Cancer is a buzz word. It strikes fear in every life. Most of us have had at least one loved one that has died of cancer. Being rational about cancer is difficult. Cold and objective in thinking about this disease is rare. This has resulted in the same quality of systematic and well-planned dealing with this disease that is usually associated with emotionally charged disasters. Physicians claim by Devine right that they are the only ones that can understand and treat this disease, and enact laws to prevent others from doing useful research. Patients grasp at any straw to save their lives. Huge financial edifices are dedicated to some favored forms of treatment, while they ignore simple proven ones. All this time the rate of cancer deaths has steadily risen. In 1900 cancers caused 3 percent of all deaths. Now it is more than 33% and rising! What we must ask is why are cancer deaths increasing, and what can be done?
Can cancer be cured? Can your doctor cure cancer? What can you do to help prevent cancer? We will tell you some things that you can do to improve your chances of surviving cancer. The preventing part is easier. We know that most cancers are the result of incorrect living. We will tell you some of what you can do to help give your body the tools you need to be healthful. A healthful body and lifestyle do make a difference in the course of many diseases, cancer being but one. It is known that diet and exercise make a major difference in treating heart disease. Those that go on a more healthful lifestyle following a heart attack often do cure their disease. Cancer is less predictable. Seeing that the arteries clog with fat and goop, is easy to understand as the source of heart disease and strokes. Modern medicine totally accepts removing that fat and goop by a healthful diet and reasonable exercise as the way to cure the cause of this disease for most patients. Cancer, however, is much more complicated. The paradigms and reasons for cancer are much less well accepted and understood than heart disease.
Modern medicine's success with heart disease, even with a clear understanding of the cause of the main problem has not been good. Surgery has made great inroads. Once we develop a successful artificial heart, which is reasonable with modern technology we can cure heart disease, by replacing the heart. The difficulties so far have been cost. Even once developed, unless, like Henry Ford, some medical group makes one of these directed at the average person, this approach is not likely to be effective. Heart surgeries are too expensive for the free market right now. Even when we conquer this phase of the disease, the problem with the arteries will remain. To cure the cause of the disease changes in lifestyles must permeate the society. Those changes within society are happening, but whether they are happening in the right way is debatable. New chemical additives that taste like fat have replaced excessive fats. Unfortunately these may have problems of their own. It seems to me, the best solution is just to return to known ways of life that prevent the disease.
Cancer is no different. Lifestyle change must precede reduction in the number of deaths for the society. At the turn of the century, cancer caused three deaths in every hundred. Now it is one in three and the percentage is going up. Artery and blood vessel diseases increased in this time as well. Cancer would clearly now be the main cause of death if it were not for this. Now before we get carried away and start saying that ten times as many people die of cancer as did in 1900, which is true, lets note that infections and diarrhea were the main causes of death then. Diarrhea is still the main cause of death in poor countries, and infections are still very significant there. This is not true in America, Europe and most of the developed world.
One of my uncles died of diarrhea during the 1920s in South Carolina. My grandmother was so distressed over this loss of her child that she would not stay on the farm. My grandfather had to sell it and they moved to another farm, with a different well. The first well was polluted. The next well was not! No more kids died! Most of the deaths from diarrhea, world wide, are from drinking water from an impure source, or lack of minimal sanitation. Before the turn of the century, very few people in the world had safe water supplies. The great feat that made it possible for so many of us to avoid this death has been the construction of good sewer and water systems. In virtually every village and town in America, you can go to the tap, get a drink and not be afraid of getting an infectious disease from the water. That fact alone has made diarrhea from cholera and other dreaded diseases a footnote in our history. We need to thank those who made this possible. All the government leaders who worked and continue to work for clean water, and the engineers and construction people who build them need to be thanked. We all are safer from this, the major cause of death in the world, even today, because of the quality of our sanitary systems in the first world. In other countries, a very high percentage of children never reach school age. They die of diarrhea because of lack of minimal sanitation.
We could all lump the second major cause of deaths into bacterial infections. Modern drugs and antibiotics have made huge progress against these causes of death. I am alive today because antibiotics treated my pneumonia in the 1950s. Billions of us have survived infectious diseases due to these prescription infection fighters. Modern medicine has a great success rate with infectious disease. I have referred hundreds of people for medical care for infections over the years. I sincerely acknowledge their success in this area.
The underlying reason for this success and the success with diarrhea, is the central paradigm of modern medical science. Success or failure comes back repeatedly to this, the paradigms of life. The paradigms we all have about life are the way we think about things. Once we form a paradigm, we check all new situations against our paradigm. Then we seek a course of action based on the way we have set our thinking about similar problems. Ways of thinking are without number. Schools of thought develop around different ways of thinking. Cultures develop around different schools of thought. In different parts of the world have developed different ideas about how to live in the world. Each of those ways of thinking has success, or the culture would not have persisted and grown. Each way of thinking or culture has areas of greater success than other cultures. Those areas where our paradigms are closest to reality are most successful. Reality is not a constant. For every paradigm and culture times and places exist within specific environments where they shine.
Modern medicine has a paradigm about what causes disease. We know it as allopathy. In this system a pathogen causes disease. Something from outside the body invades the body. The way to treat or avoid disease in this system relies on killing all the invading organisms. This system and way of thinking is very successful with bacterial invasions. It is the reason we sterilize our water, and pipe away sewage. This paradigm works, and it works well, in preventing and curing bacterial and other infectious diseases. The problem is that it does not work well with most chronic diseases, viral diseases or diseases caused by personal habits and lifestyle. Nowhere is this more evident than in the treatment of cancer. Given the billions of dollars of research and the record of treatment over this century and the continued escalation of cancer deaths, it is safe to say that modern medicine is not on the right road to curing cancer. Nor is it likely to be. Until we recognize that cancer and diarrhea from bacterial action are two very different diseases with different etiologies and causes, there is little hope, that there will be progress. Different problems require different solutions. They require different paradigms!
Unfortunately modern medicine has not adapted to a new paradigm of thinking with cancer. Modern medicine recognizes only surgery, chemotherapy or radiation in the treatment of cancer. All other treatments have been either designated as quackery or pushed to the fringes of medical care. This was done based on the paradigm of kill all cancer cells and you can kill the disease. This was the concept of Halstead, an American surgeon at the turn of the century. He developed this theory during the days of when the visualization of all disease being caused by invading microbes was on the cusp of its greatest successes. They still follow his concepts, to this day. The rates of deaths from cancer have risen steadily since this concept was made king. Almost all research money is directed toward making this paradigm work. It is directed toward finding a drug, surgery or better radiation technique to kill cancer cells more effectively. While this is the focus of thinking of modern medicine, we will miss the cure of cancer. I found it interesting in talking to the chairman of Internal Medicine in a teaching hospital in India in 1993. The death rate from diarrhea still soars in his Caste, most of whom lived on the street. However among these poor people, who have almost no protection from infectious disease, he had never seen a case of Leukemia. None of their children died of Leukemia. The children of more wealthy Indians who did not live in filth and had better medical care did die of Leukemia occasionally. Is there a connection?
Before beginning on a journey, research or life's work, a paradigm must be set. We must define the system in which we will travel toward our goals. The great discoveries of science in the last century and this one have been in areas where we allowed the observations of nature to run free of practical considerations, and applications were added after pure research. Unfortunately research is dependant on funding, and those willing to provide funding often require a religious litmus test. If the research has the promise of financial reward to the drug company or hospital group that sponsors it then, receiving funding is much more likely. One hundred years ago the cancer rates were obviously much lower. Something has obviously changed that is very negative in preventing cancer in our society. Research toward finding out why this has happened, does not support most industries. It is a threat to these financial interests. Surprise-- surprise, almost no research has been done in this area.
What is wrong, is that there are obvious flaws in the directions we have moved in the last hundred years. I am not saying that life is not much better. It is. I am saying that for every paradigm of thinking flaws exist. Our great rush to create modern agriculture, warfare and medicine has had great results. We can now grow more food, kill more people and keep more people alive than at any other point in history. This is not all bad, nor is it all good. Remember it takes different ways of thinking to solve different problems. To grow more food to feed a growing world required modern agriculture. To eliminate the huge attrition of trench warfare required more and better weapons. The horror and vulnerability all nations have toward the use of nuclear weapons have dramatically decreased the deaths world wide from war. Modern medicine has had wonderful success in treating and avoiding infectious disease. All this is good. Nevertheless, like all good solutions, these solutions have created new problems that we must approach with different solutions, and different fundamental paradigms. In health care there are different paradigms. I will give some examples.
