"But nobody today can say that one does not know what cancer and its prime cause be. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause is better known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse that one cannot do more about prevention. That prevention of cancer will come there is no doubt, for man wishes to survive. But how long prevention will be avoided depends on how long the prophets of agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the application of scientific knowledge in the cancer field. In the meantime, millions of men must die of cancer unnecessarily." ~ Nobel Prize Winner Otto Warburg in a meeting of Nobel Laureates, June 30, 1966

Monday, May 1, 2017

Apple Seeds and Cancer

Apple Seeds and Cancer: What the Government Has Been Hiding From You for Years

The mere mention of consuming apple seeds, cherry pits, apricot seeds, or bitter almonds tends to cause almost panic attacks or angry reactions in some. Why? Cyanide is in them. So they’re justified in freaking out, right?

As a rumor based on too little knowledge, their concern is understandable. All you have to do is Google cyanide alongside any of the foods mentioned above and you’ll get a plethora of articles that all support the cyanide dangers from those seeds and nuts.

Some say that your body quickly detoxes the compounds containing cyanide. Others say that you will get free cyanide when your body metabolizes those compounds. Most concede that it would take a heck of a lot of pits, seeds, or bitter almonds to poison you.

But as the saying goes, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” In this case the fear of fruit seeds and bitter almonds and other nuts is based on incomplete data. The compound containing cyanide is amygdalin.

The complete amygdalin story for full knowledge

Thousands have used apricot seed kernels to eliminate cancer. They didn’t die from cyanide poisoning. They were cured without negative side effects. This wasn’t accomplished by consuming a couple every week, but dozens daily for months. (Sydney Herald source below)

So why weren’t they weren’t poisoned? The amygdalin compound has four molecules. Two are glucose molecules. The other two are cyanide and benzaldyhide. The last two are scary compounds, except for a couple of unusual metabolic activities: they are released by and into cancer cells only. Otherwise, they remain in the amygdalin compound and are passed through. It’s a very clever arrangement. The cancer cells depend on fermenting sugar (glucose) for their energy instead of oxygen.

So the cancer cells attract the amygdalin compounds for their glucose, but are whacked when they metabolize those compounds that free the benzalldyhide and cyanide. The glucose is the sugar bait. Cancer cells contain an enzyme that is not found in healthy cells, beta-glucosidase.

The beta-glucosidase enzyme “unlocks” the amygdalin compound, releasing the deadly toxins within the cancer cell. Only cancer cells metabolize amygdalin. Healthy normal cells don’t. Most non-cancerous cells contain another enzyme, rhodanese. Free cyanide molecules are bound to sulfur molecules by rhodanese, creating harmless cyanates that are eliminated in the urine.

This is the little bit of knowledge that those “scary” articles reference when they say a little bit of cyanide is easily detoxed by your body. But the complete function of amygdalin is hidden because the fact that laetrile or B17, a concentrated extract from apricot amydgalins, can cure cancer is taboo.

Suppressing a safe cancer cure

Laetrile or B17, was developed by San Francisco researcher Dr. Ernst Krebb in 1952 by liquefying and purifying amygdalin from apricot seeds so it could be injected into cancer patients. Dr. Krebb injected himself to assure laetrile’s safety, and Dr. John Richardson proved its efficacy by curing several cancer patients in San Francisco with laetrile.

In 1971, laetrile was banned. Dr. Richardson called on investigative journalist G. Edward Griffin to publicize the merits of laetrile or B17 derived from apricot seeds. Griffin discovered that the Sloane-Kettering Institute’s laetrile trials leading to the FDA ban were bogus.

Sloane-Kettering spokesperson Dr. Ralph Moss refused to lie about laetrile and left Sloane-Kettering in disgust. He slipped Griffin unpublicized papers scientifically proving laetrile actually worked. This led to Griffin’s book A World Without Cancer, where you can read much more about the amygdalin cancer curing story.

If not promoted as a cancer cure, apricot seeds aren’t banned. Avoid sugar while attempting to cure cancer with any method.


Sources for this article include:
VIDEO interview of G. Edward Griffin on amygdalin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFnP9sU1KW4
VIDEO explains how cancer industry is using seed cyanide phobia to keep away
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZDh3L4zjgs&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Sydney Morning Herald interview of man who used apricot seeds to cure his cancer http://www.smh.com.au


About the author:
Paul Fassa is dedicated to warning others about the current corruption of food and medicine and guiding them towards direction for better health with no restrictions on health freedom.
You can check out his many non-compromising cutting edge, non-fluff articles here
And you can visit his blog at http://healthmaven.blogspot.com

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Thursday, May 29, 2014

What About the CANCER ACT 1939?

