The Santa Barbara Mission

According to its guidebook, the original Santa Barbara Mission in Southern California, established on the Feast of St Barbara, December 4, 1786 was the 10th of 21 such Californian Missions founded by the Spanish Franciscans, and built by skilled Mexican labour.

pic_ 061

My daughter somewhere in the middle, revelling in the California sunshine outside the Santa Barbara Mission

Be that as it may, my own Santa Barbara mission 226 years later was to deal with a nasty case of squamous cell carcinoma that if left untreated, I was reliably informed, would remove from me all the cares of this world in around 18 months’ time.  The plan of two separate specialists was to subject me to major surgery, chemo and radiation, surviving which would take “about a year”, with a slim chance of this extending my planetary residence by six months.  Mentioned obliquely was the chance of severing in the process vital nerves currently holding up the corners of my mouth and controlling my shoulders, along with a promise of losing every gland from cheekbones to shoulders on both sides – lymph, salivary alike – for good.

Your maths being as good as mine, you’ll understand why instead of ingesting poison and thrusting my head into a radiactive guillotine, I packed a bag and headed off to a dedicated immunological clinic in Southern California.

Doctor Death c6856_ORIG-Camel_Ad

More helpful advice: “Since our founding in 1847, the American Medical Association has been focused on the health of patients.” .. AMA web page. Well, not so much.  In fact researchers who reported immunological approaches as being more successful than chemo were threatened with blackballing from the AMA’s tightly controlled medical press and effectively ending their career.
  Doctors in these ads were never named specifically, but the AMA collaborated closely with the industry and never objected even long after it was known that smoking directly correlated with throat cancer: chemo was simply a much better business than health

Most people will never have heard of Josef Issels (1907 – 1998), the father of modern immunological medicine, but that’s not for any want of effort on his part.  His work was extraordinarily successful because he understood that the first appearance of a cancerous tumour, no matter how small, was already the final act in a chronic breakdown of the patient’s immunological defences – defences which might have quietly eliminated cancer for decades beforehand.

So launching a ferocious assault on the tumour – often killing the patient in the process – while leaving unchanged the deficient milieu which spawned it was doomed to failure and a flagrant violation of the Hippocratic oath (“first do no harm”) – to say nothing of common sense. My own research into multiple drug resistant tumours had already alerted me to the danger of exposing tumours to a chemical assassin, but Josef Issels’ treatments used every possible method to boost the immune system, often in tandem with surgery, and had remarkable results.  John Anderson, Professor of Medicine at King’s College Hospital Medical School, University of London, claimed “Issels’ approach is a unique and pioneering solution.. his long term remission rate is still significantly greater than that of other physicians working in the field.

pic_ 304

Interior of the Santa Barbara Courthouse shows a stunning oil on canvas mural by the artist who did CC de Mille’s film backdrops and visualisations. The curator assured me he was in and out of there in no more than three months – an incredible achievement

Issels was a determined man perfectly prepared to risk his own career to help patients.  He flouted Nazi law in the late 1930′s by treating German and Jewish patients alike, a humanitarian attitude the authorities punished by sending him to the Eastern Front as a medic.  He was captured by the Russians and was lucky to survive four years in one of Stalin’s slave labour camps.  Afterwards Issels returned to start a medical practice in Germany, and in 1951 founded the first European hospital for “incurable” cancer patients.

But if you think this was some tinkering cottage industry, you’d be mistaken: he treated over twelve thousand such individuals at his hospital, many for months at a time, and no less a figure than Professor Franz Gerlach of the University of Vienna, a researcher at the Pasteur Institute, and Fellow of the Academy of Medicine in Paris became director of the microbiological department. It became the only institution of its era to research the role of mycoplasma in cancer and other degenerative diseases, proposing a link that recent and far more technologically powerful research agrees looks highly plausible.  Naturally he made enemies in the established medical businesses, and was even arrested and put on trial, presumably for heresy – a common fate for freethinkers in the scientific world.  But he triumphed over this too, and the German government awarded him a position on its Federal Cancer Commission.

pic_ 224

A small part of the beautiful Ramirez fresco in the Santa Barbara Chapel. I was the only person there apart from the taxi driver, and the permanent residents

In 1970, the BBC produced a 60 minute documentary on his work, inviting members of the American Medical Association to choose, and comment on, successful cases.  While staying at the same hotel the night before they were all introduced, the BBC producer happened to dine at an adjoining table to the learned AMA delegates who, he began to realise, were anxiously debating their strategy.  What he overheard first intrigued and then appalled him: they were discussing in advance about how to convincingly refute all of Dr Issels’ success stories before having even laid eyes on the hospital or a single patient!