We call one other way of thinking Homeopathy, which of all the healing arts is certainly the most experimentally scientific system. In this system disease is caused by the invasion or reaction of the body to an outside influence. The method or treatment is to stimulate the body to respond to this in a way that changes the observed physical response of the body to similar problems. A very small dose of a toxin that causes the body to produce similar symptoms is given. This system of healing has been well proven over the last century and is enjoying a resurgence in popularity. It is very safe. It has no side effects. The developer of this science, Dr. Samuel Hannaman MD, was very opposed to hurting people. Somewhere in his paradigm of thinking, avoiding causing injury became fundamental. The development of a science of healing that caused virtually no harm was important to him, and is reflected in his work.
Naturopathy was the largest form of healing in the world before nine teen hundred. Most medical doctors before this followed the paradigm of treating things naturally. The principle that living in tune with nature is the way to avoid disease generally underlays Naturopathy. In its more pure state, that of seeking to align the patient with what is natural for them, naturopathy may offer the most promising system of dealing with many chronic and serious illnesses, that do not respond to drugs or surgery alone. However, in naturopathy there exist many different types of practice. Most naturopaths just substitute different pills and potions for prescription drugs. This is the same paradigm, I just criticized modern medicine for following. The naturopaths of the last century traded in their enema bags and hot houses. They did this after talking to armies of drug company sales agents with pills for everything. They learned the possible profits to be made and became practicing allopaths. Many current naturopaths and chiropractors are not much different from those who sell other pills from other companies today. Whether your doctor sells you an antibiotic from a pharmaceutical company, or one from a herbal base, it is still the paradigm of allopathy. It is not the particular therapy that is in question here, it is the way the physician thinks about disease. The word naturopathy conjures up "natural," living in tune with nature. Now that has promise! If we look to nature for what works and copy that, then truly we are on the right road. Those naturopaths that do this are clearly a great leap ahead of those who see disease as bugs to be eradicated, just as their medical counterparts.
Chiropractic is the second largest healing art in the world. When naturopathy basically died out as a healing profession in the last century, it became absorbed into chiropractic. In most states the philosophy of nature healing of the naturopaths became fused with chiropractic laws. Through the 1970s the last remaining fully accredited Naturopathic college in the United States was part of a chiropractic college. In Oregon most chiropractors graduated with dual degrees of DC, doctor of chiropractic, ND, Naturopathic Doctor. Many doctors of chiropractic incorporate some naturopathic practices in their work. The public view of chiropractors however is primarily as adjustors of the spine and joints. The underlying paradigm for restoring health in this system of chiropractic is by restoring normal nerve function via release of abnormal pressures on the nerve roots at the spine. This too is well proven by university research and experimentation. Chiropractic adjustments have great promise in treating many diseases. Low back pain has been very well proven to respond to chiropractic adjustments. I have personally treated more than one thousand cases of classical migraines. Consistently these headaches have been gone within twenty minutes following the adjustment. Does the chiropractic adjustment cure or prevent cancer? I do not really think it is very helpful, if at all.
No approach is universal. Chiropractic relief of visceral and nerve root pathologies is very good. Those diseases caused by these physical impingements of nerves, respond, and respond dramatically to chiropractic care. Do these approaches always work. NO! All approaches work with some conditions, not others. I frankly do not think that a very important part of developing cancer is the impingement of spinal nerves. As a chiropractor I have not sought out, accepted or ever considered accepting patients for the treatment of cancer by chiropractic adjustments. I have taught in four chiropractic colleges. Among the thousands of chiropractors I have known, I have never known, or heard of, a chiropractor to get into the treatment of cancer with adjustments. We do study the disease, and do know which patients we should not adjust for other causes, depending on the type and the location of cancers. Just because a patient has cancer, does not mean that a chiropractor cannot help their low back pain, but it may. All licensed chiropractors should be competent to know the difference. That is what we are trained to know!
As a profession we do not treat cancer, but we do refer it to medical doctors for treatment. Once the disease is present, medical care can often help. In part of understanding our own paradigm of healing we learn the limitations of our areas of treatment, and refer to others when that is the best for the patient. I taught the diagnosis and treatment of neoplasms (including cancer) at Palmer College of Chiropractic West. I was fortunate enough to have been the instigator of creating closer working relations within the health care professions for the benefit of patients. We accomplished creating a better working relationship between the cancer society, medical profession and chiropractic doctors on a national level through one of my political campaigns. They estimated that through this political activity that as many as 100,000 Americans would have earlier medical treatment for their cancers and survive. I was very pleased to have started this. I will always be grateful to the hundreds of students, members of Congress and senators who did the actual work to help break down the barriers for our patients.
Part of our problem is reaching a higher level of success with health as a culture, has been the dominance of one paradigm of healing. Chiropractors are generally very cautious about treating conditions for which their art does not apply. Unfortunately not all the other healing disciplines are as willing to admit that they do not have all the answers. This is the fundamental reason that cancer deaths are not likely to change in America. No one school of health thinking has all the answers. Unfortunately modern medicine rarely recognizes this fact.
So what does work for cancer? When they assigned me to teach a graduate school course in neoplasms and genetics, I was thrilled. I have a personal interest in cancer. Most of the members of my family die of cancer. My father had lung cancer. My grandfather died of pancreas cancer and his wife died of a GI tract cancer. The only one I am reasonably sure did not have some cancerous involvement at their time of death was killed by a Yankee bullet in 1864! I had some academic freedom with the course so I made it 80% cancer with a minor emphasis on benign tumors, and 20% genetics. I spent months researching and going through Stanford University's lectures and books, and relied heavily on American Cancer Society films for teaching clinical recognition. Being a person interested in the cause as well as recognition, I found an interesting statement in one of the newest medical school cancer text. I used as the text for my course. It stated that if the patient's immune system fails, the patient dies of cancer.
I will state this a number of ways in the rest of this article, but briefly, IF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM FAILS, THE PATIENT DIES OF CANCER! Cancer is not a disease of microbes, viruses or chemicals. It is a disease of the immune system. Viruses or chemical irritation may cause it, but it is a disease of the immune system. If the immune system is working, curing cancer is possible. If it is not working, curing cancer is not possible. It is as simple, and complex as that. The immune system is simple. It is designed to keep out foreign invaders, and to destroy tissue within the body that becomes foreign. It is very complex in the way it does this. Simple solutions work. Vitamin C is necessary for the immune system to function. It works. Does it cure cancer? Maybe, good scientific evidence shows that it does help. Does taking vitamin C pills fit the right paradigm? I do not think it does. It may be the right thing to do, but most cancer patients, and most alternative doctors recommend taking the pills in hopes to kill the cancer, not boost the immune system. To get to changing the cancer death rate, first we must change our paradigm. The paradigm that can work with really curing cancer, is to think-- what can I do to boost the immune system. How can I get it to attack the cancer? Once this is done, what can be done to shift the battle field to favor the immune system rather than the cancer. Some alternative treatments fit this thinking very well. Some treatments of modern medicine fit this paradigm very well. The key is to think properly about the goal!
The curing of all disease by poisoning the cause of the disease was a great leap forward in thinking in the last century. The great diseases of that century are minor problems now. Allopathy (modern medicine) was great at this. It has not been great at other things. Homeopathy has always remained strong in India. In India there are some very nasty snakes. Homeopathy, has had good success with snake bites. If you think about it, the paradigm of helping the body deal with toxins by a very low level of toxin administration of a similar nature is obviously a good approach. The approach of killing the toxin as would be the first response of an allopathy is not as logical. Chiropractic has enjoyed much more success with low back pain and many other problems that we can trace to lack of mobility of the joints than modern medicine. Again the paradigm of where to look for the source of the problem and the approach to the treatment is the key. The difficulty has come from the nature of man. All these approaches work, and some work better for different problems. To my knowledge, no school of healing has zeroed in on enhancing immune system response as a fundamental paradigm.
While no one claims this territory by adopting the paradigm as a central focus, immune system enhancement is universal property. The real cures of cancer will not likely be the intellectual property of only one class of physicians.
The nature of men is to seek to push their philosophy over other philosophies. We often do this as we are doing by bypassing immune system enhancement, while fighting over paradigms that do not work. It is rare for a Ford dealer to approach a buyer and tell them that the Chevy dealer next door has a better car for them, or vice versa. Where law protects competition and scientific effort, all works well. Cars have continued to develop and grow into better things over the last century because laws protect competition. Even when the suppliers get together and decide what they are going to force on us, competition still works where they do not control other suppliers. The Japanese proved in the 60s and 70s with their small cars after Detroit decided all Americans could be forced to drive big cars.
