In Western countries, every third person suffers from some form of cancer; every fourth person dies of it. The prognoses of the World Health Organization (WHO) state that by the year 2050, half of all mortalities will be due to a cancerous disease. According to the prevailing cancer theories, chance defects (mutations) in the DNA in the nucleus, which are regarded as irreparable, are considered to be the primary cause of the disease. Standard therapy in oncology (surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiation therapy) is based on this assumption. The cure rates of cancer (minimum of five-year survival after diagnosis) are given as being 45% (22% surgical treatment, 12% radiation therapy, 5% chemotherapy, 6% combined standard therapies). Sixty to seventy percent of patients with incurable cancer are palliatively treated with radiation therapy, 50% with chemotherapy, and less than one percent of the patients are treated surgically. In the US, for instance, 20% of the overall health budget is spent annually on chemotherapy for cancer patients.

There are more people Living off cancer than there are people Dying from it!

In 2005, cancer passed heart disease as the leading cause of death in the United States. Over 570,000 people are expected to die from cancer in 2005. An American life is lost to cancer every 21 seconds. We are now up to 175 people every hour being diagnosed with cancer and another 65 that are actually dying from cancer.

_

Cancer now kills more children between the ages 3 and 14 than any other illness. Cancer is responsible for 1 out of every 4 deaths in the U.S.A. Lung cancer has become the leading cancer killer of both men and women (surpassing breast cancer in 1986).

_

1 out of every 2 men and 1 out of every 3 women will develop some form of cancer during their lifetime. 1 in 11 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetime, increasing with age. The lifetime risk of breast cancer in American women is 1 in 9. Statistics show that in the year 1880, when records were first kept, one in thirty-five people developed cancer in their lifetime. That figure is currently 1 in every 2!

Many people diligently follow the experts' recommendations, hoping to beat cancer. Yet the inability of the medical and dietary professions to curb the rising level of cancer over the last sixty years bears exploring.

Most people currently believe cancers are caused by the activation of oncogenes – genes that predispose the individual toward cancer. But, this theory was called into question by its original proponent. Dr. Robert A. Weinberg of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the discoverer of the so-called oncogene (cancer-causing gene), reversed himself almost ten years ago. After discovering that "Fewer than one DNA base in a million appears to have been miscopied," he concluded that is not enough of a defect to mutate the cell! He stated: "Something was very wrong. The notion that a cancer developed through the successive activation of a series of oncogenes had lost its link to reality." In addition, over 35 years ago, Professor Henry Harris and coworkers took normal tissue cells and fused three types of cancer cells to them. It was thought that the cancer cells would take over the normal cells and "convert" them into cancer. Surprisingly, they grew normally, showing cancer is genetically recessive, not dominant.

Furthermore, in 2005, the heads of the world's largest cancer research center in Houston, Texas, announced that cancer's prime cause is not genetic. Dr. John Mendelsohn, president of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, stated: "Any claims that this [genetic research] is going to be the key to curing cancer are not appropriate." However, the positive side to this announcement is that even if cancer apparently "runs in your family," there is real hope, since cancer has nothing to do with genes.

EFAs, Oxygenation, and Cancer Prevention

Most people currently believe cancers are caused by the activation of oncogenes – genes that predispose the individual toward cancer. But, this theory was called into question by its original proponent. Dr. Robert A. Weinberg of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the discoverer of the so-called oncogene (cancer-causing gene), reversed himself almost ten years ago. After discovering that "Fewer than one DNA base in a million appears to have been miscopied," he concluded that is not enough of a defect to mutate the cell! He stated: "Something was very wrong. The notion that a cancer developed through the successive activation of a series of oncogenes had lost its link to reality." In addition, over 35 years ago, Professor Henry Harris and coworkers took normal tissue cells and fused three types of cancer cells to them. It was thought that the cancer cells would take over the normal cells and "convert" them into cancer. Surprisingly, they grew normally, showing cancer is genetically recessive, not dominant.

Furthermore, in 2005, the heads of the world's largest cancer research center in Houston, Texas, announced that cancer's prime cause is not genetic. Dr. John Mendelsohn, president of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, stated: "Any claims that this [genetic research] is going to be the key to curing cancer are not appropriate." However, the positive side to this announcement is that even if cancer apparently "runs in your family," there is real hope, since cancer has nothing to do with genes.

Dr. Otto Warburg's Seminal Anti-Cancer Discovery

Otto Warburg, MD, PhD, has been referred to as the greatest biochemist of the twentieth century; the sheer number and magnitude of his discoveries qualify him as the most accomplished biochemist of all time. Despite the fact that much of his groundbreaking work on cancer has been overlooked by the large research institutes, no scientist or researcher has ever disproved the validity, correctness, or applicability of Warburg's important discoveries as they relate to the prevention and cure of cancer.

The Prime Cause of Cancer

We have become so accustomed to having almost every discovery in the battle to defeat cancer, after a time, be called into question that the following strains credibility. Otto Warburg discovered, then clearly and simply stated, that the prime cause of cancer is oxygen deprivation at the cellular level. "We find by experiment about 35% inhibition of oxygen respiration already suffices to bring about such a transformation during cell growth," he stated at a 1966 conference of Nobel laureates in Lindau, Germany. "…Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar. Because no cancer cell exists, the respiration of which is intact, it cannot be disputed that cancer could be prevented if the respiration of the body cells would be kept intact.... If it is so much decreased that the oxygen-transferring enzymes are no longer saturated with oxygen, respiration can decrease irreversibly, and normal cells can be transformed into facultative anaerobes." It is that simple: with just one-third less cellular oxygen than normal, you contract cancer. Based on meticulous experiments that he and many others verified numerous times, Dr. Warburg discovered the prime cause of cancer is sustaining a 35% inhibition of cellular respiration. You won't feel the decreased cellular oxygenation, and you won't know it is happening. Yet if cellular oxygen can be kept above this deprivation threshold, cancer cells will not be able to form.

Exercise supplies additional oxygen to the blood; however, this doesn't address transfer of oxygen through the cell membrane. That's why elite athletes still develop cancer. Warburg stated: "To be sure, cancer development takes place even in the presence of free oxygen gas in the atmosphere, but this oxygen may not penetrate in sufficient quantity into the growing body cells, or the respiratory apoenzymes of the growing body cells may not be saturated with the active groups." Warburg addressed the danger of impaired cellular oxygen transfer even in the presence of oxygen.

