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
← Previous. Chapter 6 | Next. Chapter 8 →
Chapter 7 - "Cut, poison, burn" - traditional cancer methods
Make a big lie, make it simple,
repeat it constantly and everyone will believe in it.
Adolf Hitler
How can these cruel ineffective methods of treatment remain dominant for decades? It is noteworthy that it is the complete dominance of these methods in oncology for so long and inspires confidence in patients that they are proven, successful and scientifically proven methods of treatment. Lack of knowledge in oncologists about more successful natural methods of treating cancer leaves no choice for patients, except to agree to the doctor's proposed treatment. Moreover, doctors use tactics of intimidation of the patient, who is already in shock from the diagnosis. As a rule, it is said that you need to start treatment as soon as possible in order to prevent metastasis and have a greater chance of healing.
Let's take a closer look at these two arguments of persuasion: metastasis and healing.
If we talk about metastases, when the tumor in the patient has just been diagnosed with modern equipment or tests, it usually already has a size of at least 1 cm3 and can consist of billions of cells. No oncologist and no scientific work will tell exactly how many cancer cells in the tumor give metastasis. If this tumor is in a capsule, it means that the organism itself localized this tumor and it is better neither her nor the body to be disturbed by traditional methods. If the tumor is not encapsulated, then there is no guarantee that a small tumor no longer metastasized. The process of metastasis is associated not so much with the size of the tumor as with the general condition of the body, its immune system and the system of excretory organs: liver, kidneys, lungs, lymphatic system, gastrointestinal tract. Also metastasis can be caused by local tissue damage and a tumor capsule, for example, a biopsy or a surgical operation. And as we know (and this is an irrefutable fact), all three methods of cancer treatment - surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy - weaken the whole organism and the function of these important organs. Accordingly, treatment increases the likelihood of metastasis.
Here we are faced with an obvious contradiction: to prevent cancer, as well as for its treatment, a strong immune system is needed, however, all three known methods of treating cancer lead to its significant weakening. How can we cure a disease that itself is the result of weakening the immune system, such medical means that weaken it even more ?!
Let us now briefly touch on the second argument, which the patient is convinced of the need for early treatment.
Contrary to the generally accepted view that more patients are cured today than in the past, and that the earlier the traditional treatment starts, the more chances it will be to cure, the cancer mortality has increased by 6% compared to 1970.[1] This suggests that early diagnosis does not at all guarantee an increase in the chances of survival, although it increases the average life expectancy with this disease. But it is given a great price, as the quality of life in traditional treatment is significantly worsened due to the negative side effects of treatment and numerous complications.
[1] Data for the USA.
In addition, with early diagnosis significantly increases the likelihood of misdiagnosis. So, the well-known PSA test for prostate cancer has a very high probability of erroneous results, and for some studies, mammography has a probability of errors up to 40%, including underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. In this case, overdiagnosed cases (when in reality there is no cancer in the patient) are treated also aggressively and with the same consequences. Patients who had an early diagnosis correctly, nevertheless, according to statistics, do not have a better chance of survival, but only have more time between diagnosis and a sad outcome, paying for this by a strong decrease in the quality of life during this period.
It should also be taken into account that many non-aggressive, encapsulated forms of cancer are treated with carcinogenic chemo- and radiotherapy, and if patients experience them, the likelihood of the transition of these forms of cancer to aggressive malignant forms is significantly increased. The likelihood of the appearance of new forms of cancer in the future, as a consequence of the carcinogenicity of treatment methods, increases tenfold.
How, then, have these ineffective and carcinogenic methods obtained a complete monopoly on the treatment of cancer in modern medicine? Should they have some scientific basis and factual justification for their application? It turns out that the situation here is no better than in practice.
English journalist Ben Koldecre, as a result of many years of research, came to the conclusion that 90% of the entire scientific medical base on which modern methods of treatment and pharmaceutical preparations are based are untenable. Their results were either falsified, or distorted and fully reflect the tasks posed by honey. establishment and big business.
