Smash Your Cancer

I knew that there was an element of fraud in scientific literature, but this story that I came across from the Health Ranger, Mike Adams, demonstrates that it is not just an anomaly, but is a part of ‘business as usual’ with Big Pharma.  I have mentioned these elements in my writings.  The bottom line is that when there is money on the table, researchers and physicians are highly motivated to just ‘go along to get along’ rather than go against the modern medical dogma, and suffer the pain and punishment for such heresy.

A great example of this is the way in which physicians in previous days were paid, and actually promoted cigarettes.  There were no scientific studies performed to actually determine if there was a scientific basis for the safety of cigarettes.  They basically just took the money and said exactly what the cigarette companies wanted them to say!  Unfortunately, this is about the level of scientific study performed for a lot of drugs and treatments.  In my research, I found that of all the routine procedures that physicians perform in their practice, around 80% of them have not been proven to be safe and effective by ‘randomized double-blind studies’, which is the scientific standard for an experiment.

So it is an illusion, a fairy tale, to be totally trusting of the medical establishment.  Unfortunately, the majority of people will never question the methods, the veracity and the paradigm being promoted by medical professionals.  It is very unsettling to most people to have to even question the quality of information being given out by physicians and other medical professionals.  But the facts point to the well-known fact that trust is fine, but business requires verification.  We have trusted the medical establishment with our lives, and are paying them huge amounts.

Unfortunately, their pay is directly proportional to how sick we are.  The more people that are sick, the more money they make.  On this issue, I think that it would make more sense to pay them when we are well,  because when we are sick it means that they are failing to keep us in good health.  So why should we reward failure?  The old saying is that whatever you pay for, you get more of.  That seems to be very true in medicine, especially cancer.  The more we spend, the higher the cancer rates go.  It makes perfect sense when you analyze it in this manner.

The researcher in Mike Adams’ story (a Dr. Scott Reuben) had been publishing fraudulent papers for over 13 years!  If there were actually an honest, scientific process for analyzing papers and their conclusions, this would not be possible!  This is allegedly the total reason for the peer-review mechanism in science.  But this one incident is very revealing, and is, in fact, showing the ’soft underbelly’ of the medical brotherhood.  How many other frauds are being perpetrated?  I think we can safely say that this is the rule, rather than the exception. Although you won’t find the ‘authorities’ making this public, there is information out there on this.

Cancer researchers claim to have found a ‘molecular switch’ that can render anti-cancer drugs less effective in pancreatic cancer.  Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly forms of cancer, and is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States.  This is largely due to the fact that only 10% of pancreatic cancers remain in the pancreas.  They usually metastasize.

Researchers readily admit that the tumors initially respond to the chemotherapy treatment (the standard chemotherapeutic drug is gemcitabine), but that they later on begin growing again.  They are attempting to figure out how to bypass the method that cancer cells utilize to defeat chemotherapy treatments.  This approach entails attempts to extrapolate, deduce and figure out how the cancer cell’s metabolism functions.  It is an extremely complex job because scientists only have a very basic, general understanding of how normal cell metabolism works, much less how cancer cell metabolism works.  This may be a major reason why this approach has yielded such meager success.

In order for scientists to figure out a way to kill cancer cells with drugs, they must have a very precise understanding of cell metabolism.  It is very dubious that they will ever find a way to find (or synthesize) chemicals that will have the ability to kill cancer cells without killing normal body cells.

This ‘body as a battlefield’ paradigm has been the dominant conceptual framework for conventional cancer treatment for more than 50 years, and it has been a failure.  Despite the glowing accolades bestowed upon modern cancer treatment, the cure rate is dismal, at best.  It is time for new ideas that seek to establish balance in the body, give the body healthy nutrients, build the body’s own immune system, refrain from butchering the body and cease poisoning it with toxic substances and energies.