Dr. Warburg's discovery has been verified over and over again (never called into question), both as to how normal cells turn cancerous and in showing that cancer doesn't develop in highly oxygenated areas. Two American physicians conclusively proved this in 1953, and two more investigators confirmed this finding in 1955. Goldblatt and Cameron noted in the Journal of Experimental Medicine that once damage is too great to the cell, then no amount of oxygen will return the cell's respiration back to normal: it is forever doomed to a cancerous life. However, they confirmed that it is possible to prevent a "respiration impacted" precancerous cell from becoming permanently cancerous if oxygen deficiency is stopped early enough. In 1955, Malmgren and Flanigan confirmed the oxygen/cancer cause in an ingenious experiment with tetanus spores. Consequently, prevention is the ultimate solution to conquering cancer.

Greater Oxygen Deprivation = Worse Prognosis

Articles in cancer journals confirm the decreased oxygen/increased cancer prognosis. "Tumor hypoxia [too little oxygen in the cell] adversely affects the prognosis of carcinoma of the head and neck". "Analysis showed significantly lower survival and recurrence-free survival for patients with a median pO2 of 10 mmHg compared to those with better oxygenated tumors (median pO2 > 10 mmHg). Median pO2 and the clinical stage according to the FIGO are independent, highly significant predictors of survival and recurrence-free survival". "Tumor oxygenation predicts for the likelihood of distant metastases (cancer spreading) in human soft tissue sarcoma." Greater cellular oxygen deprivation/hypoxia is directly correlated with a worse prognosis, shorter lifespan, and greater risk of metastases.

The Cost

A new study reports that Americans lose around $2.3 billion every year receiving and waiting for cancer treatment. The study is the first ever to put a price tag on the intangible costs of cancer treatment. The study, published in January 2007 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, examined the trials of more than 750,000 cancer patients 65 and older on Medicare as they traveled to, waited for and underwent treatment for some of the most common cancers afflicting Americans. The scientists assigned a value of $15.23—the median U.S. wage rate in 2002—to each hour spent.

"Cancer is more than just the dollars and cents for the medicines and the treatments and the doctors. It's also the lost opportunities for the patients," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society of the study. Lichtenfeld praised the innovation of looking at more than just dollars spent on treatment when considering the burden of cancer on American society. The scientists found that victims of ovarian cancer spend about 368 hours in the first year receiving treatment; lung cancer patients traveled, waited and were treated for 272 hours; and those with kidney cancer lost 193 hours in the first year after diagnosis.

"What we see here is a measure of the patient's burden of commitment," commented Drs. Larry Kessler of the Food and Drug Administration and Scott Ramsey of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in an editorial accompanying the study. They also pointed out that younger patients usually receive even more extensive treatments than the patients featured in the study, and that cancers more likely to be diagnosed early, such as breast or prostate cancer, require much less treatment time.

This year, over 1.3 million Americans will learn they have cancer, and of the expected 570,280 cancer deaths it's estimated that more than 168,000 of those will be caused by tobacco use and one-third will be related to poor nutrition, physical inactivity, being overweight or obese or other lifestyle factors. That makes up 62 percent of all cancer deaths. Next year, it is estimated 1,372,910 new cancer cases and 570,260 cancer deaths will occur; five-year survival rates have risen from 50 percent to 74 percent from the 1970s. Lung cancer remains the biggest killer, estimated to claim the lives of 163,510 people. About 232,090 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, killing 30,350. Some 211,240 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, killing 40,410.

But the grim statistics in Cancer Facts and Figures 2004, an American Cancer Society report released recently, reveal that some strides have been made. Death rates have declined slightly, for instance, and major victories have been won against lung cancer through anti-smoking campaigns.

But they also show another American behavior looming large as a danger to the aging population. Obesity and the lack of physical activity causes as many as one-third of the USA's cancer cases.

"It has become increasingly clear that obesity is a factor in about a dozen different types of cancer," says Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society, who co-wrote the report. Thun says communities must create "social policies that can help people maintain healthy body weight and help people get regular physical activity."

The report is released each year to give doctors an idea about how the battle against cancer is going. Other findings:

• Lung cancer is down in men but still increasing among women.

• Five-year survival improved significantly for children, from 56% in the mid-1970s to 78% in the 1990s.

• African-American men have 40% higher mortality from all cancers combined than white men.

Thun says there are many possible reasons for the disparities, including poverty, which limits access to quality health care.

African-American women, for instance, have a lower incidence of breast cancer but a higher death rate from the disease.

"If you don't have health insurance, your chances of getting appropriate mammography and then appropriate follow-up and treatment is much less," Thun says. "Many of these things are difficult to turn around."

The U.S. spends a conservative 1.4 trillion dollars a year on "healthcare," with another 34 billion spent on complementary and alternative methods - a high percentage of that being spent on cancer; more per capita than any other nation on earth. But the quality of life for the average American stops at age 51. After that, it takes medical intervention to manage their symptoms. Using conventional methods, the war on cancer is being lost, the successes are mainly due to early detection, not in the treatments. Many people die not from the disease itself but from damage caused by the treatments.

In ancient days, leprosy was the plague that struck fear in all hearts. Cancer is the modern day equivalent of that disfiguring condition. Today cancer is the most dreaded of all. Death by cancer is humiliating, debilitating, painful and sometimes agonizingly slow. After your body has been subjected to the arsenal of weapons that modern medicine uses to fight cancer, it may seem that just staying alive isn't worth the effort. Be that as it may, we willingly submit ourselves to the physical destruction of surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy just to gain a few more precious days of life. No matter how you perceive life and death, being a cancer patient is no picnic. Every year, 700,000 Americans die of cancer--the equivalent of more than three fully loaded Jumbo Jets crashing every day, this is despite the fact that record sums of money have been spent on cancer research and treatment. Cancer is a symptom of an inefficient immune system, a red flag signifying that the immune defense forces are falling down on the job. But, even the best cancer specialists are still confused about what cancer is and what it isn't.

