Brain Tumour Survivor

A site dedicated to leading edge treatment for brain tumours
It is currently Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:55 pm

All times are UTC + 10 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:19 am 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Research shows natural cancer therapies don't cure, says expert

Cancer patients are being warned by a medical expert that some complementary therapies are not only useless, but could be dangerous.

In a public lecture at Victoria University in Wellington last night, Professor Shaun Holt said there were no complementary natural therapies that could cure cancer.

Complementary therapies are non-conventional medical treatments – such as meditation, hypnosis or the prescription of substances such as ginger or capsicum – used alongside conventional treatment.

More than half of all cancer sufferers used complementary therapies, Prof Holt said. "A lot of people want to do whatever they can do to maximise their chances of getting good health."

Although he expected opposition from practitioners of complementary therapies, the academic said his findings were not his own opinions but were based on years of research into scientific evidence.

"There are a lot of practices out there that are not going to help. There are some that are going to harm."

He said many practitioners were genuine people but "misguided" if they believed they could cure cancer. Others were trying to extract money from people's suffering, though he did not believe that was common in New Zealand.

While some therapies could be useful in helping to reduce symptoms or could improve quality of life, others would not.

Chiropractors were good at helping people with bad backs, but would not help cancer; reiki was "chanting mumbo jumbo"; reflexology was "absolute nonsense"; and colonic irrigation was dangerous, he said.

The professor's assessment of colonic irrigation was disputed by practitioner Malia Flasza.

Mrs Flasza, 48, who worked as a nurse for more than 20 years before training to deliver colonic irrigation, and said that, although it was not scientifically proven, she "truly" believed in its effects.

She would use the treatment on cancer patients while working closely with an oncologist, she said.

She is in remission for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and had used natural therapies towards the end of her chemotherapy course and then started using colonic irrigation. "There is room for the two to work side by side."

Mrs Flasza found the size of her tumours reduced and she also felt the benefits of the irrigation.

Wellington naturopath Jill Casey said she would recommend homoeopathy as a treatment for cancer patients as it was "fairly innocuous", although this was a treatment Prof Holt said would have no effects.

Ad Feedback She said complementary therapies were unfairly judged by people who had not tried them, and it was important not to make sweeping statements about how they would affect individuals.

Prof Holt's "No1 recommendation" was yoga, which was particularly effective for breast cancer patients. Taking ginger was also highly recommended, and he said that, for patients experiencing nausea and vomiting, it was as effective as pharmaceutical drugs.

The Cancer Society's assistant divisional manager, Fiona Pearson, said there would be cancer sufferers undertaking harmful treatments "under the radar", as there were some treatments that could be counter-productive.

Many complementary therapies could help cancer sufferers, but she suggested discussing them with a doctor before treatment.

Wellington Hospital said its oncologists would not comment on complementary therapies in cancer treatments, because their effect on individuals varied.



Acupuncture: Can be used to relieve a number of symptoms that are commonly experienced by cancer patients.

Massage therapy: Can help reduce stress, anxiety, pain and other symptoms.

Aromatherapy: Can reduce anxiety, depression, tension, pain and nausea. There are no important safety issues, so aromatherapy is recommended as a pleasant and medically useful treatment.

Art therapy: An excellent option for people with cancer who are looking to reduce symptoms and help with the psychological trauma of a cancer diagnosis.


Colonic irrigation: Professor Holt says many people are at risk of adverse effects from this therapy, which he says is as ineffective and dangerous as it is ridiculous.

Cupping: Celebrities photographed with cupping marks have increased the demand for a procedure with no scientific plausibility or research evidence to support its use.

Ear candling: Associated dangers include external burns, obstruction of the ear canal with wax, and perforated eardrums resulting from hot wax dripping on them.

Psychic surgery: The practitioner's hands appear to magically penetrate the patient's body, after which they are removed holding organic matter claimed to be the tumour. Professor Holt says psychic surgeons are basically skilled magicians and the operation is actually an optical illusion using sleight of hand, animal tissue and clotted blood. ... ays-expert

[comment - my opinion is that both sides have their respective merits and limitations. I would not be willing to try colonic irrigation and I believe psychic surgery is a con. However, as a medical professional Shaun Holt does not recognise fully the link between chronic illness and chronic treatments - quality = quantity; even though the ratio may not be equal. What do you think?]

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:15 am 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Doctors attribute sudden cancer cures to biology, not God

CANCER can retreat and even disappear in some patients - even, very rarely, without any treatment.

And medical experts say the phenomenon, while little understood, is likely to have biological rather than spiritual explanations.

As Australian Catholics prepare to celebrate Mary MacKillop's canonisation, many atheists, agnostics and even Protestants are questioning whether the new saint's supposed miracles represent more than medieval hocus-pocus.

Some senior doctors say while prayer can help give hope and focus to religious patients, events that could be considered miraculous do sometimes happen.

Sydney oncologist David Bell, who co-wrote a book on so-called spontaneous remission - where cancer disappears by itself without any treatment - said he knew of about 400 confirmed cases worldwide over the past 150 years.

Despite having a "religious nature" himself, Associate Professor Bell said he was "very sceptical" of supernatural explanations for remarkable medical outcomes.

"I think there's more likely to be a biological explanation for the rare (cases of remission) that we do see," Professor Bell said.

"Yes, you can call it a miracle, but you don't have to invoke divine intervention to believe that.

"I'm very concerned that a lot of people will mistakenly think, 'I just have to go down to Mary MacKillop's grave and pray, and I'll be cured', and come away disappointed."

He said a 27-year-old once consulted him, saying God had said Professor Bell would cure him.

"That chap was dead two weeks later, but it caused an enormous amount of difficulty with his whole family - they were basically saying, 'You just have to pray harder'."

Martin Tattersall, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Sydney, said sudden remissions were particularly associated with melanoma and kidney cancers, even when these had spread elsewhere in the body.

He said he was aware of four cases of metastatic cancer at Sydney's Royal Prince Alfred Hospital this year in which patients had had "extraordinary outcomes" from treatment, including one of a man with metastatic stomach cancer that had spread to the liver, who remained alive against all expectation.

"A lot of things that in the past we interpreted as supernatural have been eroded away with better understanding of events," Professor Tattersall said.

Christobel Saunders, professor of surgical oncology at the University of Western Australia, said an infection could sometimes kick-start the body's immune system into attacking a tumour.

"Personally, I think there's a natural explanation, because we're only just beginning to scrape the surface of our understanding of human biology," she said. ... 5939387715

[comment - whatever the causes of these spontaneous remissions they do not have to be a reflection of your metaphysical beliefs. By accepting medical intervention you are accepting that science can help, if not cure. Scientific method is known as a form of methodological naturalism]

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:49 am 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Who looks healthier after cancer? Suzanne Somers or Michael Douglas?

(NaturalNews) They're about the same age and they've both battled cancer. One person chose the natural treatment route and the other chose toxic chemotherapy. Can you guess which is which?

It's difficult to look at recent pictures of Michael Douglas and not come to the conclusion that he's dying. Or, more accurately, he's being killed by the cancer industry just like countless other victims who have been poisoned, irradiated or surgically harmed by an industry that offers no cures, no compassion and no real solutions. The cancer industry kills more people than it saves, and yet oncologists insist that they alone know how to treat cancer even when the hard science shows their treatments aren't working!

The real answers to cancer come from people who have survived it through healing, not poison -- people like Suzanne Somers who is now teaching principles of self healing through her new film called the Suzanne Somers BREAKTHROUGH Tour, opening tomorrow in theaters across the country.

This event is billed as "an honest, engaging and often humorous discussion encouraging viewers to take charge of their health, recapture their youth and maintain their vitality."

An announcement for the event explains: "Suzanne busts open the paradigm of conventional cancer treatments and creates a step-by-step action plan based upon hundreds of interviews with doctors and scientists who are having great success with alternative treatments. She reflects on her own cancer scares with a fervent plea to persuade people to seize a commanding role in their health treatments, urging viewers to ask the questions their doctors aren't asking, to educate themselves about alternative therapies and to seek out information for addressing their health issues rather than merely taking conventional treatments at face value."

In other words, Suzanne is teaching her audience to be more like NaturalNews readers: Educated, responsible and self-healing. It's the only system of medicine that really works. Learn more about where you can see her film at

Michael Douglas, meanwhile, has surrendered his health over to a team of poison pushers called "oncologists." And for taking absolutely no active role in his own healing while subjecting his body to deadly poisons, he is for some reason being called "courageous."

Let me be blunt about this: Selling out your body and your health to the cancer industry is not courageous. It's foolish. What takes real courage is standing up to the cancer industry, telling your oncologist to keep his hands off your body and taking charge of your own healing journey through changes in diet, nutrition, exercise and mind-body medicine. Self-healing takes courage. Chemotherapy does not.

Will Douglas be a chemo survivor?

If Michael Douglas survives the next twelve months, it will only be because his body managed to resist the poisoning he was subjected to by his doctors. He will then be a chemo survivor (not a cancer survivor), because the cancer itself will of course come right back now that his immune system has been so damaged by the chemo.