The problem that arose in at least America, is that Doctors as a bunch (whatever their degree), tend to be God like creatures, or at least they think they are. They tend to think all people should do exactly as they ask, and that anyone that disagrees with them should be silenced by any means necessary. Docs, make good docs, thankfully not that many actually go into government or the Third Reich might look like a Sunday School group. Where doctors have become undisputed national leaders, problems have often arisen, as with Pappa Doc in Haiti, etc. I am not criticizing all doctors here. Anyone who has had the opportunity to observe the people that go into medicine or seek to be physicians, knows this to be generally true. The position of being a physician draws this kind of personality to it. Now what is unfortunate is that the allopathic schools, fresh with their success in treating infectious diseases, became totally dominant during this century. Before the development of antibiotics and the pharmaceutical industry the naturopaths were the dominant group. They were very splintered in their philosophies of healing. Some used herbs, others enemas, others used thousands of different machines, elixirs or potions. They were easy to blow off the map faced with the growing and unified allopaths. No one can argue with the successes and continued success of the allopathic profession.
They succeeded with infections and as all good doctors having just vanquished the cause of most deaths, and much misery of humankind in their time. They set out to, and have dominated all health care since then. Politically the American Medical Association became the most powerful lobbying group in the history of the United States. They passed laws protecting their territory and establishing themselves as the only "real" doctors. Chiropractors and other doctors must clearly identify themselves, although they may have years more training than most medical doctors, or they are subject to fines in all states. By political action, they have locked other healing professions out of insurance reimbursement, although research has shown that for many conditions the treatments of alternative physicians are more effective and economical. The political wing of medicine promoted the public perception that only allopaths are well trained and competent. Most Americans do not know that Naturopaths, Chiropractors, Osteopaths, Dentist, Optometrist, etc., have to go through the same number of years of graduate school training that required of medical doctors. Most Americans do not know that chiropractors are required in most states to have more academic training than medical doctors. The political and educational wing of allopathic medicine has been very successful in establishing their philosophy as the "true" way to go in America. Unfortunately allopathy has not, nor could it ever be the answer to all mankind's problems. Different problems require different approaches.
Cancer is one of those disorders. Modern allopathic medicine, set up itself by political action as the only health care profession licensed to provide care for cancer patients early in this century. This has resulted only three approved modalities for the treatment of cancer. Medicine uses surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. All these are well based in the allopathic theory. For any disease the approach is to destroy the organisms or cells causing the disease. This approach has not worked in reducing the incidence of cancer at all, despite billions of dollars of research. This not a surprise. No amount of money or effort based on the wrong paradigm of operation is likely to succeed.
A friend of mine has always been bothered because I have tall sons, and he has short ones. Of my four sons the one likely to be the shortest is 5'10" and still growing. His tallest of five is not likely to be more than 5'7". Certainly, he has tried more often and produced more kids, and he himself is three inches taller than I. However, he has continued to marry women less than 5'1". The mothers of my children are all taller than I am. If the goal is to have taller children than yourself, which was a very incidental result for me, having a tall wife is necessary. One of my patients had this idea. He was a college basketball player. He liked it. He did not get in the pros, but he was tall enough. That alone, almost got him there. He decided he wanted his children to have that opportunity. He is 6'7" and he only dates ladies well over 6'. Certainly when he does have children, the odds of them growing up to be basketball players are very high. To succeed in an effort to produce we must identify a result, the variables and causes. Having fifty kids with tiny women is not likely to produce any 6'7" basket ball players. Having one with both parents of that height is.
This has been the problem with modern medicine's great war on cancer. Their way of thinking about the disease is wrong. Cancer is not caused by invasion of the body by foreign bacteria. No amount of money spent on research designed to make a system of treatment that shines in the killing of bacteria is likely to have any success. The cause of cancer is not like the cause of coronary artery disease. It is not the simple plugging of arteries by fat and goop. Medicine has not shone at curing this either, even though it is caused by the invasion of the body by foreign matter. That foreign matter is usually found on the table of most American homes three times a day. No drug or surgery can cure it. It is only curable or preventable by changing what we eat and lifestyle. To view cancer as something that invades the body as a bacteria is equally incorrect. A cancerous cell is caused by the internal change in a cell, which makes it not abide by the rules of the whole organism. Cancer cells are normal body cells that abandon their assigned posts. They disable and throw away their specialized functions that make them good citizens of the body. Then set about reproducing themselves as their only goal. This is not a foreign invasion, or at least it is not one on the surface. The abnormal cells are normal cells that have the nucleus altered and are no longer part of the body's "good" citizens. Modern medicine, or allopathy came to power on one paradigm-- kill the bad guys. This is a great idea. Anytime there is a problem send in the army, guns blazing an kill the bad guys. Shoot everything in site that has an enemy uniform, and you can cure all illness. No wonder most doctors are political conservatives!
When man kind's major cause of death was infectious disease this idea worked very well. Whenever a patient came to a doctor with diphtheria, pneumonia etc., just give them a pill. Tell the body to stand aside, let the pill do the work and all will be well. This works very well when the enemy is all in uniform. All bacterial infection is by definition in uniform. It comes into the body as a complete cell with its own nucleus, body and cell wall. It has a uniform, that is consistent. It has a structure that can be destroyed by specific chemical or biological mechanisms that can be introduced into the body. The problem is cancer is always out of uniform. Cancer cells are the body's own cells. They all have a cell membrane that is very much like the cell membrane of other cells. To the body these cells are accepted for being of the body. So when we send in the army with guns blazing, who are they supposed to kill? Radiation is based on killing all growing cells. This works because cancer cells are usually growing faster that other cells in many types of cancer. Chemotherapy is usually based on the same thing, killing growing cells. Surgery is based on cutting out bad cells. All these have a place in the treatment of cancer, and have varying degrees of success with different cancers.
The failure of modern medicine in treating cancer is that this is not the problem.
To blame the normal cells that have gone bad has not solved the problem. Cancerous cells alone do not cause the disease of cancer. The lack of response of the body is the major factor. Just as a growth of welfare fraud in our society may not mean there are too many criminals. These criminals are the product of our society, and failure to recognize this and change the environment that creates these criminals will result in more criminals. However welfare fraud may also mean that we are not removing these criminals from the society. If people learn that they will receive more money if they do not produce, and that the more babies they produce, the more moneys they will pay them for not producing, baby making and not producing becomes attractive. The cancer cell analogy is similar to this form of welfare fraud. The cells are our own. They are not overtly bad cells. They are just living off the society. Cancer cells do not do useful work and attempt to produce as many off spring as possible. If the conditions are ripe for the creation of cancer and no one changes this environment more cells in the body will become cancer cells. Whatever we do some cells will choose this route. Just look at the virtuous fluid in the eye under a microscope. You can usually see some floating cancer cells in most people's eyes, and cancer of the eye is very rare. Throughout our bodies cancer cells are forming all the time. We all have cancer cells. Let me state that again WE ALL HAVE CANCER CELLS. We all have within our bodies cancer cells forming at this very minute. Cancer is a universal thing. It is always present. What is not normal is for those cells to set up colonies.
These cancer cells, that we all have, just do not get the chance to continue growing. They are floating around in the body, not in touch with the immune system. The bulk of the body exists without a constant direct contact with the immune system. An analogy can be drawn to the police and the immune system. Society like the body has a police system. If you live with a police man or next to the police station, or drive on a major highway, you have a relatively constant contact with them. If someone living in that environment becomes criminal they are more likely to be taken out of circulation early. However in the usual environment, we only see a police officer when they are called into the home, school etc. They constantly patrol the blood system. They constantly patrol highways and major traffic centers. The rest of the body like homes and communities are occasionally rambled through, but mostly not visited by the police without a 911 call.
The body is much like this. No one notices one cell gone bad unless the police are notified, if it is caught on a random patrol or the cell is in someway so noticeable that it attracts special attention. Once that attention is gotten, the situation changes. The first line of defense of our bodies, just like our society is the police officer on the beat. They are not lawyers or specialists in any crimes. They are just there to spot suspicious activity and respond to calls. This line of defense is great against foreign invaders, such as microbes, but it is not so good against our own cells gone bad. Bacteria in the body are alien. They look like aliens to our police. They look like armed gunmen with ski masks on coming out of a liquor store to everyone, especially the police. Normal cells gone bad may not look strange to the cop on the beat any more than a welfare fraud perpetrator would to a highway patrol man. They have the same skin, or clothes the rest of us do. These kinds of criminals, just like cancer cells require special detection. They dress and look like the rest of us, but they do not support the government, or the rules of the body. They have the goal of growing and taking care of their own needs, just as cancer cells do. However, if they take needed nutrients and block vital functions in the process that is OK with them. They are much more difficult to detect and deal with than bacteria or armed robbers in ski masks for the police.