In 1971 when the U.S. declared war on cancer, scientists still hadn't identified the immune defense force army, which was already fighting that particular war, along with many others. All the doctors, scientists, the American Cancer Society, call cancer a disease. Cancer is not contagious, it doesn't have an incubation period, there is no foreign invader that has been identified. Cancer is not a disease--it's a symptom of a naturally occurring condition in the body. As long as they have cancer misclassified, it will continue to remain both their biggest challenge and a major scientific mystery. Scientists, medical doctors, authors, mass media reporters, even cancer patients, think of cancer as a whole group of diseases, because they have cancer in the wrong category. Cancer is the scientist's playground. Because cancer kills, scientists have been able to request and receive billions of dollars in grants from the federal government, non-profit health-oriented organizations, major corporations, and private sources.

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that the war on cancer is a failure. "Despite $30 billion spent on research since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but actually higher than when they started. The effect of new treatments for cancer has been largely disappointing. The failure of chemotherapy to control cancer has become apparent even to the oncology establishment." John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman of the Dept;. of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McGill University.

The late H.B. Jones, Professor of Medical Physics, was a leading U . S. cancer statistician. He said in a speech before the American Cancer Society in 1969 that no study has proved that early intervention improves the chances of survival. On the contrary, his studies proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer and with better quality of life than treated ones. Needless to say, he was not invited again.

The prestigious British medical journal The Lancet wrote, "If one were to believe all the media hype, the triumphalism of the medical profession in published research, and the almost weekly miracle breakthroughs trumpeted by the cancer charities, one might be surprised that women are dying at all from breast cancer." Noting that conventional therapies--chemotherapy, radiation and surgery--had been pushed to their limits with dismal results, the editorial called on researchers to "challenge medical dogma and redirect research efforts along more fruitful lines."

Phenomenal laboratories and the latest diagnostic equipment have been purchased and paid for by donations from some of the nation's largest corporations. Today, our medical scientists should know more about cancer than any other health problem, considering the number of dollars that have gone into the pot. Far more bucks have been spent on the study of cancer than on anything else. There are more people living off of cancer than there are people with cancer! Cancer screening has not resulted in people living any longer. Millions of rats, mice, monkeys, guinea pigs, cats, dogs, and other laboratory animals have been injected with cancerous material, or implanted with growing malignancies.

Our scientists have watched cancer develop, grow, divide, multiply and proliferate wildly. We have compared our cancer cells with the cancer cells of all other countries. Science has categorized cancer by appearance, size, location, origin, and speed of reproduction. It certainly appears that the nation's experts have studied everything there is to study as far as cancer is concerned. Our scientists should be able to tell us everything there is to know about cancer by this time. They must know, because all of this information you are now reading came from their studies! Why don't they want to share this information with us? Could it be that the answer to cancer is so simple and so uncomplicated that they fear their funding would dry up?

It is generally accepted in genetics that the genetic code within the DNA of all cells contains the program for how many times that cell can divide and when that cell should die. The process of natural cell death, called apoptosis, has been said to be controlled by the p53 gene which exists in all cells. This gene is the reason we're not all 20 feet tall and weigh a thousand lbs. When the cell's lifespan has been fulfilled, the p53 gene initiates the process that results in the cell's death. However, damage to the DNA of cells, specifically mutation of the p53 gene, can prevent apoptosis and probably result in the uncontrolled division of cells that do not die. Normally, cells divide only when the body needs more cells, but when cells divide when new cells are not needed, excess tissue will form, often in a mass called a tumor.

The p53 gene is also the protector of the DNA, because if harmful mutations do occur, the p53 gene is capable of fixing the situation by initiating apoptosis. But if damage causes the p53 gene itself to become dysfunctional, the cell, unable to die, divides without control, and with its replicates, forms tumors, and cancer is the likely result. It is now believed that more than 50% of human cancers result specifically from damage to the p53 gene.

Tumors can be either benign or malignant. Malignant tumors are cancerous, and cancer cells can break away from these tumors and invade nearby tissue and also enter the bloodstream and lymphatic system and spread to form new tumors in other parts of the body.

Today, the term cancer is applied whenever there is an abnormal proliferation of cells, even when no swelling or growth occurs. Examples include leukemia, abnormal blood-forming cells, and lymphoma, abnormal lymphatic cells. Although science calls these conditions cancer, the term really doesn't fit. Still not knowing what cancer really was, but uneasily aware that it was becoming more and more prevalent, the medical detectives began classifying it according to its primary location, the speed of its growth, its ability to spread, its individual symptoms, and its response to various types of treatment.

The investigative scientists divided malignant tumors into five main classifications, with many subdivisions in each group. All of this scientific, medical, and technical information has been available to us for the last thirty to forty years. Our ignorance has already hurt, killed, and maimed millions of people, cost billions of dollars, and destroyed millions of lives. What we don't know will continue to hurt us until we fully understand our physical body and the miraculous way it defends itself. Ignorance is a killer no matter how intelligent human scientists and doctors profess to be.

Destroying Cancer Cells is only the first step of 4 very important objectives. The holistic approach attacks cancer from 4 different angles.

1. Destroy anaerobic (Cancer) Cells

2. Improve the Immune System

3. Detoxify the Body (The Liver)

4. Reverse Acidosis (Low body pH)

Conventional Medicine has 3 different approaches to fighting Cancer.

1. Poison- Chemotherapy

2. Burn- Radiation

3. Slash- Surgery

In the holistic approach listed above, these three conventional treatments would fit in the section Destroy Cancer Cells. Cancer patients for many years have been told that these are their best and only options. Conventional Medicine doesn't even concern itself with the other parts of the holistic approach which involves returning a persons IMMUNE SYSTEM FUNCTION back to the level it once functioned before cancer manifested, along with the importance of DETOXIFICATION so that the immune system can return its focus to destroying and eliminating disease instead of dealing with unnecessary waste and toxins that are polluting our bodies. Finally, it is well documented that all cancer patients suffer from ACIDOSIS and therefore have created an anaerobic, low oxygen atmosphere in their bodies that cancer loves.