This corruption mechanism was described by Edward Griffin in his book The World Without Cancer. He argued that the entire mechanism for developing, testing and implementing a drug or method is controlled by large business and includes research, clinical research, regulatory institutions such as the FDA that authorize their use, and scientific and popular prints. In fact, when we hear phrases such as "scientists have established" or "research has shown," these are just formulations that must convince us that a medical procedure or drug has a scientific justification, which often simply does not exist.
The famous English scientist and Nobel laureate Linus Pauling, who dealt with the problem of cancer and its effective treatment, called the existing scientific research on cancer the fraud. The methodology of many studies also raises many questions and reflects the goals that scientists set for obtaining the expected results. So, for example, the success of a new chemotherapeutic drug will be compared with another chemotherapeutic drug, rather than with the results of treatment of patients who use natural methods of treatment or are not treated at all. At the same time it is enough that the new drug of all 10% would be better than the previous one, i.e. faster or more reduced the size of the tumor and then about such a new drug it will be possible to say that it is "10% more effective", and, accordingly, the patients will consider that they have 10% more chances to be cured. In fact, these 10% improvements in the effect of the new drug over the old will only give a fraction equal to 1% in the favorable outcome of the treatment, because the success of chemotherapy is on average estimated from 2% to 5%. But oncologists are silent about this.
The famous German epidemiologist Ulrich Abel in the 80-ies conducted an extensive scientific study on the effectiveness of chemotherapy as a method of treatment. He contacted 350 medical clinics and scientific centers from different countries and asked him to send him all the works on cancer treatment. For a thorough analysis of all the material it took several years, and the conclusions were shocking. Dr. Abel concluded: "The success of chemotherapy is negligible ... There is absolutely no scientific basis to confirm the possibility of chemotherapy prolong life in the most common types of cancer ...".
Australian oncologists in 2004-th year conducted their research, the results of which were published in the journal Clinical Oncology. They took 20 most common types of cancer and looked 5-year survival statistics for patients with the most common chemotherapy drugs. The results of treatment effectiveness were as follows: 2,1% in the US and 2,3% in Australia. In fact, this means that chemotherapy does not help in 98% of cases. The medical mafia was not able to protest these works scientifically and therefore simply buried the results of these studies, and the scientists themselves subjected to large-scale discrediting.
To realize the significance of these results, imagine that you have arrived at the airport and you have the opportunity to fly to the desired city on one of the 20 aircraft. At the same time, you know that all planes, except one, will be broken, but it is not known what. Nevertheless, airport employees insist that you fly. Do you succumb to their persuasion and accept this 1 from 20 chances ?! Or will you immediately leave the airport and go to find alternative ways to get to the city you want?
I'll give you one poll that deserves special attention. is very revealing. When 64 American oncologists were asked if they would treat themselves or their loved ones with chemotherapy, if they had cancer, then 58 responded that they would not. Those. 85% of the oncologists surveyed decided for themselves that the method by which they treat patients on a daily basis does not suit them themselves. One of the main specialists in the clinic of alternative oncology in Hanover said: "... You will not believe how many high-ranking officials honey. the establishment turn to me for help in the treatment of cancer. " It follows that many doctors and leading medical workers understand the scientific and practical inconsistency of chemotherapy, but either do not have the opportunity or the desire to change something. Many doctors who understand the state of affairs in oncology prefer not to go against the system and continue their careers, thereby leaving their patients such an insignificant chance of survival.
