TO THE CANCER PATIENT: NATURAL

CURES VS. TRADITIONAL

- Dr Tim OShea

When singer Warren Zevon was diagnosed with lung cancer,

doctors gave him three months to live. He refused
chemotherapy because it would have interfered with
working on his last album. He said in an interview, I didnt
want any drastic alterations in my health other than
dying.
Warren lasted a year. And he kept right on smoking, till the
end. Not exactly a holistic approach, but he quadrupled
their estimate without treatment. Using their logic, I guess
someone could actually make a case from this that cigarettes
are four times as effective as chemotherapy for terminal lung
cancer.
Perhaps you too have finally said No more whatever
happens will happen. Youve refused further standard
cancer treatment because youve found out either through
research or through personal experience, that for the vast
majority of cancer cases, it just doesnt work. Peoples last
months are made miserable with no upside.
So there you are, without a net. Guess what? There never
was one. So forget the politics of hospitals and insurance.
You may feel that they ran their game on you and the
required funds were transferred from one account to another
in some data base somewhere, and here you are sitting at

home looking out the window.

A good warrior must always assess his present position,
evaluate his losses and assets, and move forward. So what
have you got? Well, youre alive. Maybe they predicted that
you wouldnt make it this long or else youve got X amount
of time to live. Who cares? What do they know? Youre no
longer on their agenda, so now your calendars wide open.
You refuse to die on schedule.
What else have you got? Well, you still have some kind of
immune system left, or else youd be dead.
WHAT IS CANCER?
Everybody talks about the immune system, but few can tell
you what it is. Your immune system is a complicated system
of cells and biological reactions which the body employs to
ward off invaders and to prevent its own cells from
deteriorating and mutating. The immune system is
responsible for recognizing foreign proteins and cells and
for triggering an attack against them.
The immune system is a never-ending second-by-second
check of all your cells to see if they still look like the rest of
you. If they dont, theyre immediately attacked: the
inflammatory response.
Most legitimate researchers, including Nobel prize winner
Sir MacFarlane Burnet, [22] know that in the normal
body hundreds of potential cancer cells appear every day.
These defective mutated cells are usually destroyed by the
normal immune system and never cause a problem. Cancer
only gets started when a failing immune system begins to
allow abnormal cells to slip by without triggering an attack
on them.
Other cancer cells do not trigger the immune response at all
because the DNA is not that different from normal cells.
Then they begin to proliferate, having lost the ability to
specialize. De-differentiation. Thats what cancer is.
Runaway tissue.
So looking at it this way, a tumor is a symptom, not a
problem. A symptom of a failing immune system. (Moss,
[22])
Heres another headline: Most cancers are not found until
autopsy. Thats because they never caused any noticeable

symptoms. Examples abound: 30 40 times as many cases

of thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in
autopsy than ever presented to the doctor. According to a
study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93,
early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of
autopsies show prostate cancer but only 1% die from it.
After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but
only 2% die from it. This means that the immune system can
hold many problems in check, as long as it is not
compromised by powerful procedures. The body has a
powerful ability to encapsulate altered tissue areas,
indefinitely.
BIOPSY VS. ENCAPSULATION
Its this exact natural mechanism of protective encapsulation
that is vehemently disregarded by conventional medicine
whenever cancer is suspected. Usually a lump. We have to
biopsy it, they cry, to see whether or not its cancerous. And
immediately! Why?
First of all, by the time any lump is big enough to be
detected, it has usually been there for at least a year, maybe
several. So whats the rush? Why not see how your body
handles it, unmodified by human experimentation? If it
remains unchanged over time, chances are the encapsulation
can eventually be resorbed, or at least permanently walled
off.
The act of biopsy physically violates the bodys evolved
powers of self-protection by exposing the tumor to all the
other tissues the needle had to pass through both on the way
in and the way out. Any protective encapsulation is thereby
breached and contaminated. This virtually invites metastasis.
It is well documented that tumors can be encapsulated for
an individuals entire life, never becoming active. These
common sense notions are simply not entertained, not
deemed worthy of consideration by the specialists who are
anxious to let the billing cycles begin as soon as possible.
The medical philosophy behind biopsy is classic Kragen
thinking: the body is a car, made up of unrelated, non-living,
inert parts. What we do here will have no effect on anything
else.
If a lump is discovered, anywhere, your phone will ring off
the hook day and night until you agree to get the biopsy.

The patient is not allowed to get too comfortable with the

notion that the more time goes by without treatment, the
better he feels. Or that the body actually has powerful
resources of healing all its own, encapsulation being one of
them.
You want to see some fancy doubletalking, bring this
subject up with your oncologists. Theyll be very worried
you even thought of it, and will go to extreme lengths to
convince you that your body does not have this power of
walling off invaders and tumors, despite what the histology
and physiology texts have stated for the past 100 years.
Always remember, if you suddenly find yourself labelled as
a cancer patient; is the result of every single decision by
your doctors going to provide them with the highest number
of billable drugs and procedures in the shortest amount of
time? Always ask that question first. Is it a coincidence? Just
try looking at it from that perspective and see if you can put
the pieces together. Your health, comfort, safety, overall
long-term well being? Not usually factored in.
Then consider delaying biopsy until some visible perceptible
health change warrants such an invasive and potentially
carcinogenic procedure. Whats the worst that could happen
by doing that? Few people die of cancer only; most die of
cancer treatment. Thats the far greater danger, statistically.
If you have cancer, guess which system is the most important
to you at this time, more than its ever been before in your
whole life. Right your immune system. Now guess which
system suffers the most from chemotherapy and radiation.
Right again. So the one time in your life you most need it,
your immune system will be weakened by those therapies.
Thats what the word cytotoxic means. As we will see, most
people dont die of cancer; they die from cancer treatment.
A study in Journal of the American Medical Association of
223 patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate
cancer actually was better than any standard chemotherapy,
radiation or surgical procedure. (Johansson [41]) Unlikely
the statistics would be any different today since the
recommended procedures have not substantially changed.
DYING ON SCHEDULE
An astounding feature of the standard high pressure sales
job for cancer treatment is when the doctor in his godlike
fashion delivers that Wagnerian pronouncement that the
patient has X years to live. Very sorry to have to tell you this

but you probably have less than a year Hard to

understand why most people would still want to follow any
advice from someone who has just told them that. Because
what the doctor is saying here is that according to our best
estimates, using our best available technology, drugs and
procedures, our experience with patients who have what
you have puts your life expectancy at
Defies belief that most people just roll over and comply
without any objections whatsoever. Social Darwinism at
work again.
What a more logical, thoughtful individual might perceive
from such a death sentence is that hey, this guy is telling me
what will likely happen if I stick around and do what he
says. Time to roll. Time for me to start looking around for a
second opinion and see if I cant find out about some other
solutions to my situation that have a little sunnier outlook.
Like a cure for example. Or survival. Somebody somewhere
must have some better information than this for my little
problem its a big world out there.
And this is the type of initiative that leads people to
investigate natural cures, programs that dont include words
like terminal and palliative and side effects and expiration
date and cell death.
Alternative: the standard sheeplike compliance usually ends
up as a self-fulfilling prophecy they die on schedule.
Try this one. Best advice for someone who just been told
how long he has to live: ask the doctors to put it in writing.
Just ask them. Theyll never do it. Try and think about why
not.
WHAT CAUSES CANCER IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Heres where the dog and pony show comes in. The
traditional cover story is that we dont know what causes
cancer so therefore we have to keep spending $100 billion
per year to look for the cause.
In reality the opposite is true. The true causes of cancer are
well known, well documented and have been for decades.
What alters normal DNA? How do normal cells become
persistent mutant cells, which grow tumors?
There are thousands of everyday DNA-altering, carcinogenic

situations, well researched. Lets list just a few:

