I disagree with Seyfried’s promoting keto and low carb. Cancer if anything is fed by methionine not sugar. In fact, methionine deficiency can cause cancer to go into remission or entirely disappear. There is an enzyme methioninase that is produced by many microbes that can help the body deplete of methionine, which along with a low animal protein diet can help a great deal. Sadly, in our corrupt system, a company has patented this natural molecule and will gatekeep it and charge a fortune for it.
I have also found that high doses of THC can shrink tumors and virtually cure even metastatic cancer, although probably the person needs to take THC ongoing in maintenance mode, so it isn’t really a cure, but it works very well and if taken in rectal suppositories has almost no side effects.
The reality of the endocannabinoid receptors is that it is the key to the entire immune process, and THC rectally can spread to all cells within minutes and begin reversing the aberrant cancer processes.
Thanks again for your wonderful efforts and this interview and thank you also Dr. Kory for your brave work.
Methionine is one of three protein synthesis limiting amino acids. I’m not sure how we survive without it. Vegans and vegetarians are often deficient in this amino acid primarily supplied by red meat. My experience with these diet choices for the long term are very sick people with weak constitutions and little muscle mass. Seyfried’s protocol did call for glutamine inhibition as an integral part of the success of the metabolic theory.
Yes Vegans can get Cancer. It is suspected that much of the Vegan Cancer comes from plants grown on fields drenched with Glyphosate (Round-up) which prevents the plant from taking up boron, Iron, zinc and other necessary minerals plus many Vegans bought into the lie that Canola Oil is "healthy' which it is not! It contains Euric Acid which causes Myocardial Lipodosis (fatty infiltrates in the heart muscle). Plus Vegans do not get vitamin B 12 which is not found in plants. (Vegetarians who eat eggs and dairy fare much better in the health and avoiding Cancer.)
It is likely that many Vegans are not strict in only eating true organic non-GMO food which increases their chances of cancer.
You can’t survive without it. It’s difficult to get it low enough. But with a primarily plant based diet, you can sometimes get methionine down to around 1.5g, which should help limit the growth of cancer to some degree.
Well, that would mean that a large part of the population of India would be sick and weak . . . from what i have seen i don't think that is the case, except perhaps with those too poor to acquire sufficient food.
I don’t know anything about India but one of my mentors used to say it takes a population about 12 generations to adapt to a new food supply. Western man is built on a meat building block. 300,000 years of homosapiens hunted and gathered. Only since
Egyptians 10k years ago have we been farming and according to Dr. Michael Eades, the Paleo diet doc, who started to look at these changes, that’s when diseases of modern man began.
Still, like AMD said, the primary thing is to get the processed food and the chemicals out so if you succeed with vegetarianism, more power to you. The 10 years I was vegetarian did not work for my health.
VA this study addresses your point I think. Fascinating subject. N of 1: As a descendant of Northern Europeans/Scandinavians I thrive on diet high in saturated fat, animal protein and moderate carbohydrates - none high glycemic or "simple." I cannot tolerate large amounts of vegetables or fruits.
Another reason seyfried’s keto diet works is because it lowers deuterium. Check out Dr Laszlo Boros who has talked about the metabolic roots of cancer and deuterium for many years. Dr Petra Davelaar has some good videos about cancer and deuterium.https://vimeo.com/793832829
Yes they say otherwise and they are quite wrong. Gerson has had very mixed results. The “cancer loves sugar” is a tired trope and incorrect. There is zero evidence for it. But lots of evidence that cancer loves methionine.
Agree with Gerson comment but evidence for "cancer loves sugar" can, to me, be as simple as looking at a PET scan - that is how we find and monitor cancer - i.e. where the radiolabelled glucose uptake is most concentrated
I'm thinking it would be more correct to say that cancer loves glucose, and this is evidenced through PET scans. The reason some other approaches work even though they prescribe fruit is that cancer cells may not metabolize fructose the same way as glucose. If cancer is a metabolic disease this is important. I am thinking along these lines because when my mother was diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer in 2008 the only people out there besides those Cancer Treatment Centers of America, which are integrative, were Gerson and Johanna Budwig, and her approach using flax seed oil/cottage cheese, lightly steamed veggies and some fruit was more compelling to me, and referred more directly to the metabolic/oxygen related causes. My mother would take what I made for her. Our biggest mistake was to do a round of chemo, which almost killed her and ruined the rest of her life. We had done cyber knife radiation, which eliminated all the pain until the very day we did the chemo. Today, if I were diagnosed I'd start with antifungals and antiparasiticals such as ivermectin and then go from there. I LOVE this material. It's vitally important.
Is that not perhaps because it is more metabolically active than surrounding tissue? Forgive my ignorance, but can our body produce glucose from other sources, or only from ingestion of sugars?
Everyone is wrong about many things, they are called false beliefs.
The question is whether there is willingness for admission.
Why you couple this to M Gerson is interesting when the article has many recs that
the venerable Dr. G would have frowned upon.
One simple fact. Fast growing malignant cell lines (turbo cancerns) have highly increased metabolic activity. Those cells require food.
The main component of the Gerson therapy is 12 oz of organic vegetable juice every hour on the waking hour 12x a day. Has that been improved upon???
No question that CBD oil, a component of which is THC, is relatively cheap and useful
for a spectrum of issues, malignancy included.
PET scans are very expensive, Oncologists tend to not order them. Then are very stubborn upon request without explanation.
Over $20K out of pocket. Last one I reviewed was negative. Weeks later the patient ( a frail elderly woman) died with advanced metastatic disease. That was the "story"
Will not specualate further, except to disclose that hospital refused to eat the cost...
If you want CBD you actually have to grow CBD plants (hemp). If you want THC, you have to grow THC plants (cannabis).
I have seen studies on THC's effect on cancers in vitro, and testimonies in vivo (Rick Simpson comes to mind). I haven't seen any studies on CBD and cancer, though I believe it is valuable (even without the THC) on it's own.
I do not wish to be providing repeated commentary, but you asked for it.
In premedical studies at a university where a major cancer research Institute coincided, I often found myself straying from my ordained studies to investigate a wide array of information. In the medical school library circa 1970, I found a meta-study of cancer reporting that at least 80 to 90% of cancer was due to environmental toxicity. The conclusion of this study was that we must spend more money on developing vaccines to prevent us from getting cancer from the environmental toxins. At that time I even thought this as a viable solution.
A few decades later in a conversation with Candace Pert (Molecules of Emotion and some status in the NIH) she cited a more recent meta-study indicating that 70 to 80% of cancer was due to environmental toxicity. WOW!
My simple question is why all of the emphasis on drugs and therapies to counteract a condition that may well be due to toxins in the environment. Consider the investigations and research of Fritz Albert Popp PhD on this very subject as well as those of Royal Rife PhD.
Furthermore, some seem to have an at version to detoxification. Personally, I do not get it? Referencing the Hippocrates Institute and their success rate with cancer patients.
Why is the continuing emphasis placed upon counteracting the disease instead of addressing the foundational causes? While I could go on for many hours on the subject, I will stop For now.
I realize my training was eventually focused on chiropractic which is a healing system focused on the causes of disease rather than counteracting the symptoms, but may be a paradigm shift is appropriate.
Furthermore, getting the financial incentives out of medicine/drugs is matched in difficulty by finding and eliminating the thousands of toxins we have put into the environmentand out food.
Which is why I found the RFK Jr. candidacy compelling. He's the ONLY one talking about this and I am grateful that it is now in the national conversation in the US
Hey Joseph, I read an interview with Kary Mullis (PCR inventor) who said back in the 70's all the research money was for proving cancer was genetic and finding cures. It went on for over another decade until, due to no progress, funding was in jeopody. Luckily HIV AIDS came along and they all just changed their office door nameplates and became AIDS researchers. The moral = Follow The Money!
In the early years after I was dxed with lymphoma, there were questionnaires regarding exposure to herbicides (which as I understand have been implicated in that illness). Then the questionnaires ceased, and nothing was ever heard of the matter again.
I have a theory on Royal Rifes observations that is more credible than the frequency theory.
I do not know if he understood why but I believe many of his Rife Resonator with Plasma Tube cures could be laid at the doorstep of UVB therapy seeing as increased Vitamin-D3 has been known to help with almost all disease due to deficiency. Many indoor people in high latitudes are woefully deficient and if that is the only cause of their disease correcting it will often resolve the disease. The frequency is a red herring and he may or may not have understood the value was in the UVB light. The frequencies are not defined in any repeatable way and have never been reproduced though with modern tech it would be trivial to establish them if they did work.
As for his elaborate microscopes he was a pioneer and made use of UV illumination through various specialty material lenses if I remember correctly. These lenses unlike glass would have passed UVC light to his samples from the plasma globe of his generator and killed the microbes through the now well known sterilization effect. His claims to being able to view viruses is unsupported but he could certainly have been able to detect the death of microbes due to UVC irradiation.
You are one of my favourite SubStackers so I am interested to hear a little more.
Vitamin-D3 is known to help with disease, Rife frequency generators claim to be frequency specific but so far I have not heard of any results that actually can be reproduced that work because of a specific frequency. It would be perhaps not trivial but quite achievable to run a test with a set of bacteria cultures and couple (using sound, electric, electromagnetic fields) at frequency from a generator to see which frequency suddenly or eventually causes die off. In fact it would be easy to automate it and have it triple blinded ( :-) )where not even the observation computer knows what the frequency is until the test is complete.
The few times I have investigated Rife technology over the years in the hope of constructing apparatus that conforms to the original specifications I have eventually reached the same dead end. The frequencies were not selected in any repeatable way, they were a 'comb' of frequencies (harmonics) that were mixed with a carrier. Those who have accurately repeated the generation of the tests have nothing to show for it.
