What They Don’t Tell You About Cancer

When I found myself with stage III squamous cell carcinoma, and in need of a year of drastic treatments, I was shaken enough to consume half a bottle of wine and the strongest espresso, to ponder my options.  As it turns out, I would have been much better off planting an almond tree and eating a basket of lemons!  Allow me to explain:


Mysterious Water.. this is where the trouble all begins
(Oil on canvas, Paul Gauguin 1893)

Water, as everyone knows, is H2O.  Two molecules of hydrogen attached to a single molecule of oxygen.  But as you suspected, there’s much more to it!  In water there is generally also a number of hydrogen ions, that is, a water molecule shorn of oxygen and, losing all its property in the divorce, an electron, becoming H+.  There are also hydroxide ions, that is, the newly separated hydrogen and oxygen unit which is now a negatively charged HO-.  Being a hopeless flirt, the hydroxide ion can hook up with a water molecule and become H3O+.  Homewrecker.

The sheer number of these marriages and affairs, as you can imagine, are vaster even than those in New York City – so atoms are measured in “moles”, each mole being 6.022 x 10 to the power 23 or 602 billion trillion.  This is comparable to the number of stars in the universe, which the low estimate puts at 7 x 10 to the power 21 and the higher estimate to the power 23.  To visualise this I once worked out once that if every star was a grain of sand 1mm in diameter, there would be enough to blanket the planet Earth to a depth of about one metre.  So these are not trivial amounts, and nor is it trivial what such atomic conditions, if prolonged, can do to the body.


One of the few scales usefully showing levels from acidic, rising to alkaline, instead of the other way around. Each level has ten times more hydrogen ions than the one above it

In 1909 a Danish chemist named Sorensen measured the concentration of hydrogen ions per litre of fluid and came up with a scale representing the powers of ten covering the range of moles of hydrogen ions in a litre of water, and then reversed it for clarity.

The blood carefully maintains a pH of close to 7.4 at all costs.  To keep up this balancing act all of our lives, it either pulls alkalinity out of the intracellular environment – the body itself – or dumps acidity into it.  It came as a shock to find that virtually every cancer patient has, at the time of diagnosis anyway, a highly acidic intracellular environment.  I immediately tested my own – you can do this very easily using pH strips on your saliva – and found it was about 5.25 ..in other words, about 75 times too acidic!

Once you see the pH of things we normally eat you realise why the bodies of people on a western diet are so prone to cancer, and how cancer’s inexorable rise follows that of unhealthy food, mirroring that of scurvy under other, self-imposed, diet limitations.   One in three of us will die from cancer – either during treatment or soon after:

My diet for at least the year prior to turning to the doctors to see what this annoying lump was in my neck, consisted of practically everything in the 3, 4 and 5 range.  Endless espressos, white wine, pasta, stress and overwork.  The ones under “consume sparingly, or never”.

And in two final, freezing months, I had been working flat out on the construction of the first outdoor fresco in the UK, for which I was supremely unqualified: 15 hour days in a panic-ridden state of tension trying to finish applying pigments before the plaster dried, knowing that any variationin line or tone meant hacking the day’s work off and starting again, as well as doing the school runs and maintaining the flow of emails and crises at work.  And as bad situations always get worse, it was over a coffee shop – the owner helpfully offering unlimited amounts in the hope of getting it done quicker.


Notice the highly acidic oranges and yellows – my favourites! They say there’s no coincidences, but this is a large one

Research into cancer’s progress revealed the five year survival rates, which everyone checks first, are based not on the progress of cancer itself, but on the progress of patients who are treated using chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.  The assumption is automatically made that those who were not treated must have died faster, since treatment is always assumed to extend life.  After all, why else would anyone volunteer for these ordeals?

But it turns out this isn’t necessarily true, and especially not in some cases of cancer:

It might be surprising to learn that the presence of the primary tumor serves to inhibit the growth of metastatic cancer elsewhere in the body. The primary tumor produces anti-angiogenic factors which restrict the growth of metastases.