Continuing the conversation about chemotherapy, I want to note that its numerous side effects, such as nausea, weakness, loss of appetite, weakening of the immune system, destruction of bone marrow and hematopoiesis, temporary and permanent disorders of the nervous system, temporary or complete infertility, profound metabolic disorders, loss hair, ulcers of the mouth, stomach and intestines, increased inflammatory processes, deep acidosis and many others are not really side effects. They are the main symptoms of severe body poisoning. As Ralph Moss, author of The Cancer Industry, wrote, in order to kill all cancer cells in the body, an amount of chemotherapy is needed that is incompatible with the patient's life. This explains the fact that most cancer patients who undergo intensive treatment methods today die not from cancer, but as a result of deep damage to the body by chemotherapy, as well as from diseases that develop in a weakened body. If, for example, a patient has a major stroke as a reaction to severe chemotherapy, then the conclusion will say that the patient died of a stroke. If the patient's vital organs fail and he dies without leaving a coma, then the underlying disease will be indicated as the cause of death, i.e. crayfish. Therefore, when the measure of success of treatment is the reduction in the size of the tumor, then it is often possible to observe such a situation when the weakening patient is happily announced by the doctor that the tumor is responding to treatment and has decreased in size. If the patient soon dies despite such "correct" treatment, then all the blame falls on the deceit and the severity of the disease.
In fact, oncologists conveniently replaced the concept of "healing from disease", the concept of "tumor response to a drug". And such substitution allows to convince the patient that if the tumor decreases, it thus reacts to treatment and therefore the success of this treatment is obvious. The fact that the response of a tumor to a drug or its reduction in size by a certain percentage does not affect life expectancy, as shown by numerous studies, you will not hear from an oncologist. Therefore, cancer patients identify news that the tumor has decreased, with progress in the treatment of the disease. When the tumor becomes active again and begins to grow and metastasize, this is explained by the severity and cunning of the disease, and not by the uselessness and harmfulness of the treatment.
In my work as a medical coordinator in one of the children's oncology departments in London, I was acquainted with several wonderful children from Russia and Ukraine who came for treatment in England. The children were heavy, and despite the titanic efforts of the parents and the good intentions of the people who organized the treatment, most of them died from the complications of treatment. As a doctor by training, it was clear to me that the children were not extinguished from a tumor, but from an aggressive treatment incompatible with the child's body. The hardest thing for me was not so much the sight of these little tortured heroes who spent most of their childhood in hospitals, but that their mothers begged doctors to use more aggressive drugs as soon as the children left the crisis after another chemotherapy or surgery. It was an absolutely surrealistic picture: a toxic, slowly killing children treatment, leaving them no chance not only for recovery, but also theoretically for a full life in case of recovery; doctors who know what the treatment will lead to and continue it; mothers nursing their babies and requiring doctors to increase doses and continue treatment. And all this with the many proven methods of successful cancer treatment that are carefully suppressed by a small group of people who do not benefit from it.
Even when you open this information to parents, they are often unable to adequately assess it. It is difficult to do to any person even in normal conditions. Imagine how difficult it is for parents to take this information after long treatment in their hospitals, the complex organization of treatment abroad and the payment of hundreds of thousands of pounds for this treatment, on which they place the last hope.
Many people used information about natural alternative methods as an addition to the basic treatment and often this prolonged the life of their children, who then recovered faster or more easily tolerated procedures. But in the end, with the continuation of the standard treatment, natural methods could not change much.
It was at that time that I realized the depth of the problem. And its essence lies in the impossibility of reporting to parents or patients information about a natural alternative to standard cancer treatments. Scientific arguments, historical examples and statistical data will not be able to break defective thinking for years and deeply rooted in the minds of stereotypes based on myths and deceitful facts. The main explanation is the reasons why this saving information is hidden from them. Only after understanding these reasons, people will be able to make the right decision about the type of treatment. Only after realizing the enormity and scope of deception, people become able to understand that natural alternative methods are not a supplement to standard treatment or the last desperate attempt after an unsuccessful treatment, but are the only correct and scientifically valid methods of treating cancer.
The history of the appearance of chemotherapy is noteworthy. For the first time, the effect of mustard gas, or mustard gas, was described back in 1919, just 2 years after its application by the German army in the First World War. Later, Dr. Peter Alexander in 1944-th year described in detail the destructive effect of this gas on the bone marrow. Then he concluded that sooner or later, the depletion of the hematopoietic function would lead to death.