Another anecdotal point that I feel is very compelling is that even though there are thousands of digital electronic device designs in the world with almost as many system clocks and sub system clocks with harmonics plastered everywhere in the electromagnetic spectrum from the exceedingly fast rise times of the digital signals there are NO REPORTS of some (class of) device that prevents or cures even ONE pathogenic disease condition. We hear quite the reverse though mostly also still anecdotal that various frequencies (at sufficient field strengths) are able to cause metabolic harm to sensitive individuals that you have also described. Where are the success cases.
In the same way that Rife machines may work I believe Radionic machines work, they are guided faith healing and it is a focus system for other ethereal energies and healing modalities, sort of a technical Reiki system that uses personal faith to channel healing benefits.
I have tried to approach this from many directions and I have yet to find any evidence that specific frequencies have notable healing powers. Chanting of "Ommmm" and such are also supposed to achieve results but again if it was just the sound then it could be tested, refined, repeated, bottled and sold on the alternative healing market with increasing number of referrals. Sound healing is also I believe activation of our innate healing powers and augmented in large measure by placebo/metaphysical/faith healing.
The interview with Pierre Kory was most interesting and I cannot find fault with the reasoning there either. My thanks to you both.
In any event I would love to hear if you have found any results of a repeatable demonstration that pathogens are frequency selective repeating such results would convince many people as well as myself.
ADDITION: I forgot to include that in contrast to the missing positive experiences with random exposure to frequencies the opposite is known to have happened with a couple of industrial chemicals. I think it was DMSO producers that were reported to have reduced number of was it liver spots or melanoma from casual exposure to the product in shipping and drum filling. There was another non patent product that has a similar discovery but it eludes me now.
The popular off label uses of drugs are much easier to document because the specific substance is documented and if a unrelated condition is cured the effects can be investigated.
I have no doubt your theory has much merit and suspect the ultimate truth is complex, diverse and convoluted. A problem I have is with the many positive clinical experiences. Rife's specific frequencies have much to be desired and the writings of James Bare (Resonant Light) explain much.
I have looked to publish some of my clinical cases, but the reporting mechanisms are quite restrictive. For example, one report consisting of 6 cases was rejected for the absence of an IRB (Inpependent review board) approval PRIOR to application of treatments. I have published but a simple case study requires 60-80 hours of effort. Prohibitive for a lowly practitioner.
I feel for you , still if there was a mechanistic way that the frequencies did something it should be possible to demonstrate it. If it is just guided faith healing or something else then that should be determined.
I do not doubt that UVB treatment can help a lot of people because it has been used and has clear reasons for working. However generating a frequency only costs a few tens of dollars these days (a Software Defined Radio and RF amplifier is most of a Rife machine) and if it actually cured ANY disease by setting it to any one or more frequencies and using delivery methods of choice it should be demonstrateable. Testing it on non lethal diseases should be possible with permission similar to how some positive results have been found when treating minor infections I seem to recall. I can neither justify how homeopathy works but saying it is a chemical process when the chemical is so dilute it cannot be measured is stretching the imagination as well. Take three cohorts where everyone has two minor conditions that are tractable to Rife treatment. Frequency A, B or none. See if the statistics show ANYTHING.
I would love to have a simple test that can be repeated by suitably kitted out researchers that shows how a specific frequency kills one type of bacteria on a plate and leave another unharmed and a different frequency does the opposite on another plate. Imagine how much popular support the therapy would receive if such a repeatable experiment existed.
My issue is that many healing modalities are on the etheric energy level, I don't know how they work but they seem to. Yet pretending they are chemical or technical in nature basically makes the prop into snake oil.
I so want it to work but cannot see how and no one else has been able to demonstrate it so far, soon I hope.
Yes, the evidence for energetic therapies is in great need of authentication. May never happen. I have looked for decades and not finding compelling concrete evidence.
Amazing interview and equally amazing conversations so far in these comments section. I am not from medicine, but an organic chemist, with some reading/knowledge interest in medicine. I find this reading very thought provoking. I hope that someday soon, with these dedicated efforts, very good repurposed medicine protocols will emerge for treating various cancers, safely, securely, inexpensively and almost irrevocably. I am glad that after Covid, cancer has drawn the attention of many of you. Next in line should be auto immune diseases and conditions. You have all put repurposing drugs on top of the map for this century. I have a gut feeling that the 2000-3000 odd established drugs we have today in use, some for decades, have immense multi indication potential. 21st century medical research must unravel this potential for the benefit of generations to come. God bless you all.
The structure of research and EBM is so compromised and corrupt as to make it difficult to think and practise as you do. Even the Cochrane Library has been annexed to the capital and political powers.
(See RFK Jr.'s comments in the last section of his speech from Arizona last week.)
The real trick is to identify causes. Stefanie Seneff's "Toxic Legacy" points to one factor. There are various articles now slightly accessible noting the rise of chronic diseases with the advance of vaccines. ( Yes, "correlation does not prove..", but then you must present a more rigourously definitive refutation.)
I appreciate this experiment with a different format. As the world has become increasingly polarized, I’ve found myself gravitating towards calm, conversational-style interviews (e.g., Rogan, Tucker, Brett Weinstein and others) because they remind me of the civilized discourse that took place all the time in my not-too-distant past…usually around a dinner table. To listen to (or in this case read) a discussion between two mature people on a topic of interest to me where they navigate their differences constructively is a welcome reminder that it’s still possible for people to communicate this way. It’s not a totally lost art. Also, in some cases they dare to say some things out loud that many of us may be thinking but keeping to ourselves in an effort to keep the peace after all the covid drama. I often find it cathartic when they (or you) manage to pierce those veils of silence. Thank you for your bravery to put it all out there knowing that the criticisms will inevitably come.
Thanks. The main issue on the cancer topic is that there are so many different models and perspectives on it that people often become very dogmatic about it.
As you know better than most, that is probably second only to how dogmatic we can be about our diet. Sometimes I think we’re our own worst enemy. On a positive note, I happened to pass along the information for the cancer study to my cousin last Sunday in the hopes that it might help her mother-in-law with breast cancer metastasizing in the bones. Last I heard, they are in the process of signing up with Dr Ruddy. Your article and Dr Kory’s are supporting my efforts there, so your excellent timing is appreciated!
I think Seyfried makes a compelling case for metabolic approaches to treating cancer. I used to work for the brilliant alternative treatment doctor Stanislaw Burzynski, who had the interesting theory that the currently-dominating "military" model of cancer treatment arose from the spectacular success of antibiotic therapy. But, he pointed out, cancer cells are not outside invaders like bacteria but, rather, the patient's own cells gone awry. Therefore, he reasoned, the military model was doomed to failure. His own cancer treatment, antineoplastons, worked by "reprogramming" errant cells with the correct information - or at least that was his theory.
My sense is that prior to the military approach, the focus was on the metabolic approach. A fantastic book about the history of the metabolic approach, focusing on Otto Warburg, is Ravenous by Sam Apple.
Well I was there from 1994 to 1997, which included the time when he was raided by the FDA/Justice Department and he and his corporation were both indicted on identical 75-count indictments. I sat through the entire 2 federal criminal trials, the first having ended with a hung jury. In the end he was found not guilty on all counts.
As for cancer treatment, the original antineoplastons were isolated from urine, and they were by all accounts incredibly active, very effective. But he couldn’t get large quantities of urine. He made a deal with a nearby naval base to get theirs but in the end the Navy was afraid someone would test the cadets’ urine for drugs, and the deal was scrapped. Of course the “dirty urine doctor” angle was used against him, much like the “horse dewormer” angle on ivermectin.
Eventually he figured out how to synthesize antineoplastons, although the synthetic ones were never as effective as the natural ones isolated from urine. But they were found particularly effective against brain tumors, including otherwise-untreatable brainstem gliomas, and he had many pediatric brain tumor cases, and a fair number of successes, given the poor prognosis.
My subjective impression was that every week I would see 1-5 “miracle” successes. It was a very busy clinic so this wasn’t a super-high percentage, but it was 1-5 successes that conventional therapy would not have produced, and a disproportionate number were children. Some ended up being durable responses, some not. But without question his approach had tremendous merit and joins the long list of promising but quashed cancer treatments. I haven’t been in touch with the Burzynskis for years and don’t know what they’re up to today.
Some Burzynski patients were on 10-12 grams of sodium phenylbutyrate orally daily. Sodium phenylbutyrate is a prodrug and is converted into sodium phenylacetate in the body and that is the active drug. Sodium phenylacetate is a great glutamine binder to stop the glutamine feed for certain cancers.
Wow...! I met his attorney, Richard Jaffe at an A4M health conference about 15 years ago and he gave me a copy of his book, Galilieo's Lawyer, to read. It was very eye opening - my first introduction to regulatory capture by industry. really. I also met the Burzynski family then too. I believe treatment is still available at the clinic; we looked into it in 2022, but were too late stage.
A friend of mine was on antineoplastons for 2 years at great expense (and stink), and it did not do anything. This was for follicular lymphoma. My sense was that Burzynski did not really want a true and solid trial. (Which is not to say that a true and solid trial would have been permitted.)
He did. In 1994 he agreed to a trial to test antineoplastons in glioblastoma at Memorial Sloan Kettering. The protocol called for tumors less than I think 3cm, at least 3 months life expectancy, and a few more. Then MSK started systematically violating every provision, accepting patients with huge tumors, on the brink of death, with the excuse that patient accrual was too slow. After that Burzynski was understandably cautious about trusting anyone but yes, he definitely was open to an honest trial.
This website features a documentary about Stanislaw Burzynski that I found fascinating: Burzynski: The Cancer Cure Cover-Up: https://www.burzynskimovie.com/
Great topic. There was an ND who got sued by the TN AMA several years ago for a million dollars for "practicing medicine without a license." He didn't have a million dollars so he packed up and moved to AL. The medical industrial complex is fiercely protective of their SOPs, misinformation, level of control and financial conflicts of interests. It's a huge problem.
