Cancer Can Be Prevented!

The Single Greatest Karl Loren Development Since The Beginning Of These 100,000 Pages

by Karl Loren

Cancer is the most dreadful of diseases.

It is a creation of chaos within a body that had been in a state of order.

Chaos is the name of cancer.  Cells are multiplying in a chaotic manner.  The cells in a cancer, themselves, have become aberrated -- click here  or on the cancer image for more pictures. 

 

There is an alteration in the multiplication process which is also the problem.  It is as if an otherwise "healthy" cell, supposed to reproduce every 20 days, starts reproducing every five hours.  That much growth is harmful even if the individual cells would be, otherwise, OK.  In the case of a cancer cell not only does it multiply more rapidly than it should, but the cell itself is different from the original cell -- before cancer.  The click here reference is a good one for a traditional understanding of cancer.

You could even say that the purpose of life is to bring order out of chaos.  Cancer is a change towards a barbarian state from an orderly state -- it is a movement of life toward chaos.  It doesn't have to happen.  It was very rare a few hundred years ago.

I am Karl Loren.  Here on this page, I offer simplicity and a brand new science on the subject of cancer cause and treatment.

Often found too late for simple treatments, cancer places the victim into a hopeless state of watching this creeping plague devour his or her body.  There is, now, apparently nothing more than terrible treatments available.  There seems to be very little he or she can do -- except watch and cry out in pain!  As bad as it may be for the victim, the helpless family and friends watch on in hopeless horror.

If the cancer is bad for you, the treatments are now well-recognized as being worse.  We have people, today, preferring to go without any treatment rather than suffer the debilitating effects of the slash/burn/poison technology that has remained in our health protocols since the days of barbarism!

It doesn't need to happen.  Below I give you some amazing data.  There is a "remedy" described on this page -- a remedy that reduced cancer by 90% compared to what the rate "should" have been, by statistical prediction. That is below.  But, first, I want to show you just how terrible this cancer situation really is.

Cancer, by rule of law, may not be treated by a medical doctor with any method other than methods which, in fact, cause cancer.  This evil dilemma has been created by drug companies and doctors.  Ignorant and bribed legislators have put this crime into statutes so that it is legal to slash/burn/poison the victim, but a violation of law to use safe and quite effective vitamin C, for instance, to cure cancer.

Contrary to popular misconception, fed by the Media; antioxidants, vitamin C in particular, are powerful weapons in the fight against cancer. But there is a question. How or why would Medical Science not know or be on the wrong track? (source)

The legal problem could be solved if those who want to "use" vitamin C realized the truth -- that vitamin C does NOT cure cancer, but removes some harmful component within the body.  It was the harmful component that CAUSED the cancer.  Thus, much of "alternative medicine " may "work" but the people who have discovered these truths have not gone further into the science behind the alternative treatment.  To give massive doses of Vitamin C, observe that cancer disappears, is all that many healers might do. They then claim that Vitamin C "cures" cancer.  That gets them into trouble with the law.

But, if their science were better and they realized that Vitamin C deficiency is wide spread in man, that Vitamin C deficiency (scurvy) in mild situations is hardly ever detected, that a mild case of scurvy causes some pancreatic enzyme to no longer function and that enzyme function allows something else to cause something else that causes cancer? They could then claim the truth.

They could say that you need Vitamin C to handle mild, undetected cases of scurvy, and that this scurvy condition is often the cause of this, this, this, and cancer? They could say all that.  They would NOT be claiming the cure cancer, but only to "cure" a mild case of scurvy.  If all their science were well documented and they were not making unscientific claims, they could sell their pill.

They would then, of course, have to present the science of cancer not just the anecdotal claim that Vitamin C handles cancer.

This page presents new science that shows the cause of cancer.  The formula recommended on this page does NOT cure cancer, but it does handle the problem that causes the problem that causes the problem that causes cancer. The science of all that causation is HERE.

Thus, you can handle the first problem with my formula.    End!  But, that problem then, solved, eliminates the sequence of problems, and eventually the cancer is solved.   That is the legal theory here.

So, you should expect to see a new, but very scientific explanation of cancer here -- and then see a logical solution to one of the early problems that others have not seen.  That is what this page presents!  It is a revolution, not in treatment, but in the science of cancer causation.  Not even all of that science is yet revealed, but, believe me, it is here in the hundreds of pages on currently restricted pages.

It is much the same with heart disease.  It would be illegal to sell some vitamin formula with the claim that it "cures" heart disease. But, it is legal to claim that the vitamin formula removes metals from the body.  Period!  That is the claim for the vitamin formula I sell.  There is then a truth, found in many scientific studies that these metals cause a multiplication of free radicals.  There are yet other studies that show how these free radicals cause damage in the cells of the arteries.  There is yet further research, by now far removed from the claim connected to the bottle of vitamins, that this damage to the cells in the arteries causes the blockage that, in turn, reduces blood flow that, in turn, causes heart disease.

It would be technically wrong to say that the vitamin formula directly improves blood flow.  But, the final indirect result of using the vitamin formula IS that the blood flow is improved.  It is the body's own system that cures heart disease once the toxic metals are removed.  No drug can remove a toxic metal!  The American Heart Association lied about their statistics of success, also.  Click on the AHA image for the full story of their deception over many years.  The AHA threatened to sue me for publishing this story.

So it is with cancer.

The big news here is a full and scientifically-established truth about the origin of cancer.  The "remedy" here does NOT directly "cure" or even prevent cancer, but it does remove a toxin from the body.  This toxic substance (a metal) accumulates so that there is "too much of it" and that excess, in turn, allows cancer to develop and grow.   Since no drug has ever been found that will remove this particular toxin from the body, the claims are on safe legal ground. Just as I have presented "science" on the subject of "plaque" in heart disease -- "science" which has never before been presented, now I present "science" about cancer origin and prevention. This, too, is "science" which has never before been presented in any public forum.

You understand that I am not a primary researcher, but I have recognized little pieces of truth, scattered here and there among the many thousands of pieces of false data.  I have brought together, here in this place, those pieces of truth -- this NEW SCIENCE OF CANCER -- that have never been presented before.  That new science is spread out, mostly below. Before we get there let's look further at the chaos of the current scene regarding cancer research, cancer detection and cancer treatment.

There is a formula that removes a particular toxin from the body -- a toxin that, ultimately, causes cancer.

That is the wondrous new science presented on these pages in detail.  Part of my purpose is not only to present this new science, but to show the falsity of the old science. The old science is really the creation of a category of health care usually called the "allopathic approach" to health care. Click here for a major article by me on the subject of "Allopathy."

This the major page, among 20,000, that presents the full story of the horrors of so-called cancer treatment -- and explains exactly what causes cancer and, finally, explains exactly how cancer can be prevented.

There are those who have claimed to be researching for a cure for cancer.

They have begged the public and received billions of dollars. The government has given them billions of dollars. They say they do research into cancer and how to prevent.  They have been a miserable failure. Their failure is being revealed and their world is crumbling.  In fact, the National Cancer Institute has requested more than $1 billion increase in their budget from 2002, asking for almost $6 billion on research for 2003! (source)

That story, large and small, is told in these pages.

