Table of contents
- Author warning
- About the Developer
- Prologue
- Chapter 1. What is the problem?
- Chapter 2. History of the dominance of allopathic medicine
- Chapter 3. Oncology - a thriving business
- Chapter 4. Theory of Cancer
- Chapter 5. Who is sick and why?
- Chapter 6. A new concept for the treatment and prevention of disease
- Chapter 7. "Cut, etch, burn" - traditional oncological methods
- Chapter 8. The main causes of the onset and development of cancer
- 1. Nutritional factor
- 2. Toxic factor
- 3. Psychological factor
- 4. Physical factor
- Chapter 9. The choice of the concept of cancer treatment. The determining factor in the success of treatment
- Chapter 10. An integrated approach to cancer treatment
- Chapter 11. Questions and answers that can save a patient's life
- Appendix:
- 1. A list of non-traditional cancer treatment clinics and the methods they use
- 2. List of used literature and other sources of information
← Prologue | Next. Chapter 2 →
Chapter 1 - What's the problem?
It is much easier to deceive a person than to convince him that he is deceived.
Mark Twain
How would you react if you were told that the cancer is curable, its causes are known, and that there are hundreds of methods for its successful treatment, some of which are already about 100 years old? No doubt, this, at least, would cause you surprise and mistrust, and most likely - quite an emotional reaction to the denial of what you heard. That's how I'd react to just about any 10 years ago. Why, not so long ago, I with passion and passion could rush into a dispute and use arguments from the knowledge I received at school and the institute to refute such a statement? Then I was convinced that if I was not taught this and I did not hear about it, then this simply can not be.
Today I perceive such information differently. Now I understand that I was at the mercy of imposed false stereotypes (false beliefs), laid down at school and fixed throughout life. In fact, they are a program implemented in the minds of people, the purpose of which is that a person is not able to perceive information that is radically contrary to what is accepted in society.
Having freed myself from the action of this implemented program, I discovered a new world, almost a parallel reality, where much radically differed from my previous ideas. I realized that I know practically nothing about this real world and started self-education, absorbing in huge quantities alternative information on the topics of history, politics, biology, medicine and oncology in particular. My horizons have expanded considerably, the world view has radically changed, and soon I had a need to share my new knowledge.
Obviously, many do not even realize how different their knowledge of the world in which they live, from his real picture. I was convinced then that if I correctly point out the source of information or explain the essence of what I said, using the right arguments and reliable facts, I can easily convince my interlocutor of the correctness of the alternative view. However, this turned out to be a rather difficult task. Most people were simply unable to perceive this information, because it was convinced that such serious facts would simply not be concealed if it were true. Thus, most of these conversations boiled down to this position.
It became obvious to me that the information coming into people's minds passes through a sort of filtration system to correspond to previous ideas about reality, and if this new information does not correspond to them, it simply blocks. Thus, it turns out that most people, the incoming new information, if it is significantly different from their past beliefs, simply does not reach those parts of the brain that could perceive it, and then evaluate it. Since then, I have become interested in the question, why do so many different people have such a similar reaction and how exactly is this behavior achieved?
A few years ago in one documentary on the analysis of people's behavior, I heard interesting statistics. It turns out that about 87% of people tend to take for a reliable, opinion given them from the source of power. Today this information is transmitted through the media and the education system. Only 13% of people are natural skeptics and are inclined to question the information received. They check it and form their opinion regardless of the generally accepted opinion. Establishment[1] is well aware of this and is successfully using it.
[1] The establishment (from the English establishment) is the power-holders, the fused political and financial elite of capitalist society. The totality of people occupying key positions in the socio-political system and shaping public opinion, as well as the set of institutions by which these people support the existing social order and its dominant position in it.
Despite the fact that I began to meet many like-minded people, most of them came to "enlightenment" in the same way as I did - getting rid of these false beliefs (programs) embedded in the subconscious that interfered with the perception of objective information.
This is a rather long process and rarely anyone can get rid of these imposed false beliefs after one conversation with an informed interlocutor. Then I came to the conclusion that neither the strength of the arguments, nor the reliable facts, nor the reference to the sources of this new, contrary to the already known information, can convince my interlocutor of its correctness. After all, in the minds of such an interlocutor, a program still blocking any new information that does not correspond to the notions of "truth" that are acceptable from the establishment's point of view was still in effect.
