Dear Subscribers,

Sometimes when a film is announced as available for a certain amount of time, the window for viewing is extended, but in the case of the Ty Bollinger series, the availability was actually limited. I managed to watch four of the films. As someone who pretty much knows the world of alternative cancer, there was very, very little that was new for me, but I recognize that having all this information in one place is going to make an immense difference for people who are either at the very beginning of their quest for a cure or somewhere further along and not happy with the results. So, while not requested by the producer, I am going to recommend this series and urge people who need the information to plunk out the funds required to buy the DVDs or wait for another free showing, which, as we realize, may or may not come to pass.

Personally, I would have done the series differently, but it is still helpful that the information and interviews have been compiled. Not having seen the whole series, I cannot yet say what I think on balance. I am hoping that there will be visits to clinics and more detailed interviews with patients who have beaten the odds. At the moment, I think the series mainly points to matters that require interested viewers to do more homework.

When first looking into cancer, I read that the disease had been found in dinosaur bones as well as fossilized trees. Unlike soft tissue, bones sometimes survive time so what is important here is that unless there were environmental issues way back in time — which there surely could have been since radiation levels might have been higher — cancer cannot really be blamed entirely on modern life styles. There is however always a caveat, and it is that the incidence does seem to have increased; and I personally do not believe that the higher incidence is due to better diagnostic procedures. Even going back to my first explorations of cancer, I rarely encountered cancer among children. Now, however, it is very often found among children, and the pity is that when growing, cells divide more often so the risks are greater when one is younger.

Diagnostic Criteria: Then and Now

Well, more ought to be added here because over the almost 45 years I have been studying cancer, the understanding of cancer as well as its methods of diagnosis have changed. Previously, cancer was described as an abnormality that occurred at the time of cellular division, and the degree of abnormality was nearly always correlated to the virulence of the disease. To make this clear, a normal cell has 23 pairs of chromosomes, but in older pathology reports, the actual number of chromosomes was often counted. Deviations from the norm varied enormously. Younger doctors have never seen these types of pathology reports because staging now is based on the degree of invasiveness rather than the degree of abnormality. Piggybacking this change came a new theory that the tumor was a storage depot rather than a rapidly growing mass of cells that were deformed and unaware of their original design and specialization.

To take an example of past thinking, textbooks would describe cells in such a manner as to explain that blood cells are round so that they can roll better in the blood vessels; muscle cells are elongated so that they can expand and contract better. A cancer cell was deemed to be incapable of performing such specific and useful functions so it was wayward. There was ample literature to support this thesis, but this approach appears to have been supplanted by concepts of DNA and various genes that fail to police cancer. DNA explanations are today more acceptable in the world of research, but the idea that cutting out the tumor will not solve the problem belongs almost exclusively to the holistic world. The point that removal of the mass does not address the underlying cause of cancer was brought out quite well in the Bollinger interviews.

This is the topic I want to discuss today, partly because the films did address this issue and partly because many in the world of natural treatments more or less subscribe to the theory.

Exactly how they wrestle with the theory varies a bit. Some people think that sugar is feeding the tumor and causing it to grow. Others think that protein is the culprit because the tumor is mainly made of protein. Then, there are those who are convinced that the tumor is actually a fungal infection or nest of parasites or perhaps calcification around such dangers lurking in our bodies. Or, the tumor may consist of infectious material — such as a residual from a vaccine component or complication of a root canal procedure. Yet others believe the tumor consists of a variety of toxins from chemicals and metals that the body is trying to keep out of circulation. There are exponents for all of these ideas.

The curious part is that researchers ought to have access to state of the art equipment that would allow them to analyze the tumors in such a manner that speculation would stop, and the facts would lend credence to the theories that are actually supported by the facts. The reality is that research is generally designed in a way that precludes discovery of the bigger picture. By concentrating on a single hypothesis, only one question is tested in each study. In the publish or perish world, research can be very quick and sometimes, despite footnotes, quite superficial.

