You are on page 1of 4

chemo is a completely outdated approach that doesn't actually target the cancer

itself nor the areas of the body that are affected the most. Furthermore, it d
estroys healthy cells and tissues as much as it destroys cancerous ones. This g
oes against every doctor's oath to "first do no harm" to the patient. . . . .
http://healthland.time.com/2013/06/26/no-more-chemo-doctors-say-its-not-so-far-f
etched/
There's lots of research showing that proper die
t, especially a ketogenic diet, and natural treatments can cure cancer (link).
But for those who don't believe any of this research and think drugs and convent
ional approaches are the only things that work, there are already drugs that hav
e been proven to drastically reduce the survival rates for certain types of canc
er, and they don't involve chemotherapy:
" In the case of theNEJMstudies, researchers were able to target an active recepto
r on immune cells responsible for enticing them to grow out of control, blocking
the protein and essentially shutting down two different types of leukemia tumor
s."
Don't take my word for it, a doctor who has experience treating cancer s
aid this: Already, patients diagnosed with GIST can avoid chemotherapy altogeth
er, thanks to Gleevec. No patient diagnosed with GIST should be getting chemother
apy today, says Demetri. Patients who develop certain types of lung cancer ormelan
omacaused by a cancer-promoting mutation known as BRAF are also starting to repla
ce toxic chemotherapy agents with new, more precise medications designed to thwa
rt the BRAF pathway. And astudypresented at the most recent meeting of the Americ
an Society of Clinical Oncology showed for the first time that a chemotherapy-fr
ee regimen led to a higher survival rate after two years than traditional chemot
herapy for acute promyelocytic leukemia, a cancer of the bone marrow.
So we know that there are more effective treatments for cancer than chemo. But
there's a ton of money to be made by the pharma companies on chemo drugs, which
are insanely expensive, so they're gonna make sure they get the message out that
chemo is the best treatment, and will do everything in their power to discredit
alternative treatments that work and don't have the multitude of side effects a
ssociated with chemo drugs.
Not only is chemo an ineffective treatment that does mor
e damage than it prevents, it's costing the healthcare system tons of money, whi
le raising all of our insurance premiums due to the extremely high prices of the
drugs. On top of that, most people don't realize that oncologists are actuall
y allowed to sell chemo drugs to their patients http://www.burtongoldberg.com/p
age76.html
So there's an inherent conflict of interest in treating cancer in this country,
and it's enriching both doctors and big pharma while doing nothing to improve th
e lives of the patients with cancer.
If you try to do research on this subject simply by doing a google searc
h of the effectiveness of chemo, you'll no doubt find articles claiming it's the
best treatment available and has a high success rate. What those biased articl
es won't tell you, however, is that the only studies done on chemo are from the
pharma industry itself, and only look at 5 year survival rates. Why? Because i
t takes a long time, usually longer than 5 years, for the full effects of the hi
ghly toxic chemo drugs to manifest as symptoms.
Also, it often takes years for a cancer to come out of remission and before it
starts showing symptoms in the cancer patient again, if it wasn't completely de
stroyed by the initial chemotherapy.

"Peter Glidden, BS, ND describes the 12-year meta-analysis published in


theJournal of Clinical Oncologywhich observed adults who had developed cancer and
treated with chemotherapy. The 12-year study looked at adults who had developed
cancer as an adult. 97% of the time, chemotherapy did not work in regressing the
metastatic cancers."
So the studies "proving" that chemo kills cancer
and increases survival rates of cancer patients only prove that they have a sma
ll benefit in the short-term, while completely ignoring the fact that this small
benefit is completely outweighed by the devastating side effects and damage don
e to the body that decreases mortality after this 5 year period.
The biggest irony of all is that studies have shown that chemo drugs act
ually have the ability to cause cancer themselves: http://www.nature.com/nm/jou
rnal/v18/n9/full/nm.2890.html
The scientists f
ound that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein calle
d WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival.
"The increase in WNT16B 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 tumour cells neighbouring the damaged cells.
"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them t
o grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy," said Nelson.
In his book,The Topic of Cancer: When the Killing Has to Stop, Dick Richar
ds cites a number of autopsy studies which have shown that cancer patients actua
lly died from conventional treatments before the tumor had a chance to kill them
.
How does this relate to the Connecticut case that I've previously written about?
thefederalist.com/2015/01/14/connecticut-to-minors-you-can-pick-abortion-but-n
ot-chemotherapy/
It shows us that the state of Connecticut is doubly wrong. First, even if chem
o was the most effective treatment for cancer, the state has no business telling
a 17 year old girl how she can or can't treat her own disease. That requires a
full stop. Everything else is irrelevant if the gov't gets that wrong. But w
hat makes their tyranny even more egregious is that they're justifying taking aw
ay a girl's freedom by saying they know what's best for her, while citing the us
e of a treatment that's outdated and has already been replaced by safer and more
effective treatments for cancer. Not only are they incompetent, but it's clear
they haven't even kept up with the latest research on cancer treatments.
Nanotechnology is the future of medicine, and it's already here . .
..http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/269923.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474440/
Even a little bit of research on cancer treatments will turn up tons of articles
and blogs from people who've already successfully cured their cancer with natur
al treatments. There are thousands of these testimonials all over the internet,
and none of them involve chemo . . .http://naturalsociety.com/real-proof-of-can
cer-cures-comes-from-cured-patients-not-scientific-documents/
http://www.cancertutor.com/
If you listen to the mainstream media, they'll tell you there's no cure for canc
er. Scientists in Canada who found one of the causes of cancer would beg to dif