The police have special units to deal with these kinds of criminals, so does the body. Cancer cells are so common in the eye and other places because their presence as single cells or even a small clump of cells is insignificant to the body. It is only when the cancer grows, or is in a special location, that it becomes of concern to the body. So our policing efforts are, as a very well planned austerity measure is usually restricted to detecting cancer colonies large enough to pose a threat. We rarely destroy cancer cells so long as they are a small isolated group of cells. However, like any community when they grow, they require facilities. If someone builds a house on the mountain, everyone is usually happy if they and their dog just walk to get there. Even if a group of families move into an isolated area, the government will not usually pay too much attention. If however they move over the mountain with a thousand people, all of a sudden roads will start to grow. Power lines and communication systems will be put up. It is at this point that the police start making routine patrols and start snooping around. If the purpose of the community is not for useful and approved by the planning board, the local police drop a dime in the pay phone. Before nightfall the town and its residents have a personal experience with the swat team. If the swat team cannot handle it, then the army or other major forces continue to arrive until they wipe out the settlement. This is very similar to how cancer detection works. Nothing is ever done until the colony grows large enough to attract the attention of the local police. Then if the body's defense system is functioning well, the colony is destroyed. Once the members of the group are in a police file, the police officers on the beat go out looking for any members of the group that got away and destroy them as well. This is how we remove metastatic lesions.
If this system is not working then these cancer colonies are not destroyed. In a police sense they are not that evil. They just want to live and do their own thing, which is to reproduce and live, without contributing to the well being of the society. If this is not stopped, they continue to grow until they become large enough to interfere with some vital function. This is the way cancer kills. It usually does not attack the body. It just takes up space. It takes up nutrients that healthy cells trying to do their jobs need. It blocks organs by taking up space and keeps them from functioning. It causes hemorrhages or other malfunctions of normal blood vessels that try to care for these growths by giving them blood and nutrients. Cancer is not overtly evil. It just grows and takes up space. Our bodies like our societies depend on contributing members. Any large group of cells which deliberately refuses to support the good of the whole and grows out of control at the expense of those cells which are functional is cancerous. Benign tumors do not function as they should but do restrict their growth. These are common on the skin of most of us more than fifty. Moles, little lumps nevi, many forms of cells are very common. The difference is that they do not have the explosive growth that cancer cells do. They do not usually send out satellite colonies to other locations. There are also normal acting cells, that for some reason, begin to proliferate out of control. These do not fit the classical picture of cancer, but are often considered cancers nonetheless. Leukemia, and most brain cancers are of these types. Whatever the error in functioning, if the cells of the body fail to obey all the rules and maintain their designed functions, there are specialized immune system cells assigned the function of seeking them out and destroying them.
This is the definition of cancer. It is not a disease from the outside, although it may well be of viral origin. It is a disease of the inside. It is a disease caused by a failure of the immune system to seek out and destroy the bodies own cells that are malfunctioning. Cancer cells are not invaders. They are your own cells gone bad. People with healthful immune systems do not get cancer. The people that get cancer, for some reason their immune systems fail to detect the growth of abnormal colonies of cells and destroy them. If the immune system fails, the patient dies of cancer. If the immune system fails to function, it is only a matter of time before some form of cancer kills the patient. It is inevitable.
It could not be more clear. If we look at it from an individualistic point of view, what do we all want? We want to live, do our own thing and have off spring. Most of us do not want to pay taxes, go to work, dress in three piece suits, obey the speed limits, etc. We do all this to stay out of trouble with the police. We do a lot of things because we have too. Now imagine a society where billions of individuals band together to make a living being. Now imagine that each of those cells is selected to do a certain function, and no other function for their entire lives. Imagine that each of those cells obeys every law and has the exact amount of children they are directed to have from the brain. This is what our bodies are, billions of individual cells each doing what is right for the body as a whole. Skin cells sacrificing themselves constantly for the good of the body. Bone cells locked in rocky prisons constantly recreating the human frame to comply with new stresses. Every one of the billions of cells doing exactly what they are suppose to do for the good of the body, so that you can live. The fact that constantly a few cells say to heck with it and go on to be cancer cells is not a surprise. The surprise is how little this happens. The surprise is that we all did not melt into a puddle of cancer cells eons ago.
Now what causes these cells to go cancerous? All the animal studies show that it is of viral etiology. Viruses penetrate the cell wall. Without killing the cell go to the nucleus and take over part of its function. The purpose of cancer viruses, is to take over cells and reproduce itself. With cancer this is bad for the body. With colds, flu, and other viral diseases it is bad for the body. Viruses are not accepted by all in the medical profession and scientific community as being the cause of cancer. The evidence is good, but not absolute. So what can we do to avoid cancer viruses? For one do not eat animal products. Vegans have a much lower rate of cancer than meat eaters. Part of the reason for this is that cancer viruses are most likely to be found in a host that support them. The closer to man an animal is the more likely that animal is harboring diseases that could also survive and prosper in the human ingesting the meat of that animal.
As an example, cannibals have a very high rate of some very rare cancers. Cancer can be spread from one human to another very easily this way. A classic is kuru, in New Guinea Highlands. This disease is a deterioration of the brain from a slow acting virus. In that culture, it is considered an act or respect to eat the brain of deceased relatives. Usually the women do this, and these women get the disease. It is slow acting and takes some decades to develop. It is very fatal. Similar brain diseases are associated with eating beef and sheep. If you eat the blood and flesh of a mammal, which is closely related to us, any viruses in that animal may be transmitted to you in its flesh. If it is a young healthful animal your risk is lower, but it is still there. If it is a more distantly related animal, the viruses may not be adapted to the human host and eating it may be more safe. So that chicken is safer than beef, lamb or pork, and fish is safer than chicken. I am only speaking of cancer here. The risk of other diseases from the use of these foods is a separate issue.
If you eat meat, what increases your risk? For one thing they should destroy most viruses in the stomach. However if your stomach is low in acid, hypochlorhydria, then there is not enough acid in the stomach to break down the proteins of food or viruses. Organ meats and meats from diseased or old animals increase your risk. Given the economy of the meat industry, not much escapes being sold to customers! Enjoy your hot dogs! Of course vegans and vegetarians do not have this risk from their foods. Milk drinkers are another matter though. It is well established in animal studies that the Bittner virus, it involved in breast cancer. It is passed from mother to daughter. The consumption of milk products, is a high risk behavior for breast cancer for several reasons. First it may carry cancer viruses from the cow. Second it carries female hormones. These hormones stimulate the earlier onset of puberty and sexual development of young girls. This early onset of puberty and secondary sexual development has been associated with breast cancer in women. Starting menses at sixteen is common for vegan girls, rather than nine or ten as is possible with meat eating, milk drinking children.
Now having said all that, we have billions of cells in our bodies. On average, in each one of those cells, live two viruses. The viruses that set off some forms of cancer may be in the body for decades or even from birth, and are activated by some signal. The kuru virus of New Guinea, usually lies dormant for thirty years before it kills. Most cancer viruses are long-acting viruses. They wait for some trigger to set them off. Chemical carcinogenesis is an accepted scientific fact. We know that exposure to certain chemicals causes cancer. It may be that the virus will not cause cancer without a chemical stimulus. It may be that it really is a chemical phenomenon. I lean toward the viral theory with chemical initiation. In any case the factors setting off cancer can often be avoided. We know that lifestyle is very preventive of many of the most common forms of cancer, colon, breast, lung, skin etc.
However the key is not to look for a cure to kill the cancer, but to look toward a boosting the immune system. Cancer may have many causes. We can debate these. We can do studies on all of them until the cows come home, but it will not cure the disease unless we apply what we have learned! So long as the only accepted forms of treatment of cancer are based on paradigms that have been out dated for ninety years, the chance of reducing the incidence of cancer is low! I believe cancer is a disease caused by the action of at least hundreds of types of viruses. Several thousand types of rhino viruses cause the common cold. It would be a mistake to think only one, or a few types of cancer viruses exist. It is likely a variety of retro viruses that cause the disease. Currently the most talked about cancer virus is the AIDS virus. This may have been around a long time, but with new technology we can pinpoint causes we did know understand only a few years ago. The AIDS virus has been a major problem for the medical profession. First viruses overall are a problem for the allopathic concepts of healing. They have not followed their wonderful successes with bacteria with wonderful successes with viruses. The common cold is at least as common now as it was 100 years ago. Cancer is up ten fold. Obviously, to fight a cold it is necessary to enhance the immune system. To prevent or cure cancer it is equally obvious.