60,000 chemicals in our air, food, and water
vaccines
processed foods
Genetically Modified foods
prescription drugs
over-the-counter medications
tobacco
air pollution
fluoridated water
pesticides on produce
herbicides on produce
chlorine
other contaminants in our water
If fruits and vegetables are not marked organic, they are
sprayed. What do you think happens with all those tons of
military-grade commercial pesticides sprayed onto the crops,
poisons which cling to the plant? When it rains, the poison
washes down into the soil, is taken up by the plant and
becomes part of the plant. And they tell you just wash the
fruit before you eat it and itll be fine? And this is what we
feed our kids, and all this is legal. These poisons alter
human DNA.
With vaccines, its deliberate cell invasion: attenuated or
mutated antigens injected into the childs blood. Sixty-eight
vaccines before age 18 [Vaccination Is Not Immunization
[4] ]
Looking for a cure for cancer who are we kidding? A cure
for cancer that will enable us to continue defiling our blood
with all the above carcinogenic substances, right?
Cure for cancer? Step one: stop poisoning your blood with
the causes!
CANCER INCIDENCE
In 1900, cancer was practically unheard of in this country.
By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per
100,000 population.
In 1971, Nixon introduced his War on Cancer, opening the

floodgates of massive research funding backed by the

government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s,
over $50 billion per year was being spent to find the cure.
A pittance, compared to the $300 billion today. [9]
Were hit with endless media stories about progress in this
war on cancer with new breakthrough drugs and miracle
procedures being right around the corner And of course
the ever-present new experimental drugs offered to almost
every cancer patient. Its astounding how each new
generation of cancer patients keeps falling for the same lame
rap, year after year. A combination of fear and ignorance is
what keeps this train rolling.
What is the real story behind the story here?
From the U.S. governments own statistical abstracts we find
the disconcerting truth.
The simplest thing is to look at actual deaths from cancer. In
epidemiology, deaths from disease are always measured in
deaths per 100,000 population.
So lets start back in 1967:
Mortality from Cancer in the U.S.
year deaths/ 100,000
1967 157.2
1970 162.9
1982 187.3
1987 198.2
1988 198.4
1989 201.0
1990 203.2
1991 204.1
1992 204.1
. source: Vital Statistics of the United States vol.II
1967-1992 [26]
Independent analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer
Clinicians, Jan 97, [16] put the 1993 death rate at 220 per
100,000. Does that sound like progress? Yeah, progress for
the disease.
Jumping ahead now to 2000, the overall rate had climbed to
321 per 100,000
[45] OECD Health Data 2010

Why does nobody know this? Bet you never saw these
charts before. Because they are forbidden in mainstream
media.
Numbers can be twisted and made to do tricks. This chart is
the raw data, not age adjusted or divided by race, or type of
cancer. It will take you hours to find the simple data by
internet searches, because the uncomfortable truth is
deliberately obscured by overcomplicating it into dozens of
useless categories. Standard Edward L Bernays misdirection
the science of epidemiology.
Try finding a medical reference or journal article or a URL
that admits these figures. Try finding a newspaper or
magazine article in the last 15 years that uses the raw data.
And this data says one thing: more people are dying of
cancer now per capita than ever before, and nothing is
slowing the increase. Not early detection, not better
screenings, not new high tech machines, not radiation, not
surgery, and definitely not chemotherapy.
All the journal articles will say the opposite that cancer
rates are falling. But when you look closely at the data they
cite, it never stands up to scrutiny, because they twisted the
numbers by selecting only those groups who showed the
assigned outcome.
Unfortunately the general population continues to have
more deaths from cancer, not less.
CANCER IN CHILDREN
Before the 1960s, cancer in children was virtually unheard
of. With the skyrocketing number of vaccines and drugs
given to children, and the proliferation of snack foods and
processed foods in the child diet, by the year 2000 we have
the astounding figure of 89.5 deaths per 100,000
population, for all types of cancer combined, below age
19. ([46] CDC website 2010)
Cancer is now the second highest cause of death in
children, second only to accidents!
What is going on here??
NEW DIET NEW DISEASE
As we saw, a hundred years ago, cancer was virtually

unknown in the U.S. At that time people relied more on

whole foods, unrefined and generally in their original form.
Suddenly, processed foods became a greater and greater
proportion of the American diet right after the First World
War, first in the canning industry, which later developed into
the food processing industry. This was when pasteurization,
chemical additives, bleaching, and other adulterating
processes were introduced into mass food production. The
idea was to make food last on the shelves as long as
possible, thereby increasing overall profits. The way this
was done was by removing the natural enzymes contained in
the food, resulting in adulterated de-vitalized non-foods
becoming the new standard.
Enzymes are what determines a foods value. [See Enzymes
chapter]
As more and more sophisticated methods of removing
enzymes from food were discovered, shelf life increased,
and food value decreased. What does all this have to do
with cancer? Im getting to that.
CRITICAL VALUE OF ENZYMES
When food that is difficult to digest is forced into the body,
month after month, year after year, our own digestive system
struggles valiantly to try to break down all these weird,
manmade foods that have only this century appeared on the
human scene.
But eventually the system gets overtaxed, and wears out.
The sludge accumulates in the digestive tract. Before long,
we start absorbing the indigestible foods into the
bloodstream, intact. Big problem.
One of the first signs of the chronic absorption of processed
foods into the blood is clumping together of red blood cells.
In normal blood, the red cells should be freely movable, and
unattached, in order to carry oxygen to all the cells of the
body. But the accumulation of undigested protein in the
blood makes these red blood cells stick together, like stacks
of coins, or like globs of motor oil.
Once it gets like this, the blood tends to stay aggregated.
Imagine the difficulty, for the blood to circulate. The
smallest blood vessels through which the blood has to pass
each time around are the capillaries. Unfortunately, the
diameter of a capillary is only the same as one of the red

blood cells theyre supposed to circulate in single file. So

what happens in a body whose red cells are all stuck
together for a few years? The tissues of the body become
oxygen-deprived.
OXYGEN
Are we talking about cancer yet? We sure are. Nobel
laureate Dr. Otto Warburg discovered in the 1920s [5]
what all researchers now know: most cancers cannot exist
well in an oxygen-rich environment. Why is it that people
dont die of cancer of the heart? Just doesnt happen. Why
not? Because thats where the most highly oxygenated
blood is, and cancer doesnt like oxygen. The more
anaerobic the environment, the more favorable to cancer
growth.
Even more conducive to cancer is a setting of fermentation.
That means half-digested carbohydrates. Every bootlegger
knows that as sugars ferment, they bubble. The bubbles are
the oxygen leaving. Cancer doesnt like oxygen too well,
but it loves sugar. Starting to get the picture here?
Fermentation means half-digested, oxygen-poor. This
oxygen-deprived environment is perfect for cancer it
thrives in it. Fermentation creates an acidic environment and
keeps oxygen away.
Remember we talked about all that undigested food
accumulating in the gut and in the bloodstream because of
not enough enzymes? Well, a lot of that food was
carbohydrate you know, donuts, beer, candy, ice cream,
Pepsi, bread, dairy, pastries, etc.
Worse yet, the white cells, which are supposed to circulate
as the immune system, become trapped in all this
congestion. Their job? Right, to identify and attack foreign
proteins immediately. A cancer cell is foreign protein,
disguised as a local.
This is why taking enzymes 3x a day is absolutely
fundamental in any holistic approach to cancer.
ACID/ALKALINE
Another factor is pH.
Acid-forming foods, such as the above, make the blood
more acidic. To sustain life, human blood pH must be in the
range of 7.3 7.45 (Guyton [19] ). Outside that range,

were dead. Remember, the lower the number, the more

acidity. The more acid the blood is, the less oxygen it
contains, and the faster a person ages and degenerates. See
the chapter called The Three Attributes of Water.
Theres a major difference in oxygen even within the narrow
range of normal blood pH: blood that is pH 7.3 actually
has 69.4% less oxygen than 7.45 blood, according to
Whangs classic book, Reverse Aging. [47]
On a practical level, this means we should do everything to
keep the pH on the high side of the range, as close as
possible to 7.45, by eating as many alkaline foods as
possible. That would be, you guessed it live, raw foods,
especially green foods. As well as drinking alkalyzed water,
of course. See Hydration and Dehydration chapter. [48]
Its not about raising blood pH; its about conserving the
metabolic energy of the body for more important tasks than
the burden of this constant buffering it is forced to maintain
due to all the acid forming processed foods.
Thats the faintest sketch about enzyme deficiency and
acid-forming foods as primary causes of creating a favorable
environment in which cancer can grow. Please look at the
cited chapters for the whole story.
THE BUSINESS OF CANCER
Industry. Politics. Big money. Health care. Buying and
selling. You know life. More people living off cancer than
ever died from it.
As we saw above, throughout the 1980s, working through
Nixons illusory War on Cancer, we were spending less than
$50 billion per year on cancer.
By 2009 the total spent on cancer care, treatment and
research exceeded $305 billion per year, according to the
British Medical Journal, 28 August 2009, [49]
At present there are more than 569,000 cancer deaths per
year in the U.S. [CDC: Leading causes of death] [50]
now second only to heart disease on the list of killer
diseases. Yet all this money has not improved the overall
chances of survival from cancer during the past 25 years
even slightly.
Many cancer patients will tell you they eventually feel that