Once again, we have a report of a ‘new’ treatment for pancreatic cancer. In case you didn’t know, pancreatic cancer is reported to be one of the most deadly cancers that one can contract. It is very difficult to diagnose in the early stages because there are no symptoms, and even when they do appear, they are often mistaken for other health problems. To date, there appears to be no reliable diagnostic test to detect it early. It is claimed that the cause of pancreatic cancer is unknown, but the authorities do readily admit that only a small percentage of cases are the result of heredity. They say that it is rare to catch pancreatic cancer in the early stages.

After reviewing an article on this ‘new’ treatment for pancreatic cancer, I couldn’t help analyzing it. In short, this ‘new’ treatment utilizes a ‘pancreatic cancer-specific radio-labeled antibody combined with low-dose gemcitabine chemotherapy’. In plain English, this means that an antibody that has an affinity for pancreatic cancer has a radioactive nuclide chemically attached to it. The antibody then has a higher tendency to attach to the pancreatic cancer cells, and kill them with the radioactivity. To enhance the effect, the gemcitabine is given in a ‘low-dose’ chemotherapy treatment.

As far as the monoclonal antibodies are concerned, there is always a level of nonspecific binding of antibodies to receptor sites. I haven’t researched the level in this study, but I do know this. This just means that some of the radioactively-labeled antibodies will bind to non-cancerous cells throughout the body.  FYI, there is no known safe level of radiation exposure.

They report that this method has resulted in about 68% of test subjects experiencing a significant reduction in tumor size. They also report that test subjects had a longer survival rates, reduced pain, and better quality-of-life because of a reduction in side effects when compared to other more conventional cancer treatment methods.

I almost lost it because I thought this was a news article, but it is actually a press release from a producer of monoclonal antibodies, a company called Immunomedics Inc. You can probably already sense that I had a problem with the article. It is understandable that this company would seek to promote this therapy because that is how they make money. Their profits are based on the patents for complex molecules. They cannot patent natural molecules, so that precludes them from earning profits on them. Hence, natural treatments are routinely ignored by Big Pharma.

The major problem I have with these substances is that they are poisons. Gemcitabine was the replacement for fluorouracil as a treatment for pancreatic cancer. Fluorouracil is basically a DNA poison. This means that when it is administered to a patient, it inhibits the synthesis of thymidine in DNA, which means that the cell that is trying to replicate will die. Gemcitabine, which is a DNA poison that replaces cytidine in DNA synthesis, replaced fluorouracil as a treatment about 12 years ago. Both of these treatments are termed antimetabolites because they inhibit the use or production of chemicals that are a part of normal cellular metabolism.

The theory is that faster replicating cells (such as cancer cells) will be more affected than healthy body cells. But the reality is that all cells in the body replicate, so it is just a ‘crap shoot’ to see if cancer cells are killed off faster than body cells.  It just doesn’t make sense to me to use poisons as treatments for medical ailments. There HAS to be a better way!

It is reported that Magnesium Chloride is a very powerful mineral supplement.  It is said to have great, positive effects upon the human body.  It almost sounds like a miracle supplement, but this is just because it is a critical mineral in metabolism.  It is amazing to me that none of the mainstream information sources are publicizing this information.  But then again, I understand that they want to maintain their multi-billion dollar disease-treatment monopolies rather than empower & educate people into preserving and reclaiming their good health.

It is reported that a certain Dr. Pierre Delbet began utilizing a Magnesium Chloride solution as an antiseptic for battle wounds in World War I.  He found that it greatly increased white blood cell activity, and immune system activity.  As he increased his study of Magnesium Chloride, he learned that it was good for a number of diseases and ailments.  In fact, the list began to resemble a laundry list, so numerous were the ailments that are improved with it.  Some of the ailments listed are:

• colitis
• Parkinson’s disease
• acne
• eczema
• psoriasis
• warts
• hay fever
• asthma
• cancers
• kidney stones
• gallstones
• infectious disease
• diabetes
• cardiovascular diseases
• and even more…

I found it particularly intriguing that Magnesium Chloride was of value in such a large number of ailments.  I thought that magnesium was only good for improving the energy production in cells, but it appears to be much more important than that.  Magnesium and calcium appear to be related to each other in bodily metabolism.  It is said that a magnesium deficiency leads to calcium being leached out of the teeth and bones, leading to osteoporosis and dental caries.