I lived and worked with the Ann Wigmore groups for several years off and on. They teach a healthful lifestyle using living vegan foods. Everything is fresh from the garden, and people with all sorts of illnesses go there. However, the approach is not to consider wiping out any illness. These vegan health institutes do not diagnose or treat disease. They teach a healthful lifestyle. Any disease that recovers or goes away is cured by the body itself. However, those that have had cancer and completely recovered have been more vocal. Many, many cancer patients have made the trek to Ann Wigmore's centers. Certainly not all of them got over their cancers, but many did. The reason is simple. Boost the immune system and the immune system may do its job. Leave it depressed and you guarantee death. The diet is heavy on wheatgrass, sprouts. Everything eaten is alive. No cooking of food is ever done. Seed cheeses are made from sunflowers etc. and fermented to create living bacteria to restore the health of the GI tract.
I adopted the lifestyle, and lost many major health problems. My heart which rheumatic fever damaged started functioning normally. Severe hay fever that I had all my life was gone for more than three years following living this lifestyle strictly. The staff there are always just teaching how to eat, exercise and think. There is no emphasis on what is wrong with the people who come. Most like me, were in good health, and just looking for a better way of life. Others did have serious illnesses, like cancer. What we all got from the program, was not a promise of a cure for anything, but just a better more healthful way to live. We changed our paradigm of thinking about health and life. Nature took care of the rest.
Will you live forever on this lifestyle? No! What you can do is live longer and better. Will being a living foods vegan cure all that is wrong with you? No, it will not! It has dramatic results sometimes, and not others. It is however the most healthful thing that ever came into my life. I never had any anticipation that it would do anything for the degenerating heart valve that was slowly sapping all my energy. I just woke up one morning after about six weeks on the program with no clanging in my chest. At first I knew something was missing. I had lived with this noise in my chest for about three years. It was constant as the damaged valve rhythmically slammed shut with each beat of my heart. Within a few months I could not hear it at all. On examination the next year the doctor could hear no abnormal heart sounds! I have a normal heart and can run again. They had given me less than twenty years to live without heart surgery before this. Nothing I can ever say can truly express my happiness at having my heart back again. I climbed one of the mountains at Yosemite this spring with no difficulty. I did not even get winded! Six years ago I could not go up two flights of stairs without resting. This, and no one has ever made any claims about the living foods lifestyle helping heart valve problems. I have not really figured out why it helped mine. Most of the former clients, who have raved about being cured, have raved about their cancer disappearing. Understanding why this happens is easier. This life style clears and boosts the immune system!
Now having said all this, am I going to promise you a cure for cancer? No. In fact I am going to promise that if you do go on a healthier lifestyle, it may increase the length and quality of your life. If you live to a great enough age, you will die of cancer. Everybody has to go somehow, and this is one of natures last ditch, sure fire, individual remover plans. It gets everyone who avoids death by other means. As I said earlier, it is not a miracle that cancer goes away. The miracle is that we don't all die from it much earlier.
Cancer is a disease that is universal. All living things seem to get cancer. Trees get it. Dogs get it. Grass gets it. Everything gets cancer. Anything living gets cancer. Rocks do not get it. For living there is a price to pay. That price is that your days on the earth are limited. I have broken open rocks that were as bright and shinny inside as they were fifty million years ago when they popped out of a volcano. We all will be dead in less than a geological instant. The price we pay for living is death. It is important to all things living that the old things living get out of their way. Nature always insures this. We die of many, many causes. What we focus on is accidents and violence. We all understand these things. We all fear being eaten, crushed, drowned or cut. This is a primary fear. Disease, parasites, and degenerative changes devastate us. If we survive all these external causes of death, the final line of our defenses at last gives in. The immune system over the years changes. In the last few years of life in a long good life it just cuts off. Very old people feel very little pain, but the system that protects them from pneumonia as well as cancer just quits. This end line event varies with the way we have lived our lives, heredity and exposure to toxins, as well as and probably most importantly our self attitude and purpose in life.
Man is very lucky. We have a very long life span for a mammal. In the Bible it says seventy years in one place and 120 in another. I wrote a whole book on this once, but to summarize. If you drift, eat as the masses eat, do not exercise and have a bad attitude, your chances of making it to seventy are not that bad. This is sort of a given age. The systems most prone to break down and cause death, will keep going until this age most of the time. If a person is unlucky, has a genetic weakness, smokes or does other things this can be shortened. On the other hand if you do it all right. If you are born into a strict living foods vegan household, exercise do yoga and think right all your life, at age 120 you should be in the same physical shape as those born at the same time who do not care for their health, were at seventy. The difference is not only that your potential life span is fifty years longer. You will very likely have had a much better quality of life. As I said earlier, I had a valve that was making my life much less enjoyable six years ago. I could not run. Playing with my kids was difficult. The defect in my heart affected the quality of my life. This is also very true of smokers, overweight people, etc. They all have a lower quality of life as well as quantity. If you live perfectly, your life is not just longer, it is longer and better. A 100-year-old that can climb mountains, and is lucid and contributing to life has a better life than a 50-year-old with emphysema and oxygen starvation to the brain. Living well is not just a matter of living longer it is living better. Part of that living better and longer is reducing the chances of developing cancer.
We all know that a low fat, high carbohydrate diet with a lot of vegetables lowers the risk of colon and breast cancer. It also reduces the incidence of artery disease and many other chronic diseases. The living foods vegan diet is a wonderful preventive diet for most of the chronic diseases we see in our society. It involves a major shift in the paradigms about eating. Those centers that have several week programs to teach others how to rethink their ideas on eating make a huge difference in the health and longevity of those that pass through their doors. I will not go deeper into this system here. There is good literature elsewhere. Ann Wigmore wrote many books. All of them focus on this lifestyle.
What other resources do we have to enhance our immune systems. The best approach is a holistic complete change in our approach to living. However, even more important is our attitude. This again is a very large topic. In a nutshell it is: If you believe your life is over. If you believe that there is no purpose in life for you. If you believe that the world would be a better place if you were dead, your prayers will be answered. A speeding truck, infection, or cancer will answer your prayers. The truth is that we all die when our missions in life are completed. This is a spiritual concept. Each of us can point to individuals that have died as children, in the prime focus of their work, etc., but I still believe this. You are most welcome to disagree. What is less debatable, is that there is a disconnect mechanism. Once a person begins to believe that they are useless, the system changes. They begin to shut down. One of the things they shut down is their immune system. When we are depressed, we are more susceptible to disease. We get colds easier. We get cancer easier.
One mechanism of this physically is that we burn more nutrients when we are down. One common deficiency is vitamin C. Vitamin C is effective in preventing colds and flu. It has also scientifically been shown to be effective in the treatment of cancer. Dr. Linus Paulings, PhD, two time Nobel Prize winner, wrote an excellent book on this. I will not rehash his work here. He did show a significant improvement and cure rate for cancer with megadoses of vitamin C. Some people in his studies were up to 100 grams of vitamin C per day. Vitamin C is easy to use and non toxic. If you are not taking enough vitamin C and you take the amount you need, you begin to have a stronger immune system. A stronger immune system may respond to the illness and correct it. If you take just a little too much, it will give you diarrhea. So monitoring and selecting the amount of vitamin C to take when you are sick is easy. If you get diarrhea, you are over dosing and need to cut back enough so that the diarrhea goes away. This is true whether you have a cold or cancer.
Vitamin A, B and many other factors affect our health. The interesting thing about the vitamin C work is that the body on a living foods diet gets about 5000 mg of vitamin C per day. This is what we need in normal health. The standard American diet is about 10% or this. Even the recommended daily allowance is about 10% of this. However you have to realize that this recommendation is based on what is the average amount taken in by young college students on a typical college student diet. Pizza, beer and hot dogs is not the optimal amount, and the average participant of these studies does not live to be 120 in good health. They are the average Americans that die at seventy. So to live a short disease ridden life and die at seventy the RDA values are worth following. If you have reasons and purpose to live longer than that, it is better to look to scientific works such as Dr. Pauling's for guidance.
As an alternative doctor who spent the first fifteen years of my practice encouraging people to take supplements, the change to a living foods lifestyle was also a big change for me. I provided chiropractic adjustments, and had a large cabinet in my office filled with vitamins, bulk forming laxatives and other pills to sell my patients. I did help them with these. I did take most of them myself, and did see better health from the taking of them. My heart was giving out. I was over weight, and my chances of reaching seventy were not that good. The whole change or paradigm of thinking that has come with the work I did with Dr. Ann Wigmore's groups changed my approach. I do not take pills at all myself now, nor do I recommend them, except to treat specific illnesses, or patients that are missing something that I feel cannot be replaced in nature. I am healthier for this, and I find that those patients that follow this lifestyle are healthier.