theyre just a mark, a number, an insurance account. The

goal of every visit seems to be selling them on new drugs,
new procedures, running up the bill, not just not improving
their overall health, but ignoring it altogether.
An industry this immense has one goal self preservation. A
cure for cancer would mean its demise. This is a pivotal fact
one should learn at the beginning of any honest look at the
cancer industry, which most sources will vehemently deny,
by that cleverest of techniques misdirection.
The American Cancer Society, for example, collects
hundreds of millions per year. Very little of this money ever
finds its way to research. The majority of the money goes
into investments and towards administration lavish salaries
and perqs for the Societys officers and employees. A funny
thing is that written into the charter of the American Cancer
Society is the clause that states that if a cure for cancer is
ever found, on that day, the Society will disband. (The
Cancer Industry [5]) So is this an organization that is going
to be motivated to find a cure for cancer?
This is the underlying reality, but what do we hear on the
surface, coming at us every day from the TV newsreaders,
and scripted online health blurbs, or from the lips of the
oncologists making their reassuring pronouncements on the
outlook for our loved ones chances of survival? Were
making progress. Early detection is giving us a much
better chance of getting it all by means of immediate
surgery or by chemotherapy and radiation. Then after
surgery they tell us we need to do chemo to put the icing
on the cake, just to make sure etc, and other slick
closing phrases. Phrases which have not changed much in
25 years.
Frightened to death, uninformed, and having nowhere else
to turn, people keep buying this same line year after year.
Your grandparents bought it, maybe your parents bought it,
and perhaps now your siblings are buying it. As a result,
people keep dying on schedule. And the figures go up and
up.
But theres a limit to everything. More and more of us have
watched our family or our friends die wretched deaths, as all
the big guns were pompously wheeled out, with the
hospitals happily billing the insurance until coverage runs
out. And some of us are saying Wait a minute, this isnt
about money this is about my life. And people are
deciding to take their chances without standard slash-

and-burn protocols, either by just staying home and doing

nothing, or else by experimentation with alternative
therapies, which have always been there all this time, just
below the surface.
But in order to have the confidence to make such a
courageous stand, a little self-education is required. And
here is the onion.
CHEMOTHERAPY
Considering chemotherapy? Consider this:
chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast of majority
of cases in which it is given. Ralph Moss, PhD [22]
Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular
media all have contributed to a situation in which many
people with common malignancies are being treated with
drugs not known to be effective. Dr. Martin Shapiro
UCLA [21]
despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer
mortality has not changed in the last 70 years David
Greenberg, MD NEJM Mar 1975 [31]
Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for
virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by
almost invariable failure.
- Albert Braverman MD Lancet 1991 [32]
Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung
cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade,
yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.
Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer [51]
Lets say you get cancer in America its 1 in 3. Your
doctor says you need chemo and sends you to an office in
the hospital. You have no symptoms yet, no pain, and you
feel fine. But youre very frightened. You walk into the
office and everyone else there is in obvious pain, with their
hair falling out, etc, and most of them are dying. Its like a
scene from a horror movie. Your first instinct is to run: Im
not like them! Im alive! What am I doing here?
Then ask yourself this: in your entire life, how often have
your true instincts been wrong?

CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE

How can that be true of the #1 cancer treatment in the U.S.
for the past 50 years? The plain fact is, no legitimate
scientific studies or clinical trials independent of the
companies selling chemo drugs have ever proven
chemotherapys effectiveness, except in a small percentage
of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the
vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized,
chemotherapy simply doesnt work.
If one is going to even begin to look at the legitimate
research regarding the failure of mainstream cancer
therapies, all that initial research was done by Ralph Moss,
and elaborated very clearly in his two books The Cancer
Industry and Questioning Chemotherapy. Even though
they were written in the 90s, the fundamental objections to
the philosophy behind chemotherapy are timeless. Cancer
therapy has simply not advanced in the past 20 years
enough to make Moss work anything but essential reading
for learning about the ongoing problems with mainstream
cancer treatment. Moss didnt really continue his research at
that level after that initial effort, but these two books remain
as landmarks in the field.
When he was researching his first book, Dr Moss uncovered
the shocking research of a German epidemiologist from the
Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, named Dr. Ulrich
Abel. This Dr Abel did a comprehensive review and analysis
of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever
done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is
about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he
had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy,
Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the
world asking them to send him anything they had published
on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is
unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about
chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took Abel two years, but the results are
astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success
rate of chemotherapy was appalling because there was
simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that
chemotherapy can extend in any appreciable way the lives
of patients suffering from the most common organic
cancers.
Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the
quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as a scientific

wasteland and states that at least 80 percent of

chemotherapy administered throughout the world is
worthless, and is akin to the emperors new clothes
neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on
chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence
that it works! Lancet 10 Aug 91 [35]
No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive
study: it was totally buried.
Similar are the conclusions of most medical researchers who
actually try to work their way past the smoke and mirrors to
get to the real statistics. In evaluating a therapeutic regimen,
the only thing that really matters is death rate will a
treatment significantly extend a patients life? Not life as a
vegetable, but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a
human being.
Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to
great lengths to hide the true numbers of people dying from
cancer, by talking about other issues. In Questioning
Chemotherapy, Moss talks about several of the ways they
do it:
Response rate is a favorite.
If a dying patients condition changes even for a week or a
month, especially if the tumor shrinks temporarily, the
patient is listed as having responded to chemotherapy. No
joke! The fact that the tumor comes back stronger soon after
chemo is stopped, is not figured into the equation. The fact
that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order to
temporarily shrink the tumor is not considered. That fact
that the patient soon dies is not figured into the equation.
The idea is to sell, sell, and sell. Sell chemotherapy.
Also in the media we find the loud successes chemotherapy
has had on certain rare types of cancer, like childhood
leukemia, and Hodgkins lymphoma. But for the vast
majority of cancer cases, chemo is a failure. Worse yet, a
toxic one.
Even with Hodgkins, one of chemos much-trumpeted
triumphs, the cure is frequently a success, but the patient
dies. He just doesnt die of Hodgkins disease, thats all. In
the 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, [38]
they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000 patients
with Hodgkins lymphoma, who were treated with
chemotherapy. Even though there was success with the

Hodgkins itself, these patients encountered an incidence of

leukemia that was six times the normal rate. This is a very
common type of reported success within the cancer industry
again, the life of the patient is not taken into account.
Another thing is, in evaluating any treatment, there must be
a risk/ benefit analysis a carefully standardized protocol
for measuring the actual risks vs. the proven, unvarnished
positive outcomes from the procedure being studied. A very
fundamental part of the scientific method.
Due to gigantic economic pressures fearful of the results,
such evaluation has been systematically put aside in the
U.S. chemotherapy industry for the past 40 years. Primarily
because a favorable report would be impossible, considering
the toxic nature of the drugs involved.
THE BI-PHASIC EFFECT: WHY CHEMO DOESNT
WORK
Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen:
1. what the drug initially does to the body
2. how the body adapts to the drug
Any example will do. Antibiotics? First, the drug kills all
bacteria in the body. Then the body responds by growing
them back, often with the bad bacteria out of balance,
which come back in more powerful, mutated forms.
Steroids? First, muscles are built because testosterone has
been mimicked. Then the body responds by cutting
production of natural testosterone, which eventually
feminizes the athlete by shrinking the gonads.
Heroin? First it blocks the pain receptors and sends happy
hormones called endorphins through the body, giving an
overall feeling of wonderfulness. The body responds, by
getting so used to this euphoria that when the heroin is
stopped, the reality of pain receptors going back to work
again is unbearable.
Obviously these are simplifications, but you get the idea.
The Bi-Phasic Effect is well-explained by Dr Dean Black
[39] and many other researchers who were trying to figure
out why tumors seemed to come back with such a vengeance
after chemotherapy. Some original work was done by
American Cancer Society researcher Robert Schimke in
1985, who discovered that the way cancer cells resist

chemotherapy is to replicate even harder and faster. [36]

