaceutical drugs and treatments. It costs a whole lot less as well.

Angus Dalgleish, a consultant medical oncologist residing in a city known as Tooting in south-west London, tests all of his patients for vitamin D levels and prescribes supplements for when the levels are low. Dalgleish noticed that patients at his clinic at St Georges suffering from melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, almost all were vitamin D deficient. Not only does the medical oncologist prescribe vitamin D for his melanoma patients, but he also prescribes the vitamin for other patients who are stricken with other types of cancer.

“If we supplement people who are low they may do better than expected. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if vitamin D turns out to be more useful in improving outcomes in cases of early relapse than drugs costing ;1:,::: a year,” said Professor Dalgleish. “I spent a decade studying interferon for which the NHS paid £10,000 annually per patient for years for very little benefit. Vitamin D is much more likely to give a benefit in my view.”

Other research from the University of Leeds showed similar connections between vitamin D and cancer, specifically melanoma. Patients with the lowest vitamin D levels had the gloomiest outlook and were also 30 percent more likely to suffer from the disease in the future than those with higher vitamin D levels.

At Creighton University in Nebraska, Joan Lappe, a professor of medicine, also noticed a strong link between vitamin D and cancer. He took note of the vitamin d and cancer relationship when cancer patients who received vitamin d and calcium supplementation increased their survival rates significantly. Although the trial was originally meant to evaluate the effects of supplements on osteoporosis, this accidental finding led Lappe to examine the effects of supplements on cancer.

You May Not Be Getting the Vitamin D You Think You Are

Of course, none of this matters if you aren’t giving your body the necessary amount of vitamin D to work with. Foods fortified with vitamin d contain a synthetic, potentially harmful type of vitamin D called vitamin D2. Vitamin D2 is both inferior and could be harmful, so you may not want to search for fortified foods like milk and cereal just yet. Instead of chomping down on fortified foods, consume foods that naturally possess vitamin D such as cod liver oil, eggs, and seafood such as salmon, oysters, catfish, sardines, or shrimp. However, be careful when consuming fish, as most fish is toxic due to contaminates and chemicals residing in the water.

The best source of vitamin D is the sun, but the amount of vitamin D produced from sun exposure can vary greatly. Getting sun exposure in the summer when the rays are very strong can produce a lot of vitamin D – as much as 1:,::: IU’s in just 2:-30 minutes (a bit longer for dark skin). But soaking up the rays in winter months will not produce the same amount as the sun is less powerful.

One last thing to remember is to avoid using sunscreen if possible. Not only does research show that sunscreen causes cancer, but lathering on sunscreen also compromises your body’s ability to produce vitamin D from UV rays.

Ignore This Deficiency... And Become 3 Times More Likely to Die?

By Dr. Mercola

This is a really important study as it is one of the first large trials that examined the relationship of vitamin D supplementation on that of overall death rate.

Previous studies have correlated vitamin D levels but most of that was related to vitamin D levels raised naturally through sun exposure.

Numerous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that vitamin D deficiency has a negative association with survival; however, the effect of vitamin D supplementation on overall mortality has not been studied.

This is a crucially important study of over 10,000 people over a five-year period whose average age was that of most that read this newsletter (58).

This study proves very clearly that oral vitamin D works to radically decrease your risk of dying.

Are You Going to Take Advantage of this Landmark Study?

I have a simple question to ask you, the answer to which is essential for optimizing your health and even reducing your risk of premature death by 50 percent:

What are your vitamin D levels?

If you cannot answer this question, you may be speeding down the health equivalent of the Autobahn with no seatbelt, and it’s only a matter of time before it catches up to you.

With a simple blood test, and similarly simple strategies to make sure your levels reach the optimal range, you can put on your figurative seatbelt -- and drastically improve your overall health.

Addressing Your Vitamin D Deficiency May Cut Your Risk of Dying in Half

Taking vitamin D supplements in order to overcome a deficiency in the vitamin could cut your risk of dying by more than half, so found a recent analysis of more than 10,000 patients. Not only was vitamin D deficiency associated with several cardiovascular-related diseases, including hypertension, coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy, and diabetes, but it was also a strong independent predictor of all-cause death. Researchers found that patients with low levels of vitamin D were more likely to have diabetes, high blood pressure, and diseased heart muscle -- and were three times more likely to die from any cause compared to those with normal levels.

Now it’s important to realize that more than 70 percent of the study participants were deficient in vitamin D, and this was based on a “normal” vitamin D level of ≥3: ng/ml.

However, the latest research suggests that any level below 50 ng/ml is actually a deficiency state, which means the number of vitamin-d deficient participants was actually much higher, most likely well over 90-95% of the patients. But it is quite extraordinary to see their improvement even at the lower levels they reported.

Because your body is designed to produce vitamin D from regular exposure of your skin to the sun, unless you live in a warm, sunny climate where you frequently spend time outdoors with large portions of your skin exposed, there’s a very high chance you, too, are deficient.

Again, in the study those who corrected their deficiencies saw their risk of death drop by more than half … which should give you an idea of just how crucial this vitamin is for your overall health.

As researchers noted:

“In conclusion, vitamin D deficiency was associated with a significant risk of cardiovascular disease and reduced survival. Vitamin D supplementation was significantly associated with better survival, specifically in patients with documented deficiency.”

Vitamin D Helps Prevent Cancer, Heart Disease, Depression and Much More

In the past, vitamin D was primarily regarded as an important nutrient for bone health, and it was conventionally thought that a person had enough vitamin D as long as they didn't have an obvious bone disease like rickets or osteomalacia.

But new research shows how wrong this assumption was, as higher levels of vitamin D are necessary to provide protection from more serious chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, infections, multiple sclerosis and more.

Vitamin D receptors are present in virtually every tissue and cell in your body, and the research is very impressive supporting its role in preventing:

Cancer Hypertension Heart disease

Autism Obesity Rheumatoid arthritis

Diabetes 1 and 2 Multiple Sclerosis Crohn's disease Cold & Flu Inflammatory Bowel Disease Tuberculosis

Septicaemia Signs of aging Dementia

Eczema & Psoriasis Insomnia Hearing loss

Muscle pain Cavities & Periodontal disease Early puberty

Osteoporosis Macular degeneration Reduced C-section risk

Pre eclampsia Seizures Infertility

Asthma Cystic fibrosis Migraines

Depression Alzheimer's disease Schizophrenia

Sunlight or a Tanning Bed are Your Best Choices for Optimizing Vitamin D

Many are interested in the guidelines for vitamin D supplementation, but it’s important to realize that the IDEAL way to optimize your vitamin D levels is not by taking a pill, but rather allowing your body to do what it was designed to do—create vitamin D from sun exposure. This study however certainly provides some powerful support for the value of oral vitamin D.

However, there are a number of reasons that sunlight is better:

 It is more natural. Our ancestors optimized their vitamin D levels by sun exposure, not by swallowing it in foods. Although vitamin D is in some animal foods it is in relatively low quantities and to my knowledge there are no known ancestral populations that thrived on oral vitamin D sources.  When you expose your skin to the sun, your skin also synthesizes high amounts of cholesterol sulfate, which is very important for cardiovascular health. In fact, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, believes that high LDL and associated heart disease may in fact be a symptom of cholesterol sulfate deficiency. Sulfur deficiency, in fact, also promotes obesity and related health problems like diabetes  You cannot overdose when getting your vitamin D from sun exposure, as your body has the ability to self-regulate production and only make what it needs

How Much Sun Exposure do You Need?