These anti-angiogenic factors inhibit the formation of new blood vessels to potential sites of metastasis. Regrettably, the surgical removal of the primary cancer also results in the removal of these anti-angiogenic factors, and the growth of metastasis is no longer inhibited.

With these restrictions lifted, it is now easier for small sites of metastatic cancer to attract new blood vessels that promote their growth.  Indeed, these concerns were voiced by researchers who declared that “… removal of the primary tumor might eliminate a safeguard against angiogenesis and thus awaken dormant micrometastasis [small sites of metastatic cancer].”

As if the loss of angiogenic inhibition by the primary tumor were not enough of a problem, it turns out the surgery causes another angiogenic predicament. After surgery, levels of factors that increase angiogenesis—also known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)—are  significantly elevated.

This can result in an increased formation of new blood vessels supplying areas of metastatic cancer. A group of scientists summarized this research quite well when they asserted that “after surgery, the angiogenic balance of pro- and antiangiogenic factors is shifted in favor of angiogenesis to facilitate wound healing.

Especially levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are persistently elevated. This may not only benefit tumor recurrence and the formation of metastatic disease, but also result in activation of dormant micrometastases.”


No matter what people say, a tumour on its own is unlikely to kill you, unless it’s a fast growing one in your colon, lungs or brain, or pressing on the spinal cord.  There is a patient in Vietnam who, before surgery, was immobilised by a tumour as large as his own body mass, attached to his leg, but which hadn’t metastasised in all those years. How do cancer patients being treated die?  Well, in 2006, of 816 patients in one study, 47% died either from infections or complications in which infection was a major factor.

But cancer isn’t an infection and doesn’t affect your ability to fight off infections: therefore the only cause could be the demolishing of their immune syste, which in turn can only be attributed to the chemical poisons injected into the bloodstream in the hopes of killing the tumour before killing the patient.  Organ failure caused 25% of the deaths, so either the drugs caused heart or kidney failure, or the cancer came out on top.  In 1970, out of 506 cases in Roswell Park Memorial, infection caused 36% of the deaths during treatment and was a contributing factor in a further 33% of all deaths, with pneumonia directly causing 18%, and respiratory failure, 19%.

One of the reasons for the apparent rise in success of cancer treatments is that many more cases of skin cancer (melanoma) are now included in statistics even if cases are known to be non fatal.  What isn’t explained is that titanium dioxide, a component of nearlyall sunscreens – is a carcinogen.  Lathering it on skin all day long means it is now under suspicion for causing a massive rise in melanomas.  Curable or not, they are generally blamed on the sun – meaning yet more sunscreen is applied, and the cases continue to rise.  And yet the sun has been around for a long time, without us ever seeing the kind of explosion of skin cancers we see today.

“After analyzing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr Hardin Jones, a professor at the University of California, concluded: ‘…patients are as well, or better off, untreated. Jones’s disturbing assessment has never been refuted.”

..Walter Last, in The Ecologist

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.”

..Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, The Healing of Cancer

I recently quoted a doctor who wrote in Scientific American that testing and surgery for prostate cancer has fallen into disrepute because so many cases, left untreated, caused no harm and no threat to the life of the patient even after decades, but treatments often left them a hopeless invalid.  Comisserations from surgeons are no replacement for virility or continence.

As for chemo, when I began to look into why patients who avoided it might, paradoxically, sometimes be better off, I found something very interesting indeed.


The AcrB transporter uses an unusual cyclic mechanism to pump drugs out of the cell. The protein is composed of three identical subunits with slightly different conformations. The structure shown, from PDB entry 2drd, has the antibiotic minocycline bound in one subunit. Left: backbone diagram with the drug in green. If you cut at the red line, on the right is the cut surface showing all three sites. The first binds the drug (green).  The second has shifted to a new conformation opening pathways to the pore at the middle. The final site connects to the membrane (not seen) and thus binds to new drug molecules. Cycling through these three conformations, the transporter pulls drugs out of the membrane and pushes them outside. Illustration: David S Goodsell

Contrary to Darwin’s theory of mindless, random engine of genetic mutation, cells are very smart.  They’re not random at all in their behaviour, or in their response to threats, which allows them to survive purposefully under almost any conditions.  After all, these chemo drugs were not known to nature until recently. How then can a supposedly insentient bundle of proteins come up with a device geared to their removal?