Let's start with a quote from the famous Dr. Linus Pauling:

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner). (source)

For years the official agency for cancer statistics (National Cancer Institute) has been falsely reporting that cancer rates are declining. They use this, then, to brag about their research results and to ask for more research money. The drug companies doing actually woeful research are all too happy to be able to report that THEIR drugs are winning the war on cancer!

Not true!

Instead, the National Cancer Institute has finally admitted that their previous statistics were false:

Cancer registries throughout the country keep records of the number of new cancers diagnosed in their area. Ten population-based registries report this information to the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. The standard time between a cancer diagnosis and its initial inclusion in cancer incidence statistics is about 2 years. However, longer delays in the reporting of the data can lead to an underestimation of cancer incidence whereas reporting errors may contribute to an overestimation of cancer incidence for the cancer sites examined. The net effects of these corrections on cancer incidence would increase in cancer incidence rates for more current diagnosis years.  (Source)

The stories about cancer "research" are replete with failure -- while ignoring the real people who are dieing.

I have something called metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. It's rare, but every oncologist in the civilized world knows I'm a goner if I don't get lucky. A few thousand cases are diagnosed each year; an equal number die. There's no cure. For about a third of us chemotherapy can "buy some time," but at a terrible price. Generally, regular surgery is the way to stay alive. The cancer grows slowly, and the tumors can be "resected" as they appear. Eventually, you have so many that surgery is no longer possible.  (Source)

The American Cancer Society puts out the same type of false statistics, for the sole purpose of claiming that they are winning the war on cancer, so they can get more donations.  Their statistics are false.  Here is a report:

The American Cancer Society's website graphical data purposefully avoids showing comparable statistics on age-adjusted cancer incidence for similar years (1930 1996) because it would illustrate a steep increase in incidence (the number of new cancer cases recorded) during that period. Instead, they focus on death rates which have no bearing whatsoever on the numbers of people getting cancer to begin with.  (Source)

You might think that false statistics don't affect YOU?  Not true!  The problem with false statistics is that these agencies then strongly recommend treatments based on the false success they have been claiming.  You may not want to have radical surgery for cancer, but the doctor waves these false claims in your face and looks at you with a steely glare, "The National Cancer Institute proves that this is the right treatment for you!  This is the treatment that has been reducing cancer rates.  So, this is the treatment you should get!"

There are thousands of medical clinics still telling this lie:

The combination of breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy has been established as a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy for many women. Breast conserving surgery removes the area of cancer in the breast along with a surrounding margin of normal breast tissue. This is then followed by radiation therapy to the remaining breast tissue.  (source)

There have been many of these accusations about false statistics, for years.  The above quote from the National Cancer Institute is the first official admission. But, respected authorities have said the same thing long ago.

A 1986 report in the New England Journal of Medicine assessed progress against cancer in the United States during the years 1950 to 1982. Despite progress against some rare forms of cancer, which account for 1 to 2 per cent of total deaths caused by the disease, the report found that the overall death rate had increased substantially since 1950: "The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years of intense effort focused largely on improving treatment must be judged a qualified failure." The report further concluded that ". . . we are losing the war against cancer" and argued for a shift in emphasis towards prevention if there is to be substantial progress. (4) (source)

Not only are the rates of cancer INCREASING, but there has been a flurry of new revelations -- cancer treatments which, yesterday, were "exactly right" are now being exposed as worthless.  One reason is that the drug companies exercise rigid control over money spent on cancer research.  If it isn't research for a patentable drug, then there is no money!  Cancer research is in a state of chaos!

A total of 108 research institutions participated in the study. Respondents said only 2% of their contracts established an independent executive committee to oversee the design and conduct of industry-sponsored trials. And only 1% required a data and safety monitoring board overseeing design and conduct.

Medical centers surveyed in the study also reported that only 1% of their contracts require that researchers, who typically work at a single medical site, have access to the clinical data at other sites in the trials.

"There are dangers here," said Kevin Schulman, a professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., and the lead author of the study. "Our findings suggest that a re-evaluation of the process of contracting for clinical research is urgently needed."  (source)

Cancer research, generally, is in the tank.  How does that relate to individual forms of treatment?  First there is detection of cancer -- in the tank! Then there is the slash technology -- now disproved.  Then there is the burn technology -- now disproven. Then there is the poison technology -- now disproved.  These items are taken up fully, below.

There is even more fraud.  You think a biopsy is OK.  You get one.  The test materials are sent to a diagnostic lab for analysis.  Dr. Garry F. Gordon is, I think, the most brilliant physician on the planet.  He does not use any drugs, and he does not take any health insurance or Medicare money.  I have many pages about his views on cancer and heart disease --  Dr. Gordon HERE.

But now, he says, the Government and Medicare have become the largest consumers of testing facilities, and that they have continuously beaten down the prices for various tests, including a policy of paying somewhat less than the "breakeven" fee for a test.  As a result, the testing labs have had to lower their costs and no longer perform honest work.

Medically necessary diagnostic lab services are 100% paid by Medicare, and labs can’t charge people on Medicare additional amounts for covered services.  Except for a few exceptions, Medicare does not cover screening blood tests. (source)

. . . .

Example 1: A laboratory technician travels 60 miles round trip from a lab in a city to a remote rural location, and back to the lab to draw a single Medicare patient’s blood. The total reimbursement would be $45.00 (60 miles x .75 cents a mile), plus the specimen collection fee of $3.00.  (source)

. . . .

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed that it plans to pay hospitals $32.54 for diagnostic mammograms in 2002, which is a 7.5% cut from the present rate of $35.17. Many experts have deemed current rates too low forcing many facilities to leave this business, which in turn has caused widespread delays for such tests being performed for routine mammograms.  (source)

Even when Medicare increases the fee it will pay, it is obviously then also controlling the type of medicine your doctor can practice.

The CMS is also proposing a 22% increase to $760.09 for surgical outpatient biopsy, as opposed to paying a 6% reduction for reimbursement for needle biopsy to $384.87. the needle biopsy procedure takes about 15 minutes under a local anesthetic. Thus the CMS is giving encouragement to the doctors to perform the costlier procedure. The American Cancer Society estimated that there will be 192,200 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed this year, and that 40,200 women will die from the disease in 2001. About 1.2 million women get breast biopsies every year. (source)

Note that I have written that even the needle biopsy increases the risk of spread of cancer.  The surgical biopsy even more increases the risk of cancer spread.  And it is this method by which the Government controls what you doctor does -- he is NOT YOUR doctor, but the paid pawn of the government.

So called "health insurance" is really "disease assurance." This was one of the earliest philosophical articles I wrote -- our health care system can only get worse as long as most people regard health care as a "right" -- something they get for free from the government.

Dr. Gordon mentions, in particular, this "Nichols" lab which was purchased by "Quest" and then other formerly independent labs purchased by Dow-Corning.