It appears a primary excuse used for the introduction of the The Cancer Act of 1939 in the United Kingdom was to ‘Protect the public from Quackery and Charlatans,’ but hindsight tells a different story.  Taking into consideration what truths have come to light we see not one reason for this action but two. 

One; was to ensure that all types of cancers were to be treated by the "Radium-Based" methods (Cancer Inducing Radiation) and,

Second;   it was necessary to introduce such an act to protect the profits of Pharmaceutical companies.

The following 2 links will provide you with the Cancer Act of 1939 for your own review.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1939/13/pdfs/ukpga_19390013_en.pdf

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/2-3/13/contents

What has now been proven is:

RADIATION CAUSES CANCER MALIGNANCIES

 

 

Sunday, August 11, 2013

RADIATION CAUSES CANCER MALIGNANCIES

A study published in the journal Cancer by researchers from the department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center reports that radiation drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy(0)(1). Malignancy is a term used to describe the tendency of tumors and their potential to become progressively worse, ultimately resulting in death. They discovered that induced breast cancer cells (iBCSCs) were more likely to form tumors than the cells that haven’t been exposed to radiation. What’s even more astonishing is that that the radiated breast cancer cells increased their likelihood of malignancy by 30 times. Radiation treatment actually regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor. This can eventually result in the treatment-induced death of the patient.
In some cases, cancer stem cells are generated by the therapy, but scientists do not yet understand all the mechanisms that cause this to occur. If they can determine the pathway and remove the reprogramming of cancer cells, they ultimately may be able to reduce the amount of radiation given to patients along with its accompanying side effects(2) – Dr. Pajonk
Another study that was published in the  Journal Stem Cells found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed less malignant breast cancer cells into iBCSCs(3). This explains why radiation treatment enhances the tumor populations with higher levels of treatment resistant cells.
Breast cancers are thought to be organized hierarchically with a small number of breast cancer stem cells (BCSCs) able to regrow a tumor while their progeny (offspring) lack this ability. Recently, several groups reported enrichment for BCSCs when breast cancers were subjected to classic anticancer treatment. However, the underlying mechanisms leading to this enrichment are incompletely understood. Using non-BCSCs sorted from patient samples, we found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed differentiated breast cancer cells into induced BCSCs (iBCSCs). iBCSCs showed increased mammosphere formation, increased tumorigenicity, and expressed the same stemness-related genes as BCSCs from nonirradiated samples(3).
There is a lot of research to suggest that conventional cancer treatment with chemotherapy and radiation is a large contributing factor of cancer patient mortality. The main reason for this is because cancer stem cells are resistant to conventional treatment, which play a critical role in the development of tumors(4). Studies show that cancer stem cells are resistant to conventional treatment(5).

Cancer stem cells are tumorigenic (tumor-forming) and should be the primary target of cancer treatment because they are capable of both initiating and sustaining cancer.  They are also increasingly recognized to be the cause of relapse and metastasis following conventional treatment   The most deadly cells within a tumor or blood cancer are cancer stem cells. They have the ability to give rise to all the cell types found within that cancer. Research shows that radiotherapy increases cancer stem cells(6), which eventually results in cancer reoccurrence!

We must pay attention to more publicly funded research. All research used in the medical industry is funded by corporations that benefit financially from treatment. This creates the possibility of bias, which clearly shows with so many studies coming out that suggest radiation and chemotherapy treatment are not the best options.

We recently posted a story of a man who cured his stage three colon cancer by transitioning to a complete vegan diet. You can read more about that here. More people diagnosed with cancer are opting out of traditional treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. As I’ve said before, cancer is a multi-trillion dollar industry which would make it hard for one to market studies that go against traditional treatments like chemotherapy. There was a study published in August 2003 that revealed of adult cancer in the USA and Australia, the use of chemotherapy only provided a cure 2.1 % of the time. You can read more about that and view the study here.

Hopefully this opens up some minds, and encourages more to look into the subject before dismissing alternative methods and supporting conventional ones. It’s best to consider all things, and at least have a look to see what type of discoveries and information might be beneficial to us.

Sources


Monday, July 15, 2013

CHEMOTHERAPY

Chemotherapy Ineffective 97% of The Time


A study published in August 2003 revealed that of adult cancer in the USA and Australia, the use of chemotherapy, when looking at adjuvant and curative use, provided a cure only 2.1% of the time in the USA and 2.3% of the time in Australia.