A similar reaction in most people can be caused by other radical statements, such as that vaccines are not only useless, but also harmful; that, for example, the Americans were not on the moon; that the New York towers were blown up in 2001 year as a result of a conspiracy in high circles of the American government, and not fell from the fire as a result of the terrorist attack (the last two examples are typical for ordinary Americans with whom I communicated a lot). Most people include a program of instinctive denial of such information, which then is difficult to overcome in a subsequent conversation, whatever facts in favor of what was heard would not be given. The brain has already taken a defensive position and connected the emotional center, which makes the reasoned conversation practically useless. Inclusion of this program of emotional negation occurs after a person hears something that radically contradicts what he knows and believes in. And how did the person get this knowledge and faith?
A person's outlook is formed exclusively by the external environment, and not inherited genetically. In the printing house, when you pass a white sheet of paper through a printing press, the output that produces the print that contains the printed matrix will be obtained. Each born person falls under a similar but already informational matrix - a deliberately created false establishment of the reality created by the establishment, which is formed through the media, educational system, medicine, finances and other aspects of our life controlled by him, and which contains only information that is acceptable to us and does not endanger this the version of reality imposed on us. Passing through the impact of this information matrix, people acquire a worldview that is acceptable to the establishment.
Some of us suspect or admit that some moments of history, certain scientific facts and, often, a simple description of the establishment of today's reality can be distorted and inaccurate. Many are ready to admit that today's deplorable state of medicine is due to the prevalence of financial interest in it, and not the desire to eradicate disease and make people healthy. Some even understand that this situation is due to the merging of interests of corporations (big business) and state structures. However, very few of us can, without preparation, assess the depth of that deception and the degree of complexity of the artificial reality we are woven from it, in which we live. After all, many of its elements were built by generations and many concepts, as well as the version of history permitted by the establishment and pseudoscientific facts were hammered into us for years, and sometimes even for decades. We never doubted all this, and suddenly this statement: "Cancer has been cured for a long time"!
Many of us do not know that, in fact, 95% of our behavior depends on our subconscious and the programs that it uses. Only 5% of our behavior is due to the work of the cerebral cortex, i.e. conscious part of it[2]. Of course, most of these programs arise naturally in the process of responding to the environment, bringing up and gaining life experience. However, there are special psychological methods that are able to establish in the subconscious certain programs that cause our behavior, which is acceptable to certain circles of people.
The mechanism of creating certain knowledge, views and even reactions to certain events among the population has long been known. In 20-ies of the last century, the father of propaganda Edward Burnays[3] has developed methods of influencing the behavior of the masses. These methods have long and successfully been used by the governments of the developed countries (dictatorships have different methods - there people know that they have no freedoms, while in democracy, people have only the illusion of freedom).
One of such methods of programming the masses, which politicians and corporations use with very high efficiency, is the method of constant repetition of lies, which they borrowed from the great orator Adolf Hitler. He said that the more lies, the easier it is to believe in people, if you repeat it constantly.
If it is necessary to introduce a certain version of events into the consciousness of the population or to convince him of the certainty of some fact, then it is sufficient to present the necessary information as an established and verified fact, and to scroll through a certain period of time in all the mainstream media. Subsequently, these versions and false facts, hitting books and textbooks, will become inalienable elements of our life, which will already be challenged not only indecent and offensive, but sometimes even criminal. For example, in some European countries, the practice of treatment methods alternative to official oncology is prohibited.
[2] Bruce Lipton, "Smart Cells" (Bruce Lipton, "Wisdom of our cells"). In Russian, the publishing house "Sofia" in 2012 year.[3] Edward Bernays (English Edward Louis Bernays; 1891-1995) - one of the largest specialists in PR. He made a significant contribution to the creation of modern science of mass persuasion, based not on reason, but on manipulation by subconscious feelings and impulses. He was an Austro-American "pioneer" in the field of public relations and propaganda.