When assailed with chemo the indignant cells which do not succumb straightaway devise an ingenious solution: a 2-dimensional blueprint for chemical pumps, which their ribosomes obligingly manufacture at a frantic pace.


1. Clear off, Navelbine – and you, Cisplatin – barred!
2. Come on, love, that trashy tumour’s not worth it..
3. Oi, mate – bone marrow, and step on it!  Wot?  Don’t you know oo I am?!

These are installed so that on entering the cell, the chemical molecules are immediately attached to and ejected faster than a stroppy Big Brother celeb from a posh club.  The cells pass these strips of DNA outside the cell to fellow rebels who import and incorporate them into their humble genome, to make as many of their own bouncers as they like.

ph interest

Google trend analytics show how often a search term is used over time. pH is gaining momentum. So is chemtrails, by the way – but only in NATO countries or NATO “contender states”.  The idea that these searches are slanted to high tech societies is refuted by “Shell Oil” searches in West Coast African countries, and “sex” in India and some Far East and certain East African states where western values begin to encroach on curious youth

This makes a mob of cancer cells immune not to one chemo drug, but all of them.  They become super-cells – individually invisible to the eye and lethal to the body – created solely by exposure to manmade chemicals.

Chemotherapy may actually make cancer worse, according to a shocking new study.  The extremely aggressive therapy can cause healthy cells to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment.

Researchers in the United States made the “completely unexpected” finding while seeking to explain why cancer cells are so resilient inside the human body when they are easy to kill in the lab.

They tested the effects of a type of chemotherapy on tissue collected from men with prostate cancer, and found “evidence of DNA damage” in healthy cells after treatment, the scientists wrote in Nature Medicine.

The scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival. “The increase was completely unexpected,” study co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told AFP.

The protein was taken up by tumor cells neighboring the damaged cells.  “WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy,” said Nelson.

In cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid re-growth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

Rates of tumor cell reproduction have been shown to accelerate between treatments.  “Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumor growth,” wrote the team.

Apart from this mechanism, chemo also wrecks your immune system, so while you’d expect the bulk of these tumours to melt away at the start – giving cause to celebrate – you’d also expect a number of surviving super-cells to take advantage of the fences being down and make their way to wherever they can find a reasonably acidic environment.  Months or years later, they could erupt in different sites; this is exactly what happens.

spreadsheet 2 b

The days run along the top from left to right, and I grouped all the different components into immune boosters, detox, tumour assassins (where shown to be effective by in vitro research by entities such as MSK or the Mayo Clinic, or by success in others), lymph support, various therapies and natural alkaline boosters. Lemons for example, are very acidic, but after digestion they leave the body more alkaline than before. You can also raise the pH of water using a small amount of aerobic oxygen, hydrogen peroxide. Drinking water on its own does not trigger digestive acids, which means the maximum benefit of a high pH input.  The tap water tested at an alarming 6

I immediately jettisoned coffee, alcohol, and sugar (as far as it could be detected) and put together a plan of action to boost my immune system, using beta glucans, vitamins and minerals, as well as the body’s pH, to try and make my body an unsuitable place for tumours so the existing pair would find it hard to metastasise.  If it was unlikely to get worse, I could attack it with anything research or other people had found useful.

My spreadsheet recorded all these factors to monitor my progress day by day and later trace changes in trends to changes in input.  I had never thought of food as medicine before, but that’s exactly what it is.  Nature doesn’t expect us to obsess over spreadsheets and molecules, so she makes it easy: look, here are some beautiful foods which taste good.  The red ones are especially important, and coincidentally a colour you can’t miss.

