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