To optimize your levels, you need to expose large portions of your skin to the sun, and you need to do it for more than a few minutes. And, contrary to popular belief, the best time to be in the sun for vitamin D production is actually as near to solar noon as possible. During this time you need the shortest exposure time to produce vitamin D because UVB rays are most intense at this time. Plus, when the sun goes down toward the horizon, the UVB is filtered out much more than the dangerous UVA.

Just be cautious about the length of your exposure. You only need enough exposure to have your skin turn the lightest shade of pink. Once you reach this point your body will not make any additional vitamin D due to its self-regulating mechanism. Any additional exposure will only cause harm and damage to your skin.

Unfortunately, studies have shown only about 30 percent of Americans' circulating vitamin D is the product of sunlight exposure.

This is a byproduct of public health agencies' misguided advice to stay out of the sun to avoid cancer (when in fact vitamin D from sun exposure will actually help prevent it). If you can’t get out in the sun, a safe tanning bed is the next best option. Safe tanning beds have electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, which help you avoid unnecessary exposure to health-harming EMF fields. They also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight.

The Latest Vitamin D Supplementation Guidelines

If neither sun exposure nor safe tanning beds are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement if your levels are low. It will definitely be better than no vitamin D at all.

There is no one-size-fits-all dosage level at which "magic" happens, but based on the most recent research by GrassrootsHealth—an organization that has greatly contributed to the current knowledge on vitamin D through their D* Action Study—it appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU's of vitamin D a day in order to get their serum levels above 40 ng/ml. This is significantly higher than previously recommended!

For children, many experts agree they need about 35 IU's of vitamin D per pound of body weight.

At the time GrassrootsHealth performed the studies that resulted in this increased dosage recommendation, the optimal serum level was believed to be between 40 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). Since then, the optimal vitamin D level has been raised to 50-70 ng/ml, and when treating cancer or heart disease, as high as 70-100 ng/ml, as illustrated in the chart below.

What this means is that even if you do not regularly monitor your vitamin D levels (which you should), your risk of overdosing is going to be fairly slim, even if you take as much as 8,000 IU's a day. However, the only way to determine your optimal dose is to get your blood tested regularly, and adjust your dosage to maintain that optimal zone. Remember, unless you get a deep dark tan, which is a pretty good indicator that your vitamin D levels are where they need to be, it is wise to get your blood levels checked -- that is the only way to know for certain you have reached therapeutic levels.

Research From 100+ Countries Proves Sunlight Prevents Cancer

Greenmedinfo.com Tue, January 10th 2012 by Sayer Ji

For the same reason that the conventional energy industry has not harnessed the full potential of solar energy (its free!), sunlight and its indispensable byproduct in our skin: vitamin D, represents a serious threat to the medical establishment, whose questionable and aggressive promotion of vaccination and drug-based strategies in place of inexpensive, safe and effective vitamin D supplementation (or better, carefully meted out recreation and sunlight exposure) for immunity, has many questioning their motives.

Vitamin D, after all, has a vital preventive role to play in hundreds of conditions, due to the fact that 1 in every 10 genes in the human body depends on adequate quantities of this gene-regulatory hormone to function optimally. In other words, the very genetic/epigenetic infrastructure of our health would fall apart without adequate levels.

Even the risk for developing cancer, one of the most feared health conditions of our time -- and the one the medical establishment has had the least success preventing and treating -- is intimately connected to your vitamin D status.

Indeed, a groundbreaking new meta-analysis on the sunlight-vitamin D connection, published in the journal Anticancer Research and based on data from over 100 countries, found that "a strong inverse correlations with solar UVB for 15 types of cancer," with weaker, though still significant evidence for the protective role of sunlight in 9 other cancers.

The relevant cancers were:

"Bladder, breast, cervical, colon, endometrial, esophageal, gastric, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, rectal, renal, and vulvar cancer; and Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Weaker evidence exists for nine other types of cancer: brain, gallbladder, laryngeal, oral/pharyngeal, prostate, and thyroid cancer; leukaemia; melanoma; and multiple myeloma."

Sunlight exposure, after all, is essential for health from the moment we are born. Without it, for instance, infants are prone to developing neonatal jaundice. The very variation in human skin colour from African, melanin-saturated dark skin, to the relatively melanin de- pigmented, Caucasian lighter-skin, is a byproduct of the offspring of our last common ancestor from Africa (as determined by mitochondrial DNA) migrating towards sunlight- impoverished higher latitudes, which began approximately 60,000 years ago. In order to compensate for the lower availability of sunlight, the body rapidly adjusted, essentially requiring the removal of the natural "sunscreen" melanin from the skin, which interferes with vitamin D production. While a life-saving adaptation, the loss of melanin likely has adverse health effects, which include losing the ability to convert sunlight into metabolic energy, increased prevalence of Parkinson's disease (which involves de-melanization of the substantia nigra), and others effects which we will discuss in detail in a future article. For now, it is important to point out that within the span of only 60,000 years (a nanosecond in biological time), many of the skin "colour" differences among the world's human inhabitants reflect how heavily genetically-conserved was the ability of the human body to produce vitamin D. It should also be pointed out that vitamin D is to sunlight, what ascorbic acid is to the vitamin C activity in food. In other words, sunlight likely provides a greater spectrum of therapeutic activity (when carefully meted out, preferably during solar noon) than supplemental vitamin D3, which is almost exclusively derived from UVB irradiated sheep's lanolin.

For further research, the following link reveals 50 therapeutic effects of sunlight exposure, as culled from research housed on the National Library of Medicine.

Cancer Cured For Good

By Bill Sardi and Timothy Hubbell October 2008

It works 100% of the time to eradicate cancer completely, and cancer does not recur even years later. That is how researchers describe the most convincing cancer cure ever announced.

The weekly injection of just 100 billionths of a gram of a harmless glyco-protein (a naturally-produced molecule with a sugar component and a protein component) activates the human immune system and cures cancer for good, according to human studies among breast cancer and colon cancer patients, producing complete remissions lasting 4 and 7 years respectively. This glyco-protein cure is totally without side effect but currently goes unused by cancer doctors.

Normal Gc protein (also called Vitamin-D binding protein) , an abundant glyco-protein found in human blood serum, becomes the molecular switch to activate macrophages when it is converted to its active form, called Gc macrophage activating factor (Gc-MAF). Gc protein is normally activated by conversion to Gc-MAF with the help of the B and T cells (bone marrow- made and thymus gland-made white blood cells). But, as researchers explain it themselves, cancer cells secrete an enzyme known as alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase (also called Nagalase) that completely blocks conversion of Gc protein to Gc-MAF, preventing tumour-cell killing by the macrophages. This is the way cancer cells escape detection and destruction, by disengaging the human immune system. This also leaves cancer patients prone to infections and many then succumb to pneumonia or other infections.

The once-weekly injection of minute amounts of Gc-MAF, just 100 nanograms (billionths of a gram), activates macrophages and allows the immune system to pursue cancer cells with vigor, sufficient to produce total long-term cures in humans.

Nobuto Yamamoto, director of the Division of Cancer Immunology and Molecular Biology, Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, says this is “probably the most potent macrophage activating factor ever discovered.”