Apparently, three basic approaches were arrived at, which could be embellished with jargon and what would seem like an independently arrived at general consensus.  Firstly, absent immediate evidence of any histology, they would simply say the patient had been misdiagnosed, and had never had cancer to begin with.  Secondly, if the patient had undergone any form of chemotherapy or radiation in the past – even had they been written off as incurable afterwards – they would claim the patient recovered only because of these earlier treatments.  And if neither of these circumstances could be convincingly applied, the conclusion would be that the patient simply went into “spontaneous remission” and therefore no credit could be attributed to any intervention on Dr Issels’ part, who no doubt had good intentions, they would readily concede, adding to their apparent impartiality.

Obama arrives to deliver a speech on health care to the American Medical Association in Chicago, Illinois

Mr Monsanto and the AMA: association with Obamacare lost the AMA 5% of its members in the last 12 months, a staggering blow to the credibility of a supposedly impartial group; one which has yet to speak out against GMOs or even fluoride, a super-toxin pumped daily into most American households

The fact that all the cases had already been diagnosed and later written off as hopeless by their own established medical representatives was to be ignored, as was the obvious conclusion that spontaneous remission could only have resulted from the activity of the patient’s immune system, the very same mechanism Dr Issels’ treatments were designed to support.

A recent, carefully designed study involving 100,000 women showed that screening more frequently actually created a 22% higher rate of developing tumours, indicating firstly that the immune system is fully capable of ingesting many tumours, and secondly that frequent screening must be a factor in tumour growth, needlessly subjecting a very significant number of patients to the risk of avoidable trauma and mutilation.

Because the cumulative incidence among controls never reached that of the screened group, it appears that some breast cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening would not persist to be detectable by a single mammogram at the end of 6 years.

This raises the possibility that the natural course of some screen-detected invasive breast cancers is to spontaneously regress.

(The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography,  Zahl PH, Maehlen J, Welch HG. )

The American Cancer Society was unable to dispute these findings, instead casting a vague doubt by criticising the study as “simplifying a complicated issue”.  But this man-in-the-pub rebuttal is what you might expect from a corporate mouthpiece dressed up as a saviour of health:

AstraZeneca, a Big Pharma giant, has made multimillion dollar contributions to the ACS, influencing every poster, leaflet or commercial product about Breast Cancer Awareness.

These publications focus almost exclusively on mammography and don’t mention carcinogenic foods, chemtrails, aluminum in deodorants, antiperspirants and vaccines. There is no word of breast cancer prevention via natural, inexpensive means, while touting the ‘cure’ of mammography and cancer drugs.

(..Natural News)

pic_ 340

You know you’re in a beautiful town when this is a typical office building

This BBC official was staggered to realise that not only was Josef Issels considered a serious threat to established medicine, but those administering their “war on cancer” were not interested in a cure as much as prolonging the life of a highly complex and well-financed industry.  To this end they were willing to sacrifice the credibility of their own doctors, who had “misdiagnosed” thousands of patients or “mistakenly” written them off as hopeless.

In 1966 Nobel Prize winner Otto Warburg made this tactful assessment of why the AMA and the ACS pretended not to know the anaerobic cause of cancer.  James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner who co-discovered the helical nature of DNA served for two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board, was characteristically more frank: “It’s a load of s*it.”  Two time Nobel winner Linus Pauling: “Everyone should know that the ‘war on cancer’ is largely a fraud.”  The problem is that I didn’t know, and without the time and inclination to do my own research, would have been one more victim.

Issels later wrote an excellent book called Cancer: A Second Opinion which is so dense with information I’m reading it a second time, and which I highly recommend to anyone with cancer, or who knows someone with cancer.  Or even those to whom cancer is only a shadow lurking in the corners of the mind, prodded back to life by regular media reports.

pic_ 273

A different Harley Street: Santa Barbara’s State Street has every imaginable shop including this tattoo parlour with its casual display of knucklehead and panhead Harley Davidson choppers

I will deal with what I learned in some future post – the cumulative damage to the human immune system by a poor diet, poor heredity, SNPs, mercury fillings, toxins in the water or highly processed foods, pollution, stress, and of course GMOs.  We are all subject to some of these, but a large number of such factors can also be eliminated – enough to tip the balance in our favour.