Worth a watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUH4Co2wE-I. Tucker interviews Casey and Callie Means. Exposing the "standard" of care that mirrors what you have written here, good doctor.
I knew this story about the Tennessee...healer. I believe he was a pharmacist and was fined a ton of money and moved to Alabama. I think around the Florence area. I can't find a workable link just now.
They're crazy... Even with the METRICS protocol they throw in crap like atorvastatin. Why? For what benefit? Was it possibly to sabotage the results, but it couldn't overcome the positives of the other drugs?
Statins are bad, period, end stop.
Why did they put that in there? It's like McCullough putting tamiflu in his bird flu kit with TWC.
Is this science anymore?
Apparently not, because they won't even use cheap safe things like the vitamin C sepsis protocol. The irony that doctors don't trust oncologists for their own family cancer issues is hilarious.
My view of cancer is from terrain theory and it makes a lot of sense. When the body cannot eliminate toxins and dead matter via normal pathways, it tries to go through the skin (pox, etc) and if that's not happening it gets turned into cancer, aka garbage bags of collected crap.
Elimination pathways are also disturbed by metabolic issues, so it coincides with the metabolic theory of cancer.
I cured a full thickness macular hole in my retina with 4-6 g per day of liposomal vit c (the diarrhea tapers off after a while), Lutein 40 mg and vit d 5000 . It took 6 months. My retinologist kept saying first time he ever saw it and he doesn't understand what happened.
I ask because my (vaxxed) son has developed an autoimmune disease called Necrotizing Scleritis.
His eye was saved by an opthalmologist who prescribed high doses of a steroid (prednisone) and his rheumatologist prescribed an immunosuppresant "cancer drug"
which cause side effects.
I have tried to urge him to try dmso eye drops but he is not open to "alternative" treatments at all. 😭
I appreciated his courage in speaking out, but I'm disappointed in the apparent Pharma sell-out. He has his reasons, and I guess he can't be everyone's hero.
My mother was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer in May 2021 at 77 years old. She had the tumor removed and refused chemo and radiation. She followed many of the protocols from the hundreds of healing cancer testimonials from Chris Wark's "Chris Beat Cancer" site. www.chrisbeatcancer.com.
She ate plant based, whole food meals, cut out all sugar, gluten, caffeine, dairy. She drank Essiac tea, got sunshine, moved her body, prayed and had a support system. Her oncologist called her a miracle. She has received a few PET scans, no sign of cancer anywhere. The body is brilliant! Mom just left yesterday on a month long trip to Italy and France with my father.
"One of the things that’s extremely unfair about integrative oncology is that patients typically only seek it out once conventional therapies have completely failed them and they are expected to die in the immediate future."
Absolutely. A friend begged help for a friend's cancer since they saw me as a medical guru ever since I started reading "The Forgotten Side of Medicine". I dug up the Joe Tippens protocol with fenben and ivermectin and before I handed off the research my intuition prompted me to say, "As long as they're not going to die, like, this week the recommendation should bear fruit in a few weeks". They thanked me and two days later it turned out their friend died. They hid their hospice impending death prognosis from everyone, including the friend who reached out to me, and only sought help once doctors told them they were already dead.
Yes diet is important, however most of our food is not healthy, even in the stores. It is grown in depleted soil, genetically modified and sprayed with all sorts of toxins to kill weeds and insects
I no longer food shop in the supermarket (searched out and know the local farmers). I have come to distrust the integrity of anything produced in sufficient quantities for mass distribution.
The modern paradigm surrounding cancer is one giant racket. It dwarfs what happened in Auschwitz, and is happening every day in America and around the industrialized world.
First of all, it reflects the complete disregard to the role of consciousness in disease, and alternatively in the healing process. Second, it reveals the absolute lack of any emotional intelligence amongst institutionalized medical practitioners.
I have always intuitively understood that cancer prognosis is oftentimes more detrimental than the actual condition. It’s the prognosis that can often hasten the decay.
The word ‘cancer’ has garnered such a negative charge in the consciousness field, oftentimes more detrimental to what actually is happening within the body. The moment the “almighty (false) god” (doctor) says “you have cancer” - it’s like a ton of bricks dropped on one’s head.
From that moment on that person, as well as their family and their closest circle - all of them hold onto an invisible cloud as an information charge. And so oftentimes what we get is the hastening of decay and sickness in spite of our good intention, because that information cloud interferes with the healing process.
This predicament is always favorable to institutionalized medicine, however. In this way it is able to continue its profitable business that feeds off of death and misery.
One of the potentially hilarious, if it were not so tragic, aspects of modern manipulation of the cancer game is the statement, "We got the cancer, but lost the patient." But as with most of Western medicine, attacking a tumor has nothing to do with curing the disease, but suppressing its symptoms. When oncologists talk about how successful their treatment is, it is nearly always in terms of how responsive the tumor is.
Cancer patients hear the hopeful news that their type of tumor usually has a high response rate to the treatment proposed. Sure, the tumor responds. It is being attacked, but the attack is similar to America’s attacks on Iraq during the 1990s: most of the bombs miss the target and cause "collateral damage." When people undergoing chemotherapy lose their hair and have other maladies, that is "collateral damage."
.
.
DOCTORS OF HISTORY ABOUT CANCER
Let’s see what did the great doctors of history have to say about attacking cancer tumors. From the book 'Medical Dark Ages', I obtained these quotes:
"It is better not to apply any treatment in cases of occult cancer; for if treated (by surgery), the patients die quickly; but if not treated, they hold out for a long time." - Hippocrates, (460-370 BCE).
(Advanced cancer is)" irritated by treatment; and the more so the more vigorous it is."
"Some have used caustic medicaments, some the cautery, some excision with a scalpel; but no medicament has ever given relief; the parts cauterized are excited immediately to an increase until they cause death."
"After excision, even when a scar has formed, nonetheless the disease has returned, and caused death; while ...the majority of patients, although no violent measures are applied in the attempt to remove the tumor, but only mild applications in order to sooth it, attain a ripe old age in spite of it." - Celsus, (1st century CE).
"When [a tumor] is of long standing and large, you should leave it alone. For myself have never been able to cure any such, nor have I seen anyone else succeed before me." – Abu’l Qasim, (936-1013 CE).
"It should be forbidden and severely punished to remove cancer by cutting, burning, cautery, and other fiendish tortures. It is from nature that the disease comes, and from nature comes the cure, not from physicians." - Paracelsus, (1493-1541 CE).
The same mentality was held by the Hawaiian kahunas. The kahuna lore stated that "If it is (cancer), do not treat it."
The medicine of Benjamin Rush in America's 18th century was diametrically opposed to such a sentiment. He wrote that one of the “Vulgar Errors in Medicine” was to “let tumors alone.”
I am also particularly fond of the way Aajonus Vonderplanitz has described cancer and its role in the body.
From “We Want to Live!”:
“My research and experience has brought me to view cancer as a condition where the body no longer eliminates dead cells, for various reasons. So the malfunctioning body develops tumors, or catacombs, so to speak, and contains the dead cells within them. Cancer cells are only the caretakers of the catacombs. They are not the problem that created the inability to eliminate dead cells. Does a rooster crowing at sunrise cause the sun to rise?
“Cancer, then, is basically a fat deficiency. A deficiency in utilizable cholesterol that normally binds with or dissolves, carries away and eliminates dead cells.”
“A fat deficiency forms when a person stops eating fat; or a person doesn’t eat the particular fat his or her body digests, assimilates or utilizes properly; or the body is unable to digest, utilize or assimilate fat at all. Therefore the body becomes as much a vessel for death as for life.”
.
.
SUPRESSION OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS
Basically, the vast suppression of so-called “alternative” treatments over the last hundred years or more, is typical of the cancer racket. But many do not know that many “conventional” treatments started as “alternative”.
First, the orthodoxy does all it can to suppress the treatment and the person who invented it. Then, after it has been suppressed and vanished, they suddenly change course and embrace it, while propagandizing to the public that they had in fact discovered it.
Today, there are basically three legal ways to treat cancer in America: surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The second legal way to treat cancer, however, which was discovered in the 1890s, was initially suppressed.
With surgery coming into vogue, it became a monopoly as a way to treat cancer. The surgeons controlled medicine, and they regarded the X-ray as a threat to surgery. At the time surgery was the only approved method of treating cancer. They meant to keep it the only approved method by ignoring or rejecting any new methods or ideas.
Dr. Emil Grubbé discovered X-ray therapy (for cancer) in 1896. X-ray was not recognized as an agent for treating cancer by the American College of Surgeons until 1937. Dr. Grubbé, still was not recognized as late as 1951.
Chemotherapy came directly from World War II chemical warfare experiments. Using chemicals to treat cancer had been around since Paracelsus, but the chemicals killed the patients more often than not, since they were based on arsenic, lead, and other deadly substances.
In the early 20th century, chemical treatments and finding the “magic bullet” to kill cancer cells became an intensive area of study. In the 1930s, chemotherapy research was noted for its deadly and barbaric effects, and those who used surgery and radiation battled against chemotherapy.
World War II was a watershed in the use of chemicals. DDT was first used during World War II, the Nazis invented nerve gasses, the allies invented napalm and nuclear weapons, and the notion of “better living through chemistry” became entrenched due to the experience of World War II.
.
.
.
The racketeering impulse has been with Western medicine for many years and is deeply embedded today. The rise of the Western medical paradigm coincided with the rise of the corporation and new kinds of empires. The reason that American medical doctors are the highest-paid professionals on Earth is not because they perform valuable work.
They are merely technicians in what is arguably the West's greatest racket, in which life and death is in the hands of the world's most lucrative professions and industries. The fact that only violent methods of cancer treatment are legal is no accident.
Something like 60% of all the medical service dollars that Americans consume in their lifetimes is “consumed” in the last months of life, and almost no medical industry dollars are ever spent on prevention. It is a huge cash register that feeds off of death and misery.