Chemo drugs are lethal to all cells; so the cancer cells are
stimulated to try and survive any way they can, which means
faster growth. In the presence of any toxin, cells will resist it
to stay alive. The more they resist, the stronger they get.
Black sees cancer itself as just such an adaptation; a normal
response to an abnormal poison. Chemotherapy simply
provokes adaptation. (Black, p. 45) This is why we all know
people who have had chemotherapy and experienced
temporary remission. But when the tumor came back, it did
so with a vengeance, and the patient was quickly
overwhelmed. All too common.
Schimke talks about the possible effects on a tumor that
otherwise may have been self-limiting:
Might such treatments convert relatively benign tumors
into more lethal forms? Robert Schimke p. 1915 [36]
Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk
about mopping up with powerful chemo drugs just to be
sure we got it all. Or prescribing powerful chemotherapy
for a pre-cancerous or even a benign situation. You dont
introduce cell-killers unless you absolutely have to. These
drugs kill normal cells, by definition.
The Bi-Phasic Effect is also called the Rebound
Phenomenon. The drugs attack the tumor cells, which then
resist and rebound twice as strong, often mutating in the
process.
In the above study, Robert Schimke noted that with chemo
combos the rebound effect may bring about a tumor cell
proliferation rate which may be 100 times faster than
before.
CYTOTOXIC
is the word that describes chemotherapeutic drugs. It means
cell-killing.
Chemo-therapy kills all the cells of the body, not just the
cancer cells. The risk is that chemo will kill the patient
before it kills the cancer. Which often happens. Therefore
the only question that should be asked when deciding
whether or not to begin chemo is this: will this drug prolong
the patients natural lifespan? Not his drugged ICU

horror-movie lifespan his natural lifespan.

The unadorned data say no.
BREAST CANCER
which today 1 in 8 American women may expect, is an
obvious area of confusion and misinformation. A professor
at Northwestern U School of Medicine, Dr. Edward Scanlon
stated:
over a period of 100 years, breast cancer treatment has
evolved from no treatment to radical treatment and back
again with more conservative management, without having
affected mortality. Journal of the American Medical
Association. [17]
In their next mood swing, the medical consensus, whatever
that means, reverted toward more radical mastectomy again.
In an article from the New York Times, [30] a new Mayo
Clinic study being published in the New England Journal of
Medicine, backtracked to a former position. Bilateral radical
mastectomy of healthy breasts supposedly reduces the risk
of getting breast cancer by 90%! I am not making this up.
Obviously, if a woman doesnt have breasts, how can she get
breast cancer? This type of insanity a recommendation to
remove healthy breasts with the idea to prevent a disease a
woman doesnt have makes you wonder whats next. How
about euthanasia? that way the patient will have a zero
percent chance of ever getting any disease again.
What effects are these fickle, intellectualized medical
opinions having on death rate? None. Actually its worse
than ever. From the same hard data sources cited above,
Vital Statistics, [26] we can look up the actual death rate
for breast cancer:
year deaths/ 100,000
1958 13.1
1970 14.3
1979 15.4
1989 17.4
1991 17.4
By 2005, the figure had climbed to 24 deaths per 100,000,
according
to
CDC.
[www.cdc.gov/Features
/dsBreastCancerTrends/] [52] Yet virtually all articles on
breast cancer for the past 2 years have headlines of death

rate down from breast cancer.

How does that work?
Early mammograms: no effect. [43]
Chemotherapy: no effect.
Surgery: no effect.
Figures like the above are extremely well hidden and can
only be unearthed with great effort.
A netsearch can instantly turn up 100 articles on the latest
chemotherapy drugs and their anticipated breakthroughs
and response rates that have always been just around the
corner since 1971. Every week shows dozens of magazine
and newspaper articles spouting the latest thing in
chemotherapy. This is world class dog-wagging.
MAMMOGRAMS
Way back in 1976, the American Cancer Society itself and
its colleague the National Cancer Institute terminated the
routine use of mammography for women under the age of 50
because of its detrimental (carcinogenic) effects. A large
study done in Canada in 1992 found that women who had
routine mammograms before the age of 50 also had
increased death rates from breast cancer, by 36%. (Miller)
[27]
John McDougall MD made a thorough review of
mammograms. He points out that the $13 billion per year
generated by mammograms controls the information that
women get. Fear and incomplete data are the tools
commonly used to persuade women to get routine
mammograms. What is clear is that mammography cannot
prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By
the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by
mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is
therefore ridiculous to advertise mammography as early
detection. (McDougall p. 114 [28])
McDougalls paper Early Detection is a must read for
anyone considering mammogram. [43]
The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms
prevent breast cancer, which they dont. On the contrary,
the painful compression of breast tissue during the
procedure itself can increase the possibility of metastasis by
as much as 80%! Dr. McDougall notes that a between 10

and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting non-lifethreatening type called ductal carcinoma in situ. This
harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive
force of routine mammography. (McDougall, p. 105 [28])
More recent data on mammograms was brought to light
through the research of Samuel Epstein MD. [3] In a 2009
interview, Epstein reminds us that 5 radiologists have been
recent presidents of the American Cancer Society. This
might help to explain why routine annual mammograms
have been their standard recommendation for years, despite
any proven upside. The mammogram business is extremely
lucrative and very competitive. ACS ads consistently make
unsupported claims of 100% detection, with no clinical
studies whatsoever to back it up.
Without question, the biggest danger of mammograms is
ionizing radiation. That means the mammogram itself can
be the cause of cancer. A woman who gets a yearly
mammogram for 10 years would get the same cumulative
radiation as a woman standing one mile away from Ground
Zero at Hiroshima, according to Epstein and others. [44]
PROSTATE CANCER
is one of the worst areas of chemotherapy abuse, according
to Norman Zinner, MD. He states:
Most men with prostate cancer will die from other illnesses
never knowing they had the problem.
Early detection of prostate cancer has resulted in thousands
of men being treated for a condition that would have been
self-limiting. No figures are available for those who have
died from the side effects of treatment when the condition
would never have caused any problems or symptoms during
the patients entire lifetime.
Composer Frank Zappa, now decomposing, found out this
fact before he died at 52, but it was too late. Some studies
show rates as high as 40% in autopsies of men over 70 in
which prostate cancer was discovered which the patient
never knew about, and which was not the cause of death.
(American Cancer Society, 1995). [33]
There are no randomized clinical trials proving that
chemotherapy for prostate cancer increases long term
survival. Au contraire, a 1992 study published in JAMA
demonstrated that there was no difference in 10 year

survival rate between the men who did nothing at all and
those who had treatment. (Johansson) [41]
Irrepressible in the dog-and-pony show for prostate cancer:
palladium implants.
A couple hundred radioactive implants each about the size
of a grain of rice are sewn into the scrotum with the
unproven claim that the radioactive grains will kill the
cancer cells! Many undiscriminating men buy this unproven
method every year, ignoring the fact that radioactivity from
the implants is also delivering ionizing radiation to the
normal prostate and generative cells in that area, thus acting
as a powerful carcinogen.
This preposterous and still experimental procedure harks
back to the days of radium implants in the blood, a very
popular procedure in the 1950s, when the Big Three were
surgery, radiation, and radium implants. To see what radium
implants looked like, rent Jack Nicholsons The Two Jakes.
No cancer was ever cured from radium. Even though it was
finally replaced by chemotherapy, which has roughly the
same success, these implants continue to be hawked today.
Heres why palladium implants are unlikely to work: its not
the prostate that has cancer; its the man himself. Cancer is
systemic its all through you.
SIDE EFFECTS OF CHEMOTHERAPY
Its already a word game. Drugs dont really have side
effects. They just have effects.
When you say Side Effects youre acquiescing to the
illusion that we can direct the action of these wildly reactive
pharmacological agents to the exact systems of the body we
want, and make them bring about the exact results we
desire. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Even more so in the case of chemotherapy where theres
almost never any upside.
Since chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances
ever designed, their effects are very serious, and are often
the direct cause of death. Like the case of Jackie Kennedy,
who underwent chemo for one of the rare diseases in which
it generally has some beneficial results: non-Hodgkins
lymphoma. She went into the hospital on Friday and was
dead by Tuesday. What happened? Most of that type