Rather than me list the complicated treatments I underwent over a period of weeks, you might prefer to hear that the staff and knowledge at the Issels Medical Centre are the best you’re likely to find anywhere.  This place is where hard-headed realism meets outside-the-box thinking, and where complex DNA and blood work and of course more than 60 years of immunolgical know-how meet the patient in a supportive and healthy environment.

Consider also these images, each pair from two ultrasound scans taken 9 days apart.  The first pair shows the original metastasis, with a large necrotic area in the centre growing noticeably larger.  The uniform gray indicates a consistent blood supply, something which makes tumours dangerously well-seated, while black shows dead, non-living material.  The impartial ultrasound engineer over at Pueblo Radiology immediately declared this an area of necrosis.

dec 2 and dec 11 Rt Neck Tumour 1

The second pair of pictures cover the same nine day period, this time showing the new tumour which enlarged my lymph in the Summer and which caused alarm over at Harley Street.  But notice how – in the space of days – this too has begun to die off inside, as indicated by the dark areas swirling within.

This degeneration accounted for the lump growing steadily softer to the touch during my stay.  Once the tumours are completely dead they no longer pose the same danger, and the boosted immune system should be able to clean them up as it would any other foreign body or waste material; the now-detoxified body should be able to efficiently eliminate these secondary toxins.

dec 2 and dec 11 Rt Neck Tumour 2

I was never so glad to hear any news.  For the first time in months I allowed myself to think beyond the next year and imagine seeing my children grow, making new art, and perhaps seeing the world find solutions to the thorny problems which plague it now.  Once alone on the balcony, taking in the sun with my IV, tears came easily.

pic_ 319

If I ever go back to Santa Barbara, I’m going to climb one of those mountains, and write a blog from the summit

There’s only five minutes to go now.. so may I wish ever-patient readers a very Happy Christmas.. to one and all!

pic_ 126

Venice Beach, Los Angeles, on the way home

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Cachexia-22

I think the cancer industry must realise that the writing is on the wall.  Instead of saying “dying of cancer”people are starting to mutter “dying of chemo”.  And in my final days there, one of the nurses pointed out a link on CNN which dealt with a radical, highly successful, and painless new approach to leukemia patients – boosting their immune system!  Wow! Can you imagine?

Image3

Well, fancy that!

AMA advice

The use of doctors to push Camel, Old Golds, Chesterfield, Kool, and De-Nicotea filters ironically could only reinforce the unspoken message that smoking must indeed be a serious health issue. After all, we didn’t see many doctors pushing hula hoops or electric guitars

About iain carstairs

I have a great interest in both scientific advances and the beauty of religion, and created www.scienceandreligion.com about 15 years ago with the aim of finding common ground between the scientist and the believer, and to encourage debate between the two sides.
This entry was posted in American Cancer Society, American Medical Association, AstaZenica, Biology, Cancer, Cancer Research, Cancer: A Second Opinion, Chemotherapy, CNN, Dr Josef Issels, Man-made molecules and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The Santa Barbara Mission

  1. Kate says:

    What a thoroughly lovely, uplifting and informative post Ian! Happy Christmas too (a little late) to you and your family.

    It seems that some major break-thoughs are on the horizon in the area of more benign cancer treatment and I can’t help hoping this might have some wider, metaphorical and/or spiritual implications.

    You are looking great too. I hope that all continues well for you – as I feel in my bones that it will.

    p.s. I wrote a comment a year or so ago where I mentioned that my husband died of leukemia – or chemo., so wonderful news about the new immune system support treatment.

    • Thank you very much – and I remember you wrote that the oncologist laughed when asked about alternatives. I met many people in the same boat over the course of the four weeks (one of which was spent in Mexico) struggling to get out of that paradigm. One lady seemed too terrified of her family’s disapproval to refuse a second course of chemotherapy, after her first mastectomy and chemo had resulted in a more aggressive tumour a year or so later, as if it were a matter of courtesy and social custom, which perhaps it partly is. Another lady who had an entire organ removed at MSK and barely survived chemo was told later that she must return to it – the oncologist admitting frankly that they were “not permitted to discuss alternatives”.