The beginning of your comment reminds me of Dr. Gabor Mate's experience with trauma/emotions and disease. He thinks most disease, including cancer, is from emotional repression, specifically the inability to express anger in a healthy way. Anger, he says, often comes from boundary violations. He connections this to the function of the immune system - keeping out what is unhealthy. Here's a video with one of these interesting conversations on the Diary of a CEO podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qhvzDpQpk
Indeed. Cancer was seen long ago as a disease of the “humors,” i.e., the body’s fluids. The fluids are intimately connected to the emotions.
Western medicine gradually abandoned the humoral perspective to adopt the “solidist” one. Studying and treating the humors (blood, lymph, and bile) was largely abandoned in favor of treating the body’s “solids.” The rise of surgery also contributed greatly, because it is impossible to use a scalpel on blood.
Generally speaking, humanity, and particular modern science are extremely ignorant to the role of the emotions in an objective way, and to their biological correlation. In fact, modern science is as backward as 9th century’s understanding of the world in this regard.
I have actually just released a very important post which reveals something humanity is not aware of: an evolutionary mutation in the emotional center. In it I converge many so-called unrelated phenomena to one another, both within and without, and show that they are all connected to the transformation of our emotions.
Tom Cowan, who wrote the recent book on Cancer and the New Biology of Water, recommends not doing cancer screening ( like mammograms and Colonoscopies), and so avoiding all that follows.
When I was 15 I watched my 25 year old cousin die of Hodgkin’s. 1970 Hodgkins was a death sentence, lost 1 aunt and several other cousins to it also. Now it is 95% curable with a sometime side effect of the chemo: pulmonary hypertension.
Now in my late 60s I have pulmonary arterial hypertension but mine is not from chemo thank goodness. I have commented on this before. I am very uncomfortable with one of the meds I take but my dr tells me it keeps me stable. Frustrating that I am forced to rely on the medical system since I have such a rare condition.
There is a new treatment just developed recently which treats the cause, not symptoms. Please google your disease to find out about it. I have done a lot of research on lung diseases as I have been plagued by bronchitis, pneumonia and pleurisy when I was in my fifties . I used hydrogen peroxide---- it is great for getting oxygen into the body you can drink it in water ( starting out with just a few drops , but it is much more effective when put into a nebulizer. a good nebulizer runs around $50 or so, they are easy to use and for me, provided results. Hydrogen peroxide also can be put in a vaporizer with plain water
Hello Cornwall Marc, Yes, those were interesting times. I had not heard the report that you mentioned but it is not surprising. in 1958 Max Gerson MD published his book, " a cancer therapy – the results of 50 cases". He demonstrated significant results with diet therapy. In the 1970s I had a patient who was pronounced incurable of her cancer after numerous medical treatments. She followed his diet and added an array of nutritional supplements. The cancer retreated and instead of dying, she opened a health food store and helped many people for several decades. Kay eventually passed with a heart attack and never had a recurrence of the cancer. To my understanding the awareness of cancer as a major issue was on the rise during the 60s and 70s. Dr. Gerson testified before the Senate committee about his research but all of the available funding went to the emerging and more glamorous radiation therapies.
Interestingly, during this time frame I encountered a research study in sociology that demonstrated that men tended to marry women who cooked like their mothers. The authors questioned whether or not there was a relationship between diet and heart disease. They were laughed out of the medical conference because it was conclusively "known" at the time that heart disease had nothing to do with diet, was strictly a male and genetic condition. This emphasis upon genetics persists even now in some circles. For example the entire human genome project. I predict it will not lead to all of the cures that are predicted by understanding the genetic map. Fascinating and useful project, but I think it may fall short of expectations.
In the same time frame I was teaching at a naturopathic college. One of their popular treatment techniques was herbal soaks. A tub of the prescribed herbal extracts was provided for the patient to soak in and absorb the therapeutic contents. The FDA came in closed down the college on the premise that skin was an impermeable membrane and this therapy was quackery. Very shortly after the closure, the skin patch heart medication delivery system was introduced. They had to get this college closed quickly to be ahead of the new trans-dermal pharmacological therapies.
When I had my stroke back in 2018, I got a CAT scan in the emergency room, and then another one i 48 hours at a hospital where I was transferred. I started taking activated charcoal almost immediately to help absorb some of the radiation. Would you recommend everyone going to get heavy radiation with things like Cat Scans take DMSO before hand, and is it good practice to take it afterwards if you have an unscheduled Cat Scan?
This was such a frank discussion about cancer it felt like being in a priest's confession booth. The whole Medical system in this country has needed a drastic makeover and I think it is finally around the corner as big pharma has gone way too far in their reach for our pocketbooks with no concern for the outcome -- like if we live or die
The use of DMSO there is more in regards to radiation therapy which overtly damages tissue. As far as I know, no one ever studied if DMSO decreases the long term effects of CT scans and it's unlikely a study like that would ever be done.
Thank you for having this conversation. It is interesting to see where you are, with your contacts and experience. I know people who have done alternative for the big C, for over 40 years. Some lived and did very well. A few passed away but the length of life and quality of life was longer and better than those who did everything as scheduled by their oncologist, radiologist and surgeon. As an aside, why do we call these people "my" doctor or "my" oncologist? We have been trained to put so much trust in them as if we belong to them and them to us, but we know, most doctors are trapped in the box of orthodoxy. We need to think for ourselves....if we want to live.
I had the C diagnosis in 2018. I got a tonne of books. I contacted different people. I only had surgery. I refused chemo and radiation. I was yelled at by ocologist for asking questions. I was yelled at by staff for not attending appointments, which I had never agreed to.
My research included Ty & C Bollinger's books, also Chris Wark and Suzanne Somers. I also know people, who have gone to Mexico and have lived long lives. Mexico was my "back up" as I could not afford to go. I consulted local people, but the cost was also too much. I had my "5 year" graduation, last fall. I did it myself. I am responsible for myself.
Importantly to AMD's post on metabolic treatment, I first heard of this approach from Jane McLelland who survived stage 4 ovarian cancer. She used repurposed drugs and worked a metabolic pathway theory (again, these are theories). I think her work might pre-date the other books here. https://www.howtostarvecancer.com/about-jane/ I tried her approach (the prescriptions are easy to get) but could not tolerate it. But her name should be included on any discussion with metabolic treatment and cancer.
Personally, I don't think the metabolic pathway is the correct theory. But more important, people need to know that a C diagnosis is their wake up call to pay attention to their body and look after themself. This does not mean handing your health over to someone else, to make decisions - either orthodoxy or alternative. Thinking, learning and growing, with humility and openness is key. Maybe start with turning off the news, tuning out gadgets, going outside, enjoying the sunshine...
To quantify my opinions I had stage 3 B uterine cancer in my 40s. I am now 50. I did surgery. I made Essiac tea. I ate healthy good beef and lamb, I ate organic for my veggies. I wanted to do Vita C IV but could not afford it. I found a source of wildcrafted Essiac tea. I brewed the tea (long cook) and took 2 ounces twice a day for 2 years. I also found a senior oncologist to follow me, do the blood work and scans. This same senior oncologist "approved" me taking (bioidentical) hormone replacement. In her words, "some women need them". She has no training in hormone replacement, and she never asked me what I did to look after myself. She loved my visits as I glowed with health and vitality. None of the people who had the same diagnosis and followed the standard of care (surgery/chemo/rad) have regained the same level of health they had before. I am still working and thriving. People - do your own research.
Thank you Doctor.
I disagree with Seyfried’s promoting keto and low carb. Cancer if anything is fed by methionine not sugar. In fact, methionine deficiency can cause cancer to go into remission or entirely disappear. There is an enzyme methioninase that is produced by many microbes that can help the body deplete of methionine, which along with a low animal protein diet can help a great deal. Sadly, in our corrupt system, a company has patented this natural molecule and will gatekeep it and charge a fortune for it.
I have also found that high doses of THC can shrink tumors and virtually cure even metastatic cancer, although probably the person needs to take THC ongoing in maintenance mode, so it isn’t really a cure, but it works very well and if taken in rectal suppositories has almost no side effects.
The reality of the endocannabinoid receptors is that it is the key to the entire immune process, and THC rectally can spread to all cells within minutes and begin reversing the aberrant cancer processes.
Thanks again for your wonderful efforts and this interview and thank you also Dr. Kory for your brave work.
Methionine is one of three protein synthesis limiting amino acids. I’m not sure how we survive without it. Vegans and vegetarians are often deficient in this amino acid primarily supplied by red meat. My experience with these diet choices for the long term are very sick people with weak constitutions and little muscle mass. Seyfried’s protocol did call for glutamine inhibition as an integral part of the success of the metabolic theory.
Yes, but do your vegans acquire cancers? Or are they just miserable until they die?
Yes Vegans can get Cancer. It is suspected that much of the Vegan Cancer comes from plants grown on fields drenched with Glyphosate (Round-up) which prevents the plant from taking up boron, Iron, zinc and other necessary minerals plus many Vegans bought into the lie that Canola Oil is "healthy' which it is not! It contains Euric Acid which causes Myocardial Lipodosis (fatty infiltrates in the heart muscle). Plus Vegans do not get vitamin B 12 which is not found in plants. (Vegetarians who eat eggs and dairy fare much better in the health and avoiding Cancer.)
It is likely that many Vegans are not strict in only eating true organic non-GMO food which increases their chances of cancer.
😝
There are always those annoying trade-offs.
You can’t survive without it. It’s difficult to get it low enough. But with a primarily plant based diet, you can sometimes get methionine down to around 1.5g, which should help limit the growth of cancer to some degree.
interesting
Well, that would mean that a large part of the population of India would be sick and weak . . . from what i have seen i don't think that is the case, except perhaps with those too poor to acquire sufficient food.