	Quest Diagnostics is the nation's leading provider of diagnostic testing, information and services. Our clients include patients and consumers, physicians, hospitals, health insurers, employers and government agencies.  (source)

Quest had income of $40 BILLION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2001.  (Source)

Quest Diagnostics is testing its ability to become the world's leading clinical lab. The company performs more than 100 million tests annually, including cholesterol, HIV, and alcohol tests. The firm has labs throughout the US and in Mexico and the UK. Quest also performs esoteric testing (complex, low-volume tests) and clinical trials; about a third of its clinical trial testing is for GlaxoSmithKline, which owns about 25% of the firm. The company serves doctors, hospitals, HMOs, and other labs, as well as corporations, government agencies, and prisons.  (Source)

Per the data HERE, Dow Corning has had a long term interest in acquiring medical testing facilities.

Similarly, the acquisition of International Clinical would significantly boost Corning's market presence, doubling the size and expanding the territory of the Corning, N. Y. -based company's Metpath laboratory operations, which provide medical testing for physicians. The Metpath unit operates 13 clinical-testing labs, primarily in the Northeast. International Clinical, which operates 13 labs on the West Coast and in the South, had net income of $4.8 million on sales of $205.5 million for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31.  (source)

---

At MetPath, a subsidiary of Corning Incorporated and a nationwide operator of medical laboratories, the company's lifeblood would appear to be specimen testing and clinical pathology. But their real business is information, and a savvy application of Symbol`s two-dimensional portable data file technology, PDF417, is helping MetPath beat the competition.

"The bulk of our work comes from multi-physician practices," said Luis Eguren, manager of computer operations for MetPath`s New England Region, headquartered in New Britain, Conn. "We test biological specimens which include blood work, urinalysis, drug screening, HIV, cholesterol and premarital blood tests."  (source)

Click HERE for examples of mal-practice law suits against Quest and MetPath for improper testing procedures and results.

This plaintiff claimed, in her pathology malpractice suit, that on March 23, 1989, Metpath misdiagnosed her husband's mole that was removed by his doctor, as being benign. Unfortunately, by 1996 it had grown back and was then correctly diagnosed as malignant melanoma. Even more unfortunately, it metastasized and eventually killed him October 27, 1998.  (source)

As a result of the lower fees, and the purchase by large commercial interests, Dr. Gordon says he would not use that lab, or any of many labs, any further for tests.  So, he talks often of various new testing facilities, doing tests that are not yet approved for reimbursement by the Government, and so are not yet subject to the lowered fees, and lowered quality of the test results.

It is an interesting factor to keep in mind when your doctor says, "We need to send a sample of your blood to the lab for testing!"  Almost never would you suspect that the very "free" medicine you so much want, is driving down the quality of the very care you get.  You can't have it both ways.  A socialized medical system will deliver cheap and inferior medical care.

There is the expected exception to research on cancer treatments.  Drug companies do research too -- and they can't stand fraud on their research lines.  So, even if they are completely dominated by the need to be able to patent a drug, they at least keep the research clean.

Two drug companies, in particular, have zeroed in on a "protein" as the target for treating cancer. That is all you will read in their press releases.  You will read much more about this "protein target" on THESE pages.

Profitable?  Two of them are extremely profitable.

They are getting a good understanding of what causes cancer. Their problem is that they must be able to treat cancer with a drug.  They think they have done it.  So does the market.  One of these companies has the largest profit margin of any large US company.

Here is how they approach cancer.

Genentech's current success traces back to 1995, when the company decided to proceed with development of two cancer drugs that were on the verge of being abandoned. 

One of those drugs, Herceptin, is now a standard treatment for a type of metastatic breast cancer. It was one of the first drugs to target a genetic defect that contributes to cancer and works by gumming up a cellular protein called Her2 that regulates growth in some fast-growing breast cancers. Doctors like it because it doesn't have the toxic side effects of chemotherapy and can be used along with traditional treatments. (source)

Click here to read my analysis of why and how Herceptin "works" and why it is still a fraud on the market place.

Despite all this research cancer rates are increasing, not decreasing.  That's the national scene.  On the personal scene the news is always bad for the one man or woman who gets cancer.  Not only is it bad to get cancer, but the formally "successful" forms of treatment no longer are being seen, even by the individual, as helpful.  What is she or he to do?

All of this is developed in detail in this article by me, Karl Loren.

But, the bigger and better story is how obvious the prevention of cancer has been.  The evidence, the scientific studies, the reports?  They have been written, even published, but then deliberately and systematically hidden and denounced by the cancer and drug industry.

As G. Edward Griffin said, many years ago, there are more people "living on" the lies about cancer than there are people who are dying from this disease.  Both figures are a disgrace!

There is a huge cancer industry -- billions of dollars of income, like the money "earned" by drug overlords, are stolen out of your pockets by the drug companies, and even doctors who do know better.  That is not a small statement since cancer is the second largest killer in our society.

Click on the image to go to a web site offering this book for sale.

This is NOT a small story, so be prepared to see evils revealed, and truth presented.  No less an authority than Karl Loren has taken his pen against the sword of death hanging over society -- a society which, even now, mostly believes that chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are the best we can do in this great country.

The drug companies, in their candid moments, will admit that their research is NOT aimed at curing cancer, but managing it!

One of the most powerful voices for "modernizing drug technology is the President and CEO of Merck, the makers of Mevacor, the billion-dollar cholesterol-lowering drug.  Mr. Raymond Gilmartin, on November 29, 1994, said:  "To us, disease management means treating diseases more effectively primarily by using pharmaceuticals more effectively."  This was in a speech to the New York Society of Securities Analysis.  The Associated Press article that quoted Mr. Gilmartin said:   "The disease management concept is getting increased discussion in drug industry circles as manufacturers seek ways to keep profits growing in an era when insurance companies and health care plans are demanding lower costs."  Even though that quote is [more than] eight years old, you know that the pressures on lowering drug costs are even higher now.  When the drug will "manage" a disease, cheaply, that will be the ideal item for society!  (source)

They are not only NOT the best treatments, they are bad. These are exactly the therapies which CAUSE cancer to start and spread.  They are not designed to cure, but to keep you alive in a hospital bed as long as the insurance will pay.

The story about the fraud in medical treatment for heart disease is larger in terms of the number of people who die, but death from heart disease doesn't have the creeping dread of watching some small part of your body start to rot, to turn against you and grow into a malignancy that, finally, sends you to a painful death.

Cancer exists in a world of chaos.  It is time for simplicity!

I bring that to you!

There is a prevention.  There is a cure.  But, not for "cancer."  Instead there is a prevention and cure for the toxic condition that allows cancer to form and grow.  No drug will ever make the claim of removing a toxin. Drugs only add toxins to the body, not remove them.

There is NEW SCIENCE being reported on these pages.  These pages should brings a tremendous shock to the "cancer industry."  But these pages bring hope to mankind!  We'll see!

---

---

The story has much more in rich detail, but that is the simplicity of the story for this entire web site.  The simplicity is that if you remove those metals, the free radical activity is very greatly reduced and the chances of cancer are greatly reduced.  One study shows a 90% reduction in expected cancer because of this remedy!  I'll get to that study below.

That is the truth of it.

And, here you will find that truth.

---

Harmful Treatments

 

Detect The Cancer? or Spread The Cancer

 

The most common form of detection of cancer is simply self-examination.  It is worthless as a technology.  Read here:

Cancer & Biopsy

Many people get "lumps."  Woman find them in a breast and sometimes die of worry!