Subsequently, this toxic compound, whose purpose was the extermination of the enemy's manpower, began to be used in the treatment of blood diseases. By destroying in this way the bone marrow, which in the case of the disease produces millions of immature blood cells, doctors have had some success in controlling these pathological conditions. Then the medicine stated that a magic remedy for the treatment of this type of cancer was found.
It is interesting that physicians described blood diseases a few centuries ago, but they were included in the cancer category only a few decades ago. This happened around the time that they decided that a successful new treatment could be used to treat solid tumors. However, few doctors wonder whether there is much in common between leukemia and prostate cancer, for example. Can cancer be called dysfunction in the formation of red blood cells in the growing body of a child and a tumor in the lung or breast?
Nevertheless, honey. The establishment adopted a decision that has since yielded trillions of dollars. The essence of it is that, based on the success in the treatment of hemopoiesis disorders, all solid types of cancer should also be treated with this type of drugs.
Of course, over the past decades, the chemical composition has undergone serious changes and today's chemotherapeutic drugs can no longer be compared to mustard gas. Nevertheless, the mechanism of their action remains the same. They affect the different phases and processes of cell division. Since tumor cells divide faster, they are more exposed to such toxins.
Just want to ask: How do these toxic drugs detect cancer cells in the body? How do they distinguish cancer cells from other rapidly dividing cells of the body: the cells of the intestinal epithelium and the oral cavity, the hair follicle, germ cells, hematopoietic cells and immunity? It turns out that there is simply no such mechanism. Both these cells die as a result of toxic effects, which explains the "side effects" of chemotherapy.
Now we know about the carcinogenic effect of chemotherapy, as well as the deep degree of weakening of the organism caused by it and the violation of its functions. Recently, scientists began to talk about a new effect of chemotherapy (as well as radiotherapy, but about this a little later). This effect is a strong increase in malignancy of the tumor. The mechanism of this process is as follows: tumor cells are not homogeneous and are in different degrees of differentiation - from stem cells to more differentiated ones. Moreover, stem cells divide relatively slowly and, therefore, fall under the influence of the chemotherapeutic agent. Affiliated, more differentiated cells divide rapidly and thereby undergo cytostatic action of the drug. This causes the death of less malignant daughter cells and, thereby, disrupts the proportion between stem cancer cells and more differentiated ones. This just explains the fact that the tumor recurrence is always more aggressive, since it becomes much more proportionate to the stem cells in the tumor. The study found that chemotherapy and radiotherapy increase the malignancy of the tumor dozens of times. It should also be noted here that stem cells have an increased ability to withstand harmful factors. In the chapter 4 we talked about the fact that under the influence of certain factors a normal cell turns into cancerous and includes an ancient genetic program in which one of the main tasks of the cell is survival under severe conditions. That's why stem cells are so resistant to both chemotherapy and radiation therapy.
Thus, chemotherapy not only does not treat cancer, but significantly aggravates its course, creating conditions for greater malignancy of the underlying tumor and development of metastases by weakening all vital systems of the body. In addition to being carcinogens, these drugs significantly increase the likelihood of new tumors.
One can not ignore another type of traditional cancer treatment - Radiation therapy. Back in 1902, the German physician described the first case of cancer from radiation, and in 1906, the first assumption was made that leukemia could be caused by X-ray irradiation. Today, diagnostic methods, such as computed tomography (CT) and fluorography, use significantly more radiation than with a simple X-ray. So one CT procedure is equal to 74 fluorographs or about 450 chest x-ray. According to a study from the 2009 year published in the Archive of Internal Medicine, only in the United States for one year does CT cause 29 thousand new cases of cancer. Thus, irradiation with both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes has a strong carcinogenic effect, since it causes DNA mutation and thus leads to the appearance of new cancer cells of various types.