I don’t know anything about India but one of my mentors used to say it takes a population about 12 generations to adapt to a new food supply. Western man is built on a meat building block. 300,000 years of homosapiens hunted and gathered. Only since
Egyptians 10k years ago have we been farming and according to Dr. Michael Eades, the Paleo diet doc, who started to look at these changes, that’s when diseases of modern man began.
Still, like AMD said, the primary thing is to get the processed food and the chemicals out so if you succeed with vegetarianism, more power to you. The 10 years I was vegetarian did not work for my health.
VA this study addresses your point I think. Fascinating subject. N of 1: As a descendant of Northern Europeans/Scandinavians I thrive on diet high in saturated fat, animal protein and moderate carbohydrates - none high glycemic or "simple." I cannot tolerate large amounts of vegetables or fruits.
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/33/7/1887/2579296?fbclid=IwY2xjawFBjdFleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHdDG40X3sjR_Kx9UaeWpBkRyTuIiblsW7ASr_fej8Hbf_76YFu2vheXu2g_aem_WmMi1fyI-ovFiQSB9jHNCw&login=false
Thank you.
interesting about the 12 generations to adapt. thanks for your response.
Another reason seyfried’s keto diet works is because it lowers deuterium. Check out Dr Laszlo Boros who has talked about the metabolic roots of cancer and deuterium for many years. Dr Petra Davelaar has some good videos about cancer and deuterium.https://vimeo.com/793832829
Thank you. Will do.
<< Cancer is fed by methionine not sugar
Seriously? There's a lot of people that say otherwise. Actual sugar or fruit sugars/fructose/glucose? Was Dr Max Gerson wrong too?
Yes they say otherwise and they are quite wrong. Gerson has had very mixed results. The “cancer loves sugar” is a tired trope and incorrect. There is zero evidence for it. But lots of evidence that cancer loves methionine.
Agree with Gerson comment but evidence for "cancer loves sugar" can, to me, be as simple as looking at a PET scan - that is how we find and monitor cancer - i.e. where the radiolabelled glucose uptake is most concentrated
I'm thinking it would be more correct to say that cancer loves glucose, and this is evidenced through PET scans. The reason some other approaches work even though they prescribe fruit is that cancer cells may not metabolize fructose the same way as glucose. If cancer is a metabolic disease this is important. I am thinking along these lines because when my mother was diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer in 2008 the only people out there besides those Cancer Treatment Centers of America, which are integrative, were Gerson and Johanna Budwig, and her approach using flax seed oil/cottage cheese, lightly steamed veggies and some fruit was more compelling to me, and referred more directly to the metabolic/oxygen related causes. My mother would take what I made for her. Our biggest mistake was to do a round of chemo, which almost killed her and ruined the rest of her life. We had done cyber knife radiation, which eliminated all the pain until the very day we did the chemo. Today, if I were diagnosed I'd start with antifungals and antiparasiticals such as ivermectin and then go from there. I LOVE this material. It's vitally important.
Thank you, @Pierre Korry for your reply!
Is that not perhaps because it is more metabolically active than surrounding tissue? Forgive my ignorance, but can our body produce glucose from other sources, or only from ingestion of sugars?
Everyone is wrong about many things, they are called false beliefs.
The question is whether there is willingness for admission.
Why you couple this to M Gerson is interesting when the article has many recs that
the venerable Dr. G would have frowned upon.
One simple fact. Fast growing malignant cell lines (turbo cancerns) have highly increased metabolic activity. Those cells require food.
The main component of the Gerson therapy is 12 oz of organic vegetable juice every hour on the waking hour 12x a day. Has that been improved upon???
No question that CBD oil, a component of which is THC, is relatively cheap and useful
for a spectrum of issues, malignancy included.
PET scans are very expensive, Oncologists tend to not order them. Then are very stubborn upon request without explanation.
Over $20K out of pocket. Last one I reviewed was negative. Weeks later the patient ( a frail elderly woman) died with advanced metastatic disease. That was the "story"
Will not specualate further, except to disclose that hospital refused to eat the cost...
CBD does not contain THC.
2 diff products, same plant.
If you want CBD you actually have to grow CBD plants (hemp). If you want THC, you have to grow THC plants (cannabis).
I have seen studies on THC's effect on cancers in vitro, and testimonies in vivo (Rick Simpson comes to mind). I haven't seen any studies on CBD and cancer, though I believe it is valuable (even without the THC) on it's own.
I do not wish to be providing repeated commentary, but you asked for it.
In premedical studies at a university where a major cancer research Institute coincided, I often found myself straying from my ordained studies to investigate a wide array of information. In the medical school library circa 1970, I found a meta-study of cancer reporting that at least 80 to 90% of cancer was due to environmental toxicity. The conclusion of this study was that we must spend more money on developing vaccines to prevent us from getting cancer from the environmental toxins. At that time I even thought this as a viable solution.
A few decades later in a conversation with Candace Pert (Molecules of Emotion and some status in the NIH) she cited a more recent meta-study indicating that 70 to 80% of cancer was due to environmental toxicity. WOW!
My simple question is why all of the emphasis on drugs and therapies to counteract a condition that may well be due to toxins in the environment. Consider the investigations and research of Fritz Albert Popp PhD on this very subject as well as those of Royal Rife PhD.
Furthermore, some seem to have an at version to detoxification. Personally, I do not get it? Referencing the Hippocrates Institute and their success rate with cancer patients.
Why is the continuing emphasis placed upon counteracting the disease instead of addressing the foundational causes? While I could go on for many hours on the subject, I will stop For now.
I realize my training was eventually focused on chiropractic which is a healing system focused on the causes of disease rather than counteracting the symptoms, but may be a paradigm shift is appropriate.
To answer your question; because the financial incentives do not support it.
Furthermore, getting the financial incentives out of medicine/drugs is matched in difficulty by finding and eliminating the thousands of toxins we have put into the environmentand out food.
Which is why I found the RFK Jr. candidacy compelling. He's the ONLY one talking about this and I am grateful that it is now in the national conversation in the US
Well, then; quit growing mold and collecting poisonous plants to put into our food!
Thousands of them, are there?
Silly me!
Nor do the entrenched paradigms and supporting bureaucracies.
Hey Joseph, I read an interview with Kary Mullis (PCR inventor) who said back in the 70's all the research money was for proving cancer was genetic and finding cures. It went on for over another decade until, due to no progress, funding was in jeopody. Luckily HIV AIDS came along and they all just changed their office door nameplates and became AIDS researchers. The moral = Follow The Money!
In the early years after I was dxed with lymphoma, there were questionnaires regarding exposure to herbicides (which as I understand have been implicated in that illness). Then the questionnaires ceased, and nothing was ever heard of the matter again.
Glad you made it!
I was saved by an alternative treatment (not covered in this article) called Coley's Toxins. It's been many years now. :-)
A variant of it is mentioned in the book I linked to ;)
You linked to several... I thought it would be Tripping over the Truth but that term does not appear in the index.
German Cancer Therapies?
Wow, a totally new one on me. Will investigate and THANKS!
Trichothecene and aspergillus did it?
I have a theory on Royal Rifes observations that is more credible than the frequency theory.
I do not know if he understood why but I believe many of his Rife Resonator with Plasma Tube cures could be laid at the doorstep of UVB therapy seeing as increased Vitamin-D3 has been known to help with almost all disease due to deficiency. Many indoor people in high latitudes are woefully deficient and if that is the only cause of their disease correcting it will often resolve the disease. The frequency is a red herring and he may or may not have understood the value was in the UVB light. The frequencies are not defined in any repeatable way and have never been reproduced though with modern tech it would be trivial to establish them if they did work.
https://vitamindwiki.com/Proof+that+Vitamin+D+Works
As for his elaborate microscopes he was a pioneer and made use of UV illumination through various specialty material lenses if I remember correctly. These lenses unlike glass would have passed UVC light to his samples from the plasma globe of his generator and killed the microbes through the now well known sterilization effect. His claims to being able to view viruses is unsupported but he could certainly have been able to detect the death of microbes due to UVC irradiation.
I have done a lot of work with Rife technology and hold a differing opinion here.
You are one of my favourite SubStackers so I am interested to hear a little more.
Vitamin-D3 is known to help with disease, Rife frequency generators claim to be frequency specific but so far I have not heard of any results that actually can be reproduced that work because of a specific frequency. It would be perhaps not trivial but quite achievable to run a test with a set of bacteria cultures and couple (using sound, electric, electromagnetic fields) at frequency from a generator to see which frequency suddenly or eventually causes die off. In fact it would be easy to automate it and have it triple blinded ( :-) )where not even the observation computer knows what the frequency is until the test is complete.
The few times I have investigated Rife technology over the years in the hope of constructing apparatus that conforms to the original specifications I have eventually reached the same dead end. The frequencies were not selected in any repeatable way, they were a 'comb' of frequencies (harmonics) that were mixed with a carrier. Those who have accurately repeated the generation of the tests have nothing to show for it.
Another anecdotal point that I feel is very compelling is that even though there are thousands of digital electronic device designs in the world with almost as many system clocks and sub system clocks with harmonics plastered everywhere in the electromagnetic spectrum from the exceedingly fast rise times of the digital signals there are NO REPORTS of some (class of) device that prevents or cures even ONE pathogenic disease condition. We hear quite the reverse though mostly also still anecdotal that various frequencies (at sufficient field strengths) are able to cause metabolic harm to sensitive individuals that you have also described. Where are the success cases.
In the same way that Rife machines may work I believe Radionic machines work, they are guided faith healing and it is a focus system for other ethereal energies and healing modalities, sort of a technical Reiki system that uses personal faith to channel healing benefits.
I have tried to approach this from many directions and I have yet to find any evidence that specific frequencies have notable healing powers. Chanting of "Ommmm" and such are also supposed to achieve results but again if it was just the sound then it could be tested, refined, repeated, bottled and sold on the alternative healing market with increasing number of referrals. Sound healing is also I believe activation of our innate healing powers and augmented in large measure by placebo/metaphysical/faith healing.