Have You Ever Found A Lump?

Particularly in the case of women's breast cancer you have heard countless public service announcements that teach a woman how to examine her own breasts -- looking for lumps.  That is now well established as a bankrupt technology of detection.

A major effort to teach self-examination so women could detect early, small lumps of a developing breast cancer did not reduce the rate of breast cancer deaths, suggesting the technique is a waste of time for doctors and patients, according to a study of more than 260,000 women in China.  (source)

What can the American doctors do about this?  The Chinese are not so much concerned with covering up their own lies on cancer treatment.  They are more interested in solving the problem.  If you want to SOLVE the problem you would also have to look at the cost of the solution compared to the results.  In China they decided to try this "American" technique of self-exam. They worked hard to educate some 260,000 Chinese woman on the technology of "self-examination."  The conclusion was that it is not worth the time -- that it is a waste of time. That is the report directly from China, quoted above.

 

Now, the American Cancer Industry is very big business -- it is NOT concerned with preventing or curing cancer, but only use cancer as a cash cow to give the researchers, drug companies, and doctors a continuing source of money.  So, they have a different reason.  They need some excuse to blame the woman for her cancer -- so that the Cancer Industry doesn't get blamed for failure.

 

So, in America, and other so-called "Westernized and modern medical areas," they don't want to hear that self exam is worthless.  They want the woman to try this useless technique.  She will fail to find the cancer. Then, when some doctor finds it, with his better technology, he can shake his head and nod grimly.  "You didn't do your self exam!" to the poor woman. When she protests that she did it?  He then simply says, "Well, you didn't do it right because here is the cancer -- right here.  You missed it."

 

So in the US and Western countries, the Chinese announcement is truly bad news, even if it is completely true.

Instead of embracing the truth of it, they spout out more lies, as this quote:

The Journal of the National Cancer Institute recently published the results of a Chinese study discouraging women from practicing breast self exams, citing a BSE may not reduce the risk of death from breast cancer. Coverage of the story has been confusing and may mislead women to neglect practicing good breast health. (source)

You see, there is not only a "cancer industry" but there is a large "sub-industry" devoted to nothing more than promoting and teaching woman to do self-examinations of their breasts, and to teach them to feel guilty when they fail -- as they will -- to find the cancers that are there.

 

I've written, years ago, about this foolish technique, but now the main stream media is recognizing the foolishness too!  I predict that health care will continue to fall on a path toward doom in Western Society, while health care in Russia, China and many other "poor" countries will move ahead rapidly.  My major article on this is HERE.

The most common cancer for women is breast cancer. (Note)

The most common form of "treatment" is called "self-examination."  Virtually every doctor pounds on you that you MUST do a self-examination of your breasts -- you women.  They are saying this because they are aware of the growing hostility toward medical fiddling with your health -- not to say your breasts.

So, examine yourself.

Except that doesn't work as I reported above!!  Click here for more on that sad news, this time from the Wall Street Journal:

In another blow to the hope that early detection of breast cancer will save lives, the most-rigorous-ever study of the value of teaching women breast self-examination has found that it doesn't reduce the risk of dying from the disease.

A 10-year study of 266,064 women in Shanghai showed the death rate from breast cancer among those who became proficient at monthly self-exams after intensive instruction was no different from women who received no instruction and who didn't practice self-examination. Tumors in the exam group weren't even found at an earlier, more treatable stage.

The finding, reported in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and coming, ironically, as Breast Cancer Awareness Month begins, threatens to dash the hopes of women who are already reeling from the controversy over whether regular mammograms save lives. An editorial in the medical journal pulls no punches: "At least for the great majority of women whose [exam] practice is not optimal, it does not reduce the risk of dying of breast cancer," write Russell Harris and Linda Kinsinger of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.  (Source)

Mammograms are equally worthless, but these are also dangerous.

 

Click here to view some photo images of mammogram examinations.

 

You should know, of course, that a mammogram uses X-Rays to examine your breasts.  The doctors don't like to tell you they are X-Rays, because most people know that X-Rays are dangerous.  But, that is the technology.

 

Click here for a general article by Karl Loren on testing technology, including mammograms.

"Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth," says Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute. Safer and even more effective diagnostic techniques like infrared thermography, has been vigorously attacked by the Breast Cancer Awareness organizations.  (Source)

What you may have thought was safe?  Is not safe?  The only safety lies in understanding the deceptive nature of cancer research and cancer treatment.

 

Once you or your doctor finds some lump, or suspicious mass, the very most expected thing to do is get a biopsy!

 

Biopsy Madness!

 

Why not? They are quick, virtually painless and covered by insurance.

 

Except that IF there is a cancer there, the biopsy starts the spreading.  The doctor won't tell you BEFORE the biopsy, but if he finds cancer there, then he tells you that you have no more time left, but need to "have that left breast cut off NOW."

 

Biopsy leads to the slash/burn/poison technology.  It gives you little time to explore alternatives.  The doctors are terrified that you will find some alternative and further pour their technology down the toilet.

Because if there IS cancer there, the biopsy is likely to cause it to start spreading.   Click here for a very full report on this common practice, whereby the doctor spreads the cancer without telling you.

It just makes sense.  The word "biopsy" comes from "bio-" which means "life," and "-psy" which is from the larger Greek word, "opsis" meaning "vision" -- thus, a "biopsy" is a look at life, or an examination of living tissue.  One way or another, a "piece" of your flesh, or of some part of your body, is cut out so that it can be examined under a microscope.

Typically the doctor who does the actual biopsy will place a color stain on the sample tissue -- a stain that makes the cells easy to see.  Then he treats the sample with paraffin so that the individual cells won't be moving around, or changed.  By this time, of course, the cells are no longer alive.  He then SLICES the paraffin into thin slices -- about the thickness of a few cells.

THIS is what he looks at. When it is done this way several people can look at the same sample and come to an agreed conclusion.

Different parts of your body will have different rates of cell division.  For instance, brain cells never divide.  You got what you got!  Other cells might divide every three weeks.  Different rates.  The biopsy examination looks at the cells of the sample and can detect how many of them are in the process of cell division.  If the sample shows that 10% of the cells are in the process of cell division, and that type of cell ought not to show more than 1% of them going through cell division, then that sample shows abnormal growth -- cancer.

Even though cancer is considered abnormal and rapid growth of cells, the entire mass of a cancer is normally rather slow growing -- because it is "encased."  It grows inside a wall, or shell.  The body is trying to protect itself from the cancer -- because cancer would otherwise spread throughout the body.  So, the body tries to protect itself by building a wall around the cancer to keep any of its cells from "leaking out."  (Actually, some cancers are very slow-growing [breast and prostate] while others are very fast [liver cancer].)

The least dangerous type of cancer is usually considered "skin cancer," or "basal cell carcinoma."  This type of cancer hardly ever spreads through the body.  It "spreads" by just affecting the tissue right next to it -- and growing that way.   For this reason a biopsy of basal cell carcinoma is not dangerous at all -- but, of course, you don't know it is basal cell carcinoma until you do the biopsy.     An experienced doctor can usually tell by inspection and a history from the patient whether or not it is skin cancer.  Generally, these are safely removed with simple surgery, and even if some of the cancer cells are "missed" there is no need for radiation or chemotherapy -- just a bit more surgery to get the remaining cancer cells.