I’m not quite sure what the mechanism of action for Magnesium Chloride in the prevention and treatment of cancer, but it sounds like it may be related to the metabolism effects.  It is well known that cancer cells use anaerobic metabolism for energy production, and that normal cells use aerobic metabolism.  So it stands to reason that magnesium facilitates aerobic metabolism, and thereby, in some way, makes the cells more resistant to succumb to cancer. I’m going to have to do more reading on this topic, and will report to you what I learn.  For now, I’ll leave you with a video from a Dr. Luiz Moura on the topic.  Sorry about the subtitles, but the information is what is important.

I guess that it’s great news to hear about a new treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  This treatment, called a ‘Radioactive Bullet‘, is said to have improved the cancer status of two-thirds of cancer patients in a pilot study that was performed.  And yes, we’re still talking about radiation therapy (with a ‘twist’).  It sounds fairly ‘high tech’ and flashy.  The basis of the treatment is that they bind a radioactive particle to an antibody that has an affinity for tumor cells over normal body cells.  This means that the radioactive particle binds to tumor cells and the radiation destroys them.   It is claimed that the tumor cells are exposed to the radioactive particles for approximately four days, and that healthy cells are experience little damage.

I don’t want to sound like a ‘doom and gloomer’, but we’re still talking about the same old tired strategies (chemotherapy, surgery and radiation, also known as ‘hack, slash and burn’).  This strategy may work for some.  It also sounds like it is possible that there is less radiation exposure to normal body cells.  It definitely sounds better than chemotherapy.  But I just question the philosophy behind this treatment modality.  It appears that the Medical Establishment is married to the same old (3) approaches, and that any deviation from them is tantamount to heresy.

I still see no effort or strategy to repair the bodily damage from the disease, nor strengthen the immune system of the patient.  That may be the reason why one patient who recovered initially had a relapse of the disease 7 years later.  With a true understanding of the disease and its cause, there would be no relapse.  Hodgkin’s lymphoma is one of the diseases for which conventional cancer treatment has a relatively high success rate.

I also find it interesting that they used an anecdotal (informal) report in the article to bolster support for this particular treatment.  This is used to lend support to the idea that this treatment will turn out to be effective.  In my observations, anecdotal reports from patients who use alternative treatment methods are virtually all viewed with a negative slant.  It is almost routine that any treatment or method of treatment that is outside of the scope of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation is frowned upon by the Medical Establishment.

This is another one of these hopeful news stories that lends encouragement and gives the idea that an effective treatment for cancer is ‘just around the corner’.  These types of stories have been routinely published in the media for the last 50+ years. I find this very disturbing because of this pattern, and have to admit that my faith in the Medical Establishment for finding a non-toxic, cheap, highly effective treatment for cancer is very small.

It appears that Vitamin D supplementation may reduce cancer incidence and relapse.  This has been reported for a while now, but it may be doubtful that people have heard it because there appears to be a lot more emphasis on treatments for cancer than there is for its prevention.  The treatments are hyped up and marketed fiercely, but the prevention is not as glamorous.  This seems to be a direct result of the ‘magic pill’ archetype that has been pushed for many years.

I guess that it seems much easier to just take a pill and be done with it, rather than change unhealthy habits that lead to disease.  The unfortunate part is that there is no such thing as a magic pill that will erase unhealthy habits that destroy good health.  All drugs have side effects, and prolonged use of drugs increases the probability that the side effects will have negative impact on the patient.

Studies have shown that Vitamin D levels in average people are lower than they need to be for optimum health.  Low levels of Vitamin D are also associate with a number of diseases.  So it is a good idea to supplement your Vitamin D, but it is also a very good idea to have your Vitamin D levels measured so that you know how much supplementation is needed.  Vitamin D supplementation may be a way to significantly lower your chances of coming down with cancer.  The video below is approximately 30 minutes, but has some great information.