The interview with Pierre Kory was most interesting and I cannot find fault with the reasoning there either. My thanks to you both.
In any event I would love to hear if you have found any results of a repeatable demonstration that pathogens are frequency selective repeating such results would convince many people as well as myself.
I will write an article on them in the future.
ADDITION: I forgot to include that in contrast to the missing positive experiences with random exposure to frequencies the opposite is known to have happened with a couple of industrial chemicals. I think it was DMSO producers that were reported to have reduced number of was it liver spots or melanoma from casual exposure to the product in shipping and drum filling. There was another non patent product that has a similar discovery but it eludes me now.
The popular off label uses of drugs are much easier to document because the specific substance is documented and if a unrelated condition is cured the effects can be investigated.
I have no doubt your theory has much merit and suspect the ultimate truth is complex, diverse and convoluted. A problem I have is with the many positive clinical experiences. Rife's specific frequencies have much to be desired and the writings of James Bare (Resonant Light) explain much.
I have looked to publish some of my clinical cases, but the reporting mechanisms are quite restrictive. For example, one report consisting of 6 cases was rejected for the absence of an IRB (Inpependent review board) approval PRIOR to application of treatments. I have published but a simple case study requires 60-80 hours of effort. Prohibitive for a lowly practitioner.
I feel for you , still if there was a mechanistic way that the frequencies did something it should be possible to demonstrate it. If it is just guided faith healing or something else then that should be determined.
I do not doubt that UVB treatment can help a lot of people because it has been used and has clear reasons for working. However generating a frequency only costs a few tens of dollars these days (a Software Defined Radio and RF amplifier is most of a Rife machine) and if it actually cured ANY disease by setting it to any one or more frequencies and using delivery methods of choice it should be demonstrateable. Testing it on non lethal diseases should be possible with permission similar to how some positive results have been found when treating minor infections I seem to recall. I can neither justify how homeopathy works but saying it is a chemical process when the chemical is so dilute it cannot be measured is stretching the imagination as well. Take three cohorts where everyone has two minor conditions that are tractable to Rife treatment. Frequency A, B or none. See if the statistics show ANYTHING.
I would love to have a simple test that can be repeated by suitably kitted out researchers that shows how a specific frequency kills one type of bacteria on a plate and leave another unharmed and a different frequency does the opposite on another plate. Imagine how much popular support the therapy would receive if such a repeatable experiment existed.
My issue is that many healing modalities are on the etheric energy level, I don't know how they work but they seem to. Yet pretending they are chemical or technical in nature basically makes the prop into snake oil.
I so want it to work but cannot see how and no one else has been able to demonstrate it so far, soon I hope.
Yes, the evidence for energetic therapies is in great need of authentication. May never happen. I have looked for decades and not finding compelling concrete evidence.
Amazing interview and equally amazing conversations so far in these comments section. I am not from medicine, but an organic chemist, with some reading/knowledge interest in medicine. I find this reading very thought provoking. I hope that someday soon, with these dedicated efforts, very good repurposed medicine protocols will emerge for treating various cancers, safely, securely, inexpensively and almost irrevocably. I am glad that after Covid, cancer has drawn the attention of many of you. Next in line should be auto immune diseases and conditions. You have all put repurposing drugs on top of the map for this century. I have a gut feeling that the 2000-3000 odd established drugs we have today in use, some for decades, have immense multi indication potential. 21st century medical research must unravel this potential for the benefit of generations to come. God bless you all.
Thank you so much : )
Possibly. See my note above.
The structure of research and EBM is so compromised and corrupt as to make it difficult to think and practise as you do. Even the Cochrane Library has been annexed to the capital and political powers.
Not everywhere is as corrupt as America and similar countries. There may be hope.
I think you might still miss the point.
(See RFK Jr.'s comments in the last section of his speech from Arizona last week.)
The real trick is to identify causes. Stefanie Seneff's "Toxic Legacy" points to one factor. There are various articles now slightly accessible noting the rise of chronic diseases with the advance of vaccines. ( Yes, "correlation does not prove..", but then you must present a more rigourously definitive refutation.)
I appreciate this experiment with a different format. As the world has become increasingly polarized, I’ve found myself gravitating towards calm, conversational-style interviews (e.g., Rogan, Tucker, Brett Weinstein and others) because they remind me of the civilized discourse that took place all the time in my not-too-distant past…usually around a dinner table. To listen to (or in this case read) a discussion between two mature people on a topic of interest to me where they navigate their differences constructively is a welcome reminder that it’s still possible for people to communicate this way. It’s not a totally lost art. Also, in some cases they dare to say some things out loud that many of us may be thinking but keeping to ourselves in an effort to keep the peace after all the covid drama. I often find it cathartic when they (or you) manage to pierce those veils of silence. Thank you for your bravery to put it all out there knowing that the criticisms will inevitably come.
Thanks. The main issue on the cancer topic is that there are so many different models and perspectives on it that people often become very dogmatic about it.
As you know better than most, that is probably second only to how dogmatic we can be about our diet. Sometimes I think we’re our own worst enemy. On a positive note, I happened to pass along the information for the cancer study to my cousin last Sunday in the hopes that it might help her mother-in-law with breast cancer metastasizing in the bones. Last I heard, they are in the process of signing up with Dr Ruddy. Your article and Dr Kory’s are supporting my efforts there, so your excellent timing is appreciated!
How do I find an integrative oncologist?
100% agree. I am there with who you listen to all the way, for the same reasons.
I think Seyfried makes a compelling case for metabolic approaches to treating cancer. I used to work for the brilliant alternative treatment doctor Stanislaw Burzynski, who had the interesting theory that the currently-dominating "military" model of cancer treatment arose from the spectacular success of antibiotic therapy. But, he pointed out, cancer cells are not outside invaders like bacteria but, rather, the patient's own cells gone awry. Therefore, he reasoned, the military model was doomed to failure. His own cancer treatment, antineoplastons, worked by "reprogramming" errant cells with the correct information - or at least that was his theory.
My sense is that prior to the military approach, the focus was on the metabolic approach. A fantastic book about the history of the metabolic approach, focusing on Otto Warburg, is Ravenous by Sam Apple.
That's amazing. I've read about Burzynski but never met someone who worked with him. I'd love to know what you saw.
Well I was there from 1994 to 1997, which included the time when he was raided by the FDA/Justice Department and he and his corporation were both indicted on identical 75-count indictments. I sat through the entire 2 federal criminal trials, the first having ended with a hung jury. In the end he was found not guilty on all counts.
As for cancer treatment, the original antineoplastons were isolated from urine, and they were by all accounts incredibly active, very effective. But he couldn’t get large quantities of urine. He made a deal with a nearby naval base to get theirs but in the end the Navy was afraid someone would test the cadets’ urine for drugs, and the deal was scrapped. Of course the “dirty urine doctor” angle was used against him, much like the “horse dewormer” angle on ivermectin.
Eventually he figured out how to synthesize antineoplastons, although the synthetic ones were never as effective as the natural ones isolated from urine. But they were found particularly effective against brain tumors, including otherwise-untreatable brainstem gliomas, and he had many pediatric brain tumor cases, and a fair number of successes, given the poor prognosis.
My subjective impression was that every week I would see 1-5 “miracle” successes. It was a very busy clinic so this wasn’t a super-high percentage, but it was 1-5 successes that conventional therapy would not have produced, and a disproportionate number were children. Some ended up being durable responses, some not. But without question his approach had tremendous merit and joins the long list of promising but quashed cancer treatments. I haven’t been in touch with the Burzynskis for years and don’t know what they’re up to today.
Some Burzynski patients were on 10-12 grams of sodium phenylbutyrate orally daily. Sodium phenylbutyrate is a prodrug and is converted into sodium phenylacetate in the body and that is the active drug. Sodium phenylacetate is a great glutamine binder to stop the glutamine feed for certain cancers.
Wow...! I met his attorney, Richard Jaffe at an A4M health conference about 15 years ago and he gave me a copy of his book, Galilieo's Lawyer, to read. It was very eye opening - my first introduction to regulatory capture by industry. really. I also met the Burzynski family then too. I believe treatment is still available at the clinic; we looked into it in 2022, but were too late stage.
A friend of mine was on antineoplastons for 2 years at great expense (and stink), and it did not do anything. This was for follicular lymphoma. My sense was that Burzynski did not really want a true and solid trial. (Which is not to say that a true and solid trial would have been permitted.)
He did. In 1994 he agreed to a trial to test antineoplastons in glioblastoma at Memorial Sloan Kettering. The protocol called for tumors less than I think 3cm, at least 3 months life expectancy, and a few more. Then MSK started systematically violating every provision, accepting patients with huge tumors, on the brink of death, with the excuse that patient accrual was too slow. After that Burzynski was understandably cautious about trusting anyone but yes, he definitely was open to an honest trial.
Thank you for all the info. An honest trial of alternatives is not possible even today.
It was very obvious that MSK's intent was not to test antineoplastons, but to disprove them.
So..... this gives support for the urine therapy drs?
That was a great book.
This website features a documentary about Stanislaw Burzynski that I found fascinating: Burzynski: The Cancer Cure Cover-Up: https://www.burzynskimovie.com/
Whereabouts are you doing your surmising Neo? Nonspecifically...
Great topic. There was an ND who got sued by the TN AMA several years ago for a million dollars for "practicing medicine without a license." He didn't have a million dollars so he packed up and moved to AL. The medical industrial complex is fiercely protective of their SOPs, misinformation, level of control and financial conflicts of interests. It's a huge problem.
Worth a watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUH4Co2wE-I. Tucker interviews Casey and Callie Means. Exposing the "standard" of care that mirrors what you have written here, good doctor.