Fruit and vegetables stall at Pike Place Market Seattle Washington USA

Marketing something that’s supposed to be good for you means make it look attractive. Nature scores very highly here
(photo from curved-light.photoshelter.com)

The only sure fire way to deal with cancer so that the cells can’t adapt is to use the basic nature of those cells, which they cannot change without ceasing to be cancer cells.  They hate oxygen, and they like glucose.  Hemoglobin is known to work poorly in an acidic environment, which is handy for tumours. But as my surgeon cautioned me, all this research is new, despite billions being spent!  And these perfectly sensible ideas are always somehow framed as absurdities by absurd sites like QuackWatch, as if people’s own experiences were not valid, and new ideas not as useful as old, failing ones:

Only recently has it come to light that the dismissal of vitamin C for cancer therapy was based upon oral-dose vitamin C, and subsequent studies found intravenous vitamin C has the potential to be used in cancer therapy

According to researchers Hickey and Roberts, repeated doses, and use of a special liposomal form of vitamin C that is absorbed in the gut and then into the liver before it is released into the blood stream, are key to making oral vitamin C therapy effective. Another important factor is to limit the consumption of carbohydrates (refined sugar) which impairs oral absorption of this vitamin.

Dr. John Ely, emeritus professor at the University of Washington, has shown that sugar depletes vitamin C from white blood cells and makes them sluggish. White blood cells are the very cells that attack tumor cells and destroy them.

The liposomal form of vitamin C employed in this study consists of 1-gram (1000 milligram) dose sachets of vitamin C powder encapsulated in lecithin (phosphatidylcholine), as supplied by Livon Laboratories of Henderson, Nevada, USA.

The cancer cell-killing effect of vitamin C is realized by the transient production of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) within connective tissues (not in blood), which then destroys tumor cells, and subsequently turns to harmless water (H2O), ensuring non-toxic therapy.


After receiving my bottle of liposomal vitamin C I ingested 4 teaspoons, or 4 gm, equivalent to 40 gm IV, and soon after felt a pronounced ache in my lymph gland.  Perhaps any killed cells would be now be waste matter which the lymph would have to deal with rather suddenly.  Needless to say I’m maintaining a high dose while supplies last; more research is needed, as they say.

As for the pH, turns out it’s 20 times more difficult to raise your pH than to lower it, just like it’s easier to fall down a mountain than climb it, or to spend rather than to earn money.  Slow going but a good thing to do – I’m occasionally getting readings of 7.5, which is the high end of healthy, and occasionally slipping back to 5.5 just by enjoying a slice of pizza.

But at least I now have something to talk to strangers about on planes!


They’re cheap and plentiful, and a much more important exam than GCSEs. Should be a required test in every school – and every cancer ward. But it isn’t

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 Aquired bacterial immunity to antibiotics, Biology, Cancer, Cancer Research, Chemotherapy, David S Goodsell, Designs in nature, Horizontal genetic transfer, Iain Carstairs and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to What They Don’t Tell You About Cancer

  1. Very, very helpful. I will keep this. Much appreciated.

    • That’s great – now quit worrying about disease. Just raise your pH, get down to the gym once in a while. And meditate, generating cell-life-extending telomerase and cortical thickening. Give thanks to whatever power made this wild universe, to generate vital oxytocin, and have a fast once in a while to accelerate neuronal chemistry.

      Did you know that emotions also influence your pH? I’d like to do some studies, where people measure their pH before and after different films, different musical experiences. I guess anyone could perform such experiments for themselves. As regards cancer, there’s nothing wrong with the world – the way we live our lives is what’s wrong. We wanted free will, and we have it.

      There! Molecular spirituality. It might catch on!

  2. Methinks says:

    Darwin’s theory is not midlessly random thanks to natural selection. And cells are very smart THANKS to this process, not contrary to it.