Scientists can create cancer in lab mice so they can perform necessary cancer testing using these mice as their test subjects. These scientist can't just sit around and hope the mouse gets cancer. So, they create cancer by changing the once clean and pristine atmosphere in the mouse’s body to a polluted, carcinogenic and low oxygen atmosphere which will allow cancer to thrive. They do this by injecting carcinogens into the mouse. Did this mouse have a predisposition for cancer? Of course not! Scientists can change the atmosphere in any animal in this same fashion and cause cancer to flourish.

We have all been led to believe that only our genetics will determine whether we have a predisposition for cancer and that there is nothing we can do about it. Once again, we need to use our common sense instead of blindly believing what we have been told and ask ourselves this question. If Scientist can create cancer by changing the atmosphere in these animals, isn't it quite possible that the rise in cancer from 1 in 33 at the turn of the 20^th Century to 1 in every 2.5 Americans currently, is due to the fact we ourselves are creating that same atmosphere in our own bodies that Cancer THRIVES IN due to what we are putting into our bodies?

In cancer research, success—expressed as a five-year survival rate—is established by comparing other forms and combinations of treatment with the results from surgery alone. However, the success rate of surgery has rarely been compared with the survival rates of untreated patients and never with patients who adopted natural therapies. Therefore, orthodox cancer treatment is basically unscientific. The overall supposed cure rate is not higher than can be accounted for by spontaneous remissions and the placebo effect. Early intervention appears to be helpful because lesions are removed that are not cancerous but are counted as being cancer, and that improves the survival statistics.

William Steward Halstead, M.D., (1852 - 1922) the founder of Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore Maryland) became world famous because of a mutilating surgical procedure he devised and performed on unfortunate women who had no alternatives. Dr. Halstead developed the radical mastectomy in which the entire breast, the underarm lymph nodes, and a lot of muscles were surgically cut away. He developed and performed this disfiguring operation on these desperate women not in hope of affecting a cure, which he didn't believe was possible, but under the impression that the best he could offer them was the opportunity to die in relative comfort. Dr. Halstead mistakenly believed that cancer cells always spread directly from the tumor to neighboring tissue. He actually believed that if a patient had a lump in her breast and also a lesion in the bone of one arm, then the whole bone had to be removed at the same time as the breast was cut away. This highly publicized operation became known as the Halstead Radical Mastectomy, or the "en block" resection.

Researchers have said it is complacent to continue subjecting at least 70% of women with breast cancer to a futile mutilating procedure. Furthermore, there is no evidence that early mastectomy affects survival; if patients knew this, they would most likely refuse surgery. In 1993, the editor of the Lancet pointed out in an editorial entitled, “Breast cancer: have we lost our way?” stated that, despite various modifications of breast cancer treatment, death rates remain unchanged. He acknowledged that despite the almost weekly releases of miracle breakthroughs, the medical profession with its extraordinary capacity for self-delusion in all truth has lost its way. At the same time, he rejected the view of those who believe that salvation will come from increasing chemotherapy after surgery to just below the rate where it kills the patient. He asked, “Would it not be more scientific to ask why our approach has failed?”

Basically, all types and combinations of conventional breast cancer treatment appear to result in the same low long-term survival rates. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that conventional treatment does not improve long-term survival rates. Even worse, Michael Baum, MD, a leading British breast cancer surgeon, found that breast cancer surgery tends to increase the risk of relapse or death within three years. He also linked surgery to accelerating the spread of cancer by stimulating the formation of metastases in other parts of the body.

An earlier German comparison found that untreated post-menopausal women with breast cancer live longer than treated women, and the recommendation was not to treat postmenopausal women for breast cancer. This conclusion confirms a finding by Earnst Krokowski, a German professor of radiology. He demonstrated conclusively that metastasis is commonly triggered by medical intervention, including sometimes even by a biopsy or surgery unrelated to the cancer. Disturbance of a tumor causes a greatly increased number of cancer cells to enter the bloodstream, while most medical intervention (especially chemotherapy) suppresses the immune system. This combination is a recipe for disaster. It is the metastases that kill, while primary tumors in general, and those in the breast in particular, can be relatively harmless. These findings have been confirmed by recent research which shows that surgery, even if unrelated to the cancer, can trigger an explosive spread of metastases and lead to an untimely end.

This follows earlier reports that radical surgery for prostate cancer also tends to spread the disease.

Actually, prostate cancer was investigated in the first randomized clinical trials for any type of cancer. After 23 years, there was no difference in the survival rates of those who had surgery and the controls who did not have surgery, but those with surgery suffered more morbidity such as impotence or incontinence.

Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen earned the first Nobel Prize ever awarded for Physics in 1901 for his 1895 discovery of x-rays. When Roentgen discovered that x-rays penetrate the tissues of the body like a light beam, this new discovery was quickly recognized as a superior tool for the diagnosis of broken bones and other internal problems. As time passed, science discovered that x-rays also destroy cells. When a tumor was bombarded with x-rays, the tumor shrank as its cells were blasted out of existence. That means that the healthy cells that were in the path of the x-rays were also destroyed. X-rays come from a cathode ray tube, which is man-made. But the gamma rays given off by cobalt and cesium have the same ability. The x-ray machines developed in the 1920's and 1930's operated with a low voltage of 250 KV.

These machines resulted in a significant burning of the skin's surface, making treatment very difficult to bear. The medical experts universally agree that surgery and radiation therapy are both localized forms of treatment, which, unfortunately, must kill normal cells in order to kill cancer cells. That's like throwing a hand grenade into a roomful of school children because a terrorist is holding them hostage inside. And what if the tumor isn't radiosensitive? Before 1916, cancer mouse models did not exist. It was impossible to test possible cancer drugs for efficacy before giving them to a human cancer patient. So a mouse ideal for cancer research was developed in the laboratory. This was a special strain of mice with part of their immune system removed. Because this strain of hairless mice doesn't have a normally functioning immune system, a human tumor can actually be transplanted under the skin and grown in one of the little creatures. Almost all cancer research has been done on mice that have been genetically stripped their natural immune capabilities. That's like taking the rifles away from the army and then sending them out to fight a battle to the death. Treating a typical cancer patient today runs about $100,000. A bone marrow transplant can cost $150,000. If the enormous amount of money spent on cancer treatment was actually saving lives and sparing human suffering, then we could consider the costs worthwhile.

