Saturday, November 29, 2014

Cancer: Different perspectives – conventional vs. natural treatments.

Cancer is a frightening word and a very prevalent disease these days. We often wonder why it is so widespread, and treatment with chemotherapy is often worse than the disease. Natural cures are often scoffed at by the medical profession. Below is an extract from an interesting insight into many aspects of cancer - including what causes cancer in the first place and Natural Cures vs. Traditional. To read the full article by Dr Tim O’Shea, click on the link at the bottom - it makes compelling reading. - Werner

BIOPSY VS. ENCAPSULATION. (excerpt)
If the new cancer persists past the immune system, the body has a second line of defence that kicks in: Encapsulation.

It’s this exact natural mechanism of protective encapsulation that is vehemently disregarded by conventional medicine whenever cancer is suspected. It is usually a lump. We have to biopsy it, they cry, to see whether or not it’s cancerous. And immediately! Why?

First of all, by the time any lump is big enough to be detected; it has usually been there for at least a year, maybe several. So what’s the rush? Why not see how your body handles it, unmodified by human experimentation? If it remains unchanged over time, chances are the encapsulation can eventually be resorbed, or at least permanently walled off.

The act of biopsy physically violates the body’s evolutionary powers of self-protection by exposing the tumour to all the other tissues the needle had to pass through, both on the way in and on the way out. Any protective encapsulation is thereby breached and contaminated. This virtually invites metastasis: cancer spreading to adjacent tissue.

It is well documented that tumours can be encapsulated for an individual’s entire life, never becoming active. These common sense empirical notions are simply not entertained, not deemed worthy of consideration by the specialists who are anxious to let the billing cycles begin as soon as possible.

The medical philosophy behind biopsy is classic General Motors thinking: the body is a car, made up of unrelated, non-living, inert parts. What we do here will have no effect on anything else. If a lump is discovered, anywhere, your phone will ring off the hook day and night until you agree to get the biopsy. The patient is not allowed to get too comfortable with the notion that the more time goes by without treatment, the better he feels. Or that the body actually has powerful resources of healing all its own, encapsulation being one of them.

You want to see some fancy double talking, bring this subject up with your oncologists. They’ll be very worried you even thought of it, and will go to extreme lengths to convince you that your body does not have this power of walling off invaders and tumours, despite what conventional science, reflected in all physiology texts, has maintained for the past 100 years.

Consider delaying biopsy until some visible, perceptible health change warrants such an invasive and potentially carcinogenic procedure. What’s the worst that could happen by doing that? Few people die of cancer; most die of cancer treatment. That’s the far greater danger, statistically. If you have cancer, guess which system is the most important to you at this time, more than it’s ever been before in your whole life. Right – your immune system. Guess which system suffers the most from chemotherapy and radiation. Right again. So the one time in your life you most need it, your immune system will be weakened by those therapies. Billions of free radicals, destroying your cells. That’s what the word cytotoxic means.

WHAT CAUSES CANCER IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Here’s where the dog and pony show comes in. The traditional cover story is that we don’t know what causes cancer so therefore we have to keep spending $100 billion per year to look for the cause. In reality the opposite is true. The true causes of cancer are well known, well documented and have been for decades. What alters normal DNA? How do normal cells become persistent mutant cells, which grow tumours? There are thousands of everyday DNA-altering, carcinogenic situations, well researched. Let’s list just a few: 60,000 chemicals in our air, food, and water, vaccines,  processed foods, Genetically Modified foods, prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications,tobacco, air pollution, fluoridated water. pesticides on produce, herbicides on produce, chlorine and, other contaminants in our water.