    • I’m afraid it is. The generation of genetic variation is, according to Darwin, completely random. The mutations are random. Whatever happens to the organism, its selection of a mate, the liability of tendons to graft to bones, the organism’s liability to procreate, its actual ability to procreate, its ability to survive – depend solely and exclusively on the product of its genetic code. And all development in the genetic code – all changes, all mutations – are, if I understand Darwin correctly, a matter of random, aimless, haphazard, unplanned errors.

      Natural selection is only a term you’re giving to what happens on the macro scale. Natural Selection cannot select anything that was not generated in the first place. Therefore if all genetic variation is random, the theory of evolution, as presented by Darwin, stands on random evolution. And I’m sure you don’t mean that intelligence and purpose on the part of single cells have only come about because of errors! What then, was the first life form doing, if it had no intelligence or ability to survive, and no sense of purpose for so doing? You cannot even call it life.

      • Methinks says:

        I can’t agree with you because then we would both be wrong. Let’s play a game. We’ll both roll a die. You will be allowed to roll it and keep the result and I’ll be allowed to throw three times and select the best outcome of the three. After 100 rolls do you think the sum of our throws will be similar? This is of course not exactly how the natural selection works but it’s an example of a random process with nonrandom selection. And this selection process radically changes the outcome. Same goes with natural selection – it operates on random changes but the process is non-random. The organisms are selected for their traits – those with “better” traits on average leave more progeny so the winning traits get propagated among the population. Ergo evolution is anything but random.

      • I have a better game! Let’s both get back to whatever we were doing 24 hours ago. Many thanks for writing, and let’s agree to differ.

      • Methinks says:

        As you wish. But the only thing I can agree on is that anoyone claiming evolution is random does not understand evolution.

    • Ted the well read Bear says:

      That’s “mi-N-dlessly”, if you want to be mindful of correctness and not hypocritical! Your premise is that cells have evolved through natural selection; on what do you base this? Cells cannot have changed at all over the millennia (apart from genetic tinkering by us) as a cell must function in a certain way to be effective; it simply needs the right input.

      A cancer cell is a normal cell with the mitochondria switched off and uses inefficient glycolysis as its sole source of energy; it is one of the most primitive metabolic pathways (which results in the cancer sufferer developing cachexia). In fact, one could argue that due to malnutrition (trace minerals especially) – including oxygen – and hyperacidity, that a normal cell reverts to a more primitive form, which predates multi-cellular organisms, as a survival mechanism.


      As a side note, if cancer was genetically causated, then with natural selection one would expect a decrease of cancer incidence over time. That is patently not the case, as it is demonstrably increasing in incidence (for various reasons, including western society malnutrition, increase of toxins in the environment, and increasing use of synthesized chemicals called “medicines” – especially chemo “therapy”, which hamper immunity)

      What is called “natural selection” is simply a self-correcting mechanism, whereby the human body’s cells operate to accommodate changing environmental and dietary factors to allow the body to survive. Cancer is a last ditch attempt which harks back to mono-cellular life forms and is obviously self-defeating as it results in the ultimate demise of the whole body. This natural process is not dissimilar – in principle – to that of death.


      P.S. I couldn’t comment below, as the “reply” buttons are turned off.

  3. RobG says:

    horray! You’re on the right track – unprocessed foods, keep the carbs low, do some intermittent fasting, and exercise.

    The battle is to get the body’s biochemistry back to top-immune functioning.

    But you cannot heal unless the body has the minerals to rebuild healthy cells and discard the cancerous ones that have overstayed their welcome. I follow RBTI which helps you get back to balance. Based on urine and saliva pH you eat foods and take the correct calcium supplement to get you back to the target 6.4 (note: blood pH, as you cited, is maintained by the body regardless of cost). The idea is to lead the body back to ideal biochemistry – at first you may be alkaline, then that could shift to acidic. There is also an emphasis on hydrating as well as using lemon water. Oh and it can tell you when you are eating too much meat. The diet emphasizes ‘variety’ of whole unprocessed food, kind of like the Rainbow Diet.

