|
The essence of what this web site is about can be summed up in one word:
SURVIVAL. Everything else is secondary or marginal compared to it. Brand
new, little known or carefully suppressed treatments are presented here,
that are able to eliminate cancer without causing any toxic harm. The treatments
are practiced by holistic MDs, oncologists with a conscience, and by fully
licensed naturopathic physicians. Safety and efficacy are documented in
scientific papers and articles, published in peer-reviewed medical and
biological journals.
If we believe in the Darwinian principle of "the survival of the fittest",
it is justified to ask, who are the fittest? Which patient has the best
chance of survival, and which one is likely to become a number in the allopathic
cancer statistics? If you have a good health insurance policy that pays
for the best allopathic cancer care, this will ensure that you will participate
in the latest and most expensive protocol available. It will cost a fortune,
but what do you care? It's not your money, the insurance company pays for
it.
There is only one problem with this scenario; the statistical chances of
your long range survival are not good. As a matter of fact, they are dismal.
Don't take my word for it; look at the published statistics.
Allopathic medicine is extremely reluctant to discuss cancer mortality
rates. When they do, it is almost always based on the so-called 5-year
survival rate. To stay alive for five more years is a reasonable proposal
for a 104-year old person. For somebody at the age of 40 or 50 years it
is a delayed death sentence. When it is referred to as "success",
inevitably the question emerges: Success in what, and for whom?
It is a well established fact that chemotherapy is a very profitable business
for both the oncologist and the hospital, not to mention the drug manufacturer.
In that respect, it is highly successful. The average cost of dying of
cancer, by the time the chemotherapy and radiation treatments ran their
course, is anywhere between $100.000 and $300.000. Multiply this with 600.000
cancer deaths in the USA in 2006, and you will get a glimpse of the financial
stakes in question. Add to it tens of millions of cancer patients at various
stages of their illness, and you will end up with dollar figures in the
trillions. Is it surprising that the cancer industry is fighting tooth
and nail to prevent non-toxic and inexpensive cancer treatments to emerge?
Your medical doctor will say that all this is just one of those lunatic
conspiracy theories. If he is right, the United States Congress, the Senate,
the Medicare accounting office, countless medical experts of the highest
reputation, and the international medical research community are all lunatics,
and the cancer mortality statistics belong to the natural order of the
universe. If this is a conspiracy theory, then oncologists are not making
an obscene profit on the chemo drugs, non-toxic cancer treatments and potentiated/targeted
chemotherapies only exist in fairytales, the 600.000 cancer patients died
a natural death, and integrative medicine belongs to the lunatic fringe.
Fortunately, the treatments reported on this website are supported by scientific
evidence, consisting of human and animal trials, by published papers in
peer reviewed medical journals, and by the fact that they are being practiced
by a number of board certified MDs, oncologists, and fully licensed naturopathic
physicians. These therapies cannot be discredited by self appointed quack
watchers and similar detractors. The days when a successful non-toxic treatment
could be dismissed as spontaneous remission or hearsay are over.
It may surprise you that the recurrence of cancer, and its return to a
life threatening level is preventable; cancer recurrence is the result
of a treatment strategy that is as unscientific as it is corrupt and profit
driven.
What does the 5-year survival concept imply? Why was it created in the
first place? It was created in order to justify the unjustifiable; it brainwashes
the public into thinking that it is normal and acceptable that most cancer
patients experience a relapse within 5 years. When it happens only in 6
or 7 years, that is touted as evidence of advancement in medicine.
The 5-year survival rate is a buzzword, intended to impress the public
with the unpredictable nature of the disease. What's more, it is a cruel
lie. It is based on the assumption that cancer is the result of some not
well understood genetic error, a pre-disposition towards a specific type
of malignancy. Accordingly, it is a matter of complex genetic causes whether
the cancer will return or not. Once the treatment is completed, all the
patient and her doctor can do is to wait and see.
Without opening a biological debate, let's take a closer look at this theory,
because it is directly connected to the question of survival.
A cancer cell stays alive with a fermentation-based metabolism . Fermentation is driven by a fungal microbe, or a fungal colony. Three
things are required for fermentation. First, fungi or bacteria must be
present. Second, no oxygen must be present. Third, an organic compound,
like sugar, must be present.
It can be said that the fungus keeps the cell alive. It takes the cell
out of the blueprint of the human organism, and uses it for its own purposes.
Warburg, the Nobel laureate, expresses this beautifully when he says that
"cells are transformed into fermenting anaerobes, which have lost
all their body functions and retain only the now useless property of growth
and replication. " Yes, useless for the human body, but not so for
the fungus! We are looking at a very sick cell inside which lives a very
healthy microbe.
When a cell is controlled by a fungus, it will cease to behave as a part
of the human organism, and it will act like a fungus. What do fungi do?
What do mushrooms do? They grow, they spread. It shouldn't be surprising
that cancer cells want to grow and spread in their environment which is
the human body. Cancer cells are not cells that went crazy; they went fungal.
Their reproductive functions are out of control as far as the human organism
is concerned, but they are in perfect control as a vehicle for the fungus.