A MACROPHAGE OVERCOMES AND EATS A CANCER CELL. FROM THE UPJOHN COMPANY, THE IMMUNE SYSTEM

Once a sufficient number of activated macrophages are produced, another Gc-MAF injection is not needed for a week because macrophages have a half-life of about six days. After 16- 22 weekly doses of Gc-MAF the amount of Nagalase enzyme fell to levels found in healthy people, which serves as evidence tumours have been completely eliminated. The treatment was fool-proof - - - it worked in 100% of 16 breast cancer patients and there were no recurrent tumours over a period of 4 years, says a report in the January 15 issue of the International Journal of Cancer. [International Journal Cancer.2008 January15; 122(2):461-7]

In another startling follow-up report by Dr. Yamamoto and colleagues, published in the upcoming July issue of Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy, Gc-MAF therapy totally abolished tumours in 8 colon cancer patients who had already undergone surgery but still exhibited circulating cancer cells (metastases). After 32-50 weekly injections, ”all colorectal cancer patients exhibited healthy control levels of the serum Nagalase activity, indicating eradication of metastatic tumour cells” said researchers, an effect that lasted 7 years with no indication of cancer recurrence either by enzyme activity or CT scans, said researchers. [Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy Volume 57, Number 7 / July 2008] Published in an early online edition of this journal, this confirming report has received no attention by the new media so far, despite its striking importance.

Gc-MAF treatment for cancer has been agonizingly slow to develop. Dr. Yamamoto first described this immuno-therapy in 1993. [The Journal of Immunology, 1993 151 (5); 2794- 2802]

In a similar animal experiment published in 2003, researchers in Germany, Japan and the United States collaborated to successfully demonstrate that after they had injected macrophage activating factor (Gc-MAF) into tumour-bearing mice, it totally eradicated tumours. [Neoplasia 2003 January; 5(1): 32–40]

In 1997 Dr. Yamamoto injected GcMAF protein into tumour-bearing mice, with the same startling results. A single enzyme injection doubled the survival of these mice and just four enzyme injections increased survival by 6-fold. [Cancer Research 1997 Jun 1; 57(11):2187-92]

In 1996 Dr. Yamamoto reported that all 52 cancer patients he had studied carried elevated blood plasma levels of the immune inactivating alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase enzyme (Nagalase), whereas healthy humans had very low levels of this enzyme. [Cancer Research 1996 Jun 15; 56(12):2827-31]

In the early 1990s, Dr. Yamamoto first described how the human immune system is disengaged by enzymes secreted from cancer cells, even filing a patent on the proposed therapy. [US Patent 5326749, July 1994; Cancer Research 1996 June 15; 56: 2827-31]

Activated Gc protein has been used in humans at much higher doses without side effect. This Gc macrophage activating factor (Gc-MAF) has been shown to be effective against a variety of cancers including breast, prostate, stomach, liver, lung, uterus, ovary, brain, skin, head/neck cancer, and leukaemia.

Although GcMAF is also called Vitamin-D binding protein, the activation of macrophages does not require Vitamin D.

It cannot be said the Gc-MAF cancer cure has gone unheralded. Reuters News covered this developing story in January. But the news story still did not receive top billing nor did it fully elucidate the importance of the discovery, actually made years ago, that the human body is capable of abolishing cancer once its immune system is properly activated.

GcMAF is a naturally made molecule and is not patentable, though its manufacturing process is patent protected. There is no evidence of any current effort to commercialize this therapy or put it into practice. Should such an effective treatment for cancer come into common practice, the income stream from health-insurance plans for every oncology office and cancer centre in the world Would likely be reduced to the point of financial insolvency and hundreds of thousands of jobs would be eliminated.

The National Cancer Institute estimates cancer care in the U.S. costs ~$72 billion annually (2004). Furthermore, about $55 billion of cancer drugs are used annually, none which have not significantly improved survival rates throughout the history of their use. If a typical cancer patient had to undergo 30 GcMAF injections at a cost of $150 per injection, that would cost $45::, not counting doctor’s office visits and follow-up testing. For comparison, gene-targeted cancer drugs range from $13,000 to $100,000 in cost per year and produce only marginal improvements in survival (weeks to months). [Targeted Oncology 2007 April, 2 (2); 113-19]

Up to this point, the National Cancer Institute is totally silent on this discovery and there is no evidence the cancer care industry plans to quickly mobilize to use this otherwise harmless treatment.

Addendum: Sadly, the treatment you have just read about is not available anywhere. Its inventor is attempting to patent a version of it to profiteer off of it even though there is no need to improve upon the GcMAF molecule - - it worked without failure to completely cure four different types of cancer with no long-term remissions and without side effect. While GcMAF is produced by every healthy adult, there are no centres available to extract it from blood samples and inject it into patients with malignancies. Hopefully, someday, doctors will write protocols to do this and submit them to institutional review boards so GcMAF treatment can be performed on an experimental basis. GcMAF is a naturally-made molecule that cannot be patented. This article was written to reveal that there are proven cancer cures that go unused. Of interest, not one oncologist has requested information about GcMAF since this article was written, while I have been barraged with inquires from cancer patients, their families and some interested physicians who are not cancer doctors. -Bill Sardi

Based in Southern California, Bill Sardi is a notedand well-known author, lecturer, speaker, and health researcher, with numerous books and articles to his credit. He can be reached at [email protected]. Timothy Hubbell, a biochemist from Cincinnati, first called attention to this discovery and provided consultation on the biochemistry.

Silver bullet for cancer: Metal can kill some tumours better than chemotherapy with fewer side effects

By Anthony Bond on 2nd February 2012 Daily Mail

Silver can kill some cancers as effectively as chemotherapy and with potentially fewer side effects, new research claims.

Scientists say that old wives tales about the precious metal being a ‘silver bullet’ to beat the Big C could be true.

The metal already has a wide range of medicinal uses and is a common antiseptic, antibiotic and means of purifying water in the third world.

And British researchers now say that silver compounds are as effective at killing certain cancer cells as a leading chemotherapy drug, but with potentially far fewer side-effects.

They compared it to Cisplatin, currently used to treat a wide variety of cancers, but known to have harsh side effects including nausea, vomiting and even kidney damage. Silver is used already in everyday products such as deodorant with no known side-effects, and could make for a potentially cheaper alternative to platinum-based Cisplatin.

Researchers from the University of Leeds conducted lab tests which exposed breast and colon cancer cells to various silver-based chemicals over a six day period.

Results, published in journal Dalton Transactions, showed that these silver-compounds were ‘as effective as Cisplatin’ at killing cancer with potentially fewer side effects.

While the team are still unsure about how exactly silver battles cancer, they think its effectiveness may be caused by the structure surrounding silver atoms, known as its ligand.

They think this may help release the silver ion into cells when it enters the body, killing any cancer.

Study author Dr Charlotte Willans plans to spend the next year looking closely at what effect silver has on both cancerous and healthy cells, and whether it could be a safe and effective new anti-cancer drug. She said: 'It’s certainly an exciting discovery, although I think we have a lot of work to do in the future. It opens the doors in terms of what we can do and investigate.

'Getting these results also gives us the opportunity we need to apply for funding to take the research further. 'This could lead to a cheaper, less toxic alternative to current treatments for cancer.'

Explaining the research in greater detail, Dr Willans added: 'As many are unfortunately aware, chemotherapy can be a very gruelling experience for the patient.

'Finding effective, yet non-toxic drugs is an ongoing problem, but these preliminary results are an important step in solving it.

'Our research has looked at the structure which surrounds a central silver atom. This "shrubbery" is what determines how reactive it is and what it will interact with.

'Our research has used different types of these ligands to see which is the most effective against cancer cells.'

This picture is of fruit that called soursop that apparently kills cancer cells 10000 times more efficiently than chemo does! (without killing you) - Google it for yourself. Now my personal favourite treatment....