patients survive, but even the ones that dont usually wont
die for a year or so. Some sources imagined that since this
was such a high profile patient, theyd given her an extra
strong dose to kill the cancer faster. Unfortunately they
miscalculated: there was a patient attached.
Remember this: Cancer is a general condition that localizes
rather than a local condition which generalizes. Thats the
main reason chemotherapy and radiation dont work.
Aside from the standard hair loss, nausea, vomiting,
headache, dizziness, and digestive trauma, many
chemotherapy drugs have other specific severe effects.
Most have an immediate suppressive effect on bone marrow.
This is where new blood cells are normally being produced
all the time. This is the #1 way chemo knocks out the
immune system, at the one time in your life you need it the
most. And that is precisely the strongest argument against
chemotherapy: immune annihilation just when the body is
struggling to marshall all its resources in order to survive.
Chemotherapy drugs have an entire array of effects, possibly
the worst being immediate destruction of the gastric mucosa,
which explains loss of appetite, which means the patient
cannot heal since starvation is being set up.
Other effects include accelerated osteoporosis, kidney
damage, liver fibrosis, psychosis, arteritis, blood disease, and
cartilage destruction in the joints.
This is just a partial list of some of the more common side
effects, but it really makes you wonder: are these effects
really worth the possible benefit of temporary tumor
shrinkage with no proven increase in survival? People rarely
get better with chemotherapy. If they recover, its in spite
of it.
All chemo drugs are extremely hard on the liver, because
thats the organ whose job is to try and break down toxins
that have made it past the digestive tract. Liver fibrosis is a
very common sequella of methotrexate.
WHY NOT DRANO?
The beginning of the hype that promised to cure all cancer
by means of chemo drugs, came as an offshoot of the
postwar excitement with the success of antibiotics and the
sulfa drugs. Caught up in the heady atmosphere of visions of

money and power in vanquishing cancer, Memorial SloanKettering began to make extravagant claims that to this day
have never been realized. Some 400,000 cytotoxins were
tested by Sloan-Kettering and the National Cancer Institute.
The criterion in order to be tested were: will the toxin kill
some of the tumor cells before it kills the patient. Thats it!
Many were brand new synthetic compounds. But thousands
of others were existing poisons which were simply refined.
Finally about 50 drugs made the cut, and are still the basis
of todays chemotherapy medicine cabinet.
POPULAR CHEMOTHERAPY DRUGS
It is startling to discover what chemotherapy drugs are made
from. The first ones were made from mustard gas contained
in the weapons that killed so many soldiers in WW I,
eventually outlawed by the Geneva Convention. In the
1930s, Memorial Sloan-Kettering quietly began to treat
breast cancer with these mustard gas derivatives. No one was
cured. More Nitrogen mustard chemotherapy trials were
conducted at Yale around 1943. 160 patients were treated.
No one was cured. Despite this track record, the major
derivative methotrexate gradually gained popularity over
the decades.
Methotrexate has been one of the most common
chemotherapy drugs for the past 25 years. The fact that its
still at the top of the list and that cancer survival has not
improved during that period tells the story.
As Methotrexate begins to kill the bodys cells, it causes
bleeding ulcers, bone marrow suppression, lung damage,
and kidney damage. (HSI Newsletter Apr 1999 p. 5) [37] It
also causes severe anemia, and has triggered or intensified
cancerous tumors. (Ruesch, p. 18)
Other common effects are permanent sclerosing (hardening)
of the veins, blood clotting, and destruction of skin and
mucous membranes.
Cytoxan is another of the most common chemo drugs.
Besides the normal side effects, it causes urinary bleeding,
lung disease, and heart damage. This preposterous sentence
actually appears at webmd.com as a rationale for Cytoxan:
Cytoxan also works by decreasing your immune systems
response to various diseases.
And decreasing response to disease is going to benefit any

patient exactly how??? They can print ridiculous

sentences like this largely because nobody reads them. Most
patients sheepishly accept whatever drugs the doctor dreams
up, without question. Its truly marketing from heaven
unquestioned compliance, even if ordered to suicide.
Cisplatin
Appearing in the 1980s, one of the newer chemo agents is
Cisplatin, which has as its base one of the most toxic heavy
metals known to man: platinum. The way this horror works
is that the platinum rings clog up the cell DNA so forcefully
that the cell initiates its own early death sequence
(apoptosis). Despite this level of toxicity and long term side
effects from the permanent bioaccumulation of the heavy
metal, cisplatin remains the drug of choice for most cases of
sarcoma, small cell lung cancer, germ cell tumors,
lymphoma, and ovarian cancer. Cisplatin all but destroys
the immune system.
Another popular chemo drug is a sheep-deworming agent
known as Levamisole.
It has been around for 60 years. With no major clinical trial
ever showing significant increased long term survival with
Levamisole, it is still a standard chemotherapy agent even
today! The weirdness is, Levamisole was included for its
immune system modulation properties. However, its major
actions include:
- decreased white cell count (!)
- flu symptoms
- nausea
- abdominal cramps
- dizziness
Some immune booster!
A 1994 major study of Levamisole written up in the British
Journal of Cancer [53] showed almost double the survival
rate using a placebo instead of Levamisole! The utter
mystification over why this poison continues to be used as a
standard component of chemo cocktails can be cleared up
by considering one simple fact: when Levamisole was still a
sheep de-wormer, it cost $1 per year. When the same
amount was suddenly relabeled as a cancer drug given to
humans, it cost $1200 per year. (Los Angeles Times 11 Sep
93.) [24]

Today Levamisole is also used to cut cocaine, as much as

70% of the US supply. (SF Chronicle 29 Dec 09 [54]). It is
still used as a veterinary deworming drug for sheep and
horses, and continues to be one of the most popular
chemotherapy drugs, especially with colon cancer.
You say youd rather try the coke?
INTERLEUKIN-2
is another colossal failure. When the oncologist starts
talking about interleukin-2, its usually time to start thinking
about where you put all those Neptune Society papers,
because by then the big stuff has been pretty much tried and
met with its usual failure.
The brilliant sales job behind interleukin-2 and other
vaccine-type cytokine agents is that now were gonna
transform the patients lymphocytes into an army of killer
T-cells, which will then descend on those troublesome
cancer cells and root them out of there.
Just one problem with this theory: no foreign antigens
have ever been identified in tumor cells.
And thats the only way that lymphocytes work destroying
foreign antigens the not-self cells. So even if the T-cell
count can be boosted, there is simply no way these
lymphocytes can be directed at cancer cells, because the
cancer cells dont appear that different from normal cells.
Thats why they were able to grow in the first place.
The other vexatious feature of interleukin-2 therapy is that
because of its last-ditch status, the patients immune system
is generally so depressed theres simply not much of it left
to work with. Once your immune systems gone, so are you.
And interleukins side effects are often the worst of any
cancer drug. The list is too long to include here.
Professor George Annas, a medical ethicist, who analyzed
the original controlled clinical trails done at the National
Cancer Institute on interleukin-2 was slightly less than
festive about interleukin-2 for patients:
more than 80% of the patients did not do any better and
they actually did worse. They died harder. Thats not
irrelevant. We always tend to concentrate on the survivors,
but weve got to make the point that 80 per cent had terrific
side effects and didnt get any measurable increase in

longevity.
- New York Times 3 Mar 94
Dr. Martin Shapiro agreed:
revelations about the apparent ineffectiveness of the
experimental cancer drug interleukin-2 are but the tip of an
iceberg of misrepresentation and misunderstanding about
cancer drug treatments in general. [21]
- Los Angeles Times 9 Jan 87
The same interleukin-2 is still used today, all over the
country.
CHEMO FOR NON-CANCER CASES
In a desperate attempt for new revenues, a brilliant new
marketing technique for chemo emerged in the 2000s:
prescribing chemo drugs for non-cancer cases. This off-label
prescribing is now so rampant that it is impossible to track
or even estimate its extent. By virtue of his license, any MD
can prescribe most drugs for any diagnosis he chooses. Laws
absolutely protect him from being sued, no matter what
happens to the patient. So for the past 10 years we are now
seeing these very expensive chemotherapy drugs being
routinely prescribed for many other untested unrelated
conditions. To list just a few:
endometriosis
infertility
benign prostatic hypertrophy
pneumonitis
vasculitis
lupus
dermatomyositis
(Intravenous Cyclophosphamide for Non-Cancer [7])
WHAT KIND OF MONEY ARE WE TALKING
ABOUT HERE?
Very difficult to count how many patients are receiving
chemotherapy per year. If the real focus were health care,
and monitoring the effectiveness of a cure, why wouldnt
there be extensive inter-hospital databases to follow up on
successful treatment? That doesnt exist.