In the video below Dr. Peter Glidden cites the study that concludes better than 97% of the time, chemotherapy does not work. Yet it’s one of the main treatments in the battle against cancer. Dr. Glidden explains why that’s still the case.



 The study undertook a literature search for randomized clinical trials which saw a 5-year survival rate that was attributed solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The data was taken from the cancer registry in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. As stated, the final results show that the overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

Dr. Peter Glidden talks about the incredibly low success rate for chemotherapy as a cancer treatment. Be sure to talk to your doctor about all of your options before deciding on a cancer treatment path.

More on understanding cancer:

http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/page3.html

http://cannabiscures.blogspot.com

http://cancerstopped.blogspot.com


Source: http://scientifichealthjournal.blogspot.com/2013/07/chemotherapy.html


Saturday, July 13, 2013

CANCER GENE (BRCA1) (BRCA2)

Natural Compound Prevents Breast Cancer Gene (BRCA1) Malignancy…. It’s Not IN The Genes So Much As WHAT You Expose Them To

There is so much fear and misinformation surrounding the so-called ‘Breast Cancer Associated’ genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, that it should help to dispel some prevailing myths by looking at the crucial role that epigenetic factors play in their expression. Literally ‘above’ (epi) or ‘beyond’ the control of the genes, these factors include environmental chemical exposures, nutrition and stress, which profoundly affect cancer risk within us all, regardless of what variant (‘mutated’ or ‘wild’)* that we happen to carry within our genomes.

In 2012, a very important study was published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry that looked at the role a natural compound called resveratrol may play in preventing the inactivation of the BRCA-1 gene.

BRCA-1 is known as a “caretaker” gene because it is responsible for healing up double-strand breaks within our DNA. When the BRCA-1 gene is rendered dysfunctional or becomes inactivated, either through a congenital/germline inheritance of DNA defects (‘mutation’) or through chemical exposures, the result is the same: harm to the DNA repair mechanisms within the affected cells (particularly breast and ovary; possibly testicular), hence increasing the risk of cancer.

Ironically, while the prevalence of a “bad” inherited BRCA1 variation is actually quite low relative to the general population (a 2003 study found only 6.6% of breast cancer patients even have either a BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation [1] ), everyone’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are susceptible to damage from environmental chemical exposures, most particularly xenobiotic (non-natural) chemicals and radiation. This means that instead of looking to a set of “bad” genes as the primary cause of cancer, we should be looking to avoid exposing both our “bad” and “good” genes alike to preventable chemical exposures, as well as avoiding nutrient deficiencies and/or incompatibilities, which also play a vital role in enabling us to express or silence cancer-associated genes.

[For more on why genes don't "cause" disease see: The Great DNA Data Deficit on GreenMedInfo]

Natural Compound Prevents Breast Cancer Gene (BRCA1) Malignancy


Quite a mouthful.

Essentially, the BRCA-1 promoter is the gene sequence within the BRCA1 gene that drives the production of the protein that enables our cells to repair DNA damage, and when “silenced” (ie. hypermethylated) via the receptor for aromatic hydrocarbons (which are primarily xenobiotic petrochemical compounds), it leads to chromosomal damage within those cells. This study looked at the role of resveratrol, a natural compound found in grapes, wine, chocolate, and peanuts, in preventing these chemically-induced changes in gene methylation, also known as ‘gene silencing.’

According to the study:
“The aberrant hypermethylation of tumor suppressor genes has been recognized as a predisposing event in breast carcinogenesis [1]. For example, BRCA-1 promoter hypermethylation has been linked to loss or silencing of BRCA-1 expression in sporadic breast tumors [2–7] and the development of high-grade breast carcinomas [8–10].
Higher incidence (30%–90%) of BRCA-1 hypermethylation has been reported in infiltrating tumors [2,10–12], suggesting that epigenetic repression of BRCA-1 may accompany the transition to more invasive phenotypes. Moreover, BRCA-1 promoter methylation was found to be positively associated with increased mortality among women with breast cancer [13].
The researchers went on to test resveratrol’s ability to prevent BRCA-promoter inactivation caused by the persistent environmental pollutant 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), which has been linked to birth defects, cancer, immune suppression, liver damage and endocrine disruption, and has been found distributed throughout the global food supply, and even in breast milk.