When the cancer DOES leak out there is a special word -- the cancer is said to metastasize -- start spreading into other parts of the body.  It grows like an octopus -- reaching its tentacles throughout the body.  Not only are these cells multiplying rapidly, but they have developed new structures that enable them to penetrate into new areas and cause cancer growth there. 

Note that you could treat cancer with something that would prevent the rapid cell growth, or you could treat cancer with something that would prevent it from penetrating into new areas. Both types of technologies would be valid, and both are the subject of continuing research.  But, all that research is to find a drug, a poison, that can do one or both of these things.  They will not find a toxin that can remove a toxin.

The doctors all know that a biopsy does this, but there is a special reason why they don't tell you that a biopsy is likely to cause the cancer to start spreading.

They will tell you that the biopsy is painless, not expensive, and that it can be done during an office visit.  They will tell you that it is covered by insurance.

They will tell you that if there is cancer in this lump, it is vital that you know about it so that you can start treating it quickly.  They will tell you that if you start treating it quickly the chances of winning the battle over cancer are tremendously improved.

They will explain, in detail, the "fine needle biopsy," where the needle is tiny, and is inserted through the flesh into the lump, a very small amount of material is withdrawn into the needle, and there will be no scar -- no pain.

If there is cancer there, of course, they will then tell you that you should move VERY quickly to start treatment.  You may not realize it, but there are only three legal treatments for cancer in most of the US.  The laws of California make it a serious case of "unprofessional conduct" for a doctor to diagnose cancer and then treat it with anything other than the approved methods -- chemotherapy, radiation or surgery.  He can lose his license to practice medicine.  He could even go to jail.

So, you discover the lump.  You go to your doctor.  No doctor would ever recommend AGAINST a biopsy -- he must be safe or he can lose his license and perhaps millions of dollars in a malpractice lawsuit.  So, he tells you, "You need a biopsy, right away.  They are safe and not painful.  I can do it right now."  or, he says, "Go see Dr. Smith, dermatologist, he can do a biopsy in his office, immediately."

We are all hoping, at this point, that it is NOT cancer.  The doctor may even say, "Well it doesn't look malignant to me, I don't think it's cancer, but it's better to be safe than sorry.  Get the biopsy to find out."

Here is what he DOES NOT tell you BEFORE the biopsy:  "Once you have had the biopsy, if the doctor finds that there is cancer, then you must start your treatment immediately."

Even if he tells you before the biopsy that you would have to start treatment immediately, he won't tell you "WHY."   The reason, he will admit if you ask, is that the biopsy, itself, can start the spread of the cancer from the inside of the casing it was in.  Remember, the body is protecting itself from having the cancer spread -- it builds a wall around the cancer.  Once you penetrate that wall, even with a very tiny needle, the cancer cells (they are certainly smaller than the needle) can leak out through the hole and enter the body.  These cancer cells can enter the blood stream and within a few seconds they have been distributed throughout the entire body.

Perhaps your immune system is strong enough to handle these stray cancer cells.  Perhaps they just won't find a good place to "live."  But, perhaps you have just allowed the doctor to cause the metastasizing of your cancer.

Obviously if the leak continues for only a day or so it is much less dangerous than if the leak of those cancer cells continues for weeks or months.  So, the doctor does the biopsy, discovers cancer, and then tells you that you must start treatment immediately.  I think it is medical malpractice for a doctor to fail to warn a patient that a biopsy can cause an immediate spreading of the cancer, and that such "spreading" then would appear to greatly limit your choices of treatment.

What had been, possibly, a slow growing cancer with no metastasis, has in one split second become a cancer which might be spreading throughout your body -- calling for urgent and immediate treatment.   Before the biopsy it was a suspicious mass and you had time to learn about the many alternatives to chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

Is there a safe method of detecting cancer?  A  cautious "yes" is the answer.  Click here for an explanation of alternative, non-invasive, testing methods, including ultra sound.

The New Dawn Has Arrived!

We hear about this and that remedy and treatment, but wouldn't it be great to have a simple test that would prove whether or not some treatment is actually working?  Whether or not you really needed it.  And, what if that test were absolutely safe????  I've written, previously, about this test for detecting blockage in the arteries.  But, it can also tell is the various organs in your body are larger than they should be, or irregular in shape or texture.  These are the signs of cancer with this test.

How could you "look" into the arteries and find out whether they are blocked or not?

The bats that fly through the night have the technology -- and have had it for millions of years!  Click here to read how bats "see" at night.

The bat, as most people know, "sees" with sound.  He sends out a "sound wave."  It hits various objects and bounces back.  He receives these returning sound waves and has developed, over the millions of years, the ability to detect flying insects as different from pebbles, etc.  This is sometimes referred to as the "Doppler" effect, after Mr. Doppler who demonstrated it more than 100 years ago.  The marriage between "Doppler" technology and "ultrasound" is well explained here.

If a bat, flying at a rather high rate of speed, can "see" a housefly, also flying along, and swoop down to eat it, don't you think science would like to duplicate that ability.  Well, of course, they did.  It was NASA, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, many years ago, that financed research into this technology, and came up with a great deal of useful information that has now been transformed into many commercial applications.  Click here to read about NASA's research in this area.

Ultrasound To The Rescue!

This technology has had a few different names -- "ultrasound," and "sonograms" are two of those.

You may know of "sonograms" as the very common method now used by pregnant women to find out what sex their unborn child is.  In fact this is such a fad that many parents will even "publish" the "pictures" of their unborn child on the web for the world to see.  Click here, for instance, to see a typical sonogram picture -- in this case of a fetus shown sucking its thumb.

The sonogram CAN also detect cancer.  Doctors may say that it is not accurate -- or may say anything.  There may be better alternative non-invasive detection tests for cancer, but biopsies don't fit for an acceptable test.

When you look at this picture of the fetus you might think that it is fuzzy and not very "accurate," but the wonderful world of science can turn the sound wave, when it returns to the transmitting device, into a digital picture and greatly improve the quality of the picture.  And, when people are trained on what to look for they can see, instantly, details in these pictures that you might not, yourself, recognize.

Echocardiography: Echocardiography is similar in technique to sonar, which is used at sea to determine depth and location of underwater objects. Pulses of sound can be transmitted into the chest by means of small device placed on the skin. (This is harmless, high frequency "ultrasound" which cannot be heard by human ears.) The different echoes returning from the surfaces of the heart and other structures are then electronically plotted and recorded. These signals create an echocardiogram, a graphic image of the heart and blood vessels. This can yield useful information about these structures, such as the size, shape and motion of the heart chambers and great vessels and the motion of the heart valves.  (Source)

 Click here for a summary page on ultrasound devices and technology.

That's about it for now -- a quick study of several different ways to look inside the body.  Now, I'd like to take you "deeper" into the subject of the "gold standard" of testing for heart disease -- that is the "angiogram" used for detecting heart problems, not for cancer, however.  But, see how dangerous this test is anyway.