As with all chemo patients, Michael Douglas has now sadly suffered brain damage, heart damage, liver damage and kidney damage from the chemotherapy poisons. He has paid a steep price for "shrinking a tumor" even though the physical shrinking of a tumor has been scientifically shown to be medically useless in and of itself. Cancer tumors have their own root cells (cancer stem cells) which grow right back unless you change the environment and improve the holistic health of the patient.

How to make better decisions about cancer

I admire Michael Douglas as an actor and as a human being, and I feel great sorrow for his decision to harm his own health at the hands of chemotherapy doctors. Yet just like millions of other cancer industry victims, Douglas has made a poorly informed decision about cancer treatment that may very well cost him his life.

What Douglas needs to see is Suzanne Somers' new "Breakthrough Tour" film. He needs to read NaturalNews and listen to the enlightening interviews Jonathan Landsman has done with cancer experts (

In fact, every cancer patient needs to listen to people like Suzanne Somers, a self-empowered woman who has chosen to invoke her body's self healing capabilities and take a stand against the quackery of the conventional cancer industry.

After all, the photos tell the real story: Suzanne Somers looks a whole lot healthier than Michael Douglas these days. And that's because of a courageous choice she made to stand up to the cancer industry and take charge of her own healing journey. ... uglas.html

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:19 am 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
This is a very interesting debate that gets to the heart of conventional versus complementary versus alternative debate.

I watched two of the videos on Suzanne Somers website. There were credible arguments presented.

First of all a question of creditability arose. Suzanne Somers said in the first interview she would not be alive if the pharmaceuticals were unavailable. Then in the second interview she stated unconvincingly that she never had chemotherapy. That being said, she was offered chemo for a third diagnosis of cancer that turned out to be something else.

My own position is complementary - acute medical intervention when required and lifestyle treatments the rest of the time.

I do think that both the medical and alternative approaches have their problems and benefits. The pharmaceutical industry is too powerful and their sole objective is profit. The alternative camp rely too much on testimonials which open the door to charletans claiming that their product X cures all cancers.

They both have benefits too. Medicine is evidence based, while alternative focuses on lifestyle.

Chemotherapy is a poision and needs to be used with greater care. When chemo and radiation are simply doled out as the 'standard of care' this becomes problematic. I had a genetic test suggesting I was chemosensitive. I chose the least toxic drug, but it had no affect on the tumour.

If it is true that quality of life decreases morbidity, if 80% of cancers can be prevented through lifestyle changes, then we don't need X and we may avoid the standard of care. However, if lifestyle changes don't work then we may need the standard of care.

As always it comes down to taking responsibility yourself. If someone in Timbucktwo claims to have the cure for cancer, no matter how good their testimonials sound, you should be sceptical - you have everything to lose.

I believe that I am responsible for my getting cancer. I'm not beating myself up over it - I've made what research has told me are the lifestyle changes that are necessary to prevent recurrence. To me, that's not even complementary medicine - that's common sense (now)!

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:33 pm 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Top Researcher Finds Medical Studies to be Largely Wrong or Fraudulent

(NaturalNews) Considering his background, Dr. John Ioannidis had good reason to expect that he might become a noted and respected researcher when he first entered the field of medical research. What he did not expect was that he would become known for challenging and exposing the bad science of his peers and finding that up to 80 percent of medical study results are either wrong or fraudulent.

Ioannidis was unusually well prepared to enter medical research: he had been a math prodigy of near-celebrity status in high school and both of his parents were physician-researchers. He believed he would be able to follow his parents' footsteps and use math to better support findings in a surprisingly sloppy field. "I assumed that everything we physicians did was basically right, but now I was going to help verify it," he said. "All we'd have to do was systematically review the evidence, trust what it told us, and then everything would be perfect."

It didn't turn out that way. When he pored over medical journals, Ioannidis was struck by how many findings of all types were later refuted and he was shocked at the range and reach of the reversals in everyday medical research.

Randomized controlled trials, which compare how one group responds to a treatment against how an identical group without the treatment fares, "had long been considered nearly unshakable" said Ioannidis. But they too ended up sometimes being wrong. "I realized even our gold-standard research had a lot of problems."

After working at Harvard, Tufts University, Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health, Ioannidis set up a base at the University of Ioannina in Greece. His team began producing a series of papers that pointed out specific ways certain studies were getting misleading results. In 2005 he published a paper which shook the foundations of medical research in the journal PLoS Medicine.

In the paper, Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that (assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the tendency to focus on exciting rather than plausible theories) researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. His model, based on the rates in which studies had been overturned, predicted that 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type), 25 percent of so-called gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials turned out to be wrong.

The paper detailed how researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses and chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process to suppress opposing views. "The studies were biased," said Ioannidis. "Sometimes they were overtly biased. Sometimes it was difficult to see the bias, but it was there. At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded. There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded."

Ioannidis noted that, in addition to the factors which doomed nutritional studies, drug studies had the additional corruptive force of financial conflict of interest - much to the detriment of doctors and patients. "Doctors need to rely on instinct and judgment to make choices," he said. "But these choices should be as informed as possible by the evidence," said Ioannidis.

He also noted that, "I'm not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life". ... fraud.html

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:12 am 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Are There Naturally Based Modalities to Kill Cancer?

Dr. Joseph Gold found a relationship between cachexia which kills cancer patients and tumor cells requiring energy to sustain tumor growth. HZ is a natural compound found in rocket fuel. The HZ controls the cancer and prevents it from spreading. Effectively, tumor growth is halted.

Today's radiation modalities are aimed at becoming far more efficient at killing tumors while seeking to minimize the harmful affects of radioactivity. There are nearly 300 research references on the role of cachexia in killing cancer patients. 1)

Michael J. Tisdale of Aston University, Birmingham, UK has some interesting conclusions in a large research study completed recently.

The past decade has seen enormous steps in our understanding of the mechanismsof loss of both adipose tissue and skeletal muscle in cancer cachexia, but this is only just beginning to be translated into clinical therapy. Hopefully new agents will be developed against the myriad of signaling pathways that are essential for atrophy of adipose tissue and skeletal muscle mass. Despite the fact that cachexia has been estimated to be responsible for the death of up to 22% of cancer patients (Ref. 272), progress in this area has been slow to date. This was basically due to poor experimental models of this condition and a lack of understanding of the mechanisms involved. Cachexia is seen not only in cancer patients, but in those with sepsis, CHF, diabetes, severe trauma, and renal failure leading to metabolic acidosis, denervation atrophy, and weightlessness. There is certainly an overlap between the mechanisms of tissue loss, particularly muscle atrophy, in these conditions and those seen in cancer patients. Thus agents developed for the treatment of cachexia in cancer may also be effective in these other conditions, thus enlarging the potential patient database.

Tumors take their energy from glucose and turn it into lactic acid which must be broken down by the liver. Unfortunately, the liver converts lactic acid to glucose. This cycle is called cachexia (pronounced ka-kek-see-ah) and is responsible for the wasting away that is typical of cancer patients. Hydrazine sulfate, sometimes referred to as HZ, is designed to stop this wasting away.

Hydrazine sulfate's popularity grew rapidly after the publicity generated at the 1974 NHF (National Health Federation) convention by Dr. Joseph Gold, director of the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute in Syracuse, New York. 2)

In the journal Oncology, a study was published by Dr. Golden. This study evaluated eighty-four patients with various types of advanced cancer who used hydrazine sulfate. 70 percent of the patients reported improvements, such as increased strength, improved performance, decreased pain, increased appetite, weight gain or cessation of weight loss. Also, 17 percent experienced measurable improvement such as, tumor regression, disappearance of or decrease in cancer-associated disorders, and long-term condition stabilization.

In a more recent article, Dr. Joseph Gold published 78 research references which supported the efficacy of HZ in published trials. 3)

"And the truth is that every single, informed-consent, controlled clinical trial of hydrazine sulfate, performed in accordance with internationally accepted criteria and standards of scientific conduct—without exception—has indicated efficacy and safety of the drug."

The only contrary results have been in sponsored trials of hydrazine sulfate in which incompatible agents (medications) were used with the test drug. Use of an incompatible agent in a drug test, which acts to cause a negative study, can only be the result of incompetence or deliberateness according to Dr. Joseph Gold.

Time and time again, the most respected cancer researchers around the world found that HZ brings cachexia to a screeching halt. The researchers were stunned when their controlled clinical trials showed nearly:

o 6 out of every 10 previously unresponsive patients suddenly ceased signs of cachexia

o HZ takes control of cancer and keeps it from spreading

o HZ halts - even reverses - tumor growth.

o HZ shrinks tumors up to HALF their original size-all without the toxicity of other modalities 4)

The efficacy of Dr. Gold's work should be replicated in independent clinical trials both internal and external to the United States so that differences in research results, the control group itself, incompatible-agents and other complicating factors can be isolated and dealt with fairly and uniformly.

The stakes are simply too big to do otherwise. Why hasn't this been done earlier? The answer may lie in the unpatentability of naturally based compounds used in medicine itself. This aspect of medicine must evolve into a universally accepted protocol for organic based compounds used in medicine. Only then, medicine will have the mechanism to control costs and benefit a wider population of patients cost effectively and by utilization of generally accepted protocols internationally.