In my office I also offered colonic irrigations. This modality does have some relevance to cancer. It can be used as a tool to stimulate the immune system. Overall most of my patients that came in for this therapy were just seeking better health. Some came in with candida, rheumatoid arthritis, headaches, constipation, allergies and other illnesses that respond to colonic irrigation, or enemas. These will be covered in future articles. One condition that we saw a lot was cancer. I had a rule about this however. I have never treated a cancer patient for cancer. The political environment in the United States makes the use of any treatment for cancer other than radiation, prescription drugs, surgery or chemotherapy illegal. I only treated patients that were concurrently under the care of an oncologist, and have not nor do I make any claims to cure cancer. In fact I scan for possible cancers and refer them for medical care. In my personal practice I have detected several hundred possible cancers on examination and referred them for medical care. Unfortunately I have been correct in more than half these cases. I refer because drugs, surgery and chemotherapy do have good success rates for many cancers. These therapies do nothing to correct the underlying causes that allowed the cancer to develop. However, they do have a proven success rate with obliteration of some of cancers, and provide needed support systems. This to me is more important than the politically motivated laws restricting cancer treatment to medical physicians. In this nation no colon therapist can offer to treat cancer. However patients find out that colon therapy helps, so they seek to have these treatments.
One thing that is clear about cancer is that it is a toxic disease. Colonic irrigations are very good at helping relieve the side effects of toxins. Cancer is a toxic disease. This is what causes the odor or cancer. When tumors get large, they out grow their blood supply. Cancer cells also do not stick together as well as other body tissues. Both these factors tend to cause larger tumors to break or develop necrotic areas. This results in sudden death of large numbers of the cancer cells and the body must deal with the toxic by products of these dead areas within the body. Cancer patients must consume a healthful diet with lots of detoxifying agents, like lots of chlorophyll, bulk forming agents and other things to help with dealing with toxins. Colon cleansing is also important. Constipation is not good. The colon is the major avenue for the expulsion of solid toxic waste. In order for cancer patients to get rid of this waste the free flow of the bowels is important. Enhancing this with enemas is possible. However, my experience with patients is that with the cancers well developed are often quite weak. The taking of enemas is tiring. It takes effort to release an enema. It is common for anyone that is weak to have trouble doing adequate cleansing with enemas. The amount of colon cleansing required by a cancer patient, who is suffering from toxicity, is best done by colonic irrigation, if enemas fatigue them. In a good colonic the colon is filled ten or twelve times during an irrigation, as compared to once with a good enema. This washing of the body is precisely what they need with a toxic condition. The repeated washing of the colon allows the body to dump a maximum amount of garbage.
Here I must put a major counter indication. If the patient has colon cancer, doing enemas or colonic irrigations is very risky. Active tumors in the colon they can be made to rupture or hemorrhage. The patient can die during the treatment. This can be a problem for the therapist. On the other hand the tumors, in my opinion, are more likely rupture from the passage of constipated feces. This can be a problem for the patient. This is one of the little dilemmas in providing care. As a therapy provider, only once have I treated a patient with active colon cancer. This risk is too high. If a patient does hemorrhage following a colonic, it is likely that the politically motivated medical police will make a big deal of it, no matter what the circumstances. I was fortunate that she did not hemorrhage and no complications from my treatment occurred.
When I had my colonic clinic, I had a patient whom I had met often outside the office. She was a lady in her seventies. She was pale, anemic and showed some signs of blood loss, not a normal thing for a lady of this age. Colon cancer is one of the things that can cause this. I repeatedly told her to go to her medical doctor for an evaluation. She did not like doctors and refused. She became impacted and came in as a new patient wanting a colonic. I told her I would give her a colonic, IF she would go straight to a medical doctor following the treatment. As my therapist treated her, very gently, I called three local medical doctors and found one who would take her immediately. She had refused to go to the emergency room already. After the treatment she did not keep her appointment with the doctor and went home. I called her every day for three days trying to get her to go in for care. She eventually collapsed and did die of colon cancer within the next few months. After they took her unconscious to the hospital, her surgeon found out she had a colonic three days earlier. Her daughter reported to me that he told her that her mother had cancer because she had a colonic three days earlier! It takes more than ten years for a colon tumor to grow to the size of the one removed from this lady! I know very personally that some doctors will lie to patients to scare them and their families about alternative care. Had the colonic had any negative consequences, which it did not, that individual doctor could have been very dangerous! Providing proper and professional care in such an atmosphere is difficult. Still, it must be done.
The elimination of waste is very important. I required all my patients with cancer to have concurrent medical care. There is good reason for this. With colon cancer early detection and removal of the tumors is very important. Once a tumor has reached a certain size it is very difficult to handle. The analogies to the police still apply. The body is well designed to eliminate the constantly forming small cancer colonies that form throughout the entire body. We kill these colonies before they reach a visible size. Small detachments of immune system cells sweep down on the colony and it is gone. The problem with cancer is that one of these colonies continues to grow. As it gets larger this creates a problem. If the police discover a band of a dozen or so criminals, it is easy to mount an attack. It is more difficult when the police charge over the hill and see a mass of criminals stretching over the horizon. This is the situation that occurs in cancer. The cancer cells eventually present such a mass of tissue that the body can no longer mount an effective defense or remove the main colonies. If a person has a large, aggressive tumor, survival is unlikely. Even with great diet and lifestyle, there is just so they can stimulate much the immune system to accomplish.
I do not want to leave the impression that I oppose all medical therapy. Removing the masses of cancer cells is very important once they are discovered. Surgery is an excellent technique to accomplish this. Radiation is also useful, although it has a higher rate of damage to the immune system. Chemotherapy is usually the same. The trade off is whether the damage to the system, and particularly the immune system is worth the risk. Surgery overall does not do so much damage to the immune system. If I had cancer, I would want any growths cut away. If the cancer had a good statistical evidence of cure with radiation or chemotherapy, I would have those treatments as well. Some cancers are cured dramatically by chemotherapy or radiation. These are good an valuable therapies when properly used. Many lives have been saved by good surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Knowing what the likelihood of this helping is just important. Good statistics are available on most medical treatments of cancer. Your doctor can provide these on request. Some cancers show a near 100% cure rate. Other forms of cancer show a near 0% cure rate, and invasive therapies are still provided which make life miserable with no real chance of helping.
Even if this episode of the disease is totally curable, the final clean up must be accomplished by the body itself. The immune system must recognize the remaining small, and often undetectable, colonies as enemies. If it does this, this particular cancer is over. If it does not, this or another cancer is likely to return and kill the patient. New cancer cells are constantly being born in the body. No way can any external treatment can remove all these. As well there is a critical mass. One cancer cell cannot start a new colony. It takes a number congregating at a certain point. This is an antithesis to the basis of Halstead's concepts. Halstead laid out the modern medical concepts of how to treat cancer. He was an allopathic physician. He viewed cancer as an outside invader of the body. Like pneumonia or another pathogen he viewed cancer as a disease to be totally destroyed by allopathic means. He was a surgeon. He described the removal of the tumors, and all lymph tissue and other tissue that could contain cancerous cells. Later radiation and chemotherapy were added with the same intent-- to destroy all the cancer cells. This technique has been moderately successful. Not carried to extreme does work well with many cancers. However, in the breast cancer, it was shown in the 1920s that this sort of radical surgery was no more effective in curing this form of cancer than simple lumpectomy.
The difficulty again is that the paradigm of treatment underlying modern medical allopathy is incorrect when dealing with cancer. This is difficult for most physicians. The main financial incentives within medicine and education of these doctors are based on the allopathic paradigm of killing all bad cells. When provided on a limited basis, these allopathic therapies work. However to be successful in eradicating the underlying cause for cancer, nothing can work unless the body joins in its own defense. The formation of cancer cells in the body is a constant and unending process. If one over grown colony of cancer cells is stopped, another takes its place. It is no mystery that the patient that recovers from one cancer usually develops another tumor later. If a lady survives breast cancer, she commonly gets colon, or another cancer, some years later. If the immune system is down, the immune system is down. Some medical therapies do more harm to the immune system than they do good. This my only real objection to their use, and as I say it is a matter of effectiveness. If they have good honest scientific evidence that the cure rate is good, then by all means they should be done.