The establishment also teaches us how to ridicule and discredit people who doubt the official, generally accepted "truth" or their statements, tossing and repeatedly repeating the necessary arguments, which are usually emotionally colored. In fact, the use of these arguments translates the conversation into an emotional plane. For example, if you are an opponent of vaccines, you will be accused of having children who will not be vaccinated because of you. If you advise a patient with cancer alternative treatment, then you will be accused of making money on the mountain of others, or that because of you the patient will lose valuable time for treatment and then it will be too late. And it does not really matter that absolutely no scientific evidence or practical confirmation of these arguments exists, but their constant repetition has made them "an indisputable truth."
There is no doubt that such an emotional denial and sincere resentment is the result of the program's action, specially laid in our subconscious. If this program does not work, then a person has the opportunity to become interested in new information that will form a picture of events in the mind, an alternative to the existing one, and then the irreparable will happen - the consciousness once opened will never be closed! A person will get out of the control of the establishment and make decisions using his new knowledge.
In our example with oncology it will be easy to see the inconsistency of the official theory and the methods of treatment based on it. Information on an alternative view of oncology and natural methods of treating cancer is more than enough and, if desired, it is easy to find. This is both scientific information and statistics of the success of the application of these natural methods, as well as descriptions of a wide range of these methods, both by the authors themselves and their followers. Thus, open access to such information will cause a rapid collapse of traditional official oncology. That is why the medical establishment, as in other things and the establishment as a whole, realizing that their position will not withstand any scientific criticism and will collapse under the flood of irrefutable facts, made the only right decision - to block people's perception of any meaningful alternative information. Thus, such programming of the subconscious of people with the help of special psychological methods has become the main barrier for such information.
In support of this, the following is said: the program is being implemented by repeated repetition, it is activated instantly from the keywords and almost always causes a strong emotional reaction (for which the hypothalamus subcortical center of the brain responds). An interesting feature of this program is that it does not allow you to logically perceive any counterarguments, no matter how weighty they were. The chain of neurons involved in the dialogue closes on a programmed subconscious reaction and does not allow to be included in other parts of the brain capable of evaluating new information. This trained ("washed") part of the brain gives the same arguments, in fact repeating quotes from television commentators and analysts or headlines.
Another interesting feature of the manifestation of this program is that when it is activated, it seems as if your interlocutor is in dialogue with someone else. He ascribes to you what you did not say and is absolutely incapable of taking into account what you said. For example, often talking with opponents of an alternative approach to oncology, I hear from them that healers and healers are very dangerous and can not understand oncology. My arguments that many alternative therapies, as well as scientific discoveries that contradict the oncology establishment, were made by well-known scientists, often winners of Nobel Prizes, or doctors with long experience and scientific degrees, nevertheless remain unheard, no matter how much I do not repeated. After a couple of minutes, I heard a repeat of the same argument that healers and healers deceive the sick. It was such information that was put into this program, which was the reason for the constant repetition of it by my opponents.
Of course, people's reactions to such radical statements are different, and there are those who are so interested that they are at least ready to listen to the interlocutor. Some perceive this more often as an addition to the information they know, which does not contradict the official version of "reality." And only a few of these statements open their eyes and turn their ideas about reality.
I gave such a radical example to demonstrate how the program working in our subconscious works and preventing the perception of unwanted information.
Thus, the ability to perceive information that contradicts our knowledge and life's foundations does not depend on the strength of the argumentation, or even on the intellectual level of the person, but on the degree of influence of this program on his consciousness, the degree of openness of this consciousness and the ability to get rid of the invested in us programs.
It is this reaction (which is a sign of program availability) that is observed in many people when they are told that modern oncology has nothing to do with cancer treatment, but is a cruel business whose purpose is to increase the number of new clients (patients) and the constant profit from already existing, as well as the influx of large taxpayers' money and private donations for a permanent "study of the causes and treatment of cancer." This goal is achieved by several important actions of honey. Establishment:
- constant intimidation of people through the media about the fatalities of this disease (for this the genetic theory of cancer is actively promoted);
- active discrediting of natural alternative methods of oncology treatment;
- the introduction into the minds of people of the myth that the best way to prevent and combat cancer is its early diagnosis (itself carcinogenic, very expensive and often inaccurate), as well as the spread of other myths - about the quick victory over cancer, the growing success in treatment and diagnostics.