Fabulous and eye-opening interview!
Thanks for mentioning that incredible interview!
re: the "ND" who got sued.
I knew this story about the Tennessee...healer. I believe he was a pharmacist and was fined a ton of money and moved to Alabama. I think around the Florence area. I can't find a workable link just now.
Yep, same guy. Former pharmacist turned ND. This was 20 - 25 years ago so not sure he's still in business.
They're crazy... Even with the METRICS protocol they throw in crap like atorvastatin. Why? For what benefit? Was it possibly to sabotage the results, but it couldn't overcome the positives of the other drugs?
Statins are bad, period, end stop.
Why did they put that in there? It's like McCullough putting tamiflu in his bird flu kit with TWC.
Is this science anymore?
Apparently not, because they won't even use cheap safe things like the vitamin C sepsis protocol. The irony that doctors don't trust oncologists for their own family cancer issues is hilarious.
My view of cancer is from terrain theory and it makes a lot of sense. When the body cannot eliminate toxins and dead matter via normal pathways, it tries to go through the skin (pox, etc) and if that's not happening it gets turned into cancer, aka garbage bags of collected crap.
Elimination pathways are also disturbed by metabolic issues, so it coincides with the metabolic theory of cancer.
https://fenbendazole.substack.com/
IV vitamin C is one of the most consistently effective therapies for solid tissue tumors.
Which far more effective treatments do you recommend?
Thank you for your comment and looking forward to your reply.
So how about you admit you're a big pHarma shill without admitting you're a big pHarma Shill.
Like what?
Here's a relative to one of the drugs they used,
https://fenbendazole.substack.com/
I do not know.
I cured a full thickness macular hole in my retina with 4-6 g per day of liposomal vit c (the diarrhea tapers off after a while), Lutein 40 mg and vit d 5000 . It took 6 months. My retinologist kept saying first time he ever saw it and he doesn't understand what happened.
So no eye drops, only vitamin therapy?
I ask because my (vaxxed) son has developed an autoimmune disease called Necrotizing Scleritis.
His eye was saved by an opthalmologist who prescribed high doses of a steroid (prednisone) and his rheumatologist prescribed an immunosuppresant "cancer drug"
which cause side effects.
I have tried to urge him to try dmso eye drops but he is not open to "alternative" treatments at all. 😭
Anyway, thank you for posting this anecdote.
My Word! I think Congratulations are in order!!
Have you any information/sites on the high vitamin C “dissolving” cataracts in the eyes?
not really
What does signaling pathways have to do with cancer?
Are you still thinking that cancer is some kind of intelligent thing? The metabolic theory and terrain theory see cancer as the result of damage.
Thomas Levy
Dr. Thomas Levy wrote a book on Vit C.
There is another guy. Not a doctor but son of a doctor .He wrote many similar books . Jeff . T Bowles.
It may be this one? https://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Vitamin-Discussion-Prevention-21st-Century/dp/1680980130
Was also dismayed by McCullough's inclusion of Tamiflu.
Cardiologists are overpaid drug pushers, including him.
He's also big on pushing these fear porn pandemic fears and over hypes what COVID was.
I appreciated his courage in speaking out, but I'm disappointed in the apparent Pharma sell-out. He has his reasons, and I guess he can't be everyone's hero.
This is a great comment!! My questions exactly!!
My mother was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer in May 2021 at 77 years old. She had the tumor removed and refused chemo and radiation. She followed many of the protocols from the hundreds of healing cancer testimonials from Chris Wark's "Chris Beat Cancer" site. www.chrisbeatcancer.com.
She ate plant based, whole food meals, cut out all sugar, gluten, caffeine, dairy. She drank Essiac tea, got sunshine, moved her body, prayed and had a support system. Her oncologist called her a miracle. She has received a few PET scans, no sign of cancer anywhere. The body is brilliant! Mom just left yesterday on a month long trip to Italy and France with my father.
"One of the things that’s extremely unfair about integrative oncology is that patients typically only seek it out once conventional therapies have completely failed them and they are expected to die in the immediate future."
Absolutely. A friend begged help for a friend's cancer since they saw me as a medical guru ever since I started reading "The Forgotten Side of Medicine". I dug up the Joe Tippens protocol with fenben and ivermectin and before I handed off the research my intuition prompted me to say, "As long as they're not going to die, like, this week the recommendation should bear fruit in a few weeks". They thanked me and two days later it turned out their friend died. They hid their hospice impending death prognosis from everyone, including the friend who reached out to me, and only sought help once doctors told them they were already dead.
It's so sad.
Yes diet is important, however most of our food is not healthy, even in the stores. It is grown in depleted soil, genetically modified and sprayed with all sorts of toxins to kill weeds and insects
100% agree.
I heard about a soil replenishment product available. Maybe Dr. Nass or in one of IPAK-edu courses/seminars …
Lotta buzz about biochar among the permaculture people.
Makes sense - could detox as well as nutrify & hold water.
I no longer food shop in the supermarket (searched out and know the local farmers). I have come to distrust the integrity of anything produced in sufficient quantities for mass distribution.
Agree Richard! Especially when CRISPR technology is considered nonGMO.🤦♀️😑🤣 Oh, and then there’s APEEL coatings, gas chambers for fruit, etc.
Made me chuckle: gas chambers for fruit
The modern paradigm surrounding cancer is one giant racket. It dwarfs what happened in Auschwitz, and is happening every day in America and around the industrialized world.
First of all, it reflects the complete disregard to the role of consciousness in disease, and alternatively in the healing process. Second, it reveals the absolute lack of any emotional intelligence amongst institutionalized medical practitioners.
I have always intuitively understood that cancer prognosis is oftentimes more detrimental than the actual condition. It’s the prognosis that can often hasten the decay.
The word ‘cancer’ has garnered such a negative charge in the consciousness field, oftentimes more detrimental to what actually is happening within the body. The moment the “almighty (false) god” (doctor) says “you have cancer” - it’s like a ton of bricks dropped on one’s head.
From that moment on that person, as well as their family and their closest circle - all of them hold onto an invisible cloud as an information charge. And so oftentimes what we get is the hastening of decay and sickness in spite of our good intention, because that information cloud interferes with the healing process.
This predicament is always favorable to institutionalized medicine, however. In this way it is able to continue its profitable business that feeds off of death and misery.
One of the potentially hilarious, if it were not so tragic, aspects of modern manipulation of the cancer game is the statement, "We got the cancer, but lost the patient." But as with most of Western medicine, attacking a tumor has nothing to do with curing the disease, but suppressing its symptoms. When oncologists talk about how successful their treatment is, it is nearly always in terms of how responsive the tumor is.
Cancer patients hear the hopeful news that their type of tumor usually has a high response rate to the treatment proposed. Sure, the tumor responds. It is being attacked, but the attack is similar to America’s attacks on Iraq during the 1990s: most of the bombs miss the target and cause "collateral damage." When people undergoing chemotherapy lose their hair and have other maladies, that is "collateral damage."
.
.
DOCTORS OF HISTORY ABOUT CANCER
Let’s see what did the great doctors of history have to say about attacking cancer tumors. From the book 'Medical Dark Ages', I obtained these quotes:
"It is better not to apply any treatment in cases of occult cancer; for if treated (by surgery), the patients die quickly; but if not treated, they hold out for a long time." - Hippocrates, (460-370 BCE).
(Advanced cancer is)" irritated by treatment; and the more so the more vigorous it is."
"Some have used caustic medicaments, some the cautery, some excision with a scalpel; but no medicament has ever given relief; the parts cauterized are excited immediately to an increase until they cause death."
"After excision, even when a scar has formed, nonetheless the disease has returned, and caused death; while ...the majority of patients, although no violent measures are applied in the attempt to remove the tumor, but only mild applications in order to sooth it, attain a ripe old age in spite of it." - Celsus, (1st century CE).
"When [a tumor] is of long standing and large, you should leave it alone. For myself have never been able to cure any such, nor have I seen anyone else succeed before me." – Abu’l Qasim, (936-1013 CE).
"It should be forbidden and severely punished to remove cancer by cutting, burning, cautery, and other fiendish tortures. It is from nature that the disease comes, and from nature comes the cure, not from physicians." - Paracelsus, (1493-1541 CE).
The same mentality was held by the Hawaiian kahunas. The kahuna lore stated that "If it is (cancer), do not treat it."
The medicine of Benjamin Rush in America's 18th century was diametrically opposed to such a sentiment. He wrote that one of the “Vulgar Errors in Medicine” was to “let tumors alone.”
I am also particularly fond of the way Aajonus Vonderplanitz has described cancer and its role in the body.
From “We Want to Live!”:
“My research and experience has brought me to view cancer as a condition where the body no longer eliminates dead cells, for various reasons. So the malfunctioning body develops tumors, or catacombs, so to speak, and contains the dead cells within them. Cancer cells are only the caretakers of the catacombs. They are not the problem that created the inability to eliminate dead cells. Does a rooster crowing at sunrise cause the sun to rise?
“Cancer, then, is basically a fat deficiency. A deficiency in utilizable cholesterol that normally binds with or dissolves, carries away and eliminates dead cells.”
“A fat deficiency forms when a person stops eating fat; or a person doesn’t eat the particular fat his or her body digests, assimilates or utilizes properly; or the body is unable to digest, utilize or assimilate fat at all. Therefore the body becomes as much a vessel for death as for life.”
.
.
SUPRESSION OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS
Basically, the vast suppression of so-called “alternative” treatments over the last hundred years or more, is typical of the cancer racket. But many do not know that many “conventional” treatments started as “alternative”.
First, the orthodoxy does all it can to suppress the treatment and the person who invented it. Then, after it has been suppressed and vanished, they suddenly change course and embrace it, while propagandizing to the public that they had in fact discovered it.
Today, there are basically three legal ways to treat cancer in America: surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The second legal way to treat cancer, however, which was discovered in the 1890s, was initially suppressed.