Spain Study Confirms Hemp Oil Cures Cancer without Side Effects

The International Medical Veritas Association (IMVA) is putting hemp oil on its cancer protocol. It is a prioritized protocol list whose top five items are magnesium chloride, iodine, selenium, Alpha Lipoic Acid and sodium bicarbonate. It makes perfect sense to drop hemp oil right into the middle of this nutritional crossfire of anti cancer medicines, which are all available without prescription.

Hemp oil has long been recognised as one of the most versatile and beneficial substances known to man. Derived from hemp seeds (a member of the achene family of fruits) it has been regarded as a superfood due to its high essential fatty acid content and the unique ratio of omega3 to omega6 and gamma linolenic acid (GLA) – 2:5:1. Hemp oil, is known to contain up to 5% of pure GLA, a much higher concentration than any other plant, even higher than spirulina. For thousands of years, the hemp plant has been used in elixirs and medicinal teas because of its healing properties and now medical science is zeroing in on the properties of its active substances.

Both the commercial legal type of hemp oil and the illegal THC laden hemp oil are one of the most power-packed protein sources available in the plant kingdom. Its oil can be used in many nutritional and transdermal applications. In other chapters in my Winning the War on Cancer book we will discuss in-depth about GLA and cancer and also the interesting work of Dr. Johanna Budwig. She uses flax seed oil instead of hemp oil to cure cancer – through effecting changes in cell walls – using these omega3 and omega6 laden medicinal oils.

Actually there is another way to use medical marijuana without smoking the leaf. According to Dr. Tod H. Mikuriya, “The usual irritating and toxic breakdown products of burning utilized with smoking are totally avoided with vaporization. Extraction and inhaling cannabinoid essential oils below ignition temperature of both crude and refined cannabis products affords significant mitigation of irritation to the oral cavity, and tracheobronchial tree from pyrollytic breakdown products.[iii]

Rick Simpson, the man in the documentary below, has been making hemp oil and sharing it with friends and neighbours without charging for it. In small doses, he says, it makes you well without getting you high. “Well you can’t deny your own eyes can you?” Simpson asks. “Here’s someone dying of cancer and they’re not dying anymore. I don’t care if the medicine comes from a tomato plant, potato plant or a hemp plant, if the medicine is safe and helps and works, why not use it?” he asks.

When a person has cancer and is dying this question reaches a critical point. The bravery of Rick Simpson from Canada in showing us how to make hemp oil for ourselves offers many people a hope that should be increasingly appreciated as money dries up for expensive cancer treatments. We are going to need inexpensive medicines in the future and there is nothing better than the ones we can make reasonably cheaply ourselves.

For most people in the world it is illegal so the choice could come down to breaking the law or dying. There is no research to indicate what advantages oral use of hemp oil vs. vaporization but we can assume that advantage would be nutritional with oral intake. Dr. Budwig Below work would sustain this point of view especially for cancer patients. The Science

According to Dr. Robert Ramer and Dr. Burkhard Hinz of the University of Rostock in Germany medical marijuana can be an effective treatment for cancer.[v] Their research was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute Advance Access on December 25th of 2007 in a paper entitled Inhibition of Cancer Cell Invasion by Cannabinoids via Increased Expression of Tissue Inhibitor of Matrix Metalloproteinases-1.

The biggest contribution of this breakthrough discovery, is that the expression of TIMP-1 was shown to be stimulated by cannabinoid receptor activation and to mediate the anti- invasive effect of cannabinoids. Prior to now the cellular mechanisms underlying this effect were unclear and the relevance of the findings to the behaviour of tumour cells in vivo remains to be determined.

Marijuana cuts lung cancer tumour growth in half, a 2007 Harvard Medical School study shows.[vi] The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumour growth in lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

This is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy. THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors.

“The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer,” said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine. Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation.

Researchers reported in the August 15, 2004 issue of Cancer Research, the journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, that marijuana’s constituents inhibited the spread of brain cancer in human tumour biopsies.[vii] In a related development, a research team from the University of South Florida further noted that THC can also selectively inhibit the activation and replication of gamma herpes viruses. The viruses, which can lie dormant for years within white blood cells before becoming active and spreading to other cells, are thought to increase one’s chances of developing cancers such as Kaposi’s Sarcoma, Burkitt’s lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease.[viii]

In 1998, a research team at Madrid’s Complutense University discovered that THC can selectively induce programmed cell death in brain tumour cells without negatively impacting surrounding healthy cells. Then in 2000, they reported in the journal Nature Medicine that injections of synthetic THC eradicated malignant gliomas (brain tumours) in one-third of treated rats, and prolonged life in another third by six weeks.[ix]

Led by Dr. Manuel Guzman the Spanish team announced they had destroyed incurable brain cancer tumours in rats by injecting them with THC. They reported in the March 2002 issue of “Nature Medicine” that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumours whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC.[x]

Researchers at the University of Milan in Naples, Italy, reported in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that non-psychoactive compounds in marijuana inhibited the growth of glioma cells in a dose-dependent manner, and selectively targeted and killed malignant cells through apoptosis. “Non-psychoactive CBD produce[s] a significant anti-tumour activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent.”‗xi‘

The first experiment documenting pot’s anti-tumour effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S. government. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana’s psychoactive component, THC, “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukaemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”‗xii‘

Funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice — lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukaemia. The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumour research even though the researchers “found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukaemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent.”

“Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids,” an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute reports, “Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol ―THC‖ and cannabinol ―CBN‖” — two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. “Mice treated for 2: consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumour size.”

Marijuana relieves pain that narcotics like morphine and OxyContin have hardly any effect on, and could help ease suffering from illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes and cancer.[xiii]

According to Devra Davis in her book Secret History of the War on Cancer, 1.5 million lives have been lost because Americans failed to act on existing knowledge about the environmental causes of cancer. It is impossible to calculate the added deaths from suppressed ‘cancer cures’ but we do know of the terrible suffering of hundreds of thousands of people who have been jailed for marijuana use.

Hemp oil with THC included has the making of a primary cancer treatment, which even alone seems to have a great chance of turning the tide against cancer tumours. It has the added advantage of safety, ease of use, lack of side effects and low cost if one makes it oneself. Surrounded by other medicinal anti-cancer substances in a full protocol it’s hard to imagine anyone failing and falling in their war on cancer.

THC should be included in every cancer protocol.

Sodium bicarbonate is another excellent anti tumour substance that reduces tumours but is much more difficult to administer than THC hemp oil. Cannabinoids are able to pass through all barriers in the body like Alpha Lipoic Acid so simple oral intake is sufficient. With bicarbonate we need intravenous applications and often even this is not sufficient, often we have to use catheters and few doctors in the world are willing to administer this way.

In the end all cancer treatments that are not promoted by mainstream oncology are illegal. No licensed doctor is going to claim that are curing cancer with sodium bicarbonate though they will treat people with cancer explaining they are balancing pH or some other metabolic profile with this common emergency room medicine found also most kitchens of the world. More than several states have passed laws making medical marijuana legal but the federal government will not relax and let people be free to choose their treatments even if their lives depend on it.

Davis notes that the cowardice of research scientists, who publish thoroughly referenced reports but pull their punches at the end, by claiming that more research needs to be done before action can be taken. Statements like these are exploited by industry that buys time to make much more money. It is a deliberate attempt that creates wholesale public doubt from small data gaps and remaining scientific uncertainties.

They have done that with everything right up to and including sunlight. Everything is thought to be dangerous except the pharmaceutical drugs which are the most dangerous substances of all. Stomach wrenching chemotherapy and the death principle of radiation are legal yet safe THC laden hemp oil is not.