      To get away with subjecting the patient to massive risk and unbearable torture, the oncologist requires public opinion to be in his favour, and public opinion is generally many steps behind the frontiers of genuine knowledge. If there really were no alternative it would be one thing, but after at least 60 years of evidence the situation is indefensible. Government has a terrible track record. The cure for scurvy had been well proven a good seventy years before the Admiralty either reluctantly gave up their lucrative quack promotions, or died off altogether. Of course, the public remained confused enough to continue staffing the doomed ships.

      So it seems “common knowledge” these days is often not knowledge at all, but just Chinese whispers reinforced by the media. For example, “fluoride is known to prevent cavities” was what one civil engineer for the Bedfordshire Water Board told me. In fact, the acidic residue added to water is not naturally occuring fluoride or fluorine at all, but an industrial waste product so hazardous that hazmat suits are required to clean up spills, and for which China pays America to disppose of. The head of the American Medical Association went as far as to declare it the biggest scam of the century.

      As another example, this illusory “knowledge” covers the chemical trails so obviously draped across NATO skies every day, which experts in “common knowledge” claim is water vapour, without ever bothering to check the weather balloon data at that altitude or try to identify, using ADS-B, the aircraft responsible, or compare these unidentified craft with known CAA or FAA planes that never leave such trails at any altitude or at any time of year.

      In the age of a society saturated with mass media you would think public opinion could be easily shaped by truth and the brightest minds, but this daily tsunami of information is only as good as the entity producing it, and is more often than not filled with toxic debris and rubbish. Our society is also a corporate one – even the government is little more than a front for wealthy corporations who pay the election costs. How else to explain all these wars, and massive surveillance, with no benefit to the ordinary person?

      Behind each festering cavity in our knowledge there seems to be a corporate entity carefully guarding it from discovery or even excavating it further, and laying down carefully planned detours for the curious. An excellent film clip exists, of Bill Maher urging David Letterman to give up his reliance on pharmaceuticals, called “We are being poisoned”. Perhaps truth is beginning to enter the mainstream, at last!

      I am really heartened by your comment – I had expected protests from pro-chemotherapy types, which I already experienced on many discussion forums, which is why I went so far as to show the scans. Good luck and good health to you in 2014, and for a very long time beyond!

  2. Dale Pond says:

    Congratulations Iain. It all brought tears to my eyes, tears of joy for a dear friend and for all the possibilities for those that are encountering the same darkness, not just from the cancer within, but from those that keep us in their loop for whatever reasons. It is high time that we all got educated about the vital role that our immune system plays in keeping us healthy.

    But, even more important is taking a stand like you have done to go beyond what others have said is impossible. We need to, as a global community call for the necessary changes in our society that will promote healthy immune systems. Perhaps, just beginning with our food system is a good place to start. There are movements now that are gaining momentum, even though there are companies that will fight tooth and nail to continue to bastardize our food for profit. Thanks for all you have done to inspire us. You are a vital key to those movements that will encourage change from within all of us. We love you and are so happy that there are signs of transformation within your entire being.

    In other words Iain, glad to see the tumors getting off the couch my friend and being escorted out of your body.

    • Thanks Dale – and all my love to you and Paul and family. I just came back from the GP in the hopes of being referred to the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine. The GP was really supportive – I started to explain what I had done and realised I could hardly point to any one dramatic medical thing that I fully understood and could explain quickly, and I felt I was no longer making much sense and that he might be thinking I was bonkers.

      Then I showed him the ultrasound scans on his PC and he suddenly understood. They actually looked more dramatic on his PC than on my own! So if I can get all my follow-up IVs etc here in the UK, it will be a great reason to go to London once a week, but I must say I’d love any excuse to go back to California instead. So either way I sense an adventure coming up.

      Though truth be told, if you say much more good stuff like that, people will start to say I write these letters myself!

  3. Iain, the comments above say everything I was thinking. It’s great–and a relief–to hear from you and to hear you feeling so much better. I hope the challenges you present to the status quo on cancer have the impact they deserve.

  4. Kate says:

    Believe in yourself Iain. Your expositions come across as truly ‘on beam’ – and I imagine a lot more more people are thinking good stuff than bother to write!

    • That could be true, you know – politicians estimate that every written complaint represents the opinion of 20 more who couldn’t raise the steam to actually send a letter. Which also means we might all have a lot more detractors than we know about!