The Full Treatment

Virginia Livingston Wheeler, a remarkable cancer researcher and therapist, in her book, Cancer: A New Breakthrough, gives an account of one of the many patients she saw who had come to her only after receiving the full medical treatment for breast cancer. “After discovering a small breast lump, she had radical mastectomy. None of the lymph nodes removed from the armpit was involved; all of the cancer had been successfully removed. To make extra sure that there was no regrowth in the scars, she received radiation treatment, and also her ovaries were taken out.

“To her dismay, a year later several small nodules appeared in the old breast scar. Again she received radiation. More lumps appeared on the neck that called for still more radiation. In addition, she received male hormone therapy, resulting in acne and coarse facial hair. Still the nodules came back. Now she received chemotherapy with the usual side effects.

“Before her hair could regrow, pain in her bones was diagnosed as bone cancer. More chemotherapy and hormone therapy was expected to help. However, several months later the bone lesions became worse and removal of her adrenal glands was recommended and performed. Hopefully, that would prolong her suffering for another year. After that, the removal of her pituitary gland might give her a further three to six months to live.

“By now, her faith in her medical advisers was sufficiently shaken that she came to Dr. Livingston for help. She asked to be examined without her husband being present, as she wanted to spare him the agony of seeing her naked body, distorted, mutilated and shrunken with an immensely swollen abdomen and thin legs. Finally she whispered: ‘Doctor, shall I kill myself?’”

Mercury & Sulfur

Many scientific studies have been done on cancer that describe metabolic processes related to the production or causation of tumors that involved thiols/sulfur/sulfhydryls and the transsulfuration pathways. A thiol is any organic compound containing a univalent radical called a sulfhydryl and identified by the symbol -SH (sulfur-hydrogen). A thiol can attract one atom of mercury in the ionized form and have it combine withitself. Because it is a radical, it can enter into or leave this combination without any change. Mercury and lead both have a great affinity for sulfur and sulfhydryls and are capable of affecting the transsulfuration pathways in the body. While mercury, in itself, is not considered a carcinogen, but mercury participates in a cascade of biochemical events that can ultimately produce cancer. Healthy persons routinely defend/contain or destroy cancerous cells that form in our body throughout our lifetime. Therefore, foreign substances, such as mercury and lead, that laffect this normal protective biochemical function might, by a continuous chronic onslaught on the immune defenses for years, make the body vulnerable to cancer and other major diseases. Mercury can inhibit or modify how the body uses ATP, zinc, selenium, rubidium, vitamins A and C, and calcium. Cancer cells have altered sodium and calcium transport and reduced oxygen transport through the cell membrane. The oxygen deficiency within the cell reduces or eliminates the ability of the cell to oxidize glucose to carbon dioxide, which in turn, results in glucose being converted to lactic acid, lowering cellular pH into the acid range. These combined effects radically change cell metabolism and ultimately DNA replication.

Drugs in five major groups have been shown either to function as vitamin B₆ antagonists, or to increase the turnover of vitamin B₆ in the body. Drugs in ten major groups have been shown to affect the absorption of folic acid; to act as folate antagonists; or to increase the turnover or loss of folate from the body. Drugs in four groups have been shown to affect the absorption of vitamin B₁₂. Depletion of one vitamin can affect the requirement for another vitamin. Mercury can cause similar deficiencies or metabolic changes in the way the body handles these same three vitamins. One of the drugs that affects vitamin B₆ and folate is oral contraceptives. The pill can also deplete vitamins C, B₂, E, and zinc. The nutritional status of a woman taking the pill and who is also chronically inhaling mercury from her mercury amalgam dental fillings will be extremely challenged. Mercury can alter sodium and calcium transport and also reduces the amount of oxygen transported. Mercury competes with calcium for cellular binding sites and, through this mechanism, can decrease cellular calcium or increase extracellular calcium. Mercury binds avidly to rubidium and selenium. Decreases in available selenium can also reduce available GSH-Px (glutathione peroxidase), which in turn causes a proliferation of free radical cell damage.

Mercury, at extremely low levels, can inhibit the respiratory burst of killer-cell leukocytes, reducing their effectiveness in controlling cancer cell proliferation. At the same time, mercury and lead also reduce available intracellular oxygen, leading to an increase in production of lactic acid and a reduction in pH, both conditions conducive to proliferaton of cancer cells. Cancer cells have a usual growth pattern of doubling approximately every 100 days. In the case of breast cancer, which strikes 120,000 women each year, if you have had cancer for three and a half months, you would have two cancer cells in your breast. The growth is microscopic and a pathologist would be unable to find it. At the end of six years, a breast tumor would contain one million cells, and it would be no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. The divalent ions of beryllium, manganese, cobalt, nickel, cadmium, mercury, and lead are stable forms of elements which may mimic essential divalent ions such as magnesium, calcium, iron, copper, or zinc. These ions may complex small molecules, enzymes, and nucleic acids in such as way that the normal activity of these species is altered. Free radicals may be produced in the presence of these metal ions which damage critical cellular molecules.

The liver is one of the most important organs in the body when it comes to detoxifying or getting rid of foreign substances or toxins. Glutathione, which is the most abundant sulfhydryl in the body, functions to chelate and detoxify heavy metals; mercury and lead both have been shown to combine or complex; with glutathione. Once complexed together, the bile becomes a major route used by the body to excrete the complex, thereby reducing the amount of glutathione available. Xenobiotic drugs can also cause a reduction in its availability, through complexing and excretion, the same as for mercury and lead. Cysteine is the limiting factor in the biosynthesis of glutathione. Cysteine is a precursor in the formation of glutathione. If an adequate supply of cysteine is not readily available, the rate of production of glutathione will be reduced. The primary source of the sulfur portion of cysteine is methionine. Cysteine cannot be taken up by hepatocytes (liver cells) easily, whereas methionine is taken up more readily, and is then metabolized into S-adenysylmethionine (SAM), homocysteine, cystathionine, and cysteine.