It is legal for doctors to attack people with their poisons but you can go to jail for trying to save yourself or a loved one from cancer with the oil of a simple garden weed. Our civilization has put up with this insanity but there is a great price being paid. In a mad medical world people die that need not and this is a terrible sadness that has destroyed the integrity and ethics of modern medicine.

The science for the use of hemp oil is credible, specific fact-based, and is documented in detail.[xiv] There is absolutely no reason to not legalize medical marijuana and create an immediate production and distribution of THC hemp oil to cancer patients. Unfortunately we live in a world populated with governments and medical henchmen who would rather see people die cruel deaths then have access to a safe and effect cancer drug.

Meanwhile the Food and Drug Administration approved Genentech’s best-selling drug, Avastin, as a treatment for breast cancer, in a decision, according to the New York Times, “that appeared to lower the threshold somewhat for approval of certain cancer drugs. The big question was whether it was enough for a drug temporarily to stop cancer from worsening — as Avastin had done in a clinical trial — or was it necessary for a drug to enable patients to live longer, which Avastin had failed to do. Oncologists and patient advocates were divided, in part because of the drug’s sometimes severe side effects.”‗xv‘

The differences between Avastin and hemp oil are huge. First Avastin will earn Genentech hundreds of millions where THC hemp oil will earn no one anything. Second there are no severe or even mild side effects to taking hemp oil and lastly it is not a temporary answer but a real solution. Certainly hemp oil will ensure a longer life.

Marijuana Oil Helps 3-Year-Old Son Beat Cancer, Dad Says

Mike Barrett NaturalSociety May 19, 2012

Marijuana Oil Helps 3 Year Old Son Beat Cancer, Dad Says What would you do if your 3-year old son was stricken with brain cancer? Most parents wouldn’t think twice about bringing their child to a mainstream doctor, only to undergo modern-day cancer ‘treatments’ such as chemotherapy. This is what one father, Mike Hyde, from Montana did when his 3 year old was diagnosed with brain cancer, but the father doesn’t attribute his sons victory against cancer with the use of chemotherapy or any other mainstream treatment; the dad actually says marijuana oil is what made the young boy beat cancer. While the story isn’t recent, it is one that everyone should hear about.

Marijuana Oil Helps 3-Year-Old Son Beat Cancer

In May of 2010, radiologists at Community Medical Centre in Missoula, Mont., discovered a stage 4 brain tumour in a 20-month-old boy named Cash. Shortly after the tumour was discovered, the toddler was brought to Primary Children’s Hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah, where he was placed in intensive care. It was recommended that Cash receive three cycles of chemotherapy, only to be followed by another 3 cycles of high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell rescue. The boy would also receive ‘max amounts’ of anti-nausea pharmaceutical medications.

“After his first round of high-dose chemo in August 2010, he no longer ate anything, and this went on through September. He was getting worse and worse…By the end of September he was so sick. He no longer was able to take feedings into his G-tube. His stomach lining was burnt from the chemotherapy, it was no longer processing anything – it was fried. I asked doctors if there was anything else we can give him and they said ‘We’re giving him max amounts of all anti-nausea medications we can give him.’ They basically told me that this was as good as it was going to get. I told them that it was unacceptable,” Hyde said.

The results of the chemotherapy were less than effective, as with most chemotherapy treatments, and the anti-nausea drug cocktail was causing numerous side-effects. These results caused Hyde to pull his son off of the medication, and begin secretly administering .3 milligrams of marijuana oil through his son’s G-tube. Hyde says that once he began with the marijuana oil, his son started eating again and his quality of life completely changed for the better. The father was told that it was a miracle that his son began sitting up and laughing again.

“Doctors told us he was not going to make it. He was on life support for 4: days and was in a medically-induced coma. They said he would have brain damage and his lungs would fail. But I knew the medicine (marijuana oil) was in his body, and that helped him heal. It helped to rebuild his stomach lining, his liver and his lungs. He walked out of the ICU in mid- December. The nurses and doctors called him a ‘Christmas miracle’,” says Hyde

Was this one of the few cases where chemo ended up working? Perhaps, but this mainstream treatment nearly killed the young boy in the process.

“It brought him to the edge of life, and if I wouldn’t have stepped in when I did, he wouldn’t be here right now,” Hyde explained. “The marijuana oil was the best pain drug available for Cashy, as well as a neuro-protectant, antioxidant and antibacterial. I know it saved Cash’s life.”

Seeing how marijuana oil helped the young boy to survive isn’t surprising – the benefits of medical marijuana are vast, with the plant even able to fight cancer. The point of this story is to recognize that alternative solutions do exist which can be utilized. The marijuana and cancer relationship is very real; this is just one more of many cases that proves it.

Harvard Study says Marijuana Cures Cancer

From endalldisease.com

Researchers at Harvard tested the chemical THC in both lab and mouse studies. They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, THC actually activates naturally produced receptors to fight off lung cancer. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

Although a medical substitute of THC, known as Marinol, has been used as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients and other similar treatments, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumour activity.

*HERE IS THE INTERESTING PART* The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study. For three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumours were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression. http://PhoenixTears.ca Next, I will briefly cover the fact that cancer (and most other disease for that matter) need an acid environment in order to flourish. - Make your body more alkaline - NO CANCER! Chronic Acidosis: A Precursor To Cancer

The Health Coach, Contributing Writer Waking Times

How to avoid, or reverse quickly and easily

If there is one health imbalance which is common to many medical conditions, it is Chronic acidosis. So pervasive is this under-the-radar health problem, yet many have never even heard of it, though they suffer its consequences for years or decades.

Simply put, Chronic acidosis is a systemic condition of the body which slowly emerges over time due to improper eating, especially when there is a sustained level of stress in one’s life that is not managed in a healthy way. There are other co-factors, but a substandard and incompatible diet is by far the primary physical cause when coupled with habitual maladaptive stress responses to the pressures of life.

Your food can be your best medicine or worst toxin

All foods and beverages can be divided into three categories: those that are acidifying; those which are alkalizing and those which have a neutral effect on the body’s PH.

If your regular diet is high in the following acidifying foods, then there will be a much greater tendency for the body to move into a chronic condition known as acidosis. Each of these foods will contribute to an acidic state because of how they are digested and metabolized in vivo (in the body during digestion).

The foods which are the most acidifying are as follows:

• Bacon, sausage, ham and corned beef

• Chicken, turkey, red meat, shellfish, seafood, lamb, organ meats, pork and game meats

• Milk, yogurt, cream cheese, cottage cheese, butter, ice cream and hard cheese

• White bread, white rice, pasta, biscuits, bagels, doughnuts, pastries and crackers.

• Beer, wine, hard liquor, spirits and scotch

• Soda, coffee, black tea and cocoa

• Currants, blueberries, cranberries, canned fruits and glazed fruits

• Pecans, walnuts, peanuts, cashews and pistachios

• Corn oil, canola oil, margarine, and lard; olive oil, sesame oil, safflower oil are more healthy alternatives

• Corn, lentils, winter squash and olives

• In general, processed junk food is very acidifying

• Food that is alkalizing can have an acidifying effect in the body if one is allergic to it

• Food that is old, stale, burnt, mouldy, as well as produce that is limp and not fresh

There are other foods which are acidifying but this is a good start for those who need to be on the lookout.