The most common test for heart disease is the angiogram and I want to compare that test with ultrasound in terms of risk, cost and accuracy.  In fact this article includes a full set of 100 scientific studies that compare the angiogram with ultrasound.   Click here for the summary page on angiograms.

I think "ultrasound" is the test that the world needs, and I'd like to tell you more about it.  As often is the case, there is a villain in this story.  But, surprisingly, it is not that ultrasound is considered worthless by the medical establishment.  On the contrary, traditional doctors are using ultrasound with great fervor -- it's just that they have figured out how to use ultrasound in such a way that YOU can't get the best use of it.

I am continuing my research into "chemical markers" that will identify cancers accurately.  More another day, or another page.

If you have gone down that bad path, with a biopsy, and the doctor says, "I'm sorry, but you have cancer!"  Then??

Poison it!

The most common treatment is chemotherapy -- poison that is supposed to kill cancer cells, but not the other cells.  You'll see that this is a lie.  One of the most common of experiences many have is to recall a mother or grandmother who had chemotherapy and how terrible it was.  She got bald and sick.

You too can look beautiful, though bald!  They must have paid this woman a lot to smile for this pose??

Get your dose of chemo, lose your hair, lose weight, smile for the camera, then go home and die!

Since cancer is such a huge industrial complex it attracts many different profit-seekers.  To make money in our free enterprise system is laudable, but to take in money while deliberately making and selling a product you know is worthless? That is an immoral act, even if not illegal.

When the "worthless" product or service is worse than worthless, but harmful, there has to be a new level of description to the immorality of THOSE profit-seekers.

The cancer industry is rigged just now -- with much of the money being thrown at it from government or non-profit groups who have no clue on what is a legitimate direction for research to go.  The crime is compounded when the drug companies (usually) that receive grants and research money have to satisfy a bureaucrat, not Don Jones, consumer with cancer.

This area is also so rife with false information that consumers generally have no clue.

Compound this all, further, with laws that make certain approaches to cancer cure the ONLY legal methods, stripping away the licenses from any doctors who dare use some unapproved method -- even if it works.  A good friend of mine, Jimmy Keller, went to jail because he was curing cancer.

There is much to cover in the area of harmful treatments for cancer.

Let me start with a historical note.  If you would care to read how we became so dependent on drugs for our health, click here and read about Jesus Christ versus Dr. Wundt.  Dr. Wundt won that battle, with the help and money of  John D. Rockefeller, and the "science" was born that man is an animal, that his body depends on chemical balances, and that health can be achieved by just putting the right chemicals into the body.

Rockefeller devised a plan to give away his money in such a way that he could "have" it in even greater amounts -- and at the same time, for good measure, destroy American education and also destroy the American health system --- then based almost exclusively on "homeopathy."

The game plan was simple: here was all this Rockefeller money, and here was Mr. Rockefeller being constantly badgered, scrutinized, and hauled into court; why not set up a monopoly on philanthropy, funnel into it large sums from the fortunes of Rockefeller and the other industrial barons, and distribute the money in a way guaranteed to ensure Mr. Rockefeller the respect and admiration of those elements of society which had castigated him most? In other words, it was time to launder the money.  (source -- Chapter 6)

Here is, finally, where money flowed toward Wundt's protégés, and Wundt psychology began to overtake American education and culture.

The evil of Dr. Wundt and Rockefeller has brought about acceptance of the man-from-mud theories of the origin of life, and the related concept that because man arose from a sea of chemicals, then chemicals are what we need to repair the body. This a Godless science that is false and harmful to life.

The generally accepted theory of cancer holds that cells which should divide and multiply at some particular rate, instead start multiplying and dividing at a much, much faster rate. 

Thus, if some cell in the body, perhaps in the liver (?), generally multiplies, as old cells die, at the rate of about once ever 120 days?  If those cells start multiplying at a rate of every 5 days, that mass of cells starts to grow and take up more space than is allotted.  If some of those cells "leak out" of wherever they are, travel through the blood stream, and stop in the armpit, for instance, they might start multiplying THERE.  Suddenly cancer is everywhere.

What caused the cells to multiply so rapidly?  The truth is it was free radicals. But, doctors will tell you that it isn't known for sure, and ignore free radical causation. Why?  Because a drug cannot prevent free radicals from causing cancer.  (My chelation formulas DO THIS!)

The general solution is to find, or better to create by man, some toxin or poison, or drug (all the same!) which is special.  This would be a drug which interrupts or stops the action of cells multiplying.  The scientists are very proud because they have figured a type of drug that doesn't harm normal cells, but DOES stop their multiplication.

The image on the left is a manufactured toxic substance, carefully designed to kill ONLY certain living cells.  It is, indeed, a complicated science to design something to kill in the name of care.

They know that all types of cells need to be able to multiply, but they figure that when that cell from the liver is supposed to multiply every 120 days, but now is doing it in 4 days -- they figure they can stop the liver cells from multiplying and stop the cancer.

Why?  Because even though the drug will  ALSO stop a normal liver cell from multiplying, they only multiply every 120 days. But the drug will stop all those fast-growing cells, the "malignant liver cells" from multiplying too. Since they are multiplying every 4 days, not 120 days, they figure they can afford to kill the small number of normal cells (multiplying during a short part of the cycle of every 120 days) in order to kill those trying to multiply every 4 days.

That is the theory of most cancer treatments.  Kill the bad cells!

Drug companies get very, very creative when it comes to finding new ways to kill living cells.

Even the most promising of cancer research subjects are being attacked because the remedies being researched are new drugs, not the natural remedy found in my oral chelation formulas.

The new cancer-treatment compounds, known as proteasome inhibitors, block cell machinery used to digest unwanted proteins. But the researchers, led by Susan Lindquist, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said using such compounds in mice helped produce brain-wasting symptoms. (source)

The various groups who get all this money? You would think their sources of funding would dry up if it turned out that cancer death rates are going UP!   The rates are going up.  So, these groups simply lie about the statistics.  It is that simple!

Many years ago I wrote about the harm being done by the American Heart Association -- recommending a diet, for instance, that exactly causes heart disease.  The AHA also spends billions of dollars on so-called "research" to find the causes of heart disease and the remedies.  They have failed miserably.  They couldn't admit that.

So, what did they do? They simply lied about the statistics.  This amazing fact was reported by the Wall Street Journal.  It wasn't even a clever investigative reporter who "found out."  It was nothing more complicated than that the President of the American Heart Association admitted, in public, that the statistics put out by the AHA had been false for many years and that instead of the death rate going DOWN?  It was going up!  That full report is HERE.

These people lie for money.   Click on the image to read that full report.

In other words, all the billions spent on research by the AHA had not only been wasted, but their failures had been hidden and as the President of the AHA admitted, in public, as reported by the WSJ, the statistics were false so that the AHA could continue to get more free money for research.

Now, it is revealed that the same has happened in the "cancer industry."

Again, it is the Wall Street Journal that breaks this news, yet other media have not picked it up. Why is that?

The Wall Street Journal, on October 16, 2002, had a well-positioned article that revealed the ugly truth.

America isn't winning the war on cancer after all.

Contrary to optimistic reports from the National Cancer Institute showing the incidence of several devastating cancers has leveled off or even declined in recent years, rates for at least some of those cancers has been rising, according to a new analysis by NCI scientists.  (source)

Chemotherapy is a theoretical dumbness!