Therefore, if the availability of methionine is reduced, not only will the capability of the liver to detoxify be impaired, but there will also be less glutathione available to complex with foreign substances. Methionine metabolism and transmethylation are frequently altered in cancer cells. The alteration is often expressed as an inability of the cancer cells to grow when methionine is replaced by homocysteine in the culture medium, a condition that allows the growth of normal cells. This is termed methionine dependence. Methionine dependence may reflect an overall imbalance in transmethylation which results in the overmethylation of some substances and undermethylation of others within cancer cells. Deficiency of methionine can, in itself, cause liver cancer without the presence of a carcinogen, and the deficiency of methionine can permit a heavy metal to cause toxic effects. The ultimate effect of the alteration of methionine/transmethylation metabolism may be the disruption of the regulations of genes involved in the oncogenic process. The known protective effect of methionine against cancer may be due to prevention of altered methionine/transmethylation metabolism or compensation of the altered metabolism. The uptake of methionine is significantly less and the synthesis of nuclear proteins is depressed in the livers of zinc-deficient animals. When the chronic lifetime inhalation and absorption of mercury from amalgam fillings is coupled with chronic lead exposure; the routine intake of both prescription and non-prescription drugs; and poor dietary practices and/or high-fish diets rich in methylmercury, the effect on an individual's nutriture, and ultimately on the body's immune system and other defense mechanisms, can be devastating.

Poly-MVA

Merrill Garnett, a doctor and research chemist, of the Garnett McKeen Laboratory, in Stony Brook , New York discovered the world’s first nontoxic “chemotherapy” agent which does no harm to the healthy cells. Dr. Garnett is the inventor of a substance called palladium lipoic complex and is the recipient of three U.S. patents for Poly-MVA. Poly-MVA, however, is not so much a ‘drug’ as a ‘cell nutrient’ or super food supplement that has been tested, and used, and is showing positive results and great promise.

_

For nearly 40 years, Dr. Garnett has probed the secrets of molecular biology and the mysteries of cells, following his revolutionary dream for a safe and effective treatment for cancer. He saw cancer as the failure of cells to regenerate normally in a default mode; instead, cloning itself within the cancer mechanism over and over again. He decided this failure to mature was a problem of energetic's in the cell’s metabolic processes.

_

Dr. Garnett began the often lonely search to find a molecular compound that would restore healthy pathways for growth and normal development within the cell—pathways missing in the cancer cells. He searched for a metallo-organic compound that would act as a molecular shunt to restore the cell’s healthy energetic's.

_

In 1991 and some 20,000 compounds later, he discovered that palladium combined with lipoic acid, B₁₂ and thiamine created an extremely useful and safe cellular nutrient. Subsequent tests have proved that Poly-MVA is a safe and effective antitumoral agent.

_

In 1995 Dr. Garnett patented a nontoxic chemotherapeutic agent targeting only the malignant cells which, at the same time, is related to specific changes in energy metabolism. This compound was named POLYDOX ( U.S. trials) or Poly-MVA ( Canada and Mexico ) or LAPd by some researchers. The MVA stands for minerals, vitamins, and amino acids, and LAPd is Lipoic Acid/palladium complex. When lipoic acid, a powerful antioxidant with many biological functions, is connected to an electrically charged metal substrate, and joined with various B-vitamins, the resulting complex becomes totally soluble in both water and fat.

These compounds transfer current inward from the cell membrane phospholipid to DNA. This high flux state of inward pulsed current maintains normal electron oxygen transport, but can be shown to electrically dissociate (breakdown) membranes of primitive anaerobic cells including amoeba, yeasts, and certain tumors.

It can easily and safely travel throughout the body and into every cell, crossing the blood-brain barrier as well. Therefore, performing that journey across the blood-brain barrier—impossible for most drugs, including chemotherapy—makes Poly-MVA excellent in cases where no other remedies are possible. Poly-MVA has shown to be beneficial in cases of breast, prostate, colon, lung, stomach and brain cancer, and has also been used successfully in cases of psoriasis—a disease which often develops into cancer.

IP6

Researchers at the University Of Maryland School Of Medicine have found a potentially potent weapon in the fight against cancer. Dr. Shamsuddin is a University of Maryland School of Medicine researcher. He has written a popular-press type of book (1998) called "IP6, Nature's Revolutionary Cancer Fighter." Discovered by AbuKalam Shamsuddin, MD Ph.D., who presented at Am Association of Cancer Researchers, 1998, IP6 is a derivative from the B-vitamin inositol-Inositol Hexaphosphate (IP6), also known as phytic acid, is a naturally occurring polyphosphorylated carbohydrate that is present in substantial amounts in almost all plant and mammalian cells. It was recently recognized to possess multiple biological functions. It is a natural antioxidant component of fiber-rich foods such as whole grains and legumes and is found in almost every cell of the body. Related to the B vitamin inositol, IP6 differs by the presence of six phosphate groups, influencing various cellular mechanisms.

The most consistent and best anticancer results were obtained from the combination of IP6 plus inositol. IP6 plus inositol enhances the anticancer effect of conventional chemotherapy, controls cancer metastases, and improves the quality of life, as shown in a pilot clinical trial. In addition to reducing cell proliferation, IP6 increases differentiation of malignant cells, often resulting in a reversion to normal phenotype. Exogenously administered IP6 is rapidly taken into the cells and dephosphorylated to lower-phosphate inositol phosphates, which further interfere with signal transduction pathways and cell cycle arrest. Because it is abundantly present in regular diet, efficiently absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and safe, IP6 holds great promise in our strategies for the prevention and treatment of cancer. The data strongly argue for the use of IP6 plus inositol in strategies for cancer prevention and treatment. However, the effectiveness and safety of IP6 plus inositol at therapeutic doses needs to be determined in phase I and phase II clinical trials in humans. Studied in vitro (test tube) and in animals, the results showed that it helped regulate cell function causing differentiation (making cells more normal) and affecting proliferation (growth). "Helps make cancer cells behave like normal cells."  P6 promotes healthy cell metabolism and maintains proper enzyme activity in cells. The unique conformation of IP6 also gives it the specific ability to modulate hydroxyl radical formation, supporting natural defense mechanisms.