What follows is a list of foods which is alkalizing:

• Spinach, kale, broccoli, chard, collard, dandelion and mustard greens • Parsley, watercress, asparagus and endive

• Lima beans, green peas and white beans

• Radishes, beets and carrots

• Wheat, alfalfa and barley

• Oatmeal, brown basmati rice and millet

• Sunflower sprouts, alfalfa sprouts, soy sprouts and mung bean sprouts

• Lemons, limes, oranges and tangerines

• Watermelon, cantaloupe and honeydew melon

• Papaya, mango, guava, kiwi, passion fruit and pineapple

• Sweet grapes, nectarines, persimmon and pears

• Dried fruits, including raisins, dates and figs

Again, this list of foods which assists in alkalizing the body is by no means exhaustive, but it does provide a great start for anyone looking to make the shift in body PH.

You can't go wrong with a lot of fresh veggies and fruits.

*Please be aware that there are numerous Acid/Alkaline Lists published on the internet. They are by and large the same, although some do depart in some food groups. We have compiled both of these lists from the Livestrong.com website and have found it to be consistent with our understanding.

There are subtleties involved with this type of acid-base body chemistry which many health commentators either ignore or are unaware of. Things like the fact that lemons are very alkalizing although they would seem to be highly acidic. When ingested, they serve to alkalize the body with unusual potency, and are also quite effective at detoxifying the liver.

What are some other risk factors associated with Chronic acidosis (CA)?

Any lifestyle practice or environmental exposure which contributes to acidifying the body chemistry should be looked at very closely for anyone suffering from CA. Remember, it is the acidic effect in the body which matters the most. The body’s biochemistry can be altered in many ways which we shall see, so it is the final product which ought to be carefully considered. These other CA co-factors include the following:

(1) Pharmaceutical drugs – all drug medications seem to have an acidifying effect, many greatly so

(2) Recreational drugs – nicotine, marijuana, hashish, LSD, designer drugs

(3) Nutraceutical supplements when taken to excess or incorrectly self prescribed

(4) Lack of exercise and too much exercise

(5) Lack of proper sleep – especially non-compliance with “Early to bed, early to rise.”

(6) Exposure to environmental toxicities – from food, water, air

―7‖ Synthetic clothing which adversely affects the skin’s capacity to ‘breathe’

(8) Too much sun as in sunburn (9) Too much exposure to fluoridated and chlorinated water both by drinking and showering

(10) This list is by no means comprehensive, so everyone is encouraged to assess their home, work and automobile environments with care.

There are many other co-factors which cause the body chemistry to acidify such as predominant emotional and mental states. For instance, an individual in the state of constant high anxiety will create the internal conditions for an acidic condition to take hold. Likewise, one who goes from home rage to road rage, and gets angry at the drop of a hat will experience even the most alkaline food turning into acid in their stomach. This is one very good reason never to eat when you’re in a fit of anger. It’s always better to let the strong emotions pass, for your body’s sake.

SOURCE: www.acidalkalinediet.com

Now we come to the title of this session: Chronic Acidosis: A Precursor To Cancer

The truth be told, Chronic acidosis is a precursor to countless diseases and ailments. Not only that, but many other diseases and illness will directly contribute to Chronic acidosis, if not addressed in an effective and steadfast manner. This ‘symbiotic relationship’ is similar to a feedback loop whereby both the CA and the disease mutually reinforce each other causing a downward spiral, much like we see in a Stage IV cancer or AIDS patient. It is well known that every cancer patient must efficiently process the acidic effects of the cancer itself, as well as all the acidifying chemotherapy, radiation treatments, lack of exercise, emotional depression, malaise and lethargy associated with being bed-ridden, etc.

These obstacles can all be overcome by one who is aware of how to meet each challenge head on. For example, John Gunther in his book DEATH BE NOT PROUD outlines a potent dietary regimen that anyone can engage with a little support. The Gerson Institute has established an excellent set of protocols that includes regular coffee enemas which can be particularly effective. Various schools of yoga teach meditation, hatha yoga, pranayama, chanting practices and contemplation techniques which address the mental and emotional components of cancer as well as other serious diseases like AIDS.

The viral components of cancer love sugar and white wheat and other food ingredients which create the highly acidic environment in which it thrives. Deprive the cancer cells of this necessary fuel and you can starve them into extinction. It really is often that simple. Of course, when one combines the most appropriate diet with all the other recommended lifestyle changes, you do put the odds in your favour in such a way that will greatly increase the likelihood of remission with no recurrence. Especially when a wholesome healthstyle or wellness program is adhered to for the rest of the lifetime, cancer and every other disease will unlikely find a home in your body.

The recommended alkaline diet can certainly move away from such a strict set of prohibitions, but the more one sticks with a balanced, alkalizing diet, the better they will feel and thrive.

Permission is granted to post this health blog as long as it is linked back to the following url: http://thehealthcoach1.com/?p=2778

Balancing Acid/Alkaline Foods

A surprising number and variety of physical problems and diseases can be caused by the problem of foods that are acid-producing after digestion. Today the vast majority of the populace in industrialized nations suffers from problems caused by the stress of acidosis, because both modern lifestyle and diet promote acidification of the body's internal environment.

The current typical Western diet is largely composed of acid-forming foods (proteins, cereals, sugars). Alkaline-producing foods such as vegetables are eaten in much smaller quantities. Stimulants like tobacco, coffee, tea, and alcohol are also extremely acidifying. Stress, and physical activity (both insufficient or excessive amounts) also cause acidification.

Many foods are alkaline-producing by nature, but manufactured processed foods are mostly acid-producing. It is important to consume at least 60% alkaline-producing foods in our diet, in order to maintain health. We need plenty of fresh fruits and particularly vegetables (alkaline-producing) to balance our necessary protein intake (acid-producing). And we need to avoid processed, sugary or simple-carbohydrate foods, not only because they are acid- producing but also because they raise blood sugar level too quickly (high glycemic index therefore fattening); plus they tend to be nutrient-lacking and may be toxic too.

What is the body's pH?

Water is the most abundant compound in the human body, comprising 70% of the body. The body therefore contains a wide range of solutions, which may be more or less acid. pH (potential of Hydrogen) is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution - the ratio between positively charged ions (acid-forming) and negatively charged ions (alkaline- forming.) The pH of any solution is the measure of its hydrogen-ion concentration. The higher the pH reading, the more alkaline and oxygen rich the fluid is. The lower the pH reading, the more acidic and oxygen deprived the fluid is. The pH range is from 0 to 14, with 7.0 being neutral. Anything above 7.0 is alkaline, anything below 7.0 is considered acidic.

Human blood pH should be slightly alkaline (7.35 - 7.45). Below or above this range means symptoms and disease. If blood pH moves below 6.8 or above 7.8, cells stop functioning and the body dies. The body therefore continually strives to balance pH. When this balance is compromised many problems can occur.

An imbalanced diet high in acidic-producing foods such as animal protein, sugar, caffeine, and processed foods puts pressure on the body's regulating systems to maintain pH neutrality. The extra buffering required can deplete the body of alkaline minerals such as sodium, potassium, magnesium, and calcium, making the person prone to chronic and degenerative disease. Minerals are borrowed from vital organs and bones to buffer (neutralize) the acid and safely remove it from the body. Because of this strain, the body can suffer severe and prolonged damage--a condition that may go undetected for years.

Health problems caused by acidosis

If you have a health problem, most likely you are suffering from acidosis. Research shows that unless the body's pH level is slightly alkaline, the body cannot heal itself. So no matter what means you choose to take care of your health, it won't be effective until the pH level is balanced. If your body's pH is not balanced, for example, you cannot effectively assimilate vitamins, minerals and food supplements. Your body pH affects everything.