What can be tracked is the amount of cytotoxic drugs sold

by the pharmaceutical companies. This amount grew from
$3 billion in 1989 to over $13 billion in 1998. (Moss p. 75)
[5] By 2008 the figure was $48 billion, projected to reach
$80 billion by 2011. (Berkrot) [8]
These figures are chemotherapy drugs sales only, not taking
into account professional or hospital fees associated with
treatment.
Total spending for cancer treatment just in the US was
reported at over $90 billion by 2008, but today is obviously
much higher. [Szabo, USA Today] [9]
DOSE-LIMITING
A funny phrase that doctors use when talking about
chemotherapy is dose-limiting treatment. All that means is
that if the dose is not limited, the patient dies.
It is inexplicable when patients tell me their familys
chemotherapy stories, usually involving a family member, in
which they talk about toward the end, where the doctors
gave the patient 5 times or 20 times the lethal dose! We
hear this all the time, and when you really get what theyre
saying, the level of barbarity is appalling. The doctors are
saying at the end, Well its hopeless so we may as well
give him 5 or 20 times the normal dose of an already
poisonous drug, what difference will it make? We tried our
best. Totally forgetting that the patient even while dying is a
human being, and the goal wasnt to kill the tumor; it was to
save the patient.
Or are they saying, quick this guy is dying, the insurance is
still running?
When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital
or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard,
requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their
space-suits and all their HazMat protocols. Yet this same
agent is going to be put into the human body and is
expected to cure it of disease? Whats wrong with this
picture?
METAPHORS OF WAR
From its inception, mainstream cancer theory has always
used military terms:

the war on cancer

killing the tumor cells
killer T cells
stopping the advance
powerful drugs as weapons
fighting the cancer
nuke the tumor
This type of thinking is so pervasive that its become second
nature for most of us. The very failure of the entire cancer
industry to slow the death rate over the past fifty years,
despite the cooked figures, may indicate that perhaps its
time to look for another paradigm.
Its imponderable that doctors continue to prescribe volatile
poisons which they know will not prolong their lives, may
well kill the patient, and the only way they can convince the
patients is by devious high pressure sales techniques
completely misrepresentative of actual expectationsall
this simply because its their only tool? This cant be an
acceptable excuse. You dont want to believe that things are
really this perverse, but in most cases due diligence will bear
it out.
WHO ARE THE QUACKS?
The American Cancer Society and the FDA have a list of
Unproven Methods for cancer, which they attack with
their full measure of invective both directly and using their
many covers. As you might expect, the criteria for getting on
this list are predictable:
- a natural form
- non-toxic
- not produced by the Drug Industry
- easily available without a prescription
- inexpensive
- non-patentable
Even though chemotherapy and radiation and palladium
implants are completely unproven themselves, and
frequently are the cause of death themselves, they are not on
the Unproven List. Why not? Because theyre expensive,
can be completely controlled, and are patentable. This last
deserves some explanation.
In order for a drug to be approved by the FDA, the
manufacturer must do years of clinical trials, which may
cost anywhere between 100 300 million dollars. Now if a

company is going to spend that kind of money, they dont

want some other company stealing their formula after
theyve gone to all that trouble developing it. Their
guarantee is called a patent legally its their drug and no
one can copy it for 17 years.
Do you think after all that trouble, a drug company wants
somebody to come along with a totally cheap, available, and
natural product which has the same effect as their drug, yet
with none of the side effects? Of course not! And do you
think theyll do everything they can both legally and
politically to prevent natural products from reaching the
market? You better believe it.
NATURAL CURES FOR CANCER
Many of the effective natural cures for cancer which have
come along in the past 75 years have faced a tidal wave of
opposition from the FDA/AMA/Drug Trust. (Richard
Walterss Options. [11]) Some of these natural cures are
still around in the US, though they are under attack. Others
can only be obtained in Mexico or Europe. And still others
have been crushed out of existence for good disappeared
without a trace, in the Age of Repressed Technology.
You can do the historical research yourself on some of the
following products and innovators:
William Kelley, Hoxsey, Gaston Naessens, Max Gerson,
Kurt Donsbach, William Koch, Lawrence Burton, Dr. Stan
Burzynski, Dr Stan Bynum, enzyme therapy, Patrick
Flanagan, 714x, Haelan, antineoplastins, raw foods, live cell
therapy, ozone, peroxide, EDTA chelation, Laetrile, Coley
vaccines, DCA, Hydrazine sulfate, Hans Nieper, JH Tilden,
the Rife machine, the black box, Black Magic, avemar, etc.
This is a partial list. Many names have been lost forever.
Separately or in combination, these methods and these
healers in all likelihood have resolved cancer in thousands
of cases during the past 75 years. Some of the technology is
gone other methods can still be located. What they have
in common is that they are non-patentable generally natural
methods which have no significant side effects, and work
with one common goal: strengthen the immune system.
[I have actually had patients who told me that DCA cured
them. Seems logical -- 2 years after it began to be sold as a
harmless supplement the FDA outlawed it! Might be worth
checking out.}

The above names were not people whose first goal was to
make personal fortunes and lock their discoveries away from
those who wanted to copy them. The pharmaceutical
industry has what can only be described as a de facto
monopoly on cancer treatment in this country. Their stated
goal is not curing cancer or helping people die with dignity,
or trying to discover a cure, or relieving pain, or giving
Americans a better life. Their stated goal is return on
investment for their stockholders. Certainly no secret, and
they have proven for the past century that there are no limits
they will observe to secure their control of what has become
a $100 billion per year industry. If this sounds harsh or
paranoid, start perusing the appended reference list and
you'll notice how unfamiliar it looks.
Try and find one single treatment on the FDA's "Unproven
Methods" list that is patentable as a drug.
ALTERNATIVES
A reasonable alternative would focus on wholeness, on
health, on only giving the body something that will
immediately improve its healing capabilities. Support the
immune system and the body's natural healing powers. The
body's resistance is already run down; so let's only introduce
substances and nutrients which will have a direct healing
and immuno-enhancing effect.
Here are four self-evident lines of action, all of which will
nourish and support whatever immune system you're still in
possession of.
#1 DIET
Simple. Clean it up. You know what's bad by now. Probably
that's what got you into this mess. If you're still smoking,
stop reading and go back to the drug sites. Sayonara.
Over 3000 studies in mainstream medical journals document
successful treatment of cancer with nutritional
supplementation. But the medical profession continues to
pretend that nutrition is a "feel-good adjunct" to the "real
treatment" - chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, even
though these procedures have not significantly improved
survival rates since the time of our grandparents.
If you're serious, here's your new diet. Got it all worked out.
It's been the nucleus of the 60 Day Program for the last 15
years. Nothing extreme, or religious about it: just the

common sense traditional natural diet with no refined

carbohydrates, no hydrogenated oils, no pasteurized dairy.
The New West
/New-West-Diet ]

Diet

[www.thedoctorwithin.com/diet

#2 STRESS
Avoid negative people and negative input. Such a constantly
degrading social pattern is causative of abnormal changes at
the cellular level. Physically remove yourself from negative
people, especially if they be family members. Disconnect
your cable and your satellite. Getting stupider is not a
healing mode. Unplug your phone unless it brings happy
news. This step #2 is definitely not optional, as many can
tell you from personal experience. Optimum would be to
move into as natural an environment as possible. Like a
forest, or desert, or ocean, or mountain top. Affording it?
Can you afford to be dead?
If youre going to try a program like this, dont be
disingenuous enough to expect peoples approval. Expect
ridicule. Expect threats. Then avoid those people. No matter
who they are. Selfish? You bet. Time to be selfish.
#3 EXERCISE
Do something. Assist the lymphatics. Breathe. Walk. Swim.
Bicycle. Run. Work out.
Do something.
#4 THE 60 DAY PROGRAM
The 60 Day Program is a very specific, classic regimen of
nutrition and detoxification whose purpose is to restore the
body to normal equilibrium by removing years of toxic
buildup in the tract and in the blood, restoring normal
blood oxygen, by providing the body only what is
absolutely nourishing to the cells, adding nothing more to
the toxic load.
For 60 Days, nothing but best nutrients in, wastes out.
The features of the 60 Day Program:
The New West Diet
Enzymes
Expel