This is never enough to remove the underlying reasons the cancer occurred. Sometimes it is a natural timing occurrence, as it is with great age. In most younger patients it is an error in lifestyle. What can be done to prevent cancer is to live right. What can be done to aid the possibility of recovery is to live right. No doctor or therapy can replace the patients own efforts. Proper diet, the avoidance of carcinogens, like smoking, etc. These things prevent cancer. These things avoid the recurrence of cancer. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation only treat the current episode of the disease. Colon therapy also has a role to play throughout the disease. Cancer is a toxic disease. To treat cancer patients and ignore their levels of toxicity, increases their pain and decreases the response of the immune system. Colon work also has a role in stimulating the immune system. This does not cure cancer, but whenever a patient has cancer, every means reasonable should be employed to stimulate the immune system.
In my previous article on colds and flu, I detailed some of the ways the immune system is stimulated by enemas. The same applies to cancer. The mechanisms are heat-- heating the body stimulates the immune system. This stimulation can be a warm climate, saunas, hot baths, warm colonics (I normally used 103 degrees Fahrenheit, however with patients with infections or in need of immune stimulation I would do one or two fills with 107 degree F water), or warm enemas. Then there is removal of waste which we have already covered. Toxic waste in the system inhibits the immune system. The immune systems reading mechanisms of the colon and GI tract are also important. The colon constantly reads its contents through detection membranes that line the colon and sends this information to the immune tissue. I do not know of much research into this, however, I accept that this works. I know that enemas stop allergy attacks. I know that they reduce the symptoms of colds, and help the body organize its response to colds. I know there is a role that is important in having a healthy colon and colon contents to good health.
Clearing the colon of toxic proteins, and normalization of colon function and contents is important to having a normal immune response to disease. Certainly colon cleansing is important. I frankly do not know how important. I do know I have had a number of patients of great age that did do regular colon cleansing and did not have overt cancer or other diseases. Colon cleansing in conjunction with other healthful practices is important. Having any in depth statistical research done on it is very unlikely, since all colon therapy via water is viewed as very unprofitable by the medical industry.
It is also a good question of just how well our colons can function. We as a species have made some large modifications to our bodies. We are much larger than our ancestors. Humans have rather constant back problems. We are very broad in the spectrum of foods that we can consume. It is questionable how well we can handle all these foods. The colon is constantly dealing with the range or our diet, the appropriateness of our diets and the other stresses in our lives. Most of these variables were not present in the environments of our distant ancestors.
It is interesting that sometimes our natural desires, like seeking to have good elimination drive us to health. Other times the long term effects are different. Remember earlier a physician in India reported observing a very low, or missing incidence of Leukemia among the very poor Indians? Clearly, if his observation is true, our growth to a better life style opened the door to at least this one deadly disease. The incidence of cancer seems lower among the poorest nations rather constantly. It we are to zero in on one other very important factor in preventing or curing cancer, we must look at what we are doing to change our environment. One thing we have changed is our approach to disease.
In poor countries when you are sick you crawl under a tree, curl up with a blanket if you have one and wait to die or get well. One hallmark of most diseases is fever. The body temperature shoots up. Fever is both an activating mechanism of the immune system, and a product of its activation. Children have fevers. Having frequent high temperatures with ear aches is common for a child. Colds, flu etc. also cause high fevers. Part of this is that their immune system is learning. Part of that learning process involves getting sick with exposure to new bugs. As we age, we have progressively less of these nasty little infections, and we have fewer fevers. The incidence of cancer goes up in direct proportion to this reduction in common infectious disease. Some studies show that allergy sufferers have a lower incidence of cancer than do people without allergies. Again the immune system of these people is activated and working during the allergy or infection. As modern medicine progressed, one of the things it looks on with pride is its ability to prevent the illnesses that cause fever, and to prevent the fevers itself.
Sixty years ago, the prescription for a cold was bed rest, enemas and a good diet. Now it is fever and other symptom repressing pills. Earlier the patient was kept under covers and their fever allowed to run its course, unless it became high enough to threaten brain damage. In those years, the patients that use these treatments, had a lower incidence of cancer. Several reports in the literature of terminal cancer patients report spontaneous cures. These patients picked up some high fever infection and spontaneously following this infection the cancer vanished. Kids rarely have cancer. They commonly have high fevers. Having a high fever is very rare for an old person. Having cancer is common for them! So rather than follow our natural instinct to prevent and suppress fevers, it may be a good idea to let them run occasionally. With any infection that causes fever, the immune system gears up and goes into high gear.
I know having had allergies. I hated it when I got a cold in late summer or early spring. If I had a bad cold just prior to the allergy season, my allergies were much worse. Once activated the immune system tends to move to a higher level of response generally. If small cancer colonies are in contact with the immune system, the chances that the immune system will respond to these and destroy them is higher during an infectious illness. It is also possible, but probably less likely, that it will respond by attacking larger growths. I do not know of anyone deliberately using infections to ward off or cure cancers. It might be a good procedure, but many patients would probably die of the cure.
Other forms of raising the temperature besides infections are more practical. Any outside heat that the body cannot escape can do this. In most cold climates, people take hot baths, saunas or other heat treatment. These stimulate the immune system and other healthful functions. For preventing disease they are good. Taking a heat treatment on some schedule in cold country helps keep the body working properly. What is possible and one part of colon and other hydro therapies, it the possibility of creating an artificial fever internally. I had great results in stimulating the immune systems of my patients with minor chronic infections, like sinus infections, with colonic irrigations. With such a patient, and with my cancer patients, I used a few fills at 107 degrees Fahrenheit. Here I must give a warning, too warm a colonic or enemas can be very damaging. If you planning to do enemas or colonics, please read the first chapter of my book, LOVE THINE ENEMAS & HEAL THYSELF. Get the procedures right, or you may do more harm than good. If you do not have the book, the entire chapter is posted at http://www.lifeknox.com .You are welcome to down load it for your own use. Commonly the patients with sinus problems would have a full-blown cold in the nose the next day. In three of four days it would improve, along with their chronic sinus infection disappearing for a while. I did not notice such an effect with any cancer patients. The idea is to stimulate the immune system, while keeping the patient warm and driving the internal core temperature up. The enema or colonic used to do this does have the possibility of stimulating the immune system to respond to any abnormal situation in the body. It is not assured. Cancer is present because the immune system did not respond to it. Heat, enemas or colonics, vitamin C, good diet and all other immune system stimulants only provide the possibility that the response that should have been occurring will suddenly kick in and do its job. There are no guarantees. When an overt cancer is present, it usually means that the immune system that has not been doing its job for seven or more years. This is the length of time it takes for most cancers to become noticeable. It is possible, but not likely, that the immune system will react after one heat treatment. However, these heat treatments have very few negative side effects. Saunas and hot baths may be too stressful for some patient's systems. The warm colonics or enemas are much less stressful. The enemas or colonics also have the advantage of not heating the entire body. This is why a good series of enemas is so effective with a cold, when a sauna is inappropriate. The lungs and nose should not be overheated, to prevent the rapid spreading of the infectious agent in these conditions. The same may apply with cancer. Direct heat to a tumor is generally counter indicated. Compared with chemotherapy or radiation they are very very innocuous, and potentially helpful.
We were given the intelligence to be able to care for our colons and bodies in ways that other mammals do not have. It can be said that heat treatments, enemas or colonics are not natural. Wearing clothes is much more unnatural. Living in Alaska would be a bit difficult without clothes. Living on the equator for anyone as fair skinned as I am, without clothes, would also be difficult. We as a species do alter our environment. We protect ourselves from the outside world. Is it not just as logical to protect ourselves from stressful conditions within our bodies? Evidence of enema giving devices have been found in cave man dwellings. It is not likely that part of our growth in intelligence allowed us to reason that colon cleansing via simple water enemas had health benefits thousands of years before the first writings? If so this would mean that we very likely adapted to this form of care before recorded history, and its use is as natural as wearing clothes and using other tools. In all these centuries enemas have been used to protect and support health with very few problems. Is it not logical to apply these therapies in helping the immune system?
The key to cancer is not any
therapy. The key to less cancer is proper living. Employ right consumption,
right elimination and think right and the chances of developing cancer
are greatly reduced. Live right and the chances of surviving cancer are
THE DIFFICULT CHOICE
As a patient, the entire society herds us into the accepted treatment modes, for any disease. Cancer is no exception. If diagnosed with cancer they will likely schedule us for surgery, followed by radiation or chemotherapy. I support all these as useful in the treatment of overt cancer. However, making an informed decision is important. These therapies are not always useful. They may cause much unnecessary suffering with no chance of success or any benefit. Ask for numbers. Numbers are the great levelers of our society. Ask the doctor for percentages of survival at one year, five years and ten years following the treatments. These figures are available in cancer texts, and any physician can get them. In decisions about life and death the patient is in charge.