Acidosis will decrease the body's ability to absorb minerals and other nutrients, decrease the energy production in the cells, decrease its ability to repair damaged cells, decrease its ability to detoxify heavy metals, make tumour cells thrive, and make it more susceptible to fatigue and illness.

An acidic pH can occur from an acid-forming diet, emotional stress, toxic overload, and/or immune reactions or any process that deprives the cells of oxygen and other nutrients. The body will try to compensate for acidic pH by using alkaline minerals. If the diet does not contain enough minerals to compensate, a build up of acids in the cells will occur. Acidosis can cause such problems as:

Cardiovascular damage. Weight gain, obesity and Slow digestion and Loose and painful teeth. diabetes. elimination. Inflamed, sensitive gums. Bladder conditions. Yeast/fungal overgrowth. Mouth and stomach ulcers. Kidney stones. Lack of energy and fatigue. Cracks at the corners of the Immune deficiency. Lower body temperature. lips. Acceleration of free radical Tendency to get infections. Excess stomach acid. damage. Loss of drive, joy, and Gastritis. Hormonal problems. enthusiasm. Nails are thin and split Premature aging. Depressive tendencies. easily. Osteoporosis and joint Easily stressed. Hair looks dull, has split pain. Pale complexion. ends, and falls out. Aching muscles and lactic Headaches. Dry skin. acid buildup. Inflammation of the corneas Skin easily irritated. Low energy and chronic and eyelids. Leg cramps and spasms. fatigue.

Test Your Body's Acidity or Alkalinity with pH Strips

It is recommended that you test your pH levels to determine if your body's pH needs immediate attention. By using pH test strips (Litmus Paper), you can determine your pH factor quickly and easily in the privacy of your own home. The best time to test your pH is about one hour before a meal and two hours after a meal.

Saliva pH Test: Simply wet a piece of Litmus Paper with your saliva. While generally more acidic than blood, salivary pH mirrors the blood and tells us what the body retains. It is a fair indicator of the health of the extracellular fluids and their alkaline mineral reserves.

The optimal pH for saliva is 6.4 to 6.8. A reading lower than 6.4 is indicative of insufficient alkaline reserves. After eating, the saliva pH should rise to 7.5 or more. To deviate from an ideal salivary pH for an extended time invites illness. If your saliva stays between 6.5 and 7.5 all day, your body is functioning within a healthy range.

Acidosis, an extended time in the acid pH state, can result in rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, lupus, tuberculosis, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, most cancers and many more. If salivary pH stays too low, the diet should focus on fruit, vegetables and mineral water as well as remove strong acidifiers such as sodas, whole wheat and red meat.

Urine pH Test: The pH of the urine indicates how the body is working to maintain the proper pH of the blood. The urine reveals the alkaline (building - anabolic) and acid (tearing down - catabolic) metabolic cycles. The pH of urine indicates the efforts of the body via the kidneys, adrenals, lungs and gonads to regulate pH through the buffer salts and hormones.

Urine can provide a fairly accurate picture of body chemistry, because the kidneys filter out the buffer salts of pH regulation and provide values based on what the body is eliminating. Urine pH can vary from around 4.5 to 9.0 in extremes, but the ideal range is 6.0 to 7.0. If your urinary pH fluctuates between 6.0 to 6.5 first thing in the morning and between 6.5 and 7.0 in the evening before dinner, your body is functioning within a healthy range.

Urine testing may indicate how well your body is excreting acids and assimilating minerals, especially calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. These minerals function as "buffers." Buffers are substances that help maintain and balance the body against the introduction of too much acidity or too much alkalinity.

Even with the proper amounts of buffers, acid or alkaline levels can become stressful to the body's regulatory systems. When the body produces too many of these acids or alkalis, it must excrete the excess. The urine is the method the body uses to remove any excess acids or alkaline substances that cannot be buffered. If the body's buffering system is overwhelmed, a state of "autointoxication" exists, and attention should be given to reducing this stress.

Foods: are they Acid or Alkaline-forming?

Note that a food's acid or alkaline-forming tendency in the body has nothing to do with the actual pH of the food itself.

For example, lemons are very acidic, however the end-products they produce after digestion and assimilation are alkaline so lemons are alkaline-forming in the body.

Likewise, meat will test alkaline before digestion but it leaves acidic residue in the body so, like nearly all animal products, meat is classified as acid-forming.

It is important that your daily dietary intake of food naturally acts to balance your body pH. To maintain health, the diet should consist of at least 60% alkaline forming foods and at most 40% acid forming foods.

To restore health, the diet should consist of 80% alkaline forming foods and 20% acid forming foods. FOOD High Alkaline Low Alkaline Low Acid Acid High Acid CATEGORY Alkaline

Squash, Asparagus, Tomato, Vegetabl Rhubarb, e Juices, Carrots, Fresh Corn, Parsley, Green Mushrooms, Sweet Raw Beans, Lima Onions, Potato, BEANS, Pinto Spinach, Beans, Cabbage, Cooked Pickled VEGETABLES, Beans, Broccoli, Beets, Peas, Spinach, Vegetables LEGUMES Navy Beans Celery, Lettuce, Cauliflower, Kidney Garlic, Zucchini, Turnip, Beans Barley Carob Beetroot, Grass Potato, Olives, Soybeans, Tofu

Coconut, Sour Cherries, Oranges, Dates, Cherries, Blueberries Blackcurrant Pineapple, , , Grapes, Dried Peaches, Cranberries Papaya, Canned FRUIT Figs, Avocados, , Bananas, Kiwi, Fruit Raisins Grapefruit, Plums, Berries, Mangoes, Processed Apples, Strawberries Fruit Juices Pears , Papayas, Lemons, Watermelon, Limes

Amaranth, Rye Bread, White Rice, Lentils, Whole White Sweetcorn, GRAINS, Grain Bread, Wild Rice, CEREALS Bread, Pastries, Quinoa, Oats, Brown Biscuits, Millet, Rice Pasta Buckwheat

Beef, Fish, Pork, Veal, Liver, Turkey, Shellfish, MEAT Oysters, Chicken, Canned Organ Meat Lamb Tuna & Sardines

Soy Cheese, Whole Milk, Eggs, EGGS & Parmesan, Breast Milk Soy Milk, Butter, Camembert DAIRY Processed Goat Milk, Yogurt, , Hard Goat Cheese, Cottage Cheese Cheese Buttermilk, Cheese, Whey Cream, Ice Cream

Pumpkin, Chestnuts, Pecans, NUTS & Hazelnuts, Sesame, Peanuts, Brazils, Cashews, SEEDS Almonds Sunflower Walnuts Coconut Pistachios Seeds

Corn Oil, Flax Seed Sunflower OILS Oil, Olive Oil, Oil, Canola Oil Margarine, Lard

Tea Herb (black), Teas, Wine, BEVERAGES Green Tea Ginger Tea Cocoa Coffee, Lemon Soda/Pop Beer, Water Liquor

Milk Chocolate, Brown White Sugar, SWEETENERS Artificial Maple Syrup, Raw Honey, Sugar, Molasses, , Stevia Sweetener Rice Syrup Raw Sugar Processed Jam, CONDIMENTS s Honey Ketchup, Mayonnaise , Mustard, Vinegar

Note: there are inconsistencies between the acid- or alkaline-forming values given in the lists provided by many websites, and few reliable references. Please don't take the above chart as any more than an approximate guide. Sites copy information (and errors) from each other and we're not scientific institutes, we go by personal experience and experience with clients, measuring with litmus paper, health results gathered over time, and such - not laboratory testing of isolated substances.

