Fact or Fiction?
"Cancer and other degenerative diseases
can be managed
successfully only by the medical/pharmaceutical industries."
by Don Bennett, DAS
There are many
who would have us believe that degenerative disease can only, and
should only, be handled by mainstream medical treatments. Empirical
evidence would suggest otherwise.
1. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in
medicine. 2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation)
I have personally
witnessed cases where people resolved various degenerative diseases
using non-invasive procedures