The use of irradiation for the purpose of curing cancer, as well as chemotherapy, has no scientific justification. On radiation therapy, the tumor can also react with a decrease in size, but at the moment there is no research that would link this to the prolongation of the patient's life or his complete recovery. But there are other studies, the results of which say that in many forms of cancer in the application of radiotherapy after surgery, the patients' life is not actually prolonged, and often decreases, such as in prostate cancer.[2] But complications this type of therapy causes a lot, and often these complications do not manifest for months or even years, creating a patient's illusion of safety of the method. For an example, I'll give a list of complications after radiation therapy for breast cancer: fibrous wrinkling of the breast; broken ribs; spikes in the pleura, lungs and around the heart; nerve damage; oppression hematopoietic function and immunity due to the destruction of the bone marrow in the field of irradiation. And of course, one of the most dangerous complications is tens of times the increased probability of new forms of cancer in the patient.
[2] Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2007.
So, we see that radiotherapy is very similar in its effect to chemotherapy. Since we know that the temporary decrease in the size of the tumor does not affect the prolongation of life or the healing of the patient, this treatment does not bring the patient benefits, but on the contrary, it is highly carcinogenic and causes severe complications. Also, recent studies have shown that radiation therapy causes malignancy of the tumor due to an increase in the proportion of stem cells in the tumor that are easier to tolerate irradiation.
I am absolutely convinced that in the future treatment of cancer with chemotherapy, as in other and radiotherapy, will be recognized as a medical error. At one time several decades, lobotomy was used in various mental states, including depression. Thousands of people lost their personalities, turning into "vegetables", and in the 60-ies this practice was stopped and found to be erroneous. In the 20-x years, X-ray rays treated women with increased hair. This treatment was also banned several years after many complaints from women disfigured by irradiation.
After discussing the methods of "poisoning" and "burning", I would like to briefly touch on another method - "cut", which is mistakenly considered the most effective. One can not deny the fact that some of the surgical interventions in the early stages of cancer and with its localized forms are successful. By "successful" I mean not the apparent removal of the tumor, but the fact that the patient did not experience a relapse in later life. Usually such a positive outcome is observed with non-dangerous encapsulated forms of cancer, which are not likely to lead to serious consequences. Here is an interesting fact, which can be this confirmation. Pathologists, who open patients who died of non-cancer diseases, have long noticed that more than half of those who died at the age of more than 45 years have different tumors of different localization and size, which were not the cause of death. Most of them were not even diagnosed, as these tumors often exist in the body asymptomatically.
Surgeons also like to do lymphadenectomy, i.e. excision of lymph nodes after tumor removal. These mutilating surgeries still produce, despite numerous studies suggesting that lymphadenectomy does not prevent the spread of cancer. For example, extensive lymphadenectomy is done with mastectomy, with breast cancer or cervical cancer. Women after such operations feel so terrible that many would prefer not to live at all.[3]
[3] Townsend Letter for Doctors, June 1984, p. 99.
Surgery also increases the likelihood of metastasis. Any careless contact of a surgeon with a tumor can lead to a violation of its integrity and the release of a mass of cancer cells into the blood. Biopsies are also dangerous because they often have a disruption in the structure of the tumor, which leads to its increased growth. The likelihood of metastasis also increases.
I noticed an interesting fact: among the several doctors I found out about who "changed legions" and began to treat cancer patients with alternative methods, most were surgeons. Of course, for a serious statistical conclusion this is not enough, but probably these surgeons clearly saw the uselessness of this method in the treatment of cancer.
Probably, there should be some rationality in that the methods of "cutting, etching and burning" continue to remain the main ones in the treatment of cancer patients? I am convinced that such rationality is, but it is not aimed at healing the patient and winning over cancer. This rationality can only be understood by an understanding of economic and political reasons. In the third chapter we have already talked about economic reasons. Political reasons deserve special attention and a certain preparation of the reader for the perception of this information. I plan to touch on this topic in my future works.
Unfortunately, today, when the number of people aware of the true state of things in oncology has not yet reached a critical point, oncologists will continue to cut, etch and burn millions of cancer patients. Instead of concentrating their efforts on the pathological process leading to cancer and on the restoration of the body, oncologists will continue to remove or reduce the tumor, causing a huge damage to the health of the cancer patient.
Boris Grinblat
← Previous. Chapter 6 | Next. Chapter 8 →
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