Nevertheless, the principles are clear: eat plenty of vegetables, some fruit daily, and don't eat too much of dairy products, grain products, and direct protein from eggs, meat and fish (as is typically the case in Western diet). But remember... you don't have to cut out all acid- forming foods - some are necessary, typically 40% - otherwise you probably wouldn't get enough protein and variety of nutrients, yet alone make interesting meals that you enjoy. But you DO want to shift the overall balance of your diet over toward the alkaline, and away from the excessively acid-forming diet of a quick-food culture.

Free range eggs, fish, beans, unsaturated oils - these are healthy foods, low glycemic and nutritious, and even if marginally acid-forming (or alkaline or between the two depending on how you measure or what chart you read). They are NOT the culprits in an acid-forming diet. The real culprits are highly sweetened foods, pastries, red meat, colas and highly processed foods - these are the ones to reduce to a sensible amount or cut out of your diet if they also contain stimulants and undesirable chemical additives. Similarly, be sure to include your share of the high alkaline-forming foods to balance those low-acid foods you eat for their overall nutritional value. And make alkaline choices, e.g. better to have brown rice than white rice, even though both are on the acid-forming side, because it moves you in the right pH direction - less acid - and also it is more healthy and nutritious in other respects.

Detoxify with Fruit & Vegetable Juices All natural, raw, vegetable and fruit juices are alkaline-producing. (Fruit juices become more acid-producing when processed and especially when sweetened.)

The Science: Why are acidic lemons alkaline-producing? The answer is simply that when we digest the food, it produces alkaline residue. That's why we classify it as an alkaline food. When we digest a food it is chemically oxidized ('burned') to form water, carbon dioxide and an inorganic compound. The alkaline or acidic nature of the inorganic compound formed determines whether the food is alkaline or acid-producing. If it contains more sodium, potassium or calcium, it's classed as an alkaline food. If it contains more sulphur, phosphate or chloride, it's classed as an acid food.

What difference does it make to have toxic blood? In order for the body to remain healthy and alive, your body keeps a delicate and precise balance of blood pH at 7.365, which is slightly alkaline. The body does whatever it has to in order to maintain this balance. The problem is that most people have incredibly acid lifestyles. Acid is produced in your body whenever you have stress, upset emotions and when the food you eat is acid-forming.

The typical diet is significantly acidic. So what happens to your body when you're over-acid? Your body will store excess acid in your fat cells (which is why so many people have such trouble losing weight). Over time, your body will leach calcium and alkaline stores from your bones in a desperate attempt to retain the pH balance in your body (which is why some people "shrink" as they get older).

Your blood plays a very important role in your healthy and energy: it carries oxygen to all your cells! This gives you energy, and it's what keeps you alive. It also plays a key role in how energizing your sleep is. Here's a picture of healthy red blood cells:

Do you see how far apart the blood cells are from each other? As a result, your blood can move freely throughout your entire body, and get into all your small capillaries, so you feel like your whole body is getting energy. During deep sleep, proper blood flow and hydration is important. When your blood looks like this, your sleep is also really energizing and you need less of it!

Blood cells have a negative charge on the outside and a positive charge inside; this is what keeps them healthy and far apart from each other. However, when your body is over-acidic, the acid strips your blood of its negative charge. Your blood cells no longer have the same repelling force and clump together like this:

When your blood is clumped together, it no longer can get to all the little capillaries in your body to give you the life giving oxygen you need. It no longer can give ever cell of your body the energizing and rejuvenating effects. This is the major reason why some people feel horrible when they wake up, and why they need to sleep longer. It's also why you tend to wake up feeling de-hydrated.

Most of us, from the time we're children, have a fear installed into us by our parents that "Disease is out to get you, and viruses are flying around all over the place looking for their next victim!..." It comes with sayings like: "Put on your sweater or you'll 'catch' a cold!" However, the truth is most of us create toxic environments inside of our body and this is why disease and fatigue happens. It doesn't happen TO YOU, instead, "you" make it happen...

Here's a good example: Pretend you had a goldfish in a bowl, and one day you saw the goldfish was beginning to look very unhealthy. You also notice that the water is a little dirty. What makes more sense? To take the fish out and try to fix it? Or change its water? Chances are it's the water that's making the fish unhealthy, not the fish itself. When you change the water, the fish will get healthier. The fact that the goldfish is unhealthy is actually a SYMPTOM of the unhealthy environment. Not the problem.

Fact: Our bodies are more than 70% Water! And most of the time because of our diets, emotions and lifestyles, the "water" in our body is over-acidic, and to put it simply: toxic. Yet, even knowing this, modern day establishment medicine puts much more attention on fighting the symptoms, and not recognizing the root of the problem.

Here's something you really ought to take a look at. It's a short video slideshow about one simple thing you can do to make a huge impact on your life. This one simple thing gives you amazing health benefits as well as huge emotional and psychological relief from the relentless onslaught of stress during these very difficult times. This is really amazing stuff, so please take a look at it right now.

There are a few other things, in addition to diet, that can be done to help correct an over acidic balance. These include taking enzyme supplements, organic calcium and magnesium supplements, colloidal minerals, vitamin A and D, and drinking alkaline vegetable juices (carrot, celery and beet) and lemon/maple syrup drink.

We can remedy our over-acidic bodies in the short term with alkalizing supplements, but going forward, we must also choose a diet which is balanced on the side of alkaline-forming foods. Fortunately most of these are also low glycemic, which takes care of the second primary factor in our creating a healthy diet. Ensure adequate Omega 3 with oily fish in our diet, which is another primary factor, and we can be sure to live long and healthy lives.

If you would like to know more about changing your diet to give you maximum energy, then check out the book by Dr Robert O. Young, "The pH Miracle." It contains information about how disease manifests, how to detox and maintain balanced health, along with diet info and recipes. The fact that Cancer ―and AIDS‖ patients are given a “death sentence” from doctors actually makes it happen, because we then, in many cases, just give up on life.

Even if you don’t have the disease!!!!!

This next article was taken from New Scientist 02 September 2009

The “nocebo” effect

When western anthropologists first heard reports of witch doctors who could issue deadly curses, they quickly found rational explanations. The families of the cursed often felt there was no point wasting food on the "walking dead", for example. That's why many of the cursed would die: simple starvation.

However, other case histories have come to light that defy attempts to explain them. In the 1970s, for example, doctors diagnosed a man with end-stage liver cancer, and told him he had just a few months to live. Though the patient died in the predicted time, an autopsy showed the doctors had been mistaken. There was a tiny tumour, but it had not spread. It seemed the doctors' prognosis had been a death curse.

Though the mechanism remains a mystery, but at least now this kind of phenomenon has a name. The "nocebo effect" is the lesser-known opposite number of the placebo effect, and describes any case where putting someone in a negative frame of mind has an adverse effect on their health or well-being. Tell people a medical procedure will be extremely painful, for example, and they will experience more pain than if you had kept the bad news to yourself. Similarly, experiences of side effects within the placebo groups of drug trials have shown that a doctor's warning about the possible side effects of a medicine makes it much more likely that the patient will report experiencing those effects.

This is not just in the mind: it is also about physical effects. The stress created by the nocebo effect can have a long-lasting impact on the heart, for example – perhaps serious enough to cause fatal damage.

The race is on to understand the precise mechanisms behind nocebo. Medical researchers are hoping that such an understanding will help to make the world a less stressful place. "It is a good way to understand anxiety, and to find methods to prevent it," says Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin, Italy.

Never give up hope.

Martin Keerns