Resveratrol was found to prevent TCDD-induced suppression of BRCA-1 expression. They discovered that resveratrol was capable of suppressed the silencing (hypermethylation) of the BRCA-1 promoter, revealing one of several possible mechanisms for its well-known anti-cancer properties, including 19 studies on GreenMedInfo.com alone on its anti-breast cancer potential.[2]

Breast Cancer 2 

Resveratrol is only one of a wide range of natural, food-derived compounds which possess the ability to bind and interact as ligands with the aromatic hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) within the cells of our body. Curcumin, the primary polyphenol in the spice turmeric, for instance, has been found to induce programmed cell death in triple negative breast cancer cells, in part through modulating BRCA1 protein expression and levels within the cytoplasm of normal and cancerous cells.

The researchers concluded “The fact that many food constituents possess ligand properties towards the AhR [57,58] may offer new avenues for the development of prevention strategies for the prevention of BRCA-1 silencing in sporadic breast tumors.”

This is a fancy way of saying that we can prevent chemically-induced cancers through including and perhaps increasing the level of phytoactive, chemopreventive compounds within our diet; and of course, reducing and if possible eliminating chemical exposures that ‘knock out’ the BRCA1/BRCA2 gene function in way that leads to cancer.

This, and not some gene-based future drug therapy, is where researchers and medical practitioners should be ‘racing’ for their long sought-after solution. Remove the cause. Prevent and cure the disease.

For a list of 249 other natural substances that have experimentally confirmed anti-breast cancer activity visit GreenMedInfo’s Breast Cancer research page, as well as GreenMedInfo’s Health Guide: Breast Cancer.

Resources:
[1] Silvia de Sanjosé, Mélanie Léoné, Victoria Bérez, Angel Izquierdo, Rebeca Font, Joan M Brunet, Thierry Louat, Loreto Vilardell, Joan Borras, Pau Viladiu, F Xavier Bosch, Gilbert M Lenoir, Olga M Sinilnikova. Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in young breast cancer patients: a population-based study. Int J Cancer. 2003 Sep 10 ;106(4):588-93. PMID: 12845657
[2] GreenMedInfo.com, Reseveratrol’s Anti-Breast Cancer Properties (19 abstracts)
*We looked at the theoretical problems associated with BRCA1/BRCA2-mediated disease causation in the article: Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake By Acting On the Gene Theory of Breast Cancer?
Further articles by Sayer Ji
About the author:
Sayer-JiSayer Ji is the founder and director of www.GreenMedInfo.com and an advisory board member at the National Health Federation, an international nonprofit, consumer-education, health-freedom organization.
He co-authored the book Cancer Killers: The Cause Is The Cure, and is currently co-authoring another book with Tania Melkonian entitled EATomology: An Edible Philosophy of Food.
Check out Sayer Ji’s new collaborative project EATomology.



Thursday, January 10, 2013

BAKING SODA TREATMENT



1.) 

Dr. Tullio Simoncini uses multiple clinics in Rome. His patients usually come to Rome and stay in a hotel close to Dr. Simoncini's home and he treats them at local clinics on an outpatient basis.  
Dr. Tullio Simoncini uses multiple clinics in Rome. His patients usually come to Rome and stay in a hotel close to Dr. Simoncini's home and he treats them at local clinics on an outpatient basis. We visited Dr. Simoncini at his home in Rome.

Philosophy and Type of Treatment

Dr. Simoncini started his personal war against cancer in medical school when he heard cancer described as a terrible and mysterious monster. It occurred to Dr. Simoncini that cancer acted just like a fungus and if it could be a fungus, it could be treated. Dr. Simoncini knew the extreme sensitivity of fungi to saline and electrolytic solutions, so concluded sodium bicarbonate that is used in children's oral antacids could become a great weapon in his war on cancer.

Dr. Simoncini further tested his theory on patients with amazing results after oral or intravenous administration of high concentrations of sodium bicarbonate. He expanded his treatment to include positioning a small catheter directly in the artery that nourishes the neoplastic mass, allowing the administration of high dosages of sodium bicarbonate in the deepest recesses of the organism.