This is an intriguing, scary question.  This is because cell phones have proliferated in modern life. It’s to the point where now, the majority of people have cell phones, and most of the children have cell phones as well.  They are very convenient, and have become virtually indispensable communication tools.

Unfortunately, they are known to emit radiation.  It is well-known that radiation is also known to cause cancer.  I find it naive to believe that cell phone radiation is 100% harmless.  I doubt if any regulatory agency or industry experts will be objective about this because there are many billions of dollars at risk.  It always seems that whenever a lot of money is involved, the facts get thrown out of the door.  For instance, I have seen numerous old commercials with doctors and dentists unequivocally saying that cigarettes were safe and healthy.  The AMA was endorsing cigarette brands as well.  So if you think that the authorities are going to protect you from cell phones if they are harmful, it probably won’t happen until years later when the studies and the first crop of victims are already dying (or dead) from cancer.

This is a topic that hits close to home because everybody I know has a cell phone.  I haven’t researched the topic in depth, but I will.  My own anecdotal story is related to this.  I was ok with my cell phone.  I eventually got a bluetooth headset to go with it.  It was very convenient, very practical, and made the cell phone very easy to use.  After about a year or so of using it, I started to get headaches.  Mind you, I very seldom suffer from headaches.  In addition to that, I noticed that when I would use the phone inside of my car while driving, my thinking seemed to get very foggy.  I’m normally very alert and sharp behind the wheel as well as in general.  But my mind would get very sluggish and unfocused whenever I’d talk on the phone with my bluetooth headset inside the car while driving.  I finally decided to get rid of the bluetooth headset, and the headaches went away, and I had no more brain fog when driving.  I went back to a wired headset, and haven’t had any problems since.

I know that the bluetooth headset issue is a bit different from the cell phone issue.  The bluetooth headset broadcasts on a different frequency than the cell phone.  Also, the bluetooth headset is usually worn on the head, while the cell phone is only placed close to the head while in use.  This puts the bluetooth headset in closer proximity to the head.

This is a very personal issue.  It should be evaluated by the individual after doing some research on the topic.  The cell phone is not as innocuous as we have been led to believe.  But an informed decision should be made instead of just believing whatever the people who profit from the sale and use of cell phones tell us.

Looks like the experts are grasping for straws from the same old paradigm that hasn’t produced a cure for cancer in 50+ years of research.  Now they’re claiming that some bone drug (bisphosphonates) is reducing breast cancer rates in women who take them.  It is given to women to fight osteoporosis. Experts do not really know how the drug works to reduce cancer, but they have some speculation on the topic.  So even though they claim to be the experts, they do not appear to have any real understanding of cancer, how it works, and how it can be cured or effectively treated.  They also state in another article that this drug should not be used on women who do not have osteoporosis.

I may seem to be a bit reactionary, but the simple fact is that all drugs have side effects.  The drug approach can only be a temporary approach, at best.  The allopathic paradigm is geared towards treating the symptoms of a disease, not the cause.  You can give drugs forever, but the drug is not about resolving the problem that is causing the disease.  In many cases, even if a drug is effective in relieving the symptoms of a disease at first, eventually the body acclimates to the drug and it loses its effectiveness.

I do not see how a drug strategy can be a long-term strategy for successful treatment of disease.  What is more likely is that the first drug will cause side effects.  The physician will then prescribe a drug to treat the side effects of the first drug.  Now, the patient will have the side effects of 2 drugs, and the physician will prescribe another drug for the new side effect, and so on.  This strategy will result in increased profits for the Medical Establishment, but the patient’s health condition will be on a downward spiral.  I guess that this is acceptable if the patient is content with treatment of the disease.  But if the patient wants a cure for the disease, drugs are not the answer for the majority of people.