This is the treatment where the doctor is going to cut it off, burn it with radiation, or poison IT and you with toxic chemotherapy.  That is the main stream of terrible therapy.

But, they can get worse.

The worse ones are the clinics who "encourage" you to look at alternatives.  They will even tell you how many people are looking into alternatives, and suggest some, such as this:

       As many as 70 percent of cancer patients use alternative therapies, including dietary supplements, acupuncture, hypnotism, massage, guided imagery, magnets and biofeedback, according to a recent report in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. The study, a telephone survey of more than 350 cancer patients in Washington state, found that breast cancer patients were the group most likely to try holistic approaches and that almost all respondents believed the treatments improved their well-being. Other studies have also shown that alternative medicine use is common among people with life-threatening illnesses.   (source)

Now that the doctor seems to be your friend, telling you that you should certainly look at alternative forms of cancer treatment, he then recommends the most bizarre methods.  The doctor will pat your head, say soothing words, but you get the message.  The women who pursue these alternatives never make it, or they are so few that it is not worth the risk.

Safer it is to cut if off, burn it out, or kill it with chemo.

Drug companies are constantly trying to invent new drugs. They do. People are desperate for the "new thing."  Even if there is no proof that it works, they know the old treatments don't work, so they demand the new ones.

Some of the new procedures have been terribly harmful, and then discovered to be fraudulent, even among cancer doctors:

A study that influenced the use of a controversial treatment for women with advanced breast cancer has been retracted because it included bogus data. (PhotoDisc)

Retraction

Breast Cancer Study Based on Bogus Research

By Sarah Adler

April 26 — Fraudulent data have forced the largest U.S. organization of cancer experts to retract a breast cancer study that influenced cancer treatment throughout the world, and led to a stream of other research trying to duplicate or add to the findings.

“This study made an enormous financial impact on the practice of treating breast cancer in this country,” said Dr. Raymond Weiss, clinical professor of medicine at Georgetown University in Washington. He performed an audit of the original study that is being published along with the retraction.

“Insurance companies were significantly influenced by this paper and began paying for [this treatment] whereas they had been denying coverage for this procedure previously,” Weiss said.

Published in 1995 by the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the study supported the use of high-dose chemotherapy followed by a bone marrow transplant for advanced breast cancer.

The medical journal retracted the study today, the first such move in its 18-year history.

In the original study, Dr. Werner Bezwoda, the top chemotherapy expert in Johannesburg, South Africa, reported that he had found that high-dose chemotherapy and the subsequent bone marrow treatment prolonged survival, compared to conventional chemotherapy and bone marrow treatment, for metastatic breast cancer — or advanced cancer that has spread from the breast to other parts of the body.

But an official audit of the study, commissioned by the University of Wittswatersrand, where Bezwoda was on staff until his firing last year, and the Medical Research Council of South Africa, revealed phony data regarding the safety and efficacy of such treatment.  (source)

Not all research is flawed.  I have a great deal of information on this web about Garry F. Gordon, MD, who indicates that the use of oral chelation will prevent cancer.  Click here to read more about him.  Since he is a medical doctor, he has a great deal of information about prevention and cure of cancer with other modalities besides oral chelation. But, oral chelation is his basic recommendation.

He travels widely and finds other doctors who he recommends, including the following:

In screenees who received our tumor marker combination assay, the abnormal tumor marker levels were restored io normal by our primary cancer prevention program in a relatively short term. This change indicated a reduction in
the risk for cancer. As a result of this prevention program, no cancer has occurred among the screenees since 1986.  (Source)

This research is being done in Japan, not the US.  The best research work on cancer is generally NOT done in the US, as the best medical treatments are never found in the US -- but offshore where there is no FDA to stifle truth.

Generally it is a non-drug approach that is mostly being researched and tested outside of the US, while within the US, only DRUGS that kill are getting the big bucks of research attention.

There are other "new" drugs that harm.

Here is a letter I got from Sue about one of the new drugs:

I have written to you before about my cancer. 

I get your newsletters every week and have been on Taheebo tea for a while. 

I do feel better on it and was remaining fairly stable .. (the biggest tumor in my liver only grew 1 cm in a year), however, the oncologist suggested that I try the newest and latest for my very rare cancer (carcinoid) because of the growth. 

After much prodding from my husband decided to try it.  It is a drug called Sandostatin (really, a hormone which we all make anyway) but unfortunately did not respond very well to that medicine  ..  (feel very weak and shaky).. I ended up with MAJOR blood clots in my mesenteric and portal vein arteries, admitted to hospital (where at least 50 docs couldn't agree on a bleeping thing) (sorry, I'm disgusted) and had to start on heparin and now have to give myself two shots of Lovenox a day. (a drug like heparin). 

Needless to say I'm pretty much a bruised up, weak, shaky, feeling yucky all the time lady.  At this point I really wanted to come off of the medicine because I thought that this is what caused the clots but while none of them could say it didn't come from the clots, none of them could say it did.  UGH AND UGH!  They are (of course) hanging out my room door (very soberly) talking amongst themselves where I could hear about 4th stage carcinoid cancer, blah, blah and double blah.  (source)
 

She may recover, but she certainly took a turn for the worse when quit using the alternative that was helping (Taheebo Life Tea) and went to what her doctor urged her to try -- Sandostatin.  Incidentally, Taheebo Life Tea had been, I thought, my best suggestion for treating cancer until the new research showed me that my own oral chelation formulas have been preventing cancer for almost 20 years and I didn't know it.

---

Cut It Off!

If you couldn't kill it, cut it off! That is the next step of the three harmful therapies used, by law, to cure cancer.  That doesn't much work either. The most common form of cancer for women is breast cancer.

One of the longest-running studies of breast-cancer treatments in the U.S. shows no gain in survival rates for women who underwent radical mastectomies compared with those who received less-extensive surgeries.  (Source)

 

Repeating the false claim from above, there are still thousands of doctors for whom "cutting it off" is the exactly right solution.

This slash approach doesn't usually get all the cancer.  Instead a few cells are left behind. They start growing again, but they are probably small and it may take several years before they get big enough to notice. That is why even after radical surgery the doctors will usually recommend chemotherapy and/or radiation.

When it comes to cutting, the woman's breast is the number one target. Woman's breast cancer is the most common type.  Click here for an explanation of the terrible treatments of breast cancer.

Don't do it!

---

Radiate It To Death!

Repeating the false claim from above, there are still thousands of doctors for whom "cutting it off" is the exactly right solution.

There are thousands of medical clinics still telling this lie:

The combination of breast conserving surgery and radiation therapy has been established as a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy for many women. Breast conserving surgery removes the area of cancer in the breast along with a surrounding margin of normal breast tissue. This is then followed by radiation therapy to the remaining breast tissue.  (source)

While the truth is here.

Radiation has proven to be not effective.

Radiation has been shown in some studies to prevent breast cancer from returning in the short term, but it may actually increase the risk of dying from other causes. Researchers reviewed 40 studies that followed nearly 20,000 women.