Scientists took human liver cells that were cancerous, treated them with various levels of IP6, and transplanted the treated cells into mice. IP6 was found to "check" the growth of the cancerous cells--not by destroying the cancer cells but by making the cancerous cells act like normal, healthy cells. Inositol hexaphosphate decreases the proliferation of the cancer cells, keeping them in "check." The higher the dose of IP6, the better the results. In the tests, mice that had transplanted cells with higher dosages of IP6 developed virtually no cancer. Those that had untreated cells developed the tumors we would expect from diseased cells. Some of the mice with tumors present were then tested as a follow-up. Injections of IP6 were given to the mice with tumors and, over the course of the treatment, the tumors decreased in size, sometimes almost five fold less than the size of the tumor at the start of the treatment. Interestingly enough, IP6 binds with several important minerals, like copper and zinc. Scientists suggested that taking the "pure" form of the substance rather than ingesting large quantities in the diet might prove more beneficial in fighting cancer.

_

Enzyme Therapy

Healing Salves

Natural cures for cancer have often been regarded as quackery though, of course, they were the only treatments until the advent of modern medicine. For example, poke root, which is indigenous to North America , was a primary cancer treatment herb in the colonies, and scores of papers were written about it in the mid-1700s. It must have had much success or it would never have gained such recognition.

_

No one seems to know exactly how or why the salves work. What is known is that the initial salve produces little or no response when used by a healthy person. At first it was believed that the salves caused some sort of chemical reaction with unhealthy tissues and that this reaction produced heat, itching, burning, and sometimes blistering experienced by the users. Now it is believed that though this may partially account for what happens, another factor may be congestion. Where circulation to an area has been restricted, not only does tissue deteriorate, but the area becomes deficient in oxygen and vital nutrients. When circulation is restored, there can be a temporary burst of vitality which is experienced as tingling and heat. This is not to minimize the actual pain and severity of symptoms, but rather to suggest that the salves are relatively benign, almost harmless under normal circumstances. However, when they are used by people with potentially dangerous conditions, they appear to be powerful and magical. In actuality, it is probably the reactions that are dramatic, not the salves.

_

The use of the black and yellow salves is a two-step process which is repeated as long as necessary. The black salve is applied first. Its purpose is to increase circulation, destroy malignant tissue, and create an opening in the skin. It is followed by application of the yellow slave which draws the tumor out through the skin. The yellow slave is antiseptic and therefore keeps the opening clean. No infections have been reported.

_

The black salve contains blood root, zinc chloride, gotu kola, and guggulu herb. The yellow salves contain mutton tallow, linseed oil, rosin, beeswax, and oil of spike (spikenard), oil of wintergreen. A wide range of discretion is permissible in the concoction of a salve. Some contain resins, some mint crystals as well as oil. The important feature of these salves is that they are absorbing or drawing. They ought also to be antiseptic. This is accomplished by means of the garlic or essential oils, but goldenseal, myrrh, guggulu, turmeric, or something similar will satisfy the same need. Also, washing the lesion with colloidal silver water during dressing changes will disinfect. It is fairly easy to heal and close a wound, but it is important not to allow this to happen before all the toxicity, infection, and malignancy have been drained from the site.

_

To use the salve, one has to buck the system and risk that the doctors consulted for periodic review of the person’s condition will not support the choice to try the salves. Secondly, one has to be willing to be self reliant, consistent, and persistent. Each person who opts for holistic cures is somewhat on his or her own, and this can be quite frightening. No one has died as a result of the use of the salves. Bleeding, even in the case of liver and lung cases is nominal, one or two teaspoons at most. Usually, there is no bleeding at all.

_

STAGE ONE

Black Salve

The black salve is caustic. It can hence be painful. Not all users experience pain, but most do. Cancer cells have no nerve receptors so the pain is not experienced in the malignancy but rather in the tissue which is affected by the salve. Much of this tissue has been deprived of circulation so as the circulation increases, which is a result of the action of the black salve, there is more sensation.

_

Generally, the black salve is applied to the area where the tumor is most concentrated. It may be applied anywhere, but it works faster if applied near the tumor itself. The salve is applied fairly thickly (1/4 inch) to a small area, no more than an inch to an inch and a half in diameter. A gauze bandage is placed over the salve. This is made airtight by covering it with plastic (sandwich bag cut to appropriate size) and taping it on all sides. It is recommended using a bandage just large enough to cover the treatment area; other wise, the salve, which as a very sticky consistency, somewhat thicker and gummier that molasses, has a tendency to spread and open a larger treatment area than necessary. For the same reason, restrictive clothing, such as elastic waistbands and bras should be avoided over the bandaged area.

_

Usually, within a few hours the user may feel a sensation of heat, sometimes attended by itchy or burning sensations. Twenty-four hours later, the bandage is removed. Care should be taken that the salve does not dry out. Therefore, if the area where the slave is being used becomes warm or if the atmosphere is warm, it may be wise to lift one corner of the bandage to ascertain whether or not the salve has caked up and ceased to be effective. If this happens, the area should be cleaned and fresh salve applied regardless of the amount of time that has elapsed.

_

Some of the black salve will adhere to the gauze. The rest should be very carefully removed with an alcohol swab or sterile gauze dabbed in colloidal silver water. Try to remove all of the black salve, but be very careful as the tissue underneath is highly sensitive. Usually, a few little particles of dry black salve stubbornly resist removal. They are small, like grains of sand, and if they cannot be gently wiped off, it is better to leave them than to apply more force.

_

DO NOT TRY TO REMOVE THE SCAB THAT IS FORMING.

_

It is also advisable to clean the surrounding skin. Some adhesive from the tape tends to stick to the skin and some residuals of the salve leave oily traces that must be removed in order for the next bandage to stick. It is difficult to describe the range of normal reactions to the salve. There can be anything from little pinhead-size bubbles or blisters to large greenish yellow scab-like material on the surface of the skin beneath the area where the salve was applied. If there is no cancer at all, it is possible that there will be little or no reaction or tiny blisters which will disappear when the second salve is applied. It should be expected that the skin surrounding the area where the salve was applied may become a brilliant red. This is normal.

_

The criterion for deciding whether or not to switch to the more soothing yellow salve is whether any visible exudation has percolated to the surface of the skin. The color of this exudation may vary. Whitish scabs are usually benign whereas yellow, yellow-green, and greenish scabs tend to be malignant, but this would have to be confirmed by biopsy. The salve has been known to draw out benign cysts also.