Total Florabiotics
Antioxidants
Chelated Minerals
Oral chelation
Collagen
2 litres water per day
Supplements are kept to a bare minimum, but sufficient to
give the body everything it needs to nourish its cells, clear
out the tract and re-balance the blood.
The Program is simple, it has decades of clinical success,
and there are few health imbalances which will not show a
favorable response.
In todays world more than 60,000 chemicals have some
degree of access to the food, air, and water of every country.
Most of us have been vaccinated and have dental amalgams.
We have seen the bio-accumulation of mercury described in
the vaccine text and in the Dentistry chapters. Most of us
have taken in significant amounts of processed foods during
our lifetime, much of which remains locked in our tract and
in our cells because it is unmetabolizable.
By themselves, these DNA-altering poisons cannot escape
the tissues in which they are trapped. Most people die with
an enormous toxic load locked within their tissues. In
cancer survival we will strive to chelate and detox as many
residual carcinogens as possible.
So again, look closely at the New West Diet page. It will
mean that for the next 60 days you confine your intake to
what you see in Categories I and II. Religiously no
cheating. You must eat a lot, and all the time, so you wont
feel deprived.
The enzymes in the raw food coupled with the natural
enzyme supplements are the active components of blood
detoxification. See ENZYMES chapter. Remember, the
blood goes everywhere it is the milieu in which all cells of
your body are bathed every second of your life, from birth
to death. The condition of that blood determines the ability
of your cells to perform its 2 main life functions:
taking in oxygen and nutrients
getting rid of wastes

In overcoming cancer, blood oxygen is everything.

This Program approaches the body at the cellular level. No
matter how sick you are, no matter how long they say
youve got, as long as youre still alive your cells have to
follow the same principles of human physiology as everyone
elses. There is no condition, no matter how terminal, or
how extreme that will not respond to the cells being
provided with oxygen and nutrients and having wastes
cleared away.
THE SUPPLEMENTS
Here are the 7 supplements for the 60 Day Program:
DIGESTAZYME
WHY: blood oxygenation, clearing the tract
DOSAGE: 3 caps 3x a day
MEGAHYDRATE
WHY: neutralize free radicals, prevent further DNA
alteration
DOSAGE: 2 caps 2-3x per day
TOTAL COMPLETE CHELATED MINERALS
WHY: optimum immune strength
DOSAGE: 3 caps per day
COLON CLEANSE
WHY: Revitalize the immune system, centered in the colon
DOSAGE: EXPEL 1 4 caps per day
TOTAL FLORABIOTICS 3 caps 3x per day
HYDROLYZED COLLAGEN
WHY: Rebuild damaged cells in the blood, skin, organs
DOSAGE: 2-4 tblsp. per day in juice
ORAL CHELATION
WHY: chelate carcinogenic heavy metals and arterial plaque
out of the system
DOSAGE: 3 caps morning 3 caps night
HYDRATION
WHY: O2 transport, cell nutrition, muscle cell fluidity,
anti-aging
DOSAGE: 2 litres water/day
FOCUS AND EXCLUSIVITY:

This program only, for 60 days; no other supplements, no

other diet, no drugs. Versions of the program will result in
versions of resolution. The program works very well only if
the patient will follow it without modification. (See the
stories at FEEDBACK AND TESTIMONIALS)
The only patients who have ever complained about poor
success buckled under the simplest questioning about how
strictly they had kept to the regimen. Its the 60 Day
program, not the 8 Day Program, or the 28 Day Program.
If youre new to the natural approach, here is the essential
distinction between the allopathic / mainstream medical
approach and the holistic approach. Drugs may cover up
symptoms, and while the problem still remains, the patient
may get some immediate temporary relief. Thats the whole
allure of medicine, isnt it abdicate responsibility for your
own health to us consult your doctor; well take care of
everything. But the only thing they usually end up taking
care of is your prescription drugs and eventually your
surgical calendar. Health well lets not get ahead of
ourselves
Holistic cures are under no such compulsion to delude.
Rooting out the actual cause of the problem is not easy, is
not quick, and may not be wholly pleasant. That is because
we are working with whats left of the functioning systems
of the body, and forcing them back into the trenches get
back to work! Kidneys, colon, digestive tract, circulatory
system, muscles do your job!!
So, if youre going to do the program, just do it. We know
why youre doing it; because youre dying and you finally
figured it out, and you realize no medicine can save you. If
youre going to quit a week into it, just quit now. If youre
going to give it a try, just quit now. Losers try, winners
finish. Spare us these bogus spineless whinings about why.
We know why youre quitting, no matter what silly excuse
you might give to yourself.
COLLAGEN
There is one part of the 60 Day Program that has special
relevance for the cancer patient. Muscle wasting (cachexia)
is very common: muscles turn into loose string. Bone
degeneration. Shriveling skin. Caused by the treatment
usually more than the cancer. All these are made of
collagen. Even for non-cancer people, collagen production
diminishes as we age. With cancer, the depletion is more

obvious because the body is digesting itself to feed the

cancer. Chemotherapy immediately attacks the digestive
system, which is why the patient loses his appetite. Without
being able to eat, little nutrition is taken in and the patient
goes quickly downhill. Weve all seen it.
To learn more about the regenerative effects of collagen on
tissues, please see the chapter on collagen.
SOME NATURAL CURES
After studying this field for over 15 years, my one certainty
is that I dont know everything. I know the basics of
restoring the patient to health, and I know that the immune
system should be supported, not suppressed. The simple
program outlined above will support the immune system as
well as anything available at this time.
I am not saying that other supportive methods listed above
do not work. Its just that the tendency people have when in
dire straits is to look for a quick and cheap Magic Bullet
that will cure them, irrespective of the last 20 years of their
self-annihilating lifestyle. Some claim to have found such a
cure. And I must admit that I have seen amazing results in
individual cases.
One such remedy is DCA. I have had several patients
recover from serious metastasized lymphoma situations by
taking this very inexpensive and simple powder. To learn
more about it, Google DCA cancer and find their main
site. There is an enormous study being carried out today in
Canada using tens of millions of dollars to prove the
effectiveness of DCA. In the US, sale has been forbidden
since 2009, in keeping with our policy of protecting the
drug trade before the health of the patient.
I imagine that several of the other remedies have been
successful with natural treatment of cancer as well, but I
seriously doubt that any long term health benefit can result
without a complete overhaul of the lifestyle: diet, water,
detox, mental outlook. The 60 Day Program.
There are many clinics in Mexico and other offshore locales,
plus a host of low profile alternative therapies used in
Europe as well as here in the U.S. Proven superiority to
conventional treatment? Who knows? Who would fund a
study like that? The quality of life, however, is generally
better with the alternative route, that seems logical. In
addition, the incidence of real recoveries seems probable

with the alternative approach, since holistic methods try to

boost the immune system instead of killing it. Moreover, the
holistically-inclined patient may be more self-reliant and
more willing to take personal responsibility and initiative for
healing, rather than just to sit back and expect the magic of
modern technology to do all the work.
A famous healer once remarked that theres a big difference
between being afraid to die and wanting to live.
A LONELY ROAD
Perhaps the greatest difficulty in embarking on a holistic
program for cancer is not the discipline required by the
program itself. Neither is it the time it required, the money
involved, or the newness of the lifestyle. The biggest
obstacle is the solitude of it all youll be swimming
upstream, by yourself. Chances are you will not get support
from your family doctor, any medical professionals, or your
family. Chances are you will be attacked and ridiculed by
any of the above for not following mainstream slashand-burn protocols.
I have seen many patients who were initially open to the
holistic approach buckle under pressure from the family to
be sensible and follow the tried and true. Invariably, they
died on schedule, because they didnt want to upset
anybody. This is one time in your life that its OK to upset
people, the one time thats its fine to be completely selfish.
You have a right to your own life, no matter how politically
incorrect that notion becomes. If you actually do the
research beginning with the appended references, it is
virtually impossible not to arrive at a similar conclusion:
that mainstream cancer treatment is rarely effective and
exists primarily for the benefit of the cancer industry itself,
not you. If you go along with their program, it is likely that
at some point you will learn the truth of this reality. For
most, that point comes too late.
If you suspect there may be some validity to what Im
saying, you owe it to yourself to investigate it thoroughly on
your own before you submit to even the mildest of
chemotherapies. I promise, you will be no match for the
masterful stairstepping of procedures and testing that awaits
you, dangling little improvements with enticements to try
this or that drug because Its really not that toxic or the
standard now this wont cure your cancer, but it will slow
it down, or the Oscar-winning its OK to take some of
your herbs or natural products along with the