Stay tuned and always discuss any modality of treatment with your physician or medical provider. There are medical providers expert in the implementation of naturally based treatments and modalities. ... ancer.html

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:38 am 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Oil of oregano fights harmful bacteria, cancer

(NaturalNews) A new report out of the University of Arizona (UofA) says that oil of oregano is a powerful nutrient for fighting harmful bacteria and preventing cancer. Sadhana Ravishankar, a food microbiologist at UofA, discovered that carvacrol, a phenol of oregano oil, exhibits powerful antioxidant and antimicrobial activity, not only when consumed but also when applied to foods.

Ravishankar's lab at UofA had previously identified oregano oil as a powerful antibacterial in lab testing, but she and her team decided to test the oil on food to see how it fared. They discovered that when applied ground beef, oregano oil actually prevented the formation of up to 78 percent of the cancer-causing molecules that normally come about when meat is cooked at high temperatures.

"The idea that something in a plant can inactivate all this bacteria is very fascinating to me," Ravishankar told reporters from The Arizona Daily Star.

Published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, the findings have immense implications for food safety, as oregano oil could be applied to various food preparations to ward off the formation of dangerous microbes and other contaminants that threaten human health. Rather than resort to irradiation, chemicals or other unnatural interventions, oregano oil just might be a viable, natural alternative.

The team says that further testing is required to identify exactly how oregano oil performs its powerful work. But there is no questioning the fact that it does, and researchers hope that the breakthrough discovery will eventually result in improved food safety.

Oil of oregano is a powerful weapon against intestinal parasites and yeast overgrowth as well. One study found that 77 percent of enteric parasite patients who took oregano oil for six weeks ended up parasite-free. And oil of oregano also helps stave off Candida albicans, a yeast overgrowth that can severely debilitate quality of life ( ... ancer.html

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:37 pm 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Hunting cancer

IN my previous article, I wrote about nutritional support and nutritional therapy for cancer. In many earlier articles (see I had also explained that qigong can benefit, but it takes a lot of dedication and practice.

For various reasons, many cancer patients look for alternatives. In this and future articles, I shall reveal some of the therapies being tried all over the world.

Some of these are medical treatments, which are regarded as “experimental” (ie. only preliminary studies done), or “non-conventional” (ie. not accepted by the majority of the medical fraternity).

Please bear in mind that these therapies are not yet accepted by mainstream medicine, either because studies have not shown them to be effective; or although some studies have shown them to be effective, more studies need to be done before they can be generally accepted.

Dr Emanuel Revici

Dr Emanuel Revici was born in Romania in 1896 and died in 1997 at the age of 101. Many who knew him called him a towering genius. Even Albert Einstein was reported to have referred to him as the greatest mind he had ever come across in his lifetime.

His career began in World War I, serving as the youngest lieutenant to be in command of a medical brigade, and he even won a medal for bravery later. After the war, he graduated as top graduate at the University of Bucharest, becoming the youngest to ever serve on the Faculty of Medicine.

He began his early cancer research at major medical centres throughout Europe, including the prestigious Pasteur Institute. His remarkable early successes in battling cancer while living in Paris in the late 1930s brought him fame.

During World War II, he escaped from the Nazis and went to Mexico, where he set up a cancer research clinic in Mexico City for the duration of the war.

His success in treating cancer brought him to the US, where he founded his second cancer research institute in New York City.

Throughout his 74-year career, his research produced more than 100 scientific discoveries in various areas of medicine and science, although his entire focus was on cancer. He slept only two to three hours a night, and for his entire career was a doctor by day and medical researcher by night (except for a five year period in the 90s when the medical establishment suspended his license for practising “unproven therapies”).

He was a dedicated physician who really cared for his patients.

But why is his work virtually unknown despite the illustrious life-story? What was his cancer therapy and what were the results?

Dr Revici used non-toxic lipid-based medicines to treat his patients, but his attempts to get his method recognised and approved were thwarted, and he was instead suspended from practice.

How good was his cancer therapy? In the absence of large formal studies, the following comments from doctors and scientists will give some idea of his success.

“I’ve known him for 10 years. I don’t know how he does it, but people walk in dead and walk out alive.” – Dr John Heller (former medical director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Hospital, probably the world’s most famous cancer centre).

“When you see the x-rays of bones eaten away by cancer and then returning to normal, how can one but believe? I hope we can get more medical people to see the light and put his treatment into practice.” – Dr Louis E. Burns.

“His results are amazing... They include cancer of the breast, prostate, skin cancer, melanoma – the highly malignant type that always kills – lung and bone cancer, the majority of these showing signs of retrogression. What a happy group of patients, too... I must say it is the first time we have had a sound chemical approach or treatment for this dreaded disease.” – Dr Robert Fishbein, who was himself cured of cancer by Dr Revici.

“I tracked down over 200 of Dr Revici’s cases. I studied this man’s work for 15 years. I refused to write an article about him for 10 years until I had absolute proof from my own investigation that [these] patients had cancer... it was his treatment that put them into remission, and they were alive and well 10 years later.” – Dr Gary Null, in a 1988 US Congressional testimony.

Battling cancer

So why is his method not widely available? In 1949, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published an article claiming that his method was ineffective in treating cancer. A later FBI investigation proved the article false, but the damage was already done.

It was only the first of a long series of attempts that would plague Dr Revici for the rest of his life, culminating in his suspension from medical practice at the end of his brilliant career.

Dr Revici sued the Brooklyn Cancer Society (a local arm of the American Cancer Society), for libel in 1949 when the Brooklyn Cancer Society circulated an excerpt from the 1949 JAMA article. The suit was settled through arbitration the same year (the retraction was authorised and signed by the Brooklyn Cancer Society on June 13, 1949).

The medical authorities consistently rejected his methods as unconventional and unproven, and disputed his findings. In contrast, individual scientists and oncologists who investigated his work gave different conclusions.

“Dr Revici has cured many people who were otherwise considered incurable... It is my professional opinion that his medicines have worked for many of the patients whose records I have examined.” – Dr Seymour Brenner, FACR, a highly respected board-certified cancer specialist and former head of the largest private radiation oncology center in the US.

Fortunately there are several doctors in the US who have continued his work despite all the opposition. You can read the full story in The Doctor Who Cures Cancer by William Kelley Eidem.

It is unfortunate that the search for cancer cures that work and are safe are often being impeded by the lack of funding, and other factors.

I end this story with another quote from Dr Seymour Brenner that summarises the state of cancer therapy: “I have fought at the front lines in the war against cancer all my professional life. During my long tenure of battling cancer for my patients, I gradually became rather frustrated and unhappy with the little progress that has been made in the treatment of this disease. “After more than 40 years of seeing almost no breakthroughs on the medical front, it became painful seeing my patients every day, knowing that most of them had very little chance for a cure.”

What we continue to hear is the pronouncement of yet another “breakthrough” toxic chemotherapy which, for example, “significantly improved progression-free survival, defined as time without tumour growth or death” from four months to nine months, which means that the treated cancer patient gets an extra five months of life, usually at the expense of a whole list of side-effects and a hefty medical bill.

We need cures for cancer

We certainly need to find better solutions than this. And we need to find cures, not just drugs that extend survival (while contending with toxic side-effects) for a few months. Government-funded researchers should do more research on safer and cheaper therapies. ... sec=health

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:45 am 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Chronic Pain Common in Cancer Survivors Needs to Be Addressed

January 24, 2011 — Chronic pain among cancer survivors might be more common than previously suspected. In addition, there are noted sex and racial disparities associated with the prevalence of pain.

In a study published online November 10, 2010 in Cancer, researchers report that 20% of diverse cancer survivors had cancer-related chronic pain, and 43% had experienced pain since their diagnosis.

The pain experience was worse for black survivors and for women, the researchers note. Compared with men, women had more pain, more flare-ups of pain, higher disability related to pain, and more depression (P < .05).

Black survivors, they note, experienced more severe pain, depression, and disability than white cancer survivors (P < .05).

"All in all, the high prevalence of cancer and pain — and now chronic cancer pain — among these survivors, especially blacks and women, shows that there's more work to be done in improving the quality of care and research," said lead author Carmen R. Green, MD, a pain specialist and professor of anesthesiology, of obstetrics and gynecology, and of health management and policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in a statement.

Not Optimally Managed

Previous studies have reported the prevalence of pain. One study found that chronic postoperative pain was common among breast cancer patients and often persisted for years after surgery. Nearly half of all patients in that population-based study reported experiencing chronic pain.

In addition, some data suggest that pain is not optimally managed. As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, a large European survey reported that two thirds of the patients in the cohort described their pain as "distressing." Those researchers noted that "cancer pain remains an issue" and that it is "misleading to assume that cancer pain is better managed than other types of chronic nonmalignant pain."

The study by Dr. Green and colleagues focused on current and previous chronic pain in cancer survivors and its affect on quality of life. The cohort consisted of 199 cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma) who were recruited through the Michigan State Cancer Registry.