Reseaching Single Hypotheses

I want to hammer this home a bit because I think most of us believe that scientists actually know a lot more than is actually the case. Let's take some examples. One can test for mercury excretion or mercury in circulation or in hair samples. These are three vastly different tests. Excretion suggests that the person was exposed to mercury but that he or she is perhaps efficiently ridding the body of the toxicity. There are studies that would seem to corroborate this because the incidence of autism is inversely correlated to excretion. In the interest of clarity, let's assume that all children have had more or less the same number of vaccines containing thimerosal. Of these, some develop autism, but not the good excreters, only the poor excreters. In short, what the presence of mercury in urine might show is a relationship to diet or metabolism, not to exposure much less to what remains in the body. If the urine analysis is used to debunk the association with autism (or Alzheimer's disease), then the public is misled. Because doing research that concentrates on a single question is acceptable scientific practice, these studies are not considered to be fraudulent; but, discrediting them is very difficult since a variety of approaches would have to be compared one to another, and this is rarely done in controversial situations such as happens when parents attempt to sue perpetrators of life-altering diseases.

Let's keep going, tests of residuals of Simian Virus 40 have been done with cancer patients, but tests for other vaccine residuals are woefully lacking. The reason for testing for SV40 is that it eventually became known that certain types of polio vaccines were contaminated with this virus. The truth however is that contamination could involve a minimum of 30 or more viruses. The importance of this is very significant, but seldom addressed.

Now, let's ask whether knowing just this much we ought to concentrate on mercury removal or tumor removal? on immunity or surgery?

The Tumor

Let me zoom out so as to make this even more clear. Assume that the question is "Does this sample contain Candida albicans?" The researchers ignore all other possibilities in order to test this one question. This is "scientific" but it is more or less as simple as a true-false test when the shades of gray are deemed unimportant. Based on this type of methodology, one question is investigated but the bigger picture rarely, if ever, comes into focus.

What if the question were "What all is contained in this sample?" The findings might be revelatory. In times past, it was generally conceded that only 1-2% of a tumorous mass is malignant. The issue of what role the other 98-99% plays in cancer was rarely asked since the formation of the cells in that part was not "atypical".

Even decades ago, it was generally believed that almost no one with cancer actually died of cancer. They died because of various side effects, such as pressure of a mass against more vital organs or side effects of the treatments themselves. If one believed such "facts", then the question could be asked as to whether or not one would opt to have a mastectomy or splenectomy or any other kind of irreversible surgery in order to capture a few maverick cells. Why not focus on the 98-99% of the mass that seems to have responded to the crisis.

To make this stand out in a way that explains the question better, let me use the case of my boyfriend who died more than ten years ago. He had a melanoma inside his eyeball. The radiological exams showed that the tumor was fully encapsulated, i.e., calcified. The prediction was however that the tumor would continue growing, the pain would be excruciating, and metastasis to the brain would cause some form of insanity. This is the fear that was generated and used to try to persuade him to have the eye removed.

At the time we met, he could see enough out of the eye to know whether it was day or night, but after some time, even this light sensitivity vanished. Fortunately or not, his other eye was fine. The point here is that all the attention was on the eye, but it was well known that metastasis most likely would have occurred long before diagnosis of the eye condition. Moreover, it was broadly understood that the liver would be involved since there were veterinary studies of sheep with ocular melanoma.

Bob was an experimental type but we can only experiment in the areas where we have some basic understanding. His attention was more on technology than on chemistry. Like many who are relatively new to the complex world of cancer, he vaguely understood the need to remove the amalgams so as to allow his immune system to work. However, for whatever reasons, he never got around to having the amalgams removed. He was aware of the relatively new fungal theories of Dr. Simoncini, but did not understand nutrition enough to know how to manage a raging yeast infection. Well, we could go on and on, but the real point is that removing the underlying cause or obstacle, whichever it is, is far more useful than most people realize.

The pain and attention can be in one area of the body, but the cause could be so different that a clear association is not made. We can go to workshops, surf the web, and talk to experts, but ultimately, each patient has to decide which theories and advice are trustworthy. Then, they have to educate their family and friends because otherwise there will not be support for their decisions.

The main value of the Bollinger series is that all this information is basically in one place. So far, I feel the details are missing. There could be reasons for this, but maybe the details will come later.

The Cause

Now, let me zoom even further out. As most of you know, I spent 20 years of my life, very impressionable early adult years, in Hawaii. I was blessed to be very close to an incredibly gifted kahuna named Morrnah Simeona. One of her greatest teachings was that the first step to healing is to remove the obstacle to healing. The Hawaiians have a technique for this called ho'oponopono. I read various interpretations of it on the web, but I want to stick to what Morrnah taught because I believe her understanding was deeper and more relevant.