    • Thanks for that info – always very useful, though I don’t know what RBTI is? I’m taking beta glucans, amino acids, MSM, methylcobalamine, vitamin D, barley grass, colloidal silver, lipsomal C, among other things. Against the tumour itself I’m taking Essiac tea, the Budwig diet, papaya tea, hemp oil, B17, dandelion root, ginger root, resveratrol, kelp, grapeseed extract and agaricus blazei.

      For the detox I’m on yeast raiders, red root, enzymes, n-acetyl cysteine, taurine as well, plus noni juice, black walnut hull, and acidophilus. For the diet, it’s strictly organic veg, some smoked salmon, and drinking water all day that has aerobic oxygen in it.

      I wanted to deal with all that stuff in a separate post, and stick with the pH reasoning in this one, because the mycotoxins is an intriguing part and deserves a post of its own, and the anti-tumour stuff is another whole aspect of the molecular side, which of course I don’t know much about yet, but would like to research and explain what I learned.

      The other aspect is the eccentric ideas like molasses and baking soda, which people have had a lot of success with. The molecular side is important because the debunkers – strange people who say absurd things like “the only cure for cancer is chemo, radiation and surgery” are always ready to foul the well, which can easily cost people their lives. The more data you put in one post, the more they try and confuse the issue and make you sound hare-brained.

      Cancer research is getting more complicated, which seems odd because as the preventive steps become clear it should all become easier. It isn’t like particle physics, which gets horrendously complicated the deeper you go. If it were, the human race could never avoid cancer, because nobody could understand any of it!

      • RobG says:

        I started my cancer research when my wife was diagnosed with Stage 4 Lymphoma. So it is a lot of information. You’ve got a great start. Some things to add:
        1. There a numerous protocols that work but they aren’t all synergistic and some should not be done simultaneously. (I’ll get the link in a follow-up reply). Nothing is glaring in that respect in your approach.
        2. Most vitamin C is acid-inducing. I use LYPO-SPHERIC C which is not. Looks to be your lipsomal C technology.
        3. different foods tend to acid/alkaline reactions. (I’ll get the link) That’s important to tailor your diet. RBTI also has foods to avoid (processed foods, bread, pork, shellfish for example). But even with that, the body may not move back to healing – for that various calcium supplements can kick the body’s bio-chemistry back.
        4. RBTI (Reams Biological Theory of Ionization) also measure salts in the urine. Again, it measures how off balance you are. Obviously processed food puts alot of salt in food and if we use sea salt it is a huge stress which will show up in this test. It checks the sugar in the body with a refractometer. Finally RBTI measure the ureas (info at http://www.rbti.info/basics/ureas). You can then analyze if you are acid/alkaline, too much salt, to many calories, too much meat.
        5. Bottom line, people are taking supplements and eating diets when the don’t know if it is helping or exacerbating their problem. For example, taking apple cider vinegar, but you were already acidic. But with the pH strips, a conductivity meter, and the albumin test you can know. “Why guess, when you can know” is the refrain.

      • It’s incredible that there is so much information about. So many times on cancer.org I’ll read, “there’s no scientific evidence about [xyz] but no research has been done on [xyz]”. And [xyz] will already have people saying how useful it is. If the research teams looked into things and genuinely found they were good or bad, they could use them, or not, but there’s no money in it. The whole aim is to generate money, and that’s a serious problem with our whole system. Not only it rules out natural cures but it attracts those with a mania for power and wealth, people like Monsanto for example, waging war on Nature.

        I’ll read into the links later on – thanks for the wealth of info. How did your wife get on?

      • RobG says:

        In remission now 4 years later 🙂
        She did do chemo (CHOP-R) with a renowned Oncologist in Philadelphia.
        But did other things too – diet, excercise, slept outdoors, the will-to-live for grandkids, etc.

        I did not see iodine on your list – combats tumor growth.(http://www.regenerativenutrition.com/content.asp?id=142).