Group Differences

The participants ranged in age from 42 to 87 years; 31% were black and 49% were female. At the time, the vast majority of them were cancer free or in remission (95.2% of women, 95.7% of men, 94.3% of blacks, 98.2% of whites). The types of cancer differed by sex (P < .001) but not by race.

In this study, black patients tended to have lower incomes (P = .04), lower cancer stages, and lower surgery rates. Female patients had higher rates of chemotherapy, radiation, and hormone therapy. In addition, they were less likely to have health insurance (P = .02).

The authors found that almost twice as many women as men reported experiencing pain since diagnosis (56% vs 30%; P < .001), and twice as many women reported more pain with activities (50% vs 24%; P = .05). Women also reported poorer cognitive functioning and more depressive symptoms.

Black individuals with pain reported a higher severity of pain (P = .001) and more interference from pain (e.g., in mood and walking ability). They also had more pain-related disability, expressed more fatalism, and had more concerns about harmful pain treatment effects. Black patients also had overall poorer general health (P = .02) and physical (P = .002) and social (P = .02) functioning.

Financial difficulties were experienced by more blacks and women (P < .05). The most significant source of pain was cancer surgery for white patients (53.8%) and cancer treatment for black patients (46.2%).

Patients with current pain reported poorer general health (P = .001), and poorer physical, role, and social functioning (P < .001 for all). Those with previous pain reported significantly greater financial problems (P = .003).

Patient and Physician Attitudes

The authors note that both patient and physician knowledge and attitudes about pain management might contribute to suboptimal care. Concerns about adverse effects, such as addiction, might affect communication and coping and lead to both the patient and physician minimizing complaints of pain.

They also point out that "differences in communication styles may compromise a patient's willingness to disclose concerns and a physician's willingness to address concerns."

"Future studies should design interventions to optimize physician–patient communication, address attitudes regarding pain management, and decrease physician variability in decision making to improve the quality of pain care," they write.

[comment - since my energy levels have increased, my pain thresholds have improved. I am not in chronic pain, but experience pain during my remedial therapy]

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:49 am 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
FDA seeks to limit liquid IV vitamin C production for mega dose therapy

(NaturalNews) Apparently the notoriety of New Zealander Alan Smith`s cure from his near death coma by using mega dose IV vitamin C has made waves. Enough perhaps to splash some salt in the eyes of certain FDA officials. According to a recent urgent alert from the Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), based in the belly of the beast, Washington DC, the FDA is forcing smaller companies to stop producing the pharmaceutical grade liquid vitamin C necessary for IV mega-dose treatments.

The Incident

Alan Smith`s recovery occurred despite the local hospital`s intent to pull his life support plug a year ago. His family`s insistence on using mega-dose IV vitamin C therapy, with some added pressure from nearby Orthomolecular therapists, resulted in Alan`s walking away days after being in a coma from Swine Flu complications. (Natural News source below)

Those complications may have been due to his leukemia, which was also eliminated by the mega-dose IV vitamin C therapy. The Australian/New Zealand mainstream media jumped all over the story and it went viral over the internet. The follow up check for his leukemia occurred several months after his release from the hospital. So that aspect of his recovery was not covered by the media in the original story.

Orthomolecular Medicine

The mega-dose use of only vitamin and mineral supplements for curing has been around for only a few decades. Originally pioneered by the late Linus Pauling, a few MDs throughout the world have continued applying and researching vitamin/mineral supplement use for both the physical and mental healing arts. Suicides, killing sprees, or deathly overdoses are not common among Orthomolecular mental patients. The "incurable" are cured without side effects.

Dr. Hugh Riordon, established the Riordon clinic in Wichita, Kansas. The range of maladies cured with mega-dose vitamin C and other supplements is wide, and that spectrum includes cancer. A veterinarian on the West Coast has success curing canine distemper, considered incurable conventionally, with mega-dose IV vitamin C.

An independent Canadian study has seen success with IV vitamin C for curing sepsis, another disease difficult to cure conventionally. However, the National Health Institute (NIH) in the USA refuses to fund any such studies.

FDA Motives

According to the website, there has not been even one death recorded in the USA from vitamin use. Yet, FDA approved pharmaceutical drugs cause 100,000 or more deaths annually from correctly prescribed drugs! There are more from incorrectly prescribed drugs as well. Mismanaging vitamin supplements is not healthy, but it`s not lethal.

So danger from mega-dose vitamin C is not the issue. The Orthomolecular practitioners have been keeping a low profile. They`re considered quacks by the Medical Mafia. The Alan Smith notoriety did put a small media spotlight on them. The FDA`s client is Big Pharma, and it`s being protected. Not us. There`s not enough profit with vitamin C. It can't be patented. And since it cures without side effects, it minimizes repeat business.

So public awareness of the amazing cures with less expense and no serious side effects using IV mega-dose supplements needs to be plugged before more information leaks out. The ANH (Alliance for Natural Health) people fear restricting pharmaceutical grade liquid vitamin C could be the beginning of the end for vitamin C mega-dose IV therapy.

You can't use any type of C for IV applications. It has to be pharmaceutical grade liquid vitamin C. Without it, already existing applications are crippled and it`s impossible to do further independent studies. The ANH has arranged for an easy click petition to the FDA for allowing IV liquid C production here: ... ion&id=648 ... min_C.html

[comment - while this is an acute situation, I can see no harm in trying. Understand this may be frustrating for doctors, but until research refutes I understand families wanting one last chance]

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:58 pm 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Understanding the roots of medical dysfunction

(NaturalNews) Aside from the obvious fact that modern medicine has devolved into an industry that markets products to medical "consumers," there are a number of more basic problems that must be addressed if the system is ever to be healed. Since those medical products tend to create more sickness than health, it virtually guarantees an endless revolving door of sick consumers in need of more care. The impetus for meaningful medical change must ultimately come from a general public that has become increasingly aware of the dysfunctional nature of health care. The medical system itself cannot be expected to initiate such changes without external pressure from so-called consumers.

Even if we could mitigate the profit motive in medicine, it remains constrained by a number of false assumptions regarding health and healing that must change if it is ever to transcend its limited worldview. But effective change will not be possible unless we first identify some of the shortcomings that prevent Western medicine from attaining a truly holistic perspective. The following broadly constructed categories describe some of the most prominent flaws in Western medical philosophy that, in turn, lead to inappropriate and often dangerous strategies in the actual practice of medicine.

The parts versus the whole:

Of necessity, medical science has historically taken a reductionist approach to investigating issues of human health. It breaks the physical body down into its component parts - including a vast universe of microscopic parts that can't be seen by the naked eye - in an attempt to understand the way things work. Much valuable information has been learned in the process. However, when taken as the only approach, the end result is a fragmented array of body parts, bits and pieces of scientific data, and specialized fields of medicine all of which are increasingly dissociated from one another.

As a consequence, each medical event in the history of a patient is seen as discrete and unrelated to all other events in that patient's history. This accounts for the legions of walking wounded who take, for example, one pill for headaches, another for arthritic pain, a third pill for insomnia, and another for depression. The system is in desperate need of a more holistic perspective that can put all of the pieces back together again.

Fortunately, that is precisely what most green healing practitioners are trained to do. Naturopaths, homeopaths, acupuncturists, and many others are busy connecting the dots where conventional medicine has failed to do so. More often than not, most holistic practitioners are generalists that view human health in its totality. They see the big picture that medical science fails to take into account. 

Rational analysis versus experience:

Modern medicine relies heavily upon the rational faculty of the mind. This is essentially a left-brain trait that places a premium upon a quantitative approach to human health. It places excessive value upon lab results and the statistical abstractions of research studies while it downplays the reality of patient's first-hand experiences. It is the lopsided overly analytical legacy of 2000 plus years of patriarchy. While this may be a useful approach when applied to some of the hard physical sciences such as geology or mechanical engineering, it is woefully inadequate when it is the dominant or exclusive approach to healing.

This predominantly rational worldview is a breeding ground for a mentality that, for example, can so casually excuse "X" number of deaths caused by drug "A" as the necessary "risks that come with the benefits." Such a mindset allows medical professionals to actually believe their own rhetoric when they proclaim that it does not constitute "conclusive evidence" when a parent reports that their normal child decompensated into an autistic state within days after having been vaccinated. It amounts to an eggheaded form of logic that has no grounding in the reality of patients and their actual problems.

It is the same mindset that dismisses a patient's report of his or her own symptoms and experiences as "merely anecdotal." Objectivity is worshipped while subjectivity has become a bad word - as if to say that one's own self-assessment is inferior to what the medical literature and lab numbers tell us. This is why patients frequently come away from a visit to the doctor feeling unseen and unheard. This overvaluation of rational thinking results in what can most accurately be called rationalizations - like the ones described above.

Another erroneous rationalization is that one size should fit all. The very foundation of most medical research, therefore, is grounded in the notion that it is possible to develop a synthetic drug that can be applied across the board to many people with the same condition. This tendency to generalize runs contrary to a holistic understanding of the need to individualize treatment for each and every person. All cases of arthritis, so the logic goes, are considered the same and should respond to the same drug. This fails, however, to take into account the experiential reality that each and every case of illness is unique and while some will respond to one particular therapy, others will respond best to a different approach, and still others will benefit from another.

