We Who Are Twice Armed

I want to say a big thanks to everyone who wrote or offered their support and good wishes. It was much appreciated!  Because the worst thing about the word “cancer” is the reaction it can cause in those who project a lifetime of media tragedies onto you.

It’s especially hard for an impressionable person to avoid buying into what other people think.  A well meaning neighbour who lost his wife last year to the ravages of chemo,  shook his head sadly and sympathised, “once it gets to the lymph, that’s really it.”  That’s why I stay away from hospitals: like a court of justice, their authority is easily mocked from afar.  But once in either dock when your life and times count for nothing, you start to wonder – can all these earnest people really be wrong?  – and it dawns that a single shake of the head could change life for good.

So last Friday with some trepidation I met with my surgeon, a man to whom I already owe a great debt for his patience and experience.  A month previous he couldn’t guarantee anything useful could be done by the end of May, if I insisted on going my own way: “the influence of pH is very new… and very little research has been done.”  Surrounded by the mirrors of friends, confidence in pH comes naturally, but hearing that the world’s most respected institutions hadn’t thought it worth their time tends to render it in an absurd light, and me with it.


Introducing the UNDEEEfeated heavyweight CHAMPeennn of the WORLD…

We met as planned despite his surgery running 40 minutes late.  How was I?  Still averse to the radiation, radical neck dissection and chemo?  I’m afraid so.  “You have loads of patients,” I ventured, “I can be, you know, the control group.”

He seemed appalled; “I don’t want you to be the control group!” was said with genuine concern.  Were they always doomed?  I hadn’t realised.  “How about I take another biopsy while you’re here..?”  No, but thanks anyway!  “Mr Carstairs, as these things progress, in future I can’t promise we can offer a cure, though we would of course still offer to treat you,” he said, hoping the difference between two words might somehow sink in.  “As you know, I can’t force you to accept these procedures against your will,” he conceded, wistfully.

“Tell you what,” I said, producing a small plastic container. “I have some pH test strips here. Let’s make a comparative test.  If your pH is healthier than mine, I hereby consent to all the treatments you recommend, and you can start as soon as you like.”


And, er… in THIS corner…

He stared at the cheerful yellow and green package and then looked away.  “Yes, of course, I know what they are, we use something quite similar..” and then he paused.  “No, to be honest, I don’t want to know…”

And that was that. He checked the neck, glands, etc, and we agreed the secondary tumour had not increased in size.  “I’ll check the primary tumour,” and donning a plastic glove he made an internal exam of the very very base of my tongue, seeming to use quite a bit of pressure.

Well?  “I can’t seem to locate it…”

We agreed to meet at the end of August, three months away.  That’s actually the minimum all the protocols I am on – which treat the patient gradually, rather than the tumour suddenly – are likely to have a noticeable effect on a tumour ensconced within the lymph node, now the size of a golf ball.

As it turns out, my 40 minutes of elevated heart rate in reception were well spent: slowly chewing through an entire bag of almonds, ensuring the alkalinity of my saliva skyrocketed off the scale for a while.

Plato said “We are twice armed, who fight with faith.”  Despite how it seems, I’m not a gambling man!

almond tree

“Behold, I have given you every plant bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, which has seed in its fruit; to you it shall be for food.”

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 Biology, Cancer, Cancer Research, Chemotherapy, Iain Carstairs and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to We Who Are Twice Armed

  1. Carstairs.samuel says:

    That’s my brother. Standing up to the machine.

    Didn’t find any ubiquinol. Did find almond kernel oil which might be a good after shower body cream.


    Sent from my iPad

  2. helezus says:

    Couldn’t locate the tumour? Fantastic! Keep up the good fight!

  3. The difference between science and religion: in science, one must understand before he believes, in religion, it’s the opposite.

    • That’s very apt; although of course, many people in science also believe before they actually understand, if re-thinking the thing might mean changing their worldview. How many people are prepared to completely overhaul their worldview at any time? They need a framework of some sort though the means by which they justify it vary.

      For example, I saw a discussion with a world-known scientist in which someone explained that the WTC buildings could not possibly have collapsed from either the forces or heat inflicted by plane crashes, and in fact there are dozens of scientific reasons supporting this view, all of which point to demolition. A third building collapsed completely without any aircraft hitting it, something this scientist was unaware of.

      He looked confused and said, “Of course, I know why they collapsed. I saw the planes hit them.” To drop this view would overturn all his ideas about Islam, the government’s treatment of its own citizens, Bush, Cheney, America, the invasions, the last 12 years of world politics, and so on. He just couldn’t accept it. You present this evidence and though people struggle to find a problem with it, in the end they say, “I can’t believe the government would do that.” Perfectly sound reasoning and a mountain of evidence is rejected not because their whole worldview would have to be demolished as thoroughly as the twin towers.

      Many atheists “know” evolution was based on a random mechanism, despite it being mathematically impossible, making no logical sense, and in the lab completely refuted by observations since at least McClintock’s 1960’s work. They stick with that worldview because anything else is distasteful, and simply reject whatever sound evidence conflicts with it. If they can’t find a problem with the evidence, they find a problem with you. In one lecture given by Sheldrake, the opposing scientist refused to even watch the slides and just sat drumming his fingers and looking offstage! It’s a human thing.

      Atheists “know” spiritual practices are absurd, even though they have solid neurological and molecular benefits, because they associate religion with ancient societies. The idea of spiritual practices being beneficial meets with ridicule, like “What about sacrificing goats? Are you saying we should sacrifice goats?” But when you say you’re not talking about goats but about telomerase, cortical thickening, the amygdala, neural chemistry, mirror neurons and oxytocin, they cannot fit this into archaic practices though all the supporting evidence comes straight from lab. To preserve their sense of decorum, they need a justification to reject it, so they seize on goat sacrifice!

      Ken Caldeira (the world’s foremost scientific expert in geoengineering) told me he can’t believe in chemtrails if no other scientists took them seriously. When I showed him the evidence in the lab report of my own rainwater samples, incontrovertible proof that non-CAA planes do the actual work, photographic evidence, and that the NOAA (with whom Caldeira has worked) say particulates in the atmosphere have doubled in ten years “from some uknown cause”, and the 2013 reports of farmers that global dimming has ruined their crops for three years running, he simply blocked his ears.

      It’s asking a lot of him to accept evidence that didn’t come out of his own pocket. Someone confronted him at a seminar demanding he explain why NATO skies should be saturated in white muck and he simply went “la la la la” and quite literally ran away.

      This is why paradigms of all sorts take ages to change. Even new scientific theories are generally met with hostility from other scientists. The saying is that new ideas take hold only when the existing experts all die. Re-thinking your worldview every day would be a nightmare!

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s