      • RobG says:

        Alkalizing foods:

        And this is the one that I printed, cut out the two tables, and taped them together back to back and then keep it in my wallet:

      • So useful. This stuff should be taught in school before anything else to do with biology, chemistry and physics. Where is the point understanding the atomic table and the dust on Mars if we plan to be a complete stranger to our own health?

    • RobG says:

      And this site has the protocols and the protocols that are OK or not OK to do in parallel.

      ” The question arises: which of these protocols can be safely combined, and be synergistic with each other, on the same days? In almost all cases natural cancer treatments can and should be combined, however, there are exceptions to this rule.

      For example, the Cellect-Budwig and Cesium Chloride protocols both use high levels of alkalinity to slow down the spread of the cancer. These protocols should not be combined!! In fact, they should not be used one after the other (there should be at least three weeks between them). Nor should another protocol which includes baking soda or cesium or calcium be combined with either of these protocols.”

      • I did try the baking soda and molasses for 10 days but felt like vomiting each time, so I thought I’d save that for when I was really desperate. Do you happen to know why it can’t be used along with the Budwig?

  4. tonilamberti says:

    Hi Iain, have you seen this http://www.burzynskimovie.com/ ? Have you looked at systemic enzymes? I believe they are brilliant for helping to rid the body of cancer cells. Be well!!

    • Hi,

      Yes, in fact I contacted the Burzynski clinic, over in Texas, and sent them the letter I had from the hospital, and spoke to someone there about what they did. They sent back a set of documents all about their charges. The problem is that the lab work and the genetic testing and preparation is very expensive, and needs to be done regularly. If it were all over in a month or two that would be one thing but if it went on for a year it would have bankrupted me.

      The enzyme stuff is great! It really detoxes the body. What seems to happen is that we eat, in the west, mainly dead food. All the enzymes have been annihiliated in cooking or chemical tampering or in storage. The pancreas has to over-work to keep up with digestion and over time it starts to give way; Vitalzymes and Excelzymes, from memory, are the two brands I use and they have a raft of different enzymes, including papain and bromelaine. The design of these enzymes is astonishing! And chemists haven’t come anywhere near to them. One molecule of Bromelain chops 30,000 proteins in a second, so you can imagine what a handful of capsules does, churning through your food and your gut.

      I read somewhere that the Peyer’s patches, bult in lymph systems to check what goes on in the intestines, can get blocked by all the dead weight of un-enzymed food, and the enzymes slice about and clear all this stuff. They’re like millions of tiny chainsaws. How can anyone not admire this sort of technology, and want to put it to use to help their body? I wish I had known about these years ago. And the remarkable thing is, unlike drugs, all these different mechanisms are compatible with each other, and even synergistic Now that is a system!

      Thanks for writing, stay well too

  5. klc07069 says:

    Thoroughly enjoying your blog, as much as I enjoyed the conversation on the plane! Take care and keep eating those veggies! I enjoyed a wonderful feast of freshly picked fiddleheads tonight! Keep eating healthy and green!

  6. Liana says:

    So happy to have found your site, full of interesting information! An herbalist (turned friend) of many many years ago mentioned the info you have here re tumor growth etc a long long time ago and I never forgot it. It is so great to read it here again after so many years since it made so much sense to me then, and makes even more sense to me now! The “C” word has been traveling from household to household all around me in recent years as parents and relatives are aging and I unfortunately cannot impress any of these ideas on anyone.

    The ph thing was something I had also heard about so it was fascinating and very helpful to read your take on it here as well! I wish you all the best on your quest for health and trust that you are well on your way to getting there, on your own power of will and understanding. Most are more comfortable in trusting the “white coats” and are willing to undergo anything to “get it out” but it is both sad and frightening to watch when you know that there are profit margins in the mix. Thank you for posting such wonderful information backed by great scientific research and intelligent writing!

    Oh and btw, your fresco turned out unbelievably beautifully! I am put to shame after over 20 years of study and practice and your first fresco is an monumental masterpiece! Love your reference to the acidic colors …I often make similar correspondences and find it so interesting how life can work in funny ways some times! You may enjoy my herbalists friends blog at Amaluxherbal.com as he has a similar no nonsense attitude toward health issues.