Real and lasting healing must also make use of the right brain. Many green healing methods value a more direct, empirical, experiential orientation to the patient. It is a qualitative approach that also involves intangibles like intuition, feeling, meaning and subjective assessment. These tools form the missing complement to the analytical mode of scientific medicine. This is not just a call for doctors to be more compassionate. It is a practical matter that often has a very real impact upon patient outcomes.

Mechanism versus bioenergetics:

Western medicine's mechanistic bias is another of its notable shortcomings. The human body tends to be seen as an automobile that periodically needs its parts repaired, removed or replaced. This mechanical bias predisposes medical scientists to believe that technological solutions are superior to the innate and natural healing power of Mother Nature. Mechanistic thinking is closely allied with the cause-and-effect mode of perception that tends to dominate conventional medical thought.

When a person taking a pharmaceutical prescription for migraines subsequently develops an arthritic knee, the two phenomena are considered to be unrelated because there is no anatomical or logical connection between the two - according to the conventional medical worldview. Events, therefore, must have a clear and logically explainable connection in order to be taken seriously. "Coincidences" are easily dismissed as such because they cannot be assigned any logical reason for their existence. A greener perspective, on the other hand, takes it as a given that the migraines and knee pain are almost always related.

A mechanistic view holds that our thoughts and emotions are by-products of the physical brain with its neurons, synapses, and neurotransmitters. A more enlightened bioenergetic model views the human body, brain and nervous system as the most complex receiver, transducer, and transmitter of energies in the known universe. Many green healing practices are grounded in the notion of the universe as a vast interconnected sea of particle-waves and energy fields. Just because the physical senses can only detect a narrow spectrum of visible light and a small band of sound waves does not mean that the comparatively vast remainder of energies along the electromagnetic spectrum do not have an impact upon human health and behavior. A variety of known and unknown energetic influences are continuously affecting the health of individuals, groups, societies and the ecosystem. Such a vast unexplored field of "invisible" energetic interconnections constitutes a potential goldmine that stands ready for serious scientific inquiry.

Materialism versus non-physical reality:

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of Western medicine is its inability to come to terms with issues of non-physical reality. It tries to force the multidimensional nature of human health experiences into a strictly materialistic framework. Those who subscribe to this worldview "believe" that the physical is the only reality of relevance, or that even exists. The related illusion that science is an amoral endeavor is a serious error in judgment that has far-reaching practical implications for health care. Medicine is so uncomfortable with the non-physical dimension that it artificially excludes it from the medical equation with the justification that it is unscientific and unworthy of investigation - yet another unfounded rationalization.

Most green therapeutic modalities accept the energetic, psychic, and spiritual dimensions of human existence as fundamental realities. They do not dismiss them because they cannot be measured by scientific instruments or verified by rationalist standards of proof. One cannot dissociate one's personal spiritual principles from one's quest for health and healing and, at the same time, expect beneficial and lasting results. The spiritual dimension is an experientially confirmed reality "known" by millions, and "believed" to be the case by many millions more. This constitutes a form of knowing very different from, but equally valuable to, a rationally constructed logic of knowing. My personal spiritual experience is something that I may "know," or it may be something that I "believe," but it can never be proven to the scientific skeptic. This does not render it unimportant to issues of health and healing. In fact, it is a vital component without which genuine healing often falls short.

Suppression versus healing:

When we indiscriminately combat symptoms we run the risk of suppression. The body in its wisdom often causes a symptom to recur in spite of our attempts to eradicate it. Each dose of migraine medication, for instance, dulls the pain temporarily until the next one occurs. However, when the migraines fail to recur, that is when we may be in for trouble. There is no free medical lunch. When a symptom or condition is successfully squelched, the bioenergetic source of the original disturbance simply seeks the next best avenue for expression. Thus, the migraines may "mutate," for example, into fatigue, arthritis or colitis. Furthermore, the consequences of such inappropriate treatment are not limited to physical maladies. The same migraines can just as easily mutate into insomnia, depression, or an anxiety disorder. This is not mere speculation; it is a phenomenon repeatedly observed by thousands of green healing practitioners. The possibilities are endless and depend upon each individual case.

And when symptoms do mutate, regular medicine usually fails to connect the dots. Medicine pursues its ill-advised strategy of symptom suppression largely without realizing what it is doing. The sequelae of suppression are just considered random occurrences that have no connection to the previous history of the patient. When we consider that almost all conventional medical treatments are essentially suppressive, the implications are staggering. Thus, an endless cycle of chronic disease is generated. It is no coincidence, and no wonder then, that we are seeing such dramatic rises in the incidence of many chronic diseases, autoimmune disorders, and psychiatric illness.

Treatment focused on symptoms has no larger purpose or conscious goal that leads toward greater health. This strategy is emblematic of a war against disease mentality that views symptoms as the enemy rather than as the manifestations of the body's innate healing mechanism. Green healing is not congruent with such a misreading of the nature and intent of symptoms. True healing recognizes the self-healing capacity of the bioenergetic life force and seeks to work with it rather than against it. Green medicine takes into account the whole person and the connections between symptoms even when they occur in seemingly unrelated parts of the body and even when they are separated by time. Real healing leads to greater health, vitality, maturity and self-awareness.


Each of the aforementioned opposing viewpoints does not have to be at odds with each other. An appreciation for the whole is complementary to an understanding of the parts. Empirical observation and rational analysis are most effective when they work together hand in hand. A thorough knowledge of mechanics is necessary to set a bone, plug a leaky vessel, and remove a diseased appendix, just as an understanding of human bioenergetics can lead to the resolution of chronic disease. It should go without saying that body, heart, mind, and soul are inextricable aspects of the one whole. And even suppression may come in handy in a pinch when faced with life-threatening illness. Once things are stabilized, more enduring methods of genuine healing can then be employed. Real green healing utilizes the best of all medical worlds. ... ction.html

[comment - I like the Tibetan outlook on health. If you have an acute condition go to the modern hospital, otherwise for chronic illness rely on traditional medicine. Unless I become acute again, I am my own doctor preventing further illness by creating the maximum amount of energy, health and prevention possible - 'physician heal thyself']

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:44 pm 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
High Dose of Oxygen Enhances Natural Cancer Treatment, Researchers Find

ScienceDaily (Apr. 4, 2011) — An environment of pure oxygen at three-and-a-half times normal air pressure adds significantly to the effectiveness of a natural compound already shown to kill cancerous cells, researchers at the University of Washington and Washington State University recently reported in the journal Anticancer Research.

The compound artemisinin -- isolated from Artemisia annua L, commonly known as wormwood -- is a natural remedy widely used to treat malaria. In the mid-1990s UW researchers were the first to explore its ability to treat cancer.

In the new study, using artemisinin or high-pressure oxygen alone on a culture of human leukemia cells reduced the cancer cells' growth by 15 percent. Using them in combination reduced the cells' growth by 38 percent, a 50 percent increase in artemisinin's effectiveness.

"If you combine high-pressure oxygen with artemisinin you can get a much better curing effect," said author Henry Lai, a UW research professor of bioengineering. "We only measured up to 48 hours. Over longer time periods we expect the synergistic effects to be even more dramatic."

The history of artemisinin brings to mind an Indiana Jones story. In the early 1970s, Lai says, Chinese leader Mao Zedong issued an order to develop an anti-malarial treatment. At the same time, a farmer in central China discovered a 2,000-year-old tomb that contained three coffins. One coffin contained a silk scroll describing various prescriptions, including artemisinin to treat malaria. The Chinese followed the directions and thus rediscovered an ancient remedy.

Today, artemisinin is widely used in Asia and Africa for malaria treatment.

In the decades since, scientists have discovered artemisinin reacts with iron within a cell to form a free radical, a highly reactive charged particle that destroys the cell. Because the malaria parasite is high in iron, artemisinin targets malaria-infected cells.

Since rapidly dividing cancer cells also need iron to form new DNA, Lai theorized they would also make targets for artemisinin. Subsequent research showed this to be the case.

Lai and colleagues at the UW developed a variant several thousand times more potent than natural artemisinin, which was licensed in 2004 to a Chinese company.

"Artemisinin is a promising low-cost cancer treatment because it's specific, it's cheap and you don't have to inject it," Lai said. "It's 100 times more specific than traditional chemotherapy," he added. "In breast cancer, it's even better."

Lai says he's long hypothesized that high oxygen levels would enhance artemisinin's effects, because oxygen promotes the formation of free radicals. In 2010, he put the theory to the test in a hyperbaric chamber that co-author Raymond Quock, WSU professor and chair of pharmaceutical sciences, has been using to study highly pressurized oxygen's ability to relieve pain.

