Your mail to me really exhibits a wide range of experiences, opinions, and theories about cancer. In the old days, I used to recommend a few books detailing some of the less frequently presented options. There was one by Richard Walters, another called Third Opinion by John Fink, and a block buster by Ralph Moss with the title Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer's Guide to Non-Toxic Treatment. In addition, there are at least half a dozen books about suppression of alternative treatments, many written by insiders who could not stomach their jobs any longer. I often recommend to patients who are newly diagnosed that they take 10 days to whiz through these books before making irrevocable decisions. If able to deal with the shock of the diagnosis enough to organize efficiently, one could source about a dozen books and assign family and friends sections to read. What is interesting about this is that those who often push the hardest to follow mainstream advice become more open to the myriad of alternatives that are available.
There are also a lot of theories to process. For instance, there is the theory that used to be taught in textbooks that cancer results from an error at the time of mitosis. Due to some instability, chemical or electromagnetic, at the time a cell divides, a deformed cell is created whose virulence was believed to be exactly in proportion to chromosomal abnormality. Pathologists used to count the chromosomes but I don't know any young doctor who ever heard of this. Now, the disease is staged according to how invasive it is.
There were theories about oxygen deficiency that cause cells to mutate so they could survive in anaerobic conditions, that they lived on fermentation, or that the tumor is actually simply a reservoir for toxins so that cleaning up the body allows the body to empty the storage depots, but removing a vault without detoxifying would simply cause the body to use some other site for storage. The speculation, studies, and conclusions go on and on; and because most scientists are specialists, they tend to limit their observations to a narrow view with a minimum number of hypotheses, usually a single hypothesis if they plan to publish findings.
What then happens is that all the differences between the members of the study group and the control group are attributed to a single factor, the consumption of broccoli or CoQ10 or noni juice or Essiac or some cytotoxic substance. Researchers usually do not want to know whether members of the study group were meditating, juicing, or taking astragalus on top of the test substance because this would diminish the emphasis put on the protocol being studied.
As if this were not bad enough, the other factor that cannot be easily excused is that nearly everyone doing research is beholden to someone who has a vested interest in the outcome. In fact, it is not uncommon to have contracts stipulating what an acceptable outcome would be . . . or? I don't think you would find a courtyard full of people in white coats hanging from ropes, but they would probably be read the riot act. In short, this isn't real science so one shouldn't take anything one reads too seriously. If I were trying to evaluate what is believable and what is not, I would look for clinical studies involving real people and real diseases, studies that were long-term and involved extensive follow up over many years, and studies involving multiple parameters.
Let's rewind for a second. If someone has an interest in a product, usually one that can be patented, it's important to that individual or corporation that the success is attributed to that product or protocol. If the strategy is approved, the patent holder and marketers will become very rich. If not, a lot of time and money has gone down the drain. In a perfect world, the research would be credible and everyone with a valid approach would be able to market his product or protocol. If the product cannot be patented, the cost of approval is prohibitive so the protocol goes underground and then eventually across the border. There is nothing at all in this process that suggests that only failed products go overseas; in reality, everything that cannot be patented leaves the realm of federal scrutiny.
What happens usually is that the first clinic relies heavily on a single modality. So, going back to my tale a few days ago about laetrile, the Contreras family began offering laetrile to patients quite some years ago. They became very wealthy and have done a lot of charitable work, opened a big hospital called Oasis, and shared their research on laetrile. Basically, they believe that laetrile cures 3% of patients and helps 12%. Okay, this is nothing to jump up and down about unless you happen to be one of those in that 3% bracket. Bad as the figure is, it's higher than the comparable figures for chemotherapy and this ought to pinch a few nerves here and there.
However, what happens in the fertile fields of Tijuana is that a clinic or hospital that started by offering one primary therapy begins to offer what the others offer. So, if Max Gerson was having his patients drink carrot juice, pretty soon, all the clinics in TJ are serving carrot juice. Then, eventually, someone comes along who takes a broad overview and says, heck, we might as well include some guided visualization, Iscador, Ukrain, and Issels vaccine. It becomes very competitive and also creative. Moreover, thanks to the Cancer Control Society, an absolutely enormous database has been developed that allows people to determine which clinic might be best given the particulars of a certain situation.
So, why isn't Memorial Sloan-Kettering or ACA or NHI or some other big organization with funds doing this kind of work? Maybe someone will investigate this and win an Oscar.
I took a little heat after my recent posts. I think I am careful about my facts and well-grounded in what I do. So, I am going to defend a few of my statements. Royal Rife was one of the most creative and talented scientists of his day. There were two main aspects of his work, the diagnostic and evaluative a well as the treatment. The treatment involved the use of frequencies and plasma tubes with noble gases.
The story, however, actually begins a bit earlier with Dr. Albert Abrams (1863–1924), a world famous abdomen thumper. Abrams practiced medicine in San Francisco and was the first to associate frequencies with specific diseases. He is thus generally regarded as the father of radionics. There are entire books on this subject but a synopsis of his findings would be that each disease is characterized by a certain frequency, and it can be neutralized by use of some other frequency. In this country, most people have a dim view of radionics but it is practiced seriously in the UK and variations of it are found with everything from Rife machines to Reinhodl Voll all sorts of devices for electrodermal screening, including the Vega machines, Clark zapper, Phasx, and countless other spin offs.
In my estimation, each person took a piece of a very big whole and tried to perfect that piece, usually with good intentions, but I want to explain a bit about Rife's work. After assiduously studying a condition, he applied a frequency treatment for 15 minutes every three days, more or less. I am sure there were variations but this "view" is a thumbnail sketch of a man whose work has not been duplicated in nearly 70 years, despite the fact that he successfully cured terminally ill patients in front of panels of scientific observers who eventually celebrated "the end of all disease" with banquets in honor of Rife.
The other side of Rife' work is the most extraordinary microscope ever built, one that allowed him to observe live blood at over 60,000x magnification. He built six scopes. The government smashed five of them and the sixth was taken to a safe hiding place but it is missing a critical part, a prism that filtered light so that Rife could make his observations with white light. Rife proved that cancer is viral and he met all the requirements for scientific studies and publication in peer-reviewed journals.
Your health freedom is precious; only you can protect it.