If fruits and vegetables are not marked organic, they are sprayed. What do you think happens with all those tons of military-grade commercial pesticides sprayed onto the crops, poisons which cling to the plant? When it rains, the poison washes down into the soil, is taken up by the plant and becomes part of the plant. And they tell you just wash the fruit before you eat it and it’ll be fine? Come on! And this is what we feed our kids, and all this is legal. These poisons alter human DNA. [Smith, 55] With vaccines, it’s deliberate cell invasion: attenuated or mutated antigens injected into the child’s blood. Sixty-eight vaccines before age 18 [Vaccination Is Not Immunization [4]

Looking for a cure for cancer – who are we kidding? A cure for cancer that will enable us to continue defiling our blood with all the above carcinogenic substances, right? Cure for cancer? Step one: stop poisoning your blood with the causes!
CANCER INCIDENCE.
In 1900, cancer was practically unheard of in this country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per 100,000 population. In 1971, Nixon introduced his War on Cancer, opening the floodgates of massive research funding backed by the government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s, over $50 billion per year was being spent to “find the cure.” A pittance, compared to the $300 billion today. [9]

We’re hit with endless media stories about progress in this war on cancer with new “breakthrough” drugs and miracle procedures being right around the corner… And of course the ever-present ‘new’ experimental drugs offered to almost every cancer patient. It’s astounding how each new generation of cancer patients keeps falling for the same lame rap, year after year. A combination of fear and ignorance is what keeps this train rolling.

Independent analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, [16] put the 1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000. Does that sound like progress? Yeah, progress for the disease. Jumping ahead now to 2000, the overall rate had climbed to 321 per 100,000— [45] OECD Health Data 2010.  Yet all the journal articles will say the opposite – that cancer rates are falling.

CANCER IN CHILDREN.
Before the 1960s, cancer in children was virtually unheard of. With the skyrocketing number of vaccines and drugs given to children, and the proliferation of snack foods and processed foods in the child diet, by the year 2000 we have the astounding figure of 89.5 deaths per 100,000 population, for all types of cancer combined, below age 19. ([46] CDC website 2010) Cancer is now the #1 cause of death in children, according to the CDC! [2] Try finding that figure quoted in monkey media…. As we saw, a hundred years ago, cancer was virtually unknown in the U.S. (And anywhere else) At that time people relied more on whole foods, unrefined and generally in their original form.

Suddenly, processed foods became a greater and greater proportion of the American diet right after the First World War, first in the canning industry, which later developed into the food processing industry. This was when pasteurization, chemical additives, bleaching, and other adulterating processes were introduced into mass food production. The idea was to make food last on the shelves as long as possible, thereby increasing overall profits. The way this was done was by removing the natural enzymes contained in the food, resulting in adulterated de-vitalized non-foods becoming the new standard.Enzymes are what determines a food’s value. See Enzymes chapter.

As more and more sophisticated methods of removing enzymes from food were discovered, shelf life increased, and food value decreased. What does all this have to do with cancer? I’m getting to that. When food that is difficult to digest is forced into the body, month after month, year after year, our own digestive system struggles valiantly to try to break down all these weird, man-made foods that have only this century appeared on the human scene. But eventually the system gets overtaxed, and wears out. The sludge accumulates in the digestive tract. Before long, we start absorbing the indigestible foods into the bloodstream, intact. Big problem!

One of the first signs of the chronic absorption of processed foods into the blood is clumping together of red blood cells. In normal blood, the red cells should be freely movable, and unattached, in order to carry oxygen to all the cells of the body. But the accumulation of undigested protein in the blood makes these red blood cells stick together, like stacks of coins, or like globs of motor oil. Once it gets like this, the blood tends to stay aggregated. Imagine the difficulty, for the blood to circulate. The smallest blood vessels through which the blood has to pass each time around are the capillaries. Unfortunately, the diameter of a capillary is only the same as one of the red blood cells – they’re supposed to circulate in single file. So what happens in a body whose red cells are all stuck together for a few years? The tissues of the body become oxygen-deprived.
OXYGEN.Are we talking about cancer yet? We sure are. Nobel laureate Dr. Otto Warburg discovered in the 1920s [5] what all researchers now know: most cancers cannot exist well in an oxygen-rich environment. Why is it that people don’t die of cancer of the heart? Just doesn’t happen. Why not? Because that’s where the most highly oxygenated blood is, and cancer doesn’t like oxygen. The more anaerobic the environment, the more favourable to cancer growth.