fer . . .
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610806003722
http://www.sott.net/article/228583-Scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notic
e
Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human's cells; it kille
d lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was t
ested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fe
d with water supplemented with DCA.
Why haven't you heard about this? Because big pharma is desperate to make sure
this news doesn't get out. If it did, and many cancer patients started using it
, they'd lose billions in profits on their chemo drugs, and some would even have
to go under. They're not gonna let that happen. How can they do that? By pre
venting the media from reporting on it, which is easy since they basically own t
he news networks by giving them millions of dollars in exchange for advertising
space during their broadcasts . . .http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/ar
chive/2011/12/18/journalism-in-drug-industry.aspx
The root cause of cancer involves feeding normal cells or pre-cancerous cells w
ith sugar and forcing them into a state of glycolysis that causes genetic change
s in the cell that triggers it to become cancerous. A scientist named Otto von
warburg won the Nobel Prize for discovering this connection way back in 1931. ht
tp://www.healthywaterlife.com/cgi-bin/d.cgi/signup/otto_warburg_cancer_research.
html.
It's mind-boggling that in 2015 the vast majority of doctors and scientists sti
ll don't know about it, when all it takes is a quick google search using the phr
ase "root cause of cancer", or similar phrases. That tells us that the professi
onals within the conventional medical and academic systems in this country haven
't even bothered to do research on cancer. They've simply believed what they we
re taught in med school, that it's mostly caused by random mutations in genes an
d that there are some chemicals that can trigger these mutations, but for the mo
st part it's genetic.
If that were true, we would expect the rates of cancer to stay fairly consistent
since the 1960s and before, but instead, they've skyrocketed. Our genetics are
n't changing as a species, therefore the genetic theory of cancer as the root ca
use is disproven by that. What has drastically changed are our diets and the am
ount of environmental toxins we're exposed to. We have a ton more sugar and oth
er foods that are broken down into sugar by the body, which creates an environme
nt in the body that over time can turn healthy cells into cancerous ones.
This is why chemotherapy doesn't work- it doesn't address the root cause of can
cer.
. . .http://www.mercola.com/article/cancer/cancer_options.htm

Cancer cells all have at least one thing in common. They ALL love sugar! You see
, cancer cells are anaerobic (meaning without oxygen ), thus they metabolize glucose
(sugar) for energy. Whether it be breast, prostate, renal, lung, or colon cancer
, glucose is taken in as a primary food; lactic acid is excreted from the cancer
cells into the blood. The blood carries the lactic acid to the liver, where it
is converted back into glucose to feed the cancer cells. This occurs in ALL know

n cancer cells. It has been well documented in many studies, that, many years ag
o serum glucose levels were used to monitor the progress of the disease. It was
well established that as the disease progressed, serum glucose levels would rise
.
Knowing this, the wisdom of removing simple carbohydrates and sugars from the di
et becomes obvious. The ignorant use of glucose I.V. s in cancer patients also bec
omes painfully obvious. The object is to make it difficult for cancer cells to r
eproduce. My question is Why fuel them with their primary requirement? They are un
able to efficiently use protein or complex carbohydrates for food. The healthy c
ells of our body and immune system are able to use these as fuel and for repair.
Simply put - get rid of the energy source and fight the cancer.