- blocking the results of scientific works, which confirm the inconsistency of methods and drugs of traditional oncology[4], as well as blocking the wide publication of research results confirming the positive effect of natural drugs in the fight against cancer.[5]
[4] As, for example, Ulrich Abel's research on the complete uselessness of chemotherapy and even its harm (1990); according to the journal Clinical Oncology (Australia 2004), the effectiveness of chemotherapy in the US is 2,1% (!), in Australia - 2,3% (!).[5] Linus Pauling and vitamin C in the treatment of cancer, the history of vitamin B17, Joanne Budwig and the omega 3, Colley toxins, Dr. Barton's immunotherapy, Colin Campbell's work on dietetics - "The Chinese study", the results of research on granola, turmeric and other natural substances.
- Our body is imperfect and needs constant medical care. Only she can restore or maintain it.
Considering all the above, sometimes even a very sick person, who is on the verge of despair, it is difficult to change his mind about the fact that the medical establishment to which he applied (doctor, clinic, diagnostic center, etc.) and the patient have different goals. The patient needs to recover, but honey. establishment - to preserve the monopoly on the treatment of people, to protect a successful business model and to eliminate successful methods leading to a quick cure, which are often natural and cheaper. And the doctor, as a representative of the structure, will support it, and also be strictly controlled by it.
Those. methods of treatment of modern medicine are not aimed at the recovery of the patient, but only to temporarily improve his condition by eliminating the symptoms of the disease. And if the doctor ventures to use "untested" natural methods, he will have serious problems: from dismissal to loss of license and even imprisonment.[6]
People have been taught to be responsible for their own health and to make informative choices about different types of treatment. It is much easier to entrust your health and often even the life of a stranger who has been taught and controlled by the same honey. establishment.
From all this it follows that the very information about alternative methods of treatment not accepted by modern medicine is very difficult to convey to the patient. In my opinion, the problem in treating cancer is precisely this. Most cancer patients have heard of alternative methods, but this program enclosed in them does not allow us to consider new information that contradicts this program. At best, the patient can start using some alternative methods as ancillary, against the background of traditional methods: chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. Unfortunately, this is almost always not enough, and in the end, the extremely destructive effect of this official triple cancer treatment invariably wins out the positive effect that an alternative treatment approach can give.
[6] As was the case with the Italian doctor Tulio Simoncini, who treated cancer with sodium bicarbonate, i.e. ordinary baking soda.
Acquaintance of the patient with an alternative view of oncology should be calm, without emotion, preferably in stages, in order to avoid blocking vital information with the same program. From many conversations with patients, I noticed that if we started talking about alternative (it would be more correct to say natural) methods of treating cancer with scientific arguments in their favor or about some of the most successful protocols, the whole conversation could then be reduced to the same questions: "But if it were so, then, probably, long ago would have been treated like this?" Or "Why did not the doctors hear about this?". That is why I now often begin my discussions with patients explaining the history of the dominance of allopathic medicine and the political and economic reasons that formed the principles of its work. Further it should be explained that it is absolutely necessary for the official medicine to maintain its monopoly in the healthcare sphere in order to maintain a favorable situation for it. It is necessary to explain that oncologists do not teach to cure cancer, but instead they are taught to treat cancer by burning, cutting and etching the patient's body. Then it is necessary to touch on the pseudoscientific approach of traditional oncology and on the absence of visible positive results of its methods of treatment.
I believe that after such a long explanation, the patient will have a much better chance of correctly perceiving information about an alternative approach to cancer and its treatment with natural remedies.
However, often this is not enough. Owning information in itself does not lead to anything. Only the application, the use of well-known information, often under the supervision of a specialist, will lead to the desired result.
Summarizing the above, then, in my opinion, the problem of cancer treatment lies in the almost monopolistic dominance of the traditional oncology promoted by the establishment over its natural and incomparably more successful alternatives.
It should be understood that the establishment is not a sleeping and lazy giant. He very aggressively defends his positions by influencing people's consciousness, forming their necessary beliefs, which actually become subconscious programs. Since there is a lot of information on alternative view of oncology and it is not difficult to find it, the main defense for such establishment is the creation of a psychological barrier in people preventing the perception of this information.
Boris Grinblat
← Prologue | Next. Chapter 2 →
Download the e-book for free
Download the book for free in DOC format
in English in English German in French in italian in Polish
Download the book for free in PDF format
in English in English German in French in italian in Polish