_

STAGE TWO

Yellow Salve

Once there has been a response to the black salve, the area should be cleaned. The yellow salve can then be applied to the same place and covered in the same fashion. For most, this event is attended by a sigh of relief, for the yellow salve is soothing compared to the black. The yellow salve is kept on this area until the skin has healed. Dressings are changed every day, more frequently if the reaction is strong or there is a tendency for the salve to become dry. First, gently clean the area with colloidal silver water. Then reapply the yellow salve. Cover with gauze, then plastic, and finally, seal with tape.

_

Note: The yellow salve will stain clothing. It is suggested, depending on the part of the body being treated, that appropriate underclothing be worn for protection.

_

The yellow salve has an absorbing and drawing action so that each time the dressing is changed, it will usually be noted that the amount of material accumulating at the surface has increased. Unless the salve has spread, the diameter will not increase, but the density and thickness will be noticeably greater. After a few days or a week or even two weeks, it can usually be observed that the edge of the accumulation on the surface has begun to crack, that it is little by little separating from the healthy skin along the perimeter.

_

Note: As the edge of the scab begins to crack, it is doubly important that the yellow salve be applied carefully so as to cover the periphery of the scab.

_

Each day the amount of the circumference that is loosening increases until the greenish-yellow substance eventually falls off on its own. It is important not to pull or force the removal of this tissue; it should be allowed to detach completely on its own. Some tumors come out in their entirety. Others come out in stages. Some persons find bits and pieces of the neoplasm stuck to the gauze when they change dressings. Others smell the mass when it detaches and then find it has come off in one big piece. In some cases, infections have also been cured by the salves and the infections never return.

_

Once the first encrusted layer falls off, the skin under this layer may look very much like the skin under a scab when a scab falls off: pink and a little tender. Some persons see only this young skin. Others may see red tissue which looks quite raw; others see a small hole. There can be oozing of a pus-like material from the area for a period, either before and/or after the solid material pulls away from the skin. This is believed to be liquefied tumor, not infectious material. The yellow salve is antiseptic, but infection does not preclude cancer or vice versa.

_

It is not possible to say with certainly how long this process will continue, sometimes days, sometimes weeks or longer, but eventually new skin will appear. This usually begins at the outer perimeter and gravitates towards the middle of the opened area. It is suggested that when this happens, the entire process is repeated until finally there is no more reaction to the black salve. Reapply the black salve for up to twenty-four hours and follow with the yellow salve until the area heals.

_

With each subsequent application of the black salve, tolerance to it seems to lessen. However, the response is also usually faster so that conversion to yellow salve may be performed after fewer and fewer hours. In a few cases, pain during subsequent applications has been really severe, but unless a reaction has occurred, it is suggested that the pain somehow be endured for a few hours.

_

Though it is advisable that the black salve be used for twenty-four hours, in some cases the burning can be so intense that it becomes intolerable. Pain is Nature’s warning and should be respected. Therefore, if you feel it necessary to remove the black salve before the full twenty-four hours, by all means do so. Some people find 7 or 8 hours on subsequent applications to be their tolerance level. Pain can sometimes be relieved by application of a damp cloth (lukewarm) over the bandaged area. Pain relievers can also be used and may even be advised as there is little to be gained by suffering if it can be alleviated. Herbal pain relievers are preferred over pharmaceutical ones.

_

Application of yellow salve always follows the application of the black salve. Use of the yellow salve, with daily dressing changes, should be continued until the area is completely healed. The black salve, because of its caustic nature, should not be reapplied to broken or sensitive skin. This process should be continued until the salves fail to produce any reaction, the opening heals, and/or there is no more cancer in the body. It should be noted that at a certain point, the salves do not result in any response. It can be assumed that they have then run their course and that continued effort to use them will not cause a reaction.

_

These salves should be used with care and, if possible, with supervision. Some general notes of caution:

1)      Only apply salve to one area at a time; otherwise, the body may not be able to handle all of the toxins that are being released into the system. By applying the salve to one area, you will have an effect on other tumors in the body as well. It is important that during the treatment period the user use enemas and detoxifying herbs to help rid the body of the toxins that are released when the tumor starts to break down.

2)      Once this process has begun, it is important that it be continued to the end. An occasional user, after having chosen to use the salves, decides it is not worth the pain and inconvenience. However, it is recommended that instead of discontinuing their use the black salve be left on the skin for a shorter length of time and that longer intervals between applications be considered as an alternative.

3)      It is not recommended using hot tubs, Jacuzzis, or saunas while using the black salve. Moisture can affect too large a treatment area.

_

There is a tendency with the users to be fascinated with the salves and tend therefore to rely on the salves for their cure—whereas, in reality, the salves are local treatments that do not address the systemic imbalances that brought about the cancer in the first place. It is important to understand that there are metabolic disturbances, dietary indiscretions, and life style issues that contribute to cancer. On top of this, there are undischarged emotions and unresolved psychological problems that are common to most conditions of cancer. If these matters are not addressed, it is likely that the cancer will recur. The salve may remove a threatening tumor, but if this leads to complacency on the part of the person predisposed to cancer, the relief may be not merely short-term but a false reprieve from danger. Therefore, it is helpful to view the cancer as a second chance for examining one’s entire life and make the adjustments that will spell total physical, emotional, and spiritual health in the future.

_

Chemotherapy

Every year, approximately one million people, nearly four of five people with cancer, receive chemotherapy in this country. The overall success rate of chemotherapy is no more than 2-3% and for some types of cancer it is virtually zero. It is well known that chemotherapy kills practically everything it comes in contact with. The medical community is very aware of this but the hope is that chemotherapy will kill the cancer before it kills the patient.

If Chemotherapy is spilled on you, it will burn right through your skin. That is why the people administering it where rubber gloves. If Chemotherapy is spilled on the floor during administration, the people administering it have to put on a regulatory protective suit before they can clean up such a spill.

Chemotherapy kills white blood cells that are designed to defend our bodies from a host of microorganisms, abnormal cells and foreign substances. We have cancer cells dividing in our bodies on a daily basis. However, a properly functioning immune system has the ability to identify and destroy these threats to our health. If you have cancer now, you can be sure that your immune system is impaired. When chemotherapy kills your white blood cells it is a step by step destruction of an already compromised immune system, one white blood cell at a time. Over 60% of cancer pati