      One time I remember reading a story, in Freakonomics, I think it was, of a remarkable case of someone being attacked in broad daylight in plain view of a large apartment building. Apparently not a single person dialled 9-11. At first this seems callous, but it turns out when people feel something must surely have been done by someone else, they no longer feel any need to do it themselves. Like if we find a burst water main in the middle of a busy road – we are so certain someone else must have complained that it seems pointless for us to do so.

      But in a case like the Freakonomics one, I think it’s also a case of people being too overburdened mentally to react normally. In society, for example, there is a built-in “immune system”, partly from birth in family, partly accumulated in friends who become sensitised to our needs, and of doctors, police, judges, laws in society at large. We generally come to grief when those organs and individual defenders are too overwhelmed with other problems to help us, because the vast majority of people start out with a desire to help others.

      This exactly mirrors the development of cancer in a body which has remained healthy for decades, under the steady assault of environmental poisons which eventually render their liver or kidneys or digestive system helpless to fend off new threats. The general attitude to solve homelessness is to “get them off the streets”; and I saw this in San Diego and Santa Barbara too. The police only have the power to do deal with individual cases and not to change society, just as a GP apologetically told me yesterday, looking in genuine surprise at the ultrasound scans: “we are only trained to offer certain things”. In New York it has been proposed to shunt all the homeless and beggars off to the city limits and declare the problem solved.

      The thing is that even if they all magically disappeared this morning, by this evening all over the country there would be a new influx of abandoned children, battered spouses, newly created alcoholics, victims of aggressively repossessed homes, and so on. The idea is the same as the doctors’ approach to cancer: if we could only remove this sign of a much deeper problem, we could pretend there is no more problem and go back to thinking about ourselves.

      In an era of thinking superficially, where people either no longer have the energy to make changes from the ground up or the taste for anything which might divert them from their satiation, or, are too stressed with their own worries to reach out, this is the kind of solution people want. A fast-acting pill, a New Law or a new president must surely do the trick – staying indoors and letting someone else sort it out. Or perhaps just wearing a pair of blinkers would suffice!

  5. As always Iain, your determination and intelligence to not only think deeply and creatively about challenges, problems or situations, but to take up gauntlets to make and champion change is both impressive and inspiring. I don’t recall many situations where you have let anything get the better of you and this in itself will be your greatest ally I’m sure.
    The very best for 2014 and beyond.
    Shaun

    • Ah, but then you’re forgetting the time I was slower than you and James in those 400bhp Formula Jaguars up at Palmer autodrome!
      For sure I’m better in karts. And scalextric – Happy new year to you and the family and thanks for your kind words

  6. Cheng says:

    Congratulations Iain! I would be interested to know more what treatment you received in Southern California. What do they do to boost your immune system? How long does it take for your tumor to disappear? I am so interested to know because I have been researching on whether alternative treatments really work (which I think yes, but not sure) for some time. Is there really a conspiracy to suppress treatments that are not profitable for the pharmaceutical industry? I research this just for my own interest.

    • Hi,

      Well, first thing they do is profile your blood and work out if there are any holes in the immune system. I think my lymphocyte or leukocyte counts were low, so they prep a kind of serum which amplifies these, and feed it back into your blood at intervals. They continue to take blood tests throughout your stay. They also do a lot of daily IVs which depend on your particular problem, but mine included Vit C, Alpha Lipoic Acid, Glutathione, and I think Hydrogen Peroxide.

      A lot of effort is spent detoxing the body. One of the problems you probably have when you have cancer is that your body needs to have a way to efficiently get rid of toxins. The digestive system of most people in the West is damaged and can’t get enough nutrients to your blood; all the good food in the world isn’t going to help if your digestion is running badly.

      There are other treatments too, which work on oxygenating the body. For example, cancer patients normally have a low pH – mine was about 5.5 or something. Cancer cells thrive in low pH (acidic) tissues, because hemoglobin doesn’t work properly there, so the tumours are not troubled by oxygen deliveries. Tumours also make their own acidic waste which further damages the tissues. So a bad situation gets worse and worse. The blood of a low pH person remains, like everyone’s, at 7.43 (I think) but to do this it takes alkalinity from the tissues. So they are going to stay acidic as long as the diet is acidic.