Overall, radiation prevented breast cancer from returning in about two thirds of the women. When the results of all studies were combined, radiation did not improve the death rate from breast cancer during the first 2 years after treatment. After 2 years, women who underwent radiation were about 13% less likely to die from breast cancer each year.

But the benefits of radiation came with a cost, in that the death rate from other causes was actually 21% higher in women who underwent radiation. Researchers speculate that the increase in heart disease may be caused by radiation damage to the heart and arteries.

Researchers state that for women under 50 whose cancer has spread to the lymph nodes, "There's a modest benefit (of radiation)." But for women whose cancer has not spread to the lymph nodes, whose risk of a relapse of breast cancer is low, the benefits of radiation are small, improving survival odds by less than 1%.

For older women whose cancer has spread to the lymph nodes, making a decision about radiation is difficult, since older women already have a greater risk of heart disease, and radiation treatment may increase this risk even more, possibly outweighing any benefits of the treatment.  (source)

Here is a book by a medical doctor:

Hypothesis-1: Medical radiation is a highly important cause (probably the principal cause) of cancer mortality in the United States during the Twentieth Century. Medical radiation means, primarily, exposure by xrays (including fluoroscopy and CT scans).

Hypothesis-2: Medical radiation, received even at very low and moderate doses, is an important cause of death from Ischemic Heart Disease; the probable mechanism is radiation-induction of mutations in the coronary arteries, resulting in dysfunctional clones (mini-tumors) of smooth muscle cells. (source)

---

Do It The Right Way!

The above covered the wrong ways to handle cancer.  I could go on for thousands more pages. The statistics are grim.  The government figures are false, the recommended treatments don't work, but cause harm, and people don't know what to do.

Here is the proper solution:

ONE of the Vibrant Life formulas is called Life Glow Basic.  It is well suited to taking as a cancer prevention supplement.  You should take six capsules per day to equal about the amount in one day's intravenous infusion of EDTA, as done in Switzerland.  YOU could take only two per day on a continuing basis and develop a fantastic resistance to any cancer.  Click anywhere within the image to jump to a page that describes this product.

I had been selling the oral chelation concept for more than 15 years.  I have, now, more than 20,000 pages on the 19 web sites.

Only recently did I read a study that just blew me away.

The very same formula that I've been selling to handle the free radicals that cause heart disease? These formulas handle free radicals in the same way, but in different areas of the body -- these other free radicals are the ones that cause cancer.

If my formula can remove the metals that cause heart disease, then the very same process (my oral chelation formulas) remove the meals that cause cancer.

The mechanics are rather different, but the original causation is the same -- the presence of "bad metals" in the body.

No drug can remove these metals.  Only chelation can remove them.

Here is the block-buster news that blows open the door to cancer prevention with a technology proven over many years.

I did not realize it, but the thousands of my customers who have been singing the praises of Life Glow Plus, Super Life Glow or Life Glow Basic ???  These same customers didn't even know it, but they were being protected against cancer.

It would be impossible to go back and measure the rate of cancer in these thousands of people, compared to the cancer rate among similar people who did not take my formulas.  I am confident I have arrived at a logical and hopeful conclusion.

My oral chelation formulas remove a particular type of metal that is found, with billions of dollars worth of cancer research, to cause cancer.   Drug companies are spending billions of dollars on something called "matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors." That is a very big word and phrase.  I have hundreds of pages of research and studies on this new subject but am not ready to publish it.  I do understand it, however, and I am confident that the very same components in my formulas remove the metals that cause heart disease and also cancer.

Click on the image above to read abut Super Life Glow.

So, the same formulas I have been selling for years? Yes, you can now get the additional benefit of preventing cancer.

And, even if you don't worry about heart disease, you can start taking my oral chelation formulas on a preventive basis.

For that purpose the Life Glow Basic seems ideal.  It costs very little.  You could take from two to six capsules per day and get a fantastic reduction in the risk of cancer.  The famous Dr. Garry F. Gordon is taking the equivalent of 12 Life Glow Basic capsules per day -- as am I, Karl Loren.

I will be publishing much more research on this, but don't wait. Start preventing cancer now.

One of the primary validations for this new concept is Garry F. Gordon, MD.  Garry is probably the most famous doctor in all of intravenous chelation.  He had the second largest IV clinic in the world, then quit the doctors group because they would not even allow him to present his information about the effectiveness of oral chelation. 

He has thoroughly validated oral chelation as a prevention for cancer.  I have an entire web site devoted to his materials, including a place where you can download his taped lectures -- HERE.

There is this about Garry:

Dr. Gordon received his Doctor of Osteopathy in 1958 from the Chicago College of Osteopathy in Illinois.  He received his Honorary MD degree from the University of California Irvine in 1962 and completed his Radiology Residency from Mt. Zion in San Francisco, California in 1964.  For many years, he was the Medical Director of Mineral Lab in Hayward, California, a leading laboratory for trace mineral analysis worldwide.  Dr. Gordon is on the Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners for Arizona and is Co-Founder of the American College for Advancement in Medicine (ACAM).  He is Founder/President of the International College of Advance Longevity (ICALM) and Board Member of International Oxidative Medicine Association (IOMA).  With Morton Walker, DPM, Dr. Gordon co-authored The Chelation Answer.  He is advisor to the American Board of Chelation Therapy and past instructor and examiner for all chelation physicians.  He is responsible for Peer Review for Chelation Therapy in the State of Arizona.  As an internationally recognized expert on chelation therapy, Dr. Gordon is now attempting to establish standards for the proper use of oral and intravenous chelation therapy as an adjunct therapy for all diseases.  (source)

What was the new information I got that excited me so much?

Here is is:

Beginning in 1958, a lengthy study was conducted in Switzerland on 231 adults who lived near a well-traveled highway and had a higher rate of cancer mortality than other people in the same city that lived in traffic-free areas. The study group also suffered from a higher incidence of nervous disorders, headaches, fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders, depression and substance abuse. The researchers suggested that their symptoms might be due to a higher level of exposure to lead from automobile exhausts. Then, in 1961, 59 patients from this group received ten or more EDTA chelation treatments served as control subjects. An eighteen-year follow-up study of the group conducted by Walter Blumer, M.D. of Nestal, Switzerland revealed that only one of the 59 treated patients died of cancer (1.7 percent) as compared to thirty deaths (17.6 percent) from cancer among the non-treated subjects. This is a 90 percent reduction of mortality from cancer. Dr. Blumer found that death from atherosclerosis was also reduced among the treated patients. His findings were based upon Swiss death certificates and statistical evidence showing that EDTA chelation therapy was the only significant difference between the control group and the treated patients.  (source)

Enjoy this new and exciting information.

Dr. Garry F. Gordon talks a great deal about cancer in his recorded lectures.  You can download some of these, free, from my web site HERE.  I have written NOTES on some of these lectures while I was listening to them.  You can read about the tremendous importance of handling inflammation to prevent both cancer and heart disease HERE -- from Dr. Gordon.  He recommends a product sold by Vibrant Life -- called "FYI" -- "For Your Inflammation."  Buy that by clicking HERE.

The FULL new science on preventing cancer (as well as heart disease and other degenerative diseases) is on THIS PAGE.

Karl Loren