In the ceremony itself, a senior person functions something like a moderator or overseer or guide. Family and friends are sequestered with this guide in an attempt to resolve all old issues. Morrnah sometimes used the term, "spill the guts" because we can have grievances against people who hurt our feelings or our bodies, and we want to confront those people and force them to see the harm they did and apologize. It could, of course, be the other way around. One could feel guilty for something one did years ago, maybe something others are unaware happened. The point is that these unresolved issues are psychological or emotional obstacles that have to be resolved before the healing can proceed. It does not take much imagination or memory to see the litany of grievances, grief, and guilt that could amass in one lifetime on Earth.

During the ho'oponopono ceremony itself, no one is allowed to leave the room, right, not for any reason, and this puts a lot of pressure on people to start resolving matters. As time went on, I was occasionally asked to preside over a ceremony. There is one occasion I will never forget. The patient was a young mother with an infant. Others would not stop what they were doing in order to participate in the ceremony. To do ho'opopono, everyone has to give up the time required — the cigarettes and drinking and sports and even the cooking. It won't work unless people care, and it must very painful to the patient if others do not care enough to make the effort to clean up the emotional baggage from the past. I stayed for many hours that night, but the television was blaring the whole time. I have seen similar situations in hospitals as well. At what point can we disconnect from the rubbish that robs us of our relationships and insights into ourselves?

It goes without saying, there was not a happy ending to this story. However, realistically, ho'oponopono has to keep going. The emotional issues do require attention, but so do the other obstacles to healing. Ultimately, we have to prioritize since doing everything at once is very difficult, nearly impossible. I do not think there is one quick formula for this. One has to choose the most dangerous issue and address it.

Prioritizing

Now, to tie up some loose ends, let's take a few more case histories. A diabetic patient with breast cancer was sometimes able to grow 2-3 tumors overnight, ranging in size from a tennis ball to grapefruit, When this happened, her blood sugar was completely out of control, usually around 800 with a temper to match. She wanted to treat her tumors with an escharotic and was eventually able to do so in a hospital, but unless the diabetes could also be brought under control, there would be almost nothing to prevent recurrence.

My colleague, Dr. Indunil Weerarathne, saw a number of diabetic cancer patients in India and Germany and was able to normalize their blood sugar within days. Some of the patients had been insulin-dependent for twenty or more years so a few Ayurvedic herbs seemed like a miracle to them. The big question was why people do not know how to manage blood sugar?

In any event, for the patient I mentioned, the top priority would be the blood sugar and probably the yeast infections that were thriving on the sugar. If it were concluded that the underlying cause of the diabetes was a toxin that acts as an endocrine disruptor, then the toxin would also have to be eliminated. If the toxicity is related to a life style issue, then the life style would have to be adjusted to precluden the risk of reintroducing the endocrine disruptor.

I realize I am going on and on, but I get several thousand e-mails a month and almost no one understands the issue of causality. If I say, before I answer that question, can we try to determine the cause, the typical response is, "How do I know what the cause is?" The answer is, "If you don't know, who does?" I am not being sarcastic, but the patient must be willing to answer questions honestly and to value the time and effort put into searching for the underlying cause. Otherwise, the emphasis will always be on chasing symptoms.

I want to give some additional examples. Most subscribers know that cell phones can cause brain cancer. Some also know that parasites and fungi can cross the blood-brain barrier and take up residence in the brain. Many also know that certain cancers frequently metastasize to the brain. If we start then with questions about cell phone usage, including the brand and SAR rating, then one avenue of inquiry has been addressed. If we want to know about parasites, we can ask about travel in the tropics, insect bites, fevers, and neurological symptoms since some parasites secrete toxins. If we think fungi are the issue, we ask about mold exposure, night sweats, pillows, and a host of other questions. Only once we have narrowed down the causes can we find the right treatment and then that treatment is the priority just as blood sugar management was the priority for the diabetic patient.

Immunity

In the Bollinger interviews, a lot of emphasis was put on immunity. I think this was important but less clear than we need it to be. So, I want to continue this post and tie it to the series I have started so that we can all look at immunity in a way that gives us the capacity to manage the strength and efficiency of the immune system.

In the meantime, I will post this and suggest to everyone who is in any way concerned about cancer that they find the time to watch the "The Quest for Cures" series.

Many blessings,

Ingrid

Design by Damien Francoeur