Therapies

Dr. Simoncini has developed specific sodium bicarbonate solutions therapies for the following:

  • Oropharynx cancer
  • Stomach cancer
  • Cancer of the liver
  • Peritoneal carcinosis
  • Intestinal cancer
  • Cancer of the spleen
  • Tumor of the pancreas
  • Bladder tumor
  • Prostate tumor
  • Pleura tumor
  • Tumors of limbs
  • Brain cancer
  • Lung cancer
  • Breast cancer
  • Skin cancer
  • The following examples of Dr. Simoncini's results were taken from his book Cancer is a Fungus
lungs before treatment
Lung's CAT scan before the treatment, taken on April 19, 2002

lungs after treatment
Lung's CAT scan after the treatment, taken December 4, 2002
eye before treatment
Condition of melanoma treatment already started, October 2000
eye after treatment
Scar condition in May 2002

Contact:

The best way to contact Dr. Simoncini is by visiting his web site: Dr. Simoncini Cancer Therapy or via email.

FAIM does not know of any places in the U.S. using Dr. Simoncini's complete protocol.

Source:  http://www.faim.org/cancer/tulliosimoncinisitevisit.html

2)

NOTE: All temperatures are in Fahrenheit.

TREATMENT RATING: The main reason I take this protocol seriously is because of several impressive testimonials which came from different sources. 

A second reason this protocol is on this website is because I have run into many, many cancer patients who cannot afford any of the highly potent protocols (e.g. Cellect-Budwig, Cesium Chloride, GB-4000 with M.O.P.A., Limu Juice, etc.). These patients need to use several highly effective protocols which are very inexpensive. 

This protocol should NOT be used by itself as a cancer treatment, but there is enough evidence for its effectiveness that it should be considered a supplemental protocol, especially for those who cannot afford the more expensive protocols. 

Please send me an email, at the beginning of your treatment, if you use this protocol and tell me of your experience!! My email address is linked to at the bottom of this article.
 


Jim Kelmun Baking Soda and Maple Syrup Protocol

This treatment is a combination of pure, 100% maple syrup and aluminum free baking soda. The maple syrup targets cancer cells (which consume 15 times more glucose than normal cells) and the baking soda is dragged into the cancer cells with the maple syrup. 

When buying maple syrup, buy "Grade B" maple syrup. If you cannot get "Grade B," then get the darkest "Grade A" you can get. 

The baking soda, being very alkaline, is the main anti-cancer substance. The maple syrup is a "carrier" to get the baking soda inside the cancer cells. 

Measurements for baking soda are for a level TEAspoon, or a very slightly rounded TEAspoon.
Based on other alkaline protocols, this protocol works by killing the microbes which are inside of the cancer cells. See the "What Causes Cancer" article, linked to on the left side-bar, to understand what I am talking about. 

There are actually several different cancer protocols which involve highly alkaline products: cesium chloride, calcium and baking soda. 

The mixture is made by mixing one part high quality baking soda with three parts (pure, 100%) maple syrup in a small saucepan. 

No water is added to the mixture!!
 
Red Mill brand baking soda (preferred), which is now called "All Natural," qualify as being "aluminum free" brands. Do NOT mix the baking soda and maple syrup in an aluminum pot or pan!! Use Pyrex (or similar), stainless steel or copper cookware only!! 

In fact, if you own any aluminum cookware - THROW IT AWAY!! Aluminum is the main cause of dementia. 

Stir the mixture briskly with low heat for 5-10 minutes. Start at 120 degrees, and attempt to find the right temperature for your stove and altitude, by increasing or decreasing the temperature until you find the ideal temperature so that the mixture does not burn and the mixture binds together.
If the mixture tastes terrible, you burned it, which is easy to do. But if you keep it just warm enough so that it doesn't burn, the two substances will combine and it will taste quite pleasant.
 
Also, I would not refrigerate the mixture at all. And I would not make more than a nine-day supply at one time. I suggest these rules to insure the mixture does not separate during storage. Just leave it at room temperature. 

Change your diet to no meat and especially no sugar and no white flour!! This is because you want the cancer cells to consume as much baking soda/maple syrup as possible!! 

See the "Cancer Diet" article on the left side-bar for more information about the cancer diet.

The Dose

Take one, two or three teaspoons daily. Never take them at the same time, always spread them out by at least two hours. 

Start at one teaspoon per day and in a few days build up to two teaspoons. It is your choice as to whether to build up to three teaspoons daily, stay at two teaspoons daily or drop back to one teaspoon daily. Do not take more than 3 teaspoons daily. 

Normally, only one teaspoon a day is taken, but it is now known that an adult can safely take close to one teaspoon a day of baking soda. Because the Kelmun mixture is 1/4th baking soda, taking it two or three times a day is perfectly safe for an adult!!

The Original Article Which Made This Protocol Public

Here is a link to a copy of the original article which made this protocol public information:
Original Article