    Also are you familiar with the writings of Swedenborg. I just started reading it this past year and a half and it has really been an incredible journey also. Nevertheless I look forward to following your blog and wish you all the best! Kindest Regards, Liana Sofia Tumino.

    • Hi, many thanks for the good wishes – yes, you know around here I can’t find anyone who doesn’t know someone with cancer. The good news is all the people involved in natural remedies are putting their minds to work on the problem and the consensus outside the established institutions is that Nature is full of what we need. I just received some black cumin oil this morning which has a long history, even to the Egyptians – apparently a mummified pharaoh was found to have some in his tomb all set for the afterlife. My taste buds have adapted now so I can eat anything – even brocolli.

      We simply must not assume nature intends us all to get cancer as soon as we reach some kind of technological peak. The universe is a logical place; the problem seems to be we disregard everything already laid out for us. That’s the problem with free will I suppose.

      I thank you indeed for the fresco comment – I must tell you, there are some new brushes out by Da Vinci which coincidentally arrived this morning, and by a further coincidence, my da Vinci book of Anatomy turned up today too from a separate source. These brushes are a mix of fibres so that the very tips are all separated; you can do incredibly fine cross hatching. They’re called Vario Tips, and come in four sizes I think. You can get them from GreatArt.co.uk here in the UK and I must say they are really something. I’m doing a skull now for practice and from a few feet away all the lines blend together. You must try them; I’m sure you’ll like them for your fresco work, which by the way, is the work of a professional – I’m an amateur and a long way off that kind of discipline.

      I had a friend in Toronto who was really up on Swedenborg. I seem to remember Swedenborg as a da Vinci kind of character, and someone who had an experience of illumination? I’ve meant to do an essay on great thinkers who experienced inner illumination, but I get overwhelmed with the detail. People reading blogs prefer something they can absorb in two or three minutes. The most popular essays have all been very short, sometimes only half an hour’s work.

      It reminds me of my work in software – you can spend weeks on something which is unbelievably intricate. You’re saturated with it, can barely sleep, and when you do the code appears in your dreams. You deliver it expecting it to change clients’ lives and hear, “yeah, that works.” Another time you can change a report so a different heading comes up or something which might take two minutes, and they’re excited beyond belief -“That’s exactly what I wanted! You’re a genius!”

      Meantime I’m off to amaluxherbal.com – thanks for the tip. Drop by anytime!

      • Liana says:

        Ahhhh I will look into those brushes they sound fabulous! Will look forward to keeping in touch and following your blog! All the best!

  7. Pingback: The Santa Barbara Mission | ScienceAndReligion.com

  8. Pingback: Heroes and Villains | ScienceAndReligion.com

  9. Pingback: The Year of Living Naturally | ScienceAndReligion.com

  10. Ted the well read Bear says:

    @iain carstairs says:
    May 15, 2013 at 20:56

    “I did try the baking soda and molasses for 10 days but felt like vomiting each time, so I thought I’d save that for when I was really desperate. Do you happen to know why it can’t be used along with the Budwig?”

    The reason you can’t use more than one alkaline protocol at a time is almost self-evident – you can’t make the system too alkaline, just as much as it can’t be too acidic, or you’ll become diseased and die. There is a condition called homeostasis and is the reason the blood must be kept at a constant pH. Homeostasis is like riding a bike – go too much off balance and you fall!

    As for your vomiting with the sodium bicarb and molasses, you probably hit the protocol too hard and, as recommended when using this protocol, if that happens you must cut back and start at lower doses, then build it up gradually.

  11. Pingback: Blame Where It’s Due Please, Mr Fry! | ScienceAndReligion.com

  12. joliving says:

    Iain, I saw your YouTube comments about GcMAF and tracked to your site here. I’m looking into GcMAF treatment for squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. I would love to email some questions but can’t find a direct contact for you. Would you be kind enough to get in touch? Thanks, Jo

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