To sum it up: Cancer begins with an assault at the cellular level, by toxins,
pathogens, etc. Is cancer a genetic disease?
No, but genetically inherited weakness in a specific part of the body may
determine where cancer will first appear. Some cells of the body maybe
more vulnerable to damage than others by genetic disposition. When such
a cell becomes damaged from trauma, toxins, or pathogens, it might become
more open for a fungal invasion than others.
Is cancer caused by a fungus?
No, but its metabolism is based on fermentation, therefore in every cancer
cell there is a fungal or microbial presence. This knowledge opens the
door to a number of safe and very effective methods of getting rid of cancer.
The latest and most impressive of these treatments has recently been introduced
in a cancer clinic in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with astonishing results.
Integrated medicine recognizes the fact that if the fungus is killed within
the cancer cell, the cell will be eliminated by the immune system. It doesn't
have to be killed with toxic chemicals. There are several effective and
inexpensive methods to achieve that, without any toxic side effects. Most
of these treatments use FDA approved substances. Why doesn't your doctor
discuss these options with you?
The voice of money tells us that high dose toxic chemotherapy is the best solution medical science can offer to the cancer patient. According to the voice of science, this is a lie. Whose word should we believe, the small medical entrepreneur's who bought
into the system lock, stock and barrel, and cannot back up his claims with
any evidence, or the most prestigious medical scientists' in the field?
Are we to believe that potentiated and targeted chemo, as well as completely
non-toxic cancer treatments are scams, perpetrated by charlatans, even
when many of these "charlatans" hold the highest medical offices
in hospitals and universities? That all the books, papers and articles
published on integrated medicine are rubbish?
The voice of money tells us that once the treatment has been completed, all we can do is to
cross our fingers and hope for the best. We are told that life style and
diet have nothing to do with the recurrence of cancer, neither do your
attitude and frame of mind. According to the voice of science, this is an outright lie. Long range survival for the cancer patient is not a matter of luck, but a matter of being informed and knowledgeable, of knowing one's options. Cancer doesn't return because of mysterious and unpredictable genetic reasons. Its recurrence can be, and must be prevented, and if it still re-emerges, proper monitoring methods can catch it months and years before it becomes clinically observable. Why isn't it being done? Perhaps is has something to do with the allopathic business model, and the concept of return business. After all, if your oncologist is a retail merchant (and we know that he is), have you ever met a merchant who did not want his customers to return? ("They can make $20,000 with a course of chemo for pancreatic cancer
even though it doesn't work." Nicholas Gonzalez, MD ABC World News Tonight)
The standard argument against integrative cancer treatments is that they
are not scientifically proven. This brings up an interesting question:
What is proven about chemotherapy? It is proven that it kills both malignant
and healthy cells indiscriminately, that it has a catastrophic record of
mortality rate, and that it is extremely profitable for the oncologist,
the pharmaceutical company and the hospital. What is proven about the new,
integrative treatments? They are safe, and they are extremely successful
in eliminating cancer. But wait! There is a problem! These new treatments
were not put through multimillion dollar trials, because nobody would invest
this kind of money into a protocol that cannot be patented. Also, being
inexpensive, they do not fit into the allopathic business model. Conclusion:
They are unscientific. They are legal, but dubious and suspicious procedures.
Solid, well established doctors will not regard them worth of consideration.
The fact that they save the patient is besides the point; the welfare of
the patient is not scientifically significant.
Cancer patients are under tremendous pressure. They are surrounded by lies
and deception. They face the allopathic medical establishment, the mass
media, and the well-meaning relatives and friends, who all believe themselves
to be experts when it comes to cancer. Is there a blueprint of survival
one can follow?
I, the author of this site, am not qualified to give you medical advice,
but I can share my opinion with you on a patient-to-patient basis:
- Do not confuse medical authority with medical efficacy
- Keep in mind that you are a potential source of very substantial revenue
- Merchants will be merchants, whatever they sell
- Ask questions. The more your questions irritate your doctors, probably
the more relevant they are to your well being
- Consult with integrated and holistic practitioners. There are links to
hundreds of them on the website. Call them and discuss your case with them.
Shop around. Consult, consult, CONSULT!
The fittest to survive cancer is not the wealthiest, the most famous and
well-connected. They usually enter the most prestigious cancer institutions,
and they come out in a wooden box. Kings, princesses, tycoons and politicians
seem to share the same fate. The allopathic establishment is an equal opportunity
system when it comes to mortality rates.
Who is your typical survivor?
It is the kind of person seldom found among celebrities. She has an independent
mind, capable of evaluating basic data, not impressed by titles and positions,
not easily intimidated, and not inclined to panic. She will read, listen,
compare and evaluate. Her idea of dealing with cancer is not to throw herself
at the mercy of medical entrepreneurs posing as cancer scientists. Neither
will she turn it into a social statement, seeking out the so-called elite
of the medical establishment and carefully maintaining her social and financial
status. She will dig hard to get hold of solutions that work. To that end,
she will carefully examine the available evidence, consider what the practitioners
tell her, and make an informed decision.
This is the profile of a typical cancer survivor.
|