chemotherapy/radiation/surgery. They wont interfere. Like

they would know.
Oncologists are getting increasingly sophisticated at tricking
the frightened, uninformed patient and his family into
accepting the standard worthless drugs and surgical
procedures. One of the newest ploys is telling the patient
that we have something special for your type of case, an
experimental drug, just developed. This one is used with
patients who are beginning to question the toxicity of chemo
and need a little extra hope. Then they find out later that
the drug was not new at all, but was one of the standard
poisons, like methotrexate, that has been around for the past
25 years. By then its too late, because the patient is so
debilitated hell do anything the doctor says.
If the reader agrees with nothing I have said so far, but has
less than 100% confidence in the hospitals ability to cure
your cancer, get behind this: follow none of my
recommendations. Do nothing: no doctors, no treatment,
mainstream or holistic. Go home and live your life. For the
majority of cancers, no one can tell you with any authority
that you are doing anything high risk. There are simply
too few statistics on cancer people who dont get some form
of chemotherapy and radiation.
LAST CHANCE
You just found out you got cancer and want to go holistic?
Fine. Youve got one chance. Go for it 100% diet, detox,
supplements, major cardio exercise, eliminate all negative
input. Starting this minute.
You cant have one foot in each world. Its either holistic or
mainstream no middle ground.
Conventional therapies are so damaging and powerful that
to pretend like their monstrous side effects can be easily
repaired by holistic methods thats idiotic. The body is
not a car. So if you want to go holistic do it. But if you want
to go mainstream, which is what usually happens, then just
do it, but dont pretend everything is going to be fine when
you come out of surgery or chemo or radiation if you just
take a few MegaHydrate, etc. This is big business, big money
for them theyre not going to let a couple hundred
thousand dollars just waltz out the door. So stop wasting
energy thinking you have to learn enough to convince these
geniuses that they may be wrong, and there may be another
way. Its not in their professional DNA to even consider

alternatives, and definitely they have spent zero time

researching alternative treatment. People who choose the
holistic path seriously inform themselves, make up their
minds, then they unplug their phones and just do it Thats
the real choice here.
Too much work to learn all this? Fine. Forget the whole
thing just write your will and party out, like ol Warren.
Because if you got cancer in the first place, its likely youve
been overdrawn in the self indulgence department for a long
time. Your only chance is to sprint from morning to night,
doing every single thing possible to detox your blood, bring
more oxygen to the cells, boost your immune system, and
generally try and make up for all those years of abuse. Dont
have the energy? No problema my regards to Elvis.
In his master work, Quantum Healing, Deepak Chopra [23]
says that remissions of cancer in terminal patients have
one thing in common: a major shift in mental attitude or
spiritual consciousness.
The internet is overwhelming with promises of holistic cures
for cancer. Trying to do all of them together would probably
be enough to kill a horse, even though theyre natural
approaches. Choose the program that make the most sense
to you, that you have access to, and whose representatives
give you a feeling of confidence and trust. Then really try
the method do it the exact way the experts tell you, with
consistency, focus, and follow-through. Since youre a
patient, be patient.
Dont just give it your best shot; do whatever it takes
150%. And daily visualize wholeness and completeness of
your entire body. Do the deed.
The time is going to go by anyway.
Copyright MMXII
Dr Tim OShea
`
`
`
`
REFERENCES
1. http://www.cisplatin.org/

2. Lipski, L PhD, Moss R New Approaches to Fighting

Cancer Teleseminar 2006
3. Epstein, S, R. Bertell The Dangers and Unreliability of
Mammography International Journal of Health Services
2001
4. OShea, T Vaccination Is Not Immunization 2010
5. Moss, Ralph, PhD The Cancer Industry 1995
7. Intravenous Cyclophosphamide for Non-Cancer
http://www.northumbria.nhs.uk/section.asp?id=304154
8. Bill Berkrot; Cancer drug sales could hit $80B by 2011
Reuters 15 May 2008
9. Szabo, L Patients bear brunt as cancer care hits $90
billion USA Today 18 Mar 2010
10. Allday, E Most cocaine diluted with unsafe livestock
drug San Francisco Chronicle 29 Dec 09
11. Walters, Richard Options, 1993 Avery
12. Carter, James, MD Racketeering in Medicine
13. Howell, Edward, MD Enzyme Nutrition, Avery
14. DeCava, Judith The Real Truth About Vitamins and
Antioxidants, 1996
15. Tilden, JH, MD Toxemia Explained, 1926 Kessinger
16. CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97
17. Scanlon, Edward, MD Journal of the American
Medical Association Sept. 4, 1991
18. American Cancer Society Founding Charter
19. Guyton, Arthur, MD Textbook of Medical Physiology,
1996
20. New England Journal of Medicine, vol 314, 1986
21. Shapiro, M, MD Chemotherapy: Snake Oil Remedy?
Los Angeles Times 9 Jan 87

22. Moss, Ralph, PhD Questioning Chemotherapy, 1995

23. Chopra, Deepak, MD Quantum Healing
24. Los Angeles Times 11 Sep 93
25. New York Times 3 Mar 94
26. Vital Statistics of the United States vol II 1967-1992
27. Miller, A et al. Canadian national breast screening
study 1992 Canadian Med Assn Jour 147:1477
28. McDougall, J, MD The McDougall Program for
Women, Penguin Books 1999
29. Wright, C, MD Screening mammography and public
health policy.
Lancet 346:p29, 1995
30. Kolata, G Breast cancer screening under 50 New York
Times 14 Dec 1997, Dr. Edward Sondik
31. Greenberg, David, MD Medicine and Public Affairs
NEJM Mar 1975 292 p. 707
32. Braverman, Albert, MD Medical Oncology in the 90s
Lancet 1991 337 p. 901
33. American Cancer Society Cancer Facts and Figures
Atlanta 1995
34. Jones, Hardin, PhD Report on Cancer 1969 Bancroft
Library, Cal State U Berkeley
35. Abel, Ulrich, PhD Cytostatic Therapy of Advanced
Epithelial Tumors A Critique Lancet 10 Aug 1991
36. Schimke, Robert Methotrexate Resistance And Gene
Amplification Cancer 57, May 1986, p. 1915
37. Milner, M HSI Newsletter Apr 1999 p. 5
38. Travis, Lois Journal of the National Cancer Institute,
5 Oct 94 vol 86 no. 19
39. Black, Dean, PhD Health at the Crossroads, Tapestry
Press 1988

40. Bealle, Morris A The Drug Story, 1948

41. Johansson, J, MD High 10 Year Survival Rate in
Patients With Early Untreated Prostate Cancer JAMA Apr
22 1992 vol 257, p. 2191
42. Grady, D Extreme Cancer Surgery Backed San Jose
Mercury News 14 Jan 99 p. 1
43. McDougall, J, MD Early Detection Testing? Chance
of Harm Is 100%, Feb 2010 Newsletter
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/feb/early.htm
44. Heyes, G J Mammography-oncogenecity at low doses.
J Radiol Prot. Jun;29(2A):A123-32. 2009
45. OECD Health Data 2010, Deaths from Cancer by
Country
www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-healthdeath-from-cancer
46. CDC website 2010:
/dsCancerInChildren/

http://www.cdc.gov/Features

47. Whang, S Reverse Aging, 1990

48. OShea, T Hydration and dehydration, 2010
www.thedoctorwithin.com
49. McColl, K Billions of dollars needed to close global
spending gap on cancer care BMJ 2009; 339:b3499 doi:
10.1136/bmj.b3499, 28 August 2009. BMJ 2009;
339:b3499
50. CDC website Leading Causes of Death US 2009
www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm
51. Levin, A, MD The Healing of Cancer 1990
52. CDC website Breast Cancer Trends
www.cdc.gov/Features/dsBreastCancerTrends/
53. Chlebowski, R T Late mortality and levamisole
adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer British Journal of
Cancer (1994) 69, 10941097 www.bjcancer.com
54. Allday, E Most cocaine diluted with unsafe livestock
drug San Francisco Chronicle 29 Dec 2010

Home
List of Chapters - Upcoming Lectures - Online Continuing Ed. - Order
BooksVideos - Order Products - Gift Certificate
Contact - Site Map - Privacy Policy - Shipping Policies - Terms&Conditions
Copyright MMXII TheDoctorWithin.com

Credit Card Services