Alternative treatments rarely have such data, and using them is much more a matter of your own intuition. When we attempt scientific research into alternative health care, political medicine often squashes it. During the 1960s and 70s chiropractic was doing scientific research to prove our tenets of treatment to be true. Organized medicine's main political organization approached any college or university that showed a willingness to do scientific research on chiropractic. They promised to withdraw medical research funds from the universities, and to prevent their graduates from entering medical schools in the United States. They did not intimidate one University. The University of Colorado did allow this first medium size research project to go on, on campus. Scientific research conclusively proved that impingement and release of pressure on the spinal nerve roots does cause a significant effect on the function of the nerves. Then after this research was done, political medicine effectively blocked its publication in any indexed medical literature, so that other scientists never had a chance to see it. More recently, during the 1990s the United States Government sponsored an inquiry into the treatment of low back pain. After years of testimony and studies, the committee recommended chiropractic as the most scientifically based and cost effective of the treatments of low back pain available in the United States. They did this in a detailed comparison to data presented by orthopedic and neurological surgeons, etc. Immediately upon the publication of this study, organized medicine lobbied congress. They had the committee disbanded and future scientific work of this type stopped! Chiropractic has survived more than 100 years of such attacks, because of a large public following and sufficient numbers of doctors to prevent total annihilation by the medical association's political actions.
Other therapies have not been so successful. A good example of this was during the 70s. Laetrile was a rage then in the alternative treatments of cancer. It does have the proper physiological thought patterns behind it. It works by damaging the cancer cells, attracting the immune system in and initiating an immune response to destroy the cancer. It sounds more logical than most modern medical treatments. People did it. Many claimed to have had their cancers cured as a result of using laetrile. The medical lobbies rushed to have it declared an illegal drug. Soon clinics in Mexico were producing laetrile. Illegal laetrile competed with other illegal drugs crossing the border. Hordes of white haired criminals smuggled their laetrile across the border. At times the drug enforcement officials were more eager to stop these older citizens from bringing their medicine across the border than they were in stopping the heroine and cocaine smugglers.
Eventually the government said they wanted to do scientific research on this and asked all those using it to come forward and tell their stories. Many did, and were rounded up in this sting. They prosecuted them for bringing in an illegal drug. The studies actually done amounted to giving test animals approximately 1/1000th the recommended dose of laetrile by weight. Surprise--- surprise, at 1/1000th the recommended dose, it had no clinical effect! The problem with laetrile was even bigger for the health industry than chiropractic. Chiropractics success in treating low back and headaches, etc. takes a few billion dollars out of the huge profits of medicine. Laetile was much more dangerous.
If it did work, what is it? Laetrile, is a natural cyanide containing B vitamin, B17. It is found in the seeds of many fruits, apricots, peaches, bitter almonds, etc. Those people slipping across the border were being a little mislead, it is true. There was no real reason to go over there to get it. You can buy it in the produce section of any super market. The only way the drug can be kept out of the hands of the people is to prevent any contact with fruit seeds or fruit trees. This is impossible! By eating seeds of these fruits, you get laetrile. A little warning here, laetrile works by releasing cyanide near cancer cells. Unfortunately, we can release it at other locations as well. Cyanide is a very dangerous compound. In the small quantities it is present when consumed with a whole fruit, there is no danger. When laetrile is consumed in a concentrated form, it can be fatal. One man died of eating a cup full of apple seeds. Be careful. In small quantities it is a mild toxin. In large quantities it can be terminal.
Laetrile is not so much heard of anymore. Perhaps in alternative cancer cure circles, the old information is still circulating. I am not certain that any really good research was ever done. The problem is an ancient one. In truth there is no money in this. Once the people understand that eating peach seeds provide laetrile, why would they buy it? Nothing strikes fear into the heart of the health industry like a FREE cure for a golden cow disease, like cancer! I am sure that there will be doctors outraged because I have bothered bringing up this form of therapy at all. The people who were so pleased with laetrile, did not get rich. They had no money to fight protracted legal battles to protect their therapy. In time with no money made and every defender slapped down, this therapy died a quiet death.
You are a person. Your life is
important. You may not set a dollar value on your health, but you can be
sure that others do. Try to make decisions that affect your life logically
and with as much scientific evidence as you can. There are no panaceas.
There are no doctors of schools of thought that have all the answers. There
was a book I liked in college, ANYTHING CAN CAUSE ANYTHING. It was a good
book. The corollary could be, NOTHING CAN CURE EVERYTHING. What we see
in health care is a mud bog of competing ideologies, all after your dollars.
Spend them wisely. Every doctor, whether the finest Harvard graduate or
the lowest ranking witch doctor, will have something of value. Learn about
the etiology of any disease, and compare that to the paradigms of your
physicians and healers. Do they ring true? Are they there to help you,
or help themselves at your expense? Do what you feel is right!
MY SIDE OF THE STORY
Now having said all this, I do not believe that money is the root of all evil. I do not believe that most doctors, shoe salesman or any other human is out there just to take advantage. All of us believe we have something to offer and something of worth to give our fellow man. One way of doing this is to sell wares that need up dating. Cars need replacing as do most consumer goods. Others sell services. Doctors sell services. What I am suppose to be doing is working out of an office, and pounding the streets selling people on the value of a good weekly chiropractic adjustment. This is fine. It is good work, and it is of value to the customer.<
It is not what I am doing. It is 2:00 p.m. on a weekday, and I have spent a week writing this article. For the last four years I have woke up thinking "What can I do today, to share more truths about colon therapy, health and healthful living. And I have gone to bed with those thoughts. What hours I have worked in various chiropractic offices or other jobs have just been hours away from this, the true work of my life. As in all things my work has been where my heart is. I live in an ancient motor home. My truck is old, but I have survived. Still I am not on the street hawking the value of my services in providing chiropractic adjustments. For this I have reached the end of my rope financially.
Today you have another decision to make. Was this information on cancer good? Did it give you insight that will help you in your life? Did it give you insight that may help you avoid or better understand cancer? Can you use what you have read here to help others? If it did then it is of value. If I had adequate funds to go on with my work, that would be all I need. In an ideal world in which everyone has their physical needs met and they work for the good of the society. I would be happy. This is not such a world. I have a son that has been accepted and wants to go to college. He could not go last year, because I did not have the money to pay his tuition. He has not been able to register to go this fall because I do not have the money to pay his tuition. The work you have is rather poorly published because I do not have the money to do proper publication. This message is needed by millions of people. Two hundred people have it because I do not have the money for a larger printing.
Fifty two-thousand dollars would fund promoting the entire work. I have done all the business projections and work sheets. That amount of money should be enough to make this publication reach a point where it will support itself and my family for many decades to come. Most importantly it will make the truth available to millions of people who might otherwise never know the truths we share here. With that amount of money I will work full time on this. Never again will hours that I could be spending producing life saving information be spent doing work needed, but better done by someone else. That start will get the sales of books, pamphlets and magazines up to the point that this is a self-sustaining enterprise. My children will be able go to college. I will get my library out of storage and reference all my texts. This chapter should have about four pages of scientific references. I have all these stored in a storage locker. I cannot get to them to confirm my statements or document them while living in a motor home. Do you find this information to be of value? Do you believe it would be of value to the hundreds of millions of people who will eventually die of cancer, unless they have better information on which to make decisions to change their lives for the better? If you do, help us!
If you have millions and you
have seen something here which may help you, your wife, husband, child,
parent or friend-- is not that the $52,000. If you have ten dollars, isn't
it worth one? The truth is that I have no income other than my writings.
This is the way I serve humanity. This is what I believe to be my purpose
and destiny here on earth. I came here to serve others. I am not a man
of many special talents. I have just been blessed to have had a good education
and be in the right places at the right times to have gained good information.
I have many more articles to write. The next is on candida. (See below
of links to other articles)
Reprinted from Colon Therapy Journal, August 1998
To order the LIFEKNOX JOURNAL articles online click here
or send check or money order for $5.95 for back issue of Cancer to:
PO BOX 65130
Vancouver, WA 98665
United States of America
here to go Enemas
here to go Colds
here to go Colitis
& Irritable Bowel Syndrome
here to go Candida
Click here to go Constipation
Click here to go The Two Week Wedding Ceremony
Click here to go to Love Thine Enemas & Heal Thine Self
here to go to Lifeknox Journal