Hyperbaric chambers, filled with oxygen at high pressure, help scuba divers who surface too quickly gradually readjust to normal oxygen levels. A photo of pop singer Jackson in the mid-80s sleeping in a portable hyperbaric chamber sparked rumors that he was trying to heal scars from plastic surgery, retain his youthful appearance or extend his lifespan. The photo turned out to be a publicity stunt, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved hyperbaric oxygen therapy for several ailments, including decompression sickness, carbon-monoxide poisoning, Lyme disease and slow-to-heal wounds.

In clinical practice, the artemisinin-hyperbaric study could lead to people or animals spending time in a hyperbaric chamber to enhance the artemisinin's effectiveness. ... 142813.htm

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 3:33 pm 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Baking Soda remedy shrinks tumors

(NaturalNews) Baking soda has been used throughout history for a variety of purposes such as removing odors from the fridge, freshening up carpets and whitening teeth. But what few people know is that is it also a successful alternative cure for cancer. The treatment primarily benefits cancers of the throat, colon, intestines and rectal area, and when compared with the exorbitant costs of chemo and radiation, the baking soda cure weighs in at around $3. In addition, it is humane and non-invasive, something one cannot say for traditional cancer treatments. With baking soda, the worst that can happen is nothing, no change. This is a far cry from the decimation caused by cancer drugs and surgeries, which damage the immune system and leave the body in a severe state of shock.

"I was healthy and happy that I didn`t have to go through the torture that other people were being subjected to by doing the chemo or radiation. I never lost my hair or anything," remarks 60-year-old cancer survivor Sondra Braun.

Cancer cells thrive in a low-oxygen environment. The body cannot retain oxygen cells if the blood pH is highly acidic, and this is the standard condition of those with tumors who eat a diet of refined sugars, flours, caffeine and other acidic foods. Baking soda, or Sodium Bicarbonate, is a substance that neutralizes acids. One teaspoon a week will reverse an acidic blood pH, as will switching to a diet high in alkaline-producing foods.

Because cancer cells are so hungry for sugars, when the baking soda is mixed with maple syrup, the mixture will go straight to the site of the tumor, like a Trojan Horse, where the bicarbonate will quickly work as a weapon against disease. A good recipe for this is to mix 3 parts organic maple syrup with 1 part baking soda, stir over very low heat for 5-10 minutes and take 3 tsp per day for 1 to 2 months.

"I found the article about Dr. Simoncini in Italy who injected baking soda directly into the tumors to kill them." Braun continues. "For some reason this idea struck a chord with me. Three weeks after taking a baking soda and maple syrup mixture, my tumor began to shrink and become softer. This was documented by my oncologist and the surgeon by physical exams and also measurements by ultrasound. The tumor shrank down to 1.7 centimeters then only to 1.4 centimeters 2 months later after the ultrasound. It stopped shrinking because it had died. "

Italian physician and researcher Dr. Tullio Simoncini determined that high levels of Candida were present in those individuals with cancerous tumors. His conclusions led him to declare cancer a type of fungus. The body does not quickly develop immunity to baking soda as an anti-fungal, so he was able to apply it directly to tumors and neutralize their acidity. He also found it is important to replenish the body with good bacteria, or probiotics, and to avoid exposure to chemicals and environmental toxins as much as possible.

North Carolina farmer Ian Roadhouse also experienced the healing power of this baking soda mixture when healer Jim Kelmun put him on the protocol.

"Those other doctors told me that I was a goner and had less then six months to live," says Roadhouse. "But the doc put me on his mixture and in a couple of months the cancer was gone. It did not even show up on the x-rays."

For maximum results, combine the baking soda treatment with other alternative cancer-healing protocols as recommended by your holistic health practitioner. ... umors.html

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:26 pm 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
Alternative and Complementary Treatments for Cancer

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) maintains and regularly updates library that provides information on the effectiveness of "alternative and complementary treatments," or ACT's. Versions for professionals and the general public are available on line. For those who have been diagnosed with cancer, as well as those who are in treatment that includes chemotherapy, this information is definitely worth a look. Depending on where you live these complementary treatments may be readily available; alternatively, you may need to be assertive in order to find and access them.

What has become known as the new grief refers to an increasingly lengthy process that has been made possible by medical advances in diagnosis and treatment. These advances have literally transformed the nature of death and dying over the past 40 years, and we must assume that they will continue to do so. The stages that patients and their families can expect to go through, beginning when a diagnosis is rendered, are described in "Saying Goodbye: How Families Can Find Renewal through Loss." Beginning with the first stage of the new grief--Crisis--we advocate that families try as best they can to rally resources. As soon as the initial shock is absorbed (at least enough so that family members are not paralyzed) it is extremely helpful if someone in the family can step up and help to create a team.

Some family members, for example, can be asked to help out by attending doctors' appointments (with the consent of the patient) and taking notes. This is critical because we've found that patients forget much of what was said in such meetings soon afterward. Other family members may pitch in with chores and other responsibilities that the patient may have to relinquish, at least temporarily. And some may take on the responsibility for researching the particular disease that the patient has been diagnosed with, along with treatment options. This is where checking out ACT's comes in.

While oncologists, surgeons, and radiologists are expert in their respective areas, health care in the United States today remains fragmented. You should not, for example, expect the various medical specialists who treat you to communicate well with one another. That's another area where family can help: by pressing for more communication with respect to treatment planning. Similarly, do not expect doctors who are expert in a particular area (chemotherapy, surgery), to be able to educate you or make recommendations when it comes to ACT's.

Acupuncture is one ACT (others will be explored in future posts) that has been the subject of research. Not all of this research passes muster to qualify as definitive, but some of it does. Virtually all of it thus far has focused on patients diagnosed with some form of cancer. Typically, acupuncture treatments are given concurrently with other treatments such as chemotherapy. Standard acupuncture treatment involves one or more sessions per week, in which sterile needles are inserted in one or more points along what are thought to be meridians of energy that course through the body. The idea is to free up these meridians when they become blocked, thus relieving various symptoms.

According to the NCI there is no substantial evidence that acupuncture cures cancer itself. However, let's take a look at the results of studies that looked at acupuncture with respect to various symptoms.


The most common acupuncture treatment for pain involves embedding short acupuncture needles at various places on the ear. One study compared 20 cancer patients who received such acupuncture in addition to pain medication to a group that received only the medication. All 20 in the former group reported significantly less pain. A second study of 183 patients reported that 52% were significantly helped. They required multiple treatments at intervals ranging from 1 to 4 weeks to achieve this effect.

While promising, studies of the effectiveness of acupuncture for pain are limited in what can be said definitively because they do not include a comparison group, in other words, a group that received some other treatment, either real or placebo. That said, looking into acupuncture for relief of chronic pain may be worthwhile.

Nausea and Vomiting

It is with respect to these common side effects of chemotherapy that we have the best evidence of the effectiveness of acupuncture. Here the NCI has reported on the results of several "randomized clinical trials," which are generally considered to be the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of treatments. A number of studies have found that acupuncture treatment than runs concurrently with chemotherapy significantly reduces nausea and vomiting. For example, researchers studied the effects of acupuncture treatments that were delivered weekly for three months on women who were taking tamoxifen as part of their treatment for breast cancer and found that this group, as compared to a group who did not receive the acupuncture, reported not only less nausea but less anxiety and depression. In short, there is evidence that acupuncture enhances the control of these symptoms.


In one study cancer patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: standard acupuncture using needles; acupressure; and "sham acupressure" meaning applying pressure to random places on the body. The results showed the regular acupuncture to be superior to the other treatments with respect to increasing the patients' overall energy levels.

The term "terminal illness" does not mean what it once did. A generation or two ago a "terminal" diagnosis usually meant that death was imminent. Today, "terminal" is relative. Those who are diagnosed as having Stage 4 (metastatic) cancer know that the threat to them is very real. Yet they too can work with their doctors to contain or slow the progress of cancer, as Elizabeth Edwards did for several years. If more research dollars were to be devoted to studying means of containing (if not curing) these patients their life expectancy could increase dramatically.

For those who are diagnosed early with forms of cancer for which we have effective treatments (prostate cancer, early stage breast cancer) "terminal" is increasingly an almost abstract concept. This is good. Regardless of the degree of threat, we recommend that families approach a cancer diagnosis as a team. In fact, we have found that in many cases such a diagnosis, as threatening as it may be, can also set the stage for families to resolve longstanding grievances and come together as a more cohesive, resilient unit. In that way they can look collectively at treatment options and evaluate them, including alternative and complementary treatments such as acupuncture.

In response to my inquiry, David Rosenthal, M.D., former President of the American Cancer Society and Medical Director of Harvard University, wrote that many cancer patients receive concurrent acupuncture at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute as well as at Massachusetts General Hospital. In addition, patients who reside (for free) at the Hope Lodge in Boston while they undergo cancer treatment are offered massage therapy and Reiki, two additional complementary therapies that we will look at later on. ... 47068.html

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:13 am 
Registered User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 4:03 pm
Posts: 18130
Location: Australia
The Cancer Treatment So Successful - Traditional Doctors SHUT it Down

Dr. Nick Gonzalez is a physician focused on alternative cancer treatment using a three-pronged nutritional approach. Located in New York City, he’s had remarkable success treating patients with some of the most lethal forms of cancer that conventional medicine cannot effectively address.

Alternative cancer treatments are a kind of "forbidden area" in medicine, but Dr. Gonzalez chose to go that route anyway, and has some remarkable success stories to show for his pioneering work.

He didn't set out to treat cancer at first however, let alone treat patients. His original plan was to be a basic science researcher at Sloan-Kettering; a teaching hospital for Cornell Medical College. He had a chance meeting with William Kelley, a controversial dentist who was one of the founders of nutritional typing. Dr. Kelley had been practicing alternative- and nutritional approaches for over two decades at the time, led him to begin a student project investigation of Kelley's work, in the summer of 1981.

"I started going through his records and even though I was just a second year medical student, I could see right away there were cases that were extraordinary," he says. "Patients with appropriately diagnosed pancreatic cancer, metastatic breast cancer in the bone, metastatic colorectal cancer… who were alive 5, 10, 15 years later under Kelley's care with a nutritional approach."

This preliminary review led to a formal research study, which Dr. Gonzalez completed while doing his fellowship in cancer, immunology and bone marrow transplantation.

The "Impossible" Recoveries of Dr. Kelley's Cancer Patients

After going through thousands of Kelley's records, Dr. Gonzalez put together a monograph, divided into three sections:

Kelley’s theory

50 cases of appropriately-diagnosed lethal cancer patients still alive five to 15 years after diagnosis, whose long-term survival was attributed to Kelley’s program
Patients Kelley had treated with pancreatic cancer between the years 1974 and 1982

According to Dr. Good, the president of Sloan-Kettering who had become Gonzalez' mentor, if Kelley could produce even one patient with appropriately diagnosed pancreatic cancer who was alive 5-10 years later, it would be remarkable. They ultimately tracked down 22 of Kelley's cases. Ten of them met him once and didn't do the program after being dissuaded by family members or doctors who thought Kelley was a quack.

The average survival for that group was about 60 days.

A second group of seven patients who did the therapy partially and incompletely (again, dissuaded by well-intentioned but misguided family members or doctors), had an average survival of 300 days.

The third group consisting of five patients, who were appropriately diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer and who completed the full program, had an average survival of eight and a half years! In Dr. Gonzalez' words, this was "just unheard of in medicine."

One of those patients included a woman diagnosed by the Mayo Clinic with stage four pancreatic cancer who had been given six months to live. She'd learned about Kelley's program through a local health food store. She completed his treatment and is still alive today, 29 years later.

The Truth about Medical Journals: Why Gonzalez's Book Was Never Published

However, despite—or rather because of—the remarkable success of the treatment, Gonzalez couldn't get his findings published.

"We tried to publish case reports in the medical journals; the whole book, parts of the book, individual case reports—with no success," he says.

This is an important point that many fail to realize.

Those of us who practice natural medicine are frequently criticized for not publishing our findings. My justification for that is that it's not going to be published anyway, and Dr. Gonzalez' anecdotal story confirms this view.

His mentor and supporter, Dr. Good, was one of the most published authors in the scientific literature at that point, with over 2,000 scientific articles to his name. He'd been nominated for the Nobel Prize three times, and yet he was refused because the findings were "too controversial," and flew in the face of conventional medical doctrine.

If the cream of the crop is refused, how does a general primary care physician get an article published?

He doesn't…

"Robert Good was at the top of his profession: President of Sloan-Kettering, father of modern immunology, and did the first bone marrow transplant in history. Yet, he couldn't get it published," Gonzalez says. "He couldn't even get a single case report published.

In fact, I have a letter from one of the editors, dated 1987, who wrote a blistering letter to Good saying "You've been boondoggled by a crazy quack guy. Don't you see this is all a fraud?"

It was just the most extraordinary, irrational letter... [Because] the patients' names were there, the copies of their pertinent medical records were there… Any of them could have called these patients, like Arlene Van Straten who, 29 years later, will talk to anyone… But no one cared. They wouldn't do it; they didn't believe it.

They couldn't believe it.

It was very disturbing to me because I say, "It is what it is." I come out of a very conventional research orientation, and it was astonishing to me—I had assistance; I had the president of Sloane-Kettering who couldn't get this thing published because it disagreed with the philosophy that was being promoted in medicine; that only chemotherapy, radiation, or immunotherapy can successfully treat cancer, even though the success rate was abysmal.

The idea that medical journals are these objective and unbiased repositories of the truths about science is total nonsense. Most of them are owned by the drug companies. They won't publish anything that disagrees with their philosophy."

By the end of 1987, it was clear that the work would never get published, and since Dr. Good had retired from Sloan-Kettering, they no longer had the power-base to conduct clinical trials.

Dr. Kelley, realizing his work would never be accepted, let alone get published, "went off the deep end," in Dr. Gonzalez' words, and stopped seeing patients altogether.

"When I last spoke to him in the summer of 1987, he accused me of being part of a CIA plot to steal his work, and I knew that I had to move on," Dr. Gonzalez says.

"To this day, of course, I give him credit for his brilliant innovation. It's kind of like Semmelweis, who ended up going crazy during the 19th century after showing doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies and no one accepted that. Semmelweis just went off the deep end, and that's what kind of what happened to Kelley, I say with great sadness."

Starting the Alternative Cancer Treatment Practice

Dr. Gonzalez set up a practice in New York together with his associate, Dr. Linda Isaacs, and started seeing patients using Kelley's three-pronged approach. The results were impressive.

One of his remarkable success stories includes a woman diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer, which is the most aggressive form. She'd been given a death sentence.

Today, over 23 years later, she's still alive and well, and cancer free.

"Here's a woman that was given six months to a year to live AND developed metastases while getting aggressive multi-agent chemotherapy, yet 23 and a half years later, she's alive and well, enjoying her life and just doing so well.

We could see that Kelley's approach really worked and when I report these cases I'm giving Kelley the credit because he developed this treatment," Dr. Gonzalez says.

Recognition from the National Cancer Institute

In 1993, as part of a legitimate effort to reach out to alternative practitioners, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) invited Dr. Gonzalez to present 25 of his cases in a closed-door, invitation-only session. On the basis of that presentation, the NCI suggested he conduct a pilot study with patients diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer, which in conventional medicine is known to be an untreatable, highly lethal form of cancer.

Interestingly, Nestle stepped in to finance this pilot study. It may seem an odd choice, but the business motivation was the same then as it is today—making junk food appear healthier is a good business move, even if it's only in theory.

Supervised directly by Dr. Ernst Wynder, a premier cancer researcher, the study was completed in early 1999 and published in June that year. According to Dr. Gonzalez:

"It showed the best results for the treatment of pancreatic cancer in the history of medicine."

Chemo Therapy vs. the Kelley Treatment

To put his results in perspective, the chemo drug, Gemzar, approved for pancreatic cancer dates back to 1997, and the major study that led to its approval had 126 patients. Of those, 18 percent lived one year. Not a single patient out of the 126 lived beyond 19 months.

Dr. Gonzalez' study had 11 participants, of which:

Five survived for two years
Four survived three years
Two survived five years

Based on these results, the NCI decided to fund a large scale clinical trial, to the tune of $1.4 million, to test his nutritional approach against the best chemo available at the time.

"My friends say "Why did you get involved with something like this? How could you trust the NCI?"

Well, the NCI had been very fair, up to that point, and the then-director, Richard Klausner, in face-to-face meetings with him said he thought I was doing something really interesting and needed to be properly supported," Dr. Gonzalez says.

But that goodwill soon disappeared.

How to Sabotage a Clinical Study 101

About a year after the study was approved, Klausner left the NCI and was replaced by new management with a wholly different attitude.

"[F]rom our first meeting, we knew something has changed significantly," Dr. Gonzalez says, "and all the people that had initially been assigned to the study, who were supportive and believed we were doing something useful, were taken off it. In fact one of them couldn't even talk to me. She said she'd be fired if she talked to me; if she took my phone call.

I was told by another person who had supported me at the NIH that I shouldn't call him at his office; that he was afraid his line was tapped, and I should only call him at home.

That's how insane the politics over this clinical study got. I couldn't believe it! I thought this was just something you'd read about or see on TV, or that some paranoid or crazy person would make up. But here I was living it. Coming out of Robert Good's group, I don't say that to impress people, but my background is so pure and conventional! It was unbelievable to see that the profession I respected and wanted to join could behave like this."

Unfortunately, the study was, in the end, sabotaged.

"Turned out the principal investigator at Columbia, who's supposed to be completely neutral, had helped develop a chemo regimen that was being used against us—a conflict of interest that was never declared," Dr. Gonzalez explains.

"[T]here are specific requirements for entry into a clinical study. Ours is a nutritional program, and when the first protocol version was written, we had a list of specified criteria… They have to be able to eat…Ours is a nutritional program, so patients have to be able to eat. If they can't eat, they can't do the therapy. They have to be able to take care of themselves…

This is a program the patients have to follow at home.

… Initially, the patients could do it and responded to the treatment. Then, there was a sudden change, around 2000-2001, when the Columbia group took total control of the entry of patients in the study. We were excluded from that process, except during the initial months. The thinking was that if we were involved in the admission process, we'd enter the dreaded bias, whereas if conventional doctors were in control, they couldn't possibly be biased.

Of course, the chief investigator helped develop the chemo regimen used in the study. That's virtually the definition of a 'potential bias'!

He started sending us patients that couldn't eat. We had patients that were so sick we would never have accepted them into our private practice. That were so sick, they died before they got the treatment.

Whether it was a trick to the protocol or not, the Columbia team, the NCI, and the NHI insisted that we had an "intent to treat provision into protocol". This means that the minute a patient is accepted into the trial, they're considered treated, even if they never do the therapy. So the chief of the study at Columbia would enter patients that were so sick, several died before they could pursue their treatment. But because of this intent to treat provision into protocol, they were considered treatment failures.

Ultimately, 39 patients were entered for treatment. Maybe at best, being kind and optimistic, maybe five or six actually did it, the great majority were so sick they couldn't do it."

As a result, the chemo treatment appeared to be a clear winner in this head-to-head evaluation of treatments against incurable pancreatic cancer.

In 2006, Dr. Gonzalez and his partner filed a complaint with the Office of the Human Research Protection (OHRP), which is a group responsible for making sure federal-funded clinical trials are run properly. After a two-year investigation, the OHRP determined that 42 out of 62 patients had been admitted inappropriately. Unfortunately, this never made it to the media, and the Columbia team was able to publish the research findings without mentioning the results of the OHRP review.

"So the study was a total boondoggle; a waste of $1.4 million," Dr. Gonzalez says. "Even though I won the grant, all the money went to Columbia. It's all gone. The data, as far as I'm concerned, is worthless, and the NIH and NCI are using it to show that my therapy doesn't work.

So that's how this long journey of 30 years, from when I first met Kelley, has gone.

"I tell people now regarding the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), I wouldn't send a dog to that group.

They're not there to help you objectively investigate alternative therapies; they're there to undermine them. It gives the illusion that the government's interested in alternative therapies, when in fact that office is being used, as it was in my case, to help undermine promising useful alternative therapies."

Gonzalez's Three-Pronged Approach to Cancer Treatment

Although most of the studies done on this approach were done on pancreatic cancer, Dr. Gonzalez uses it to treat ALL cancers, from brain cancer to leukemia. His treatment, which is based on Kelley's work, consists of three protocols: diet, supplements and enzymes, and detoxification.

The Dietary Protocol:

The cornerstone of the treatment is a personalized diet based on your nutritional- or metabolic type.

Dr. Kelley originally had 10 basic diets and 90 variations that ranged from pure vegetarian and raw food, to heavy-protein meals that included red meat three times a day.

"In terms of diet, Kelley… found that patients diagnosed with the typical solid tumors: tumors of the breast, lungs, stomach, pancreas, liver, colon, uterus, ovaries, and prostate needed a more vegetarian diet," Dr. Gonzalez explains. "But he had all gradations of a vegetarian diet; one that was 80 percent raw, one that was 80 percent cooked. So even on the vegetarian side, there were all different variations.

Some had minimal animal protein, some had fish, some had also red meat.

A patient with immune cancer (leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and sarcomas,( which are connective tissue cancers that are related to immune cancers) tended to do best on a high-fat, high meat diet.

… Then there are balanced people that do well with a variety of foods, both plant foods and animal products, but they don't tend to get cancer.

Cancer tends to occur on the extremes, in the extreme vegetarians—those that tend to be too acid—or in the extreme meat eaters, who tend to be too alkaline. Balanced people don't tend to get cancer too much. So we continued the individualized approach, as did Kelley."

Individualized Supplementation and Enzyme Protocol:

The second component is an individualized supplement protocol, designed for your particular metabolism.

"For example, our vegetarian patients need completely different supplements from our meat eaters. The vegetarians do very well with most of the B vitamins, while the meat eaters don't. The vegetarians don't do well with vitamin A, but the meat eaters do. The vegetarians do well with vitamin D; the meat eaters not so well with large doses, and so on," Dr. Gonzalez explains.

"The meat eaters do well with calcium ascorbate as a vitamin C source, while the vegetarians do well with large doses of ascorbic acid. So the supplement protocols are very individualized and very precisely engineered."

Omega-3 fats are also prescribed, but even here Dr. Gonzalez prescribes different types of omega-3's depending on the patient's nutritional type. In his experience, vegetarians, or carbohydrate types, tend to fare better on flaxseed oil, which contains alpha linoleic acid (ALA) – a plant-based omega 3.

"It is thought that the conversion of the plant-based ALA into the fish-oil based eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is not that efficient," he says, "But we find that our vegetarian patients actually do it very well and don't use the fish oil or animal-based omega-3 fatty acids as effectively."

Chia and hemp seed oils can also be used.

Protein types, on the other hand, appear to need the EPA and the DHA and do better on animal-based omega-3 such as krill oil.

"They don't do well with flaxseed," he says. "Those are the people who can't make the conversion."

In addition to vitamins, minerals and trace elements, he also prescribes large doses of pancreatic enzymes.

"The essence of Kelley's work was based on the work of Dr. Beard, which goes back to the turn of the last century, about 110 years ago. Beard was a professor at the University of Edinburg, an embryologist actually, not a medical researcher, who first proposed that pancreatic proteolytic enzymes are the main defense against cancer in the body and are useful as a cancer treatment," he explains.

When treating cancer, however, he found it's important to take the right ratio of active and inactive enzymes. The inactive precursors are particularly active against cancer. They also have far longer shelf life, and are more stable.

"That would be my advice – get an enzyme that isn't completely activated," Dr. Gonzalez says. "More active isn't better when it comes to pancreatic enzymes, just like more and more D isn't better than getting the right dosage. You want the right proportions of activated and inactive—most of it as an inactive precursor."

His proprietary enzyme formula is manufactured by NutriCology. According to Dr. Gonzalez, pancreatic enzymes are not only useful as treatment for active cancer but are also one of the best preventive measures.

Antioxidants, such as astaxanthin, are also very helpful, both in the prevention and treatment of cancer.

The Detoxification Protocol:

The third component is a detoxification routine. Coffee enemas are used to help your liver and kidneys to mobilize and eliminate dead cancer cells that have been broken down by the pancreatic enzymes.

Coffee enemas, although often scoffed at today, were actually used as part of conventional medicine all the way up to the 1960s, and were included in the Merck Manual, which was a handbook for conventional medical treatments into the 1970s.

"They fell out of favor not because they didn't work, but because the drug industry took over medicine, so things like coffee enemas were kind of laughed at," Dr. Gonzalez says. "So Kelley learned about coffee enemas from conventional literature and incorporated them into his program and found them extremely helpful."

When you drink coffee, it tends to suppress your liver function, but when taken rectally as an enema, the caffeine stimulates nerves in your lower bowels, which causes your liver to release toxins as a reflex. Other detox strategies include colon cleanses and liver flushes developed by Kelley.

It's important to realize, however, that conventional coffee should NOT be used for enemas. The coffee MUST be organic, naturally caffeinated coffee, and were you to do this at home, you'd also want to use non-bleached filters to avoid introducing toxins into your colon.

"[Organic coffee] is loaded with antioxidants," Dr. Gonzalez says. "In fact, there are recent studies showing that coffee loaded with antioxidants can have an anti-cancer effect and that coffee may actually help suppress cancer.

But you have to use organic coffee, it has to have caffeine, and you have to use a coffee maker that doesn't have aluminum, and preferably no plastic."

Dr. Gonzalez also relies on sodium alginate as a detoxifying agent.

"We have a preparation that we put together and it's very effective... It's an algae and it chelates heavy metals and halides. I never use intravenous chelation; we just use sodium alginate."

He recommends taking three capsules three times a day, away from meals, for six weeks to detoxify your body of heavy metals, such as mercury, and halides.

Final Thoughts

This is one of the most fascinating interviews I've ever done, and it is chock full of information—far more than I can summarize here. So please, I urge you to take the time to listen to the interview in its entirety.

In addition to expounding on the subjects mentioned above, Dr. Gonzalez also reviews the benefits of optimizing vitamin D during cancer treatment, and how iodine supplementation can benefit breast cancer—not to mention help protect against thyroid cancer, in light of the current nuclear crisis in Japan.

We discuss the benefits of juicing and chiropractic adjustments, and the importance of regular exercise for cancer patients. We also review the dangers of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, in terms of how it may aggravate cancer growth and hinder cancer recovery, and the benefits, along with some surprising precautions, of Earthing or grounding.

For more information about Dr. Gonzalez and his practice, see He's also working on a series of books, two of which have already been published and received five-star reviews: The Trophoblast and the Origins of Cancer, and One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley , which is the original monograph of Dr. Kelley's work that he couldn't get published 23 years ago.

This written summary is only a small glimpse of the insights that were shared in our interview. If you or anyone you know struggles with cancer I would strongly encourage you to listen to the entire interview

Thankfully Dr. Gonzalez is still on the front lines and actively engaged in helping people by helping coach them with natural alternatives to toxic drugs and radiation. ... 11103.html

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.084s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]