With surgery coming into vogue, it became a monopoly as a way to treat cancer. The surgeons controlled medicine, and they regarded the X-ray as a threat to surgery. At the time surgery was the only approved method of treating cancer. They meant to keep it the only approved method by ignoring or rejecting any new methods or ideas.
Dr. Emil Grubbé discovered X-ray therapy (for cancer) in 1896. X-ray was not recognized as an agent for treating cancer by the American College of Surgeons until 1937. Dr. Grubbé, still was not recognized as late as 1951.
Chemotherapy came directly from World War II chemical warfare experiments. Using chemicals to treat cancer had been around since Paracelsus, but the chemicals killed the patients more often than not, since they were based on arsenic, lead, and other deadly substances.
In the early 20th century, chemical treatments and finding the “magic bullet” to kill cancer cells became an intensive area of study. In the 1930s, chemotherapy research was noted for its deadly and barbaric effects, and those who used surgery and radiation battled against chemotherapy.
World War II was a watershed in the use of chemicals. DDT was first used during World War II, the Nazis invented nerve gasses, the allies invented napalm and nuclear weapons, and the notion of “better living through chemistry” became entrenched due to the experience of World War II.
.
.
.
The racketeering impulse has been with Western medicine for many years and is deeply embedded today. The rise of the Western medical paradigm coincided with the rise of the corporation and new kinds of empires. The reason that American medical doctors are the highest-paid professionals on Earth is not because they perform valuable work.
They are merely technicians in what is arguably the West's greatest racket, in which life and death is in the hands of the world's most lucrative professions and industries. The fact that only violent methods of cancer treatment are legal is no accident.
Something like 60% of all the medical service dollars that Americans consume in their lifetimes is “consumed” in the last months of life, and almost no medical industry dollars are ever spent on prevention. It is a huge cash register that feeds off of death and misery.
The beginning of your comment reminds me of Dr. Gabor Mate's experience with trauma/emotions and disease. He thinks most disease, including cancer, is from emotional repression, specifically the inability to express anger in a healthy way. Anger, he says, often comes from boundary violations. He connections this to the function of the immune system - keeping out what is unhealthy. Here's a video with one of these interesting conversations on the Diary of a CEO podcast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qhvzDpQpk
Indeed. Cancer was seen long ago as a disease of the “humors,” i.e., the body’s fluids. The fluids are intimately connected to the emotions.
Western medicine gradually abandoned the humoral perspective to adopt the “solidist” one. Studying and treating the humors (blood, lymph, and bile) was largely abandoned in favor of treating the body’s “solids.” The rise of surgery also contributed greatly, because it is impossible to use a scalpel on blood.
Generally speaking, humanity, and particular modern science are extremely ignorant to the role of the emotions in an objective way, and to their biological correlation. In fact, modern science is as backward as 9th century’s understanding of the world in this regard.
I have actually just released a very important post which reveals something humanity is not aware of: an evolutionary mutation in the emotional center. In it I converge many so-called unrelated phenomena to one another, both within and without, and show that they are all connected to the transformation of our emotions.
I invite you to consider reading it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/kingofhearts/p/my-story
"I have always intuitively understood that cancer prognosis is oftentimes more detrimental than the actual condition."
I appreciate the subsequent supporting points; this just got to the kernel of the situation.
Tom Cowan, who wrote the recent book on Cancer and the New Biology of Water, recommends not doing cancer screening ( like mammograms and Colonoscopies), and so avoiding all that follows.
Oh man, he is singing my song. That whole process just looks like a vortex waiting to pull me in. Thanks for the reference.
When I was 15 I watched my 25 year old cousin die of Hodgkin’s. 1970 Hodgkins was a death sentence, lost 1 aunt and several other cousins to it also. Now it is 95% curable with a sometime side effect of the chemo: pulmonary hypertension.
Now in my late 60s I have pulmonary arterial hypertension but mine is not from chemo thank goodness. I have commented on this before. I am very uncomfortable with one of the meds I take but my dr tells me it keeps me stable. Frustrating that I am forced to rely on the medical system since I have such a rare condition.
There is a new treatment just developed recently which treats the cause, not symptoms. Please google your disease to find out about it. I have done a lot of research on lung diseases as I have been plagued by bronchitis, pneumonia and pleurisy when I was in my fifties . I used hydrogen peroxide---- it is great for getting oxygen into the body you can drink it in water ( starting out with just a few drops , but it is much more effective when put into a nebulizer. a good nebulizer runs around $50 or so, they are easy to use and for me, provided results. Hydrogen peroxide also can be put in a vaporizer with plain water
Great work as usual, thank you AMD.
This came about because of your mention of German Cancer Therapies that others might find helpful.
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/german-cancer-therapies
Thanks for posting that!
Hello Cornwall Marc, Yes, those were interesting times. I had not heard the report that you mentioned but it is not surprising. in 1958 Max Gerson MD published his book, " a cancer therapy – the results of 50 cases". He demonstrated significant results with diet therapy. In the 1970s I had a patient who was pronounced incurable of her cancer after numerous medical treatments. She followed his diet and added an array of nutritional supplements. The cancer retreated and instead of dying, she opened a health food store and helped many people for several decades. Kay eventually passed with a heart attack and never had a recurrence of the cancer. To my understanding the awareness of cancer as a major issue was on the rise during the 60s and 70s. Dr. Gerson testified before the Senate committee about his research but all of the available funding went to the emerging and more glamorous radiation therapies.
Interestingly, during this time frame I encountered a research study in sociology that demonstrated that men tended to marry women who cooked like their mothers. The authors questioned whether or not there was a relationship between diet and heart disease. They were laughed out of the medical conference because it was conclusively "known" at the time that heart disease had nothing to do with diet, was strictly a male and genetic condition. This emphasis upon genetics persists even now in some circles. For example the entire human genome project. I predict it will not lead to all of the cures that are predicted by understanding the genetic map. Fascinating and useful project, but I think it may fall short of expectations.
In the same time frame I was teaching at a naturopathic college. One of their popular treatment techniques was herbal soaks. A tub of the prescribed herbal extracts was provided for the patient to soak in and absorb the therapeutic contents. The FDA came in closed down the college on the premise that skin was an impermeable membrane and this therapy was quackery. Very shortly after the closure, the skin patch heart medication delivery system was introduced. They had to get this college closed quickly to be ahead of the new trans-dermal pharmacological therapies.
I hope this is of help to some.
Dear AMD,
When I had my stroke back in 2018, I got a CAT scan in the emergency room, and then another one i 48 hours at a hospital where I was transferred. I started taking activated charcoal almost immediately to help absorb some of the radiation. Would you recommend everyone going to get heavy radiation with things like Cat Scans take DMSO before hand, and is it good practice to take it afterwards if you have an unscheduled Cat Scan?
This was such a frank discussion about cancer it felt like being in a priest's confession booth. The whole Medical system in this country has needed a drastic makeover and I think it is finally around the corner as big pharma has gone way too far in their reach for our pocketbooks with no concern for the outcome -- like if we live or die
The use of DMSO there is more in regards to radiation therapy which overtly damages tissue. As far as I know, no one ever studied if DMSO decreases the long term effects of CT scans and it's unlikely a study like that would ever be done.
Are you taking dmso internally?
Thank you for having this conversation. It is interesting to see where you are, with your contacts and experience. I know people who have done alternative for the big C, for over 40 years. Some lived and did very well. A few passed away but the length of life and quality of life was longer and better than those who did everything as scheduled by their oncologist, radiologist and surgeon. As an aside, why do we call these people "my" doctor or "my" oncologist? We have been trained to put so much trust in them as if we belong to them and them to us, but we know, most doctors are trapped in the box of orthodoxy. We need to think for ourselves....if we want to live.
I had the C diagnosis in 2018. I got a tonne of books. I contacted different people. I only had surgery. I refused chemo and radiation. I was yelled at by ocologist for asking questions. I was yelled at by staff for not attending appointments, which I had never agreed to.
My research included Ty & C Bollinger's books, also Chris Wark and Suzanne Somers. I also know people, who have gone to Mexico and have lived long lives. Mexico was my "back up" as I could not afford to go. I consulted local people, but the cost was also too much. I had my "5 year" graduation, last fall. I did it myself. I am responsible for myself.
Importantly to AMD's post on metabolic treatment, I first heard of this approach from Jane McLelland who survived stage 4 ovarian cancer. She used repurposed drugs and worked a metabolic pathway theory (again, these are theories). I think her work might pre-date the other books here. https://www.howtostarvecancer.com/about-jane/ I tried her approach (the prescriptions are easy to get) but could not tolerate it. But her name should be included on any discussion with metabolic treatment and cancer.
Personally, I don't think the metabolic pathway is the correct theory. But more important, people need to know that a C diagnosis is their wake up call to pay attention to their body and look after themself. This does not mean handing your health over to someone else, to make decisions - either orthodoxy or alternative. Thinking, learning and growing, with humility and openness is key. Maybe start with turning off the news, tuning out gadgets, going outside, enjoying the sunshine...
To quantify my opinions I had stage 3 B uterine cancer in my 40s. I am now 50. I did surgery. I made Essiac tea. I ate healthy good beef and lamb, I ate organic for my veggies. I wanted to do Vita C IV but could not afford it. I found a source of wildcrafted Essiac tea. I brewed the tea (long cook) and took 2 ounces twice a day for 2 years. I also found a senior oncologist to follow me, do the blood work and scans. This same senior oncologist "approved" me taking (bioidentical) hormone replacement. In her words, "some women need them". She has no training in hormone replacement, and she never asked me what I did to look after myself. She loved my visits as I glowed with health and vitality. None of the people who had the same diagnosis and followed the standard of care (surgery/chemo/rad) have regained the same level of health they had before. I am still working and thriving. People - do your own research.