Even more conducive to cancer is a setting of fermentation. That means half-digested carbohydrates. Every bootlegger knows that as sugars ferment, they bubble. The bubbles are the oxygen leaving. Cancer doesn’t like oxygen too well, but it loves sugar. Starting to get the picture here? Fermentation means half-digested, oxygen-poor. This oxygen-deprived environment is perfect for cancer – it thrives in it. Fermentation creates an acidic environment and keeps oxygen away. Remember we talked about all that undigested food accumulating in the gut and in the bloodstream because of not enough enzymes? Well, a lot of that food was carbohydrate – you know, donuts, beer, candy, ice cream, Pepsi, bread, dairy, pastries, etc.
Worse yet, the white cells, which are supposed to circulate as the immune system, become trapped in all this congestion. Their job? Right, to identify and attack foreign proteins immediately. A cancer cell is foreign protein, disguised as a local. This is why taking enzymes 3x a day is absolutely fundamental in any holistic approach to cancer.

ACID/ALKALINE.
Another factor is pH. Acid-forming foods, such as the above, make the blood more acidic. To sustain life, human blood pH must be in the range of 7.3 – 7.45 (Guyton [19] ). Outside that range, we’re dead. Remember, the lower the number, the more acidity. The more acid the blood is, the less oxygen it contains, and the faster a person ages and degenerates. See the chapter called The Three Attributes of Water.

There’s a major difference in oxygen even within the narrow range of “normal’ blood pH: blood that is pH 7.3 actually has 69.4% less oxygen than 7.45 blood, according to Whang’s classic book, Reverse Aging. [47] On a practical level, this means we should do everything to keep the pH on the high side of the range, as close as possible to 7.45, by eating as many alkaline foods as possible. That would be, you guessed it – live, raw foods, especially green foods. As well as drinking alkalized water, of course. See Hydration and Dehydration chapter. [48]

It’s not about raising blood pH; it’s about conserving the metabolic energy of the body for more important tasks than the burden of this constant buffering it is forced to maintain due to all the acid forming processed foods.
That’s the faintest sketch about enzyme deficiency and acid-forming foods as primary causes of creating a favourable environment in which cancer can grow. Please look at the cited chapters for the whole story. End of excerpt.
To read the full article  by Dr,O’Shea, click here.
***
My thought for today: Challenges are what make life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful. - Joshua J. Marine
****




4 comments:

theresia said...

Very interesting Werner. I knew a lot already but not all!!! thank you

Lora said...

Thank you, Werner, for this interesting posting. Cancer is a cash cow for the pharmaceutical companies. They are never interested in a cancer cure; all they are interested in is - making money.

Terry and Joan said...

When we talk about what is causing cancer, Monsanto, the company behind "roundup" and genetically modified food gets hardly a mention. Here is an interesting excerpt from an e-mail. I quote:
"If our food contains residue of Roundup, which it almost certainly will if you're eating conventionally raised corn, wheat, soy, or canola, you can expect the microbial balance within your intestines to become prone to being shifted in the direction of being dominant with pathogenic bacteria. If the pathogenic bacteria becomes dominant, you can expect these bacteria to be producing "lipopolysaccharides", which will then trigger the immune system to produce the pro-inflammatory cycle I detailed above. Given that scenario, if Monsanto's crops, which dominate the food landscape right now, are altering our gut ecology and causing it to become dominant in LPS generating bad bacteria, and this then initiates a brain degenerating pro-inflammatory process in the brain, then we can conclude that Monsanto and conventional farming practices are key factors involving probably every form of chronic illness. Not only that, the pet food you're feeding your animals most likely is tainted with RoundUp residue. Like to eat out? Unless they're advertising their food as being all organic, expect to be consuming some Roundup residue. Even if the food is advertised as organic, research is showing that even this is no guarantee that genetically modified food isn't being used".Unquote.

Arne said...

Terry and Joan are spot on, and Monsanto should be called to account, but they seem to be regarded as protected species by governments and for them too hard to pull them in. The human body can take a fair bit, but this poison works slowly, is systemic and accumulates in the soil and body. It is used on many crops, including potatoes and under all sorts of fruit trees. Is it really surprising that people are getting sicker everywhere?

All these poisons on our food, way too much for any one body to handle. Nobody is taking responsibility or can be held accountable for the endless and widespread, ever growing nightmarish health problems. That is corporate crime by design as part of the global depopulation agenda.