This appears to be the same old way that the Medical Establishment keeps people’s hopes up and makes it seem as if they are making progress in cancer treatment.  But this is what they’ve been doing for the last 50 years!  There’s always some breakthrough treatment “just around the corner”, where they just need to do some more research to prove.  But just how many of those treatments have been successful?  I don’t remember any.  But there’s always some new pronouncement about the newest technology and promising treatments on the horizon.  This is never going to change as long as the paradigm remains the same.

I’ve been hearing & reading about this alleged connection between genetics and cancer.  I know that genes do have a lot to do with life, but I’m dubious of the claim that cancer actually causes cancer in the majority of incidents.  It appears to be another attempt to obfuscate the cancer causation issue.  The ‘experts’ have been working to prove this genetic cause of cancer because it would keep the disease in the ‘complex’ category.  Complex to understand, and complex to treat.  And, of course, the only people who are advanced, qualified and licensed to understand, treat and charge exorbitant rates for more exotic cancer treatment methods would be these same people.  It’s just the same old situation all over again.

I’m sure that genetics plays some sort of role in cancer causation.  But I am seriously doubtful that it is the major causative factor in the majority of cancer patients.  I am hearing the pronouncements from the experts that, “All cancers are caused by damage or mutations to the DNA of formerly healthy cells acquired during a person’s lifetime.”  Now, a truism I have learned is that whenever someone makes a pronouncement with “All”, or “None”, that tends to be an opinion.  I may have even been able to believe that statement if they said that “many” or even “most” cancers are caused by DNA damage or mutation.  But are we to believe that environmental factors play no role in damaging DNA to cause cancer?  There was a recent study in which researchers found that CT scans could cause cancers in patients.  Is the CT scan the causative factor, or did the DNA just decide to become damaged because it heard that there was a CT scan in the near future?

One of the most prolific changes in the environment is the massive amount of man-made chemicals that have been emitted into the biosphere.  Due to new chemical technologies, there are a lot of new compounds to which we are exposed on a daily basis.  We know that the major chemicals that are used in production and in our products are tested for safety.  The problem is that each compound is tested in isolation (i.e., by itself).  This sounds good, but there is no analysis of how all of these compounds function together.  There may not be a simple, cost-effective way to study how these thousands of compounds interact inside the human body to cause damaging effects.

Another aspect of the increasing incidence of cancer is compulsory vaccination.  This topic is very controversial and detailed, and will be covered at another time.  But suffice it to say that this issue is very important to analyze, because the cancer rate and the vaccination schedule have increased simultaneously.

The latest news published in the Archives of Internal Medicine publication states that the radiation from CT (computed tomography) scans performed in 2007 will cause approximately 29,000 cancers and kill around 15,000 people.  This is more evidence that Americans are being overexposed to radiation from diagnostic tests.

What is being uncovered is that there is a significant amount of radiation exposure to patients who undergo this procedure.  In fact, the dosage of radiation exposure to the patient is more than 100 times the dose of a chest x-ray!

The scary part is that physicians are performing millions of CT scans annually, and also that the numbers of scans is increasing.  About 70 million CT scans were performed on Americans in 2007.  In 1980, the number of scans given was 3 million.  The data appears to lead to the conclusion that U.S. doctors are ‘test-happy’.  It is highly unlikely that there was a critical need for 70 million CT scans for patients.

This is just more ammunition that is proving that none of the radiation we’re supposed to believe is safe, really IS safe.  The bottom line is that the very procedures that are being used to diagnose disease are causing disease!  This is not a good situation.  The Hippocratic oath says that the physician should, “first, do no harm.”  But this isn’t what is going on.

So the next time you go in to see the doctor and they recommend a CT scan (or any other diagnostic procedure that exposes you to radiation), you may want to try to find another safer way to get diagnosed. I don’t think the physicians are purposely irradiating people for profit, but they are extremely comfortable with it.  It is routine for them, but you’re basically playing ‘radiation Russian roulette’ because no one knows who will get cancer from it.

This shows how important it is to be knowledgeable and proactive with your own health.  The advice that the physician gives can only be as good as the knowledge level the patient has. Your state of health is your responsibility, not that of your physician.