      Regarding the “conspiracy”, it works a lot more simply than that. Back in the 1930′s Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize, by discovering the oxygenating mechanism of the human cells, which depends on healthy “fats” – fat molecules which are “unsaturated” or still have electrical potential – to maintain. He showed that if you deprive a human cell of oxygen for long enough, it becomes cancerous – that is, it takes on cancerous properties. It comes up with a mechanism to get energy from sugar instead of oxygen, and it becomes undifferentiated – kind of moving back in evolutionary time. Sugar feeds cancer; this is how the PET scan works – they tie a radioactive isotope to glucose and inject it. The tumour immediatly grabs all the glucose it can get, causing it to glow on the detector because of the attached isotope.

      These cells reproduce at varying rates, and by the time you can feel a lump, you have a billion or so of these cells! So what causes these cells to lose their oxygen supply? Aside from carcinogens like “fluoride” (actually the toxic sludge, hydroflusicilic acid) and radiation, parabens, etc etc – the saturated fats we get in margarine and other processed foods are useless for the cells’ breathing apparatus, because they’re already fixed and no longer carry any electrical potential. One teaspoon of margarine provides 50,000 worthless fat molecules to every cell in your body. Joanna Budwig discovered if you feed a cancer patient a 1:2 mix of flax oil and cottage cheese, the protein and unsaturated fats combine to gradually start to re-electrify the cells.

      A doctor told me yesterday that the P53 gene, on chromosone 17, is a useful indicator. When damaged it acts as a cancer promoter, but when healthy it acts as a tumour preventer. So a DNA test which uncovers its state is very useful, but it’s expensive at about £400. All these researchers are having to find ways to work out how to deal with cancer, and it’s immensely complicated, like the immune system itself. We get 4 or 5 cancer cells appearing every day, and the immune ruthlessly wipes them out. So why does the immune sometimes let something grow? This is a fascinating question to me.

      But here’s the thing: the chemo industry is focused on the tumour. The doctors are trained to focus on the tumour. The drugs, the developers of the drugs, the researchers and salespeople are all focused on the tumour. The whole PR campaign is all about – thre tumour! It’s a massive industry, and hugely profitable. One month of Nexava (30 tablets) is $10,000. One month of Tarceva is $3,000. They can’t patent natural molecules, so if it is shown that the human body naturally prevents cancer, and can actually reduce cancerous tumours given a good diet and a strong immune system, virtually all this organisation is out of business overnight.

      So of course, when you reach the hospital and are told you have cancer, you’re desperate; you’re already in a state of panic but now faced with doctors who only know chemo, and radiation and surgery. They honestly believe you’re either doomed or highly likely to die, and that they may be able to extend your life somewhat with chemo; in their eyes, given that their entire 7 years of training contains only two hours of nutrition, chemo is your only hope. A patient trusts the doctor, the doctor trusts his training, the professor at the university trusts his curriculum – but these places are funded heavily by the chemo industry. The chemo industry also funds places like the ACS, so all the information which hits the public is chemo-science. It’s not the much more useful biological research, the genuine science of Nobel winners and real thinkers like Warburg. (Three other people from his lab also won the Nobel prize.)

      In the case of squamous cell carcincoma, which was my problem, only 15-20% of the cells are duplicating at any one time, and it’s these cells which the chemo can affect, as it damages the reproduction mechanism somehow. So even if you have 200 repeated cycles of chemo, it will always leave at least 80% of the surviving tumour behind! And even one cell is dangerous, especially once your immune has been destroyed by the chemo. Even worse than that, the surviving cells become MDR (multiple drug resistant) because being intelligent, they don’t just sit and wait patiently to die, like us patients. They come up with colossal pumps which tens of thousands of their ribosomes start cranking out – and they even share the DNA designs between cells. So once you start chemo you’re doomed eventually, because these surviving cells have become indestructible by chemo.

      In Mexico I met a couple of people who’d been through chemo and they were in a bad way; the tumours had returned and their immune had collapsed almost beyond resurrection. One woman, only in her 40′s, had submitted to chemo originally because her family had “insisted”. Back came the tumour, and she feared them so much she even wanted to go through a second fight with chemo, because they’d insisted she was wasting her time on alternative therapies. I wrote to her afterwards but she never replied, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she didn’t make it.

      SCC is one of the toughest cancers to destroy with the immune, and one reason may be because it relies much more than most cancers on “masking proteins” which it floods into the bloodstream. The immune system is somehow trained by these proteins to ignore their source – the tumour cells. But an ingenious chap in Salzburg, Dr Rigden Lintz, has come up with a kind of dialysis conversion which removes these molecules from the blood, leaving the immune free to digest the tumour.

      So this is another possibility for me now that my immune is in top shape and my body is detoxed, my pH around 8+ and my diet very strong. Meantime the tumour seems to be at a standstill and not very prominent anymore. The consultant at Bedford Hospital, who I saw last Friday, said it’s very unusual for an already metastatic SCC to be stable a year after diagnosis. So I could just wait it out. But I’m not a very patient person! And I’m keen to see the frescos in Salzburg! If there are any. If not, I could always make one!

      • Cheng says:

        Thank you for your detail explanation! I know much more about how the cancer industry works now. It seems you have done a lot of research before choosing your treatment. How can you be so calm when you are diagnosed with cancer? I think most people who get cancer will rush to do chemo, radiation, surgery, without knowing that there are better alternatives. I have heard that chemo can only cure testicular cancer, some lymphomas, which are rare types of cancer.

        I am also wondering whether most cancer deaths can be avoided if people get the right alternative treatment like the clinic you went to. Does their cost of treatment reasonable?
        Finally, have you heard about Dr. Gonzalez? He seems successfully treating cancer patients using pancreatic enzymes, diet, detoxification, etc.

  7. Thank you very much for your comments, and I apologise for lengthy replies. It just happens! Well, first of all, cancer is not the worst thing that can happen to a person. A brain injury is far worse, because a person can no longer think their way out, or may be completely reliant on others, a terrible situation to be in. In fact I feel lucky to have cancer and still be in possession of all my faculties, such as they may be.

    Cancer is a reaction of the body. If we believe in a cohesive universe, if we believe in an organised, law-bound universe, we must also believe that every situation has a logical cause. The problem only comes when we feel we are doomed or that somehow it is a kind of black magic which has cursed us. Then, of course, we can have no hope of recovery as we decide to just be a helpless passenger. What better motivation is there to learn as much as we can about the body and our own biology than something which is going on within us right now, which we must try to understand? When I was first diagnosed I knew what had happened to John Diamond, so in fear of the same kind of end, I applied to join Dignitas. Soon after, I realised I was just giving up. The joke is, since then they have been chasing me for the fee!

    It is not good enough to pass the buck to professionals, when we already know that this is a corporate world. People are not in the business of cancer drugs for charity. They are there to make a living. And a very good living it is too! The American Cancer Society has, as I understand it, over a billion dollars in assets, and yet they go crawling around begging for money, insisting if they only had more money they could beat cancer. The moment the ACS beats cancer they are out of business. What shareholder will support that plan?

    It’s all nonsense, and preys on people’s superstitious fears of some runaway alien force taking over their own body. Even a great, independent thinker like Christopher Hitchens referred to it in this way, when he saw that the chemo destroyed a skin condition on his knee which nobody had ever been able to diagnose, let alone cure. He said words to the effect that he hoped the chemo would be this hard on the alien thing inside him.

    Since it is the body which has produced cancer, it is the body we need to understand. The tumour is no more a cause of cancer than acne is the cause of someone being a teenager! So it makes me very angry to see companies urging people to amputate healthy parts of their own body because of a superstitious fear based on this completely bogus science. It’s not science, it’s just a corporate system designed to make money for as long as they possibly can, as you would expect of any corporation, whether it’s an airline or a corner shop. Chemotherapy provokes tumours into becoming super-tumours. Nobody who understands the molecular activity behind this would go near chemotherapy, at a time when their body is in need of all the health it can get. As Mrs Gerson said, “You cannot cure, with poison.”

    Since every problem must have a logical explanation, then if nobody has given us an answer which is satisfactory, which makes sense, then it is up to us as thinking beings to find it for ourselves. We are the ones with cancer, and we are the ones taking the risk. We shouldn’t use up our energy worrying about what other people think.

    Some alternative clinics are expensive, but not as expensive as chemo; so I do not think they can be accused of profiteering. They are sincere, intelligent people, and they make no outlandish claims. They simply offer their knowledge, and each of us in turn offers whatever we have learned from them, to others who are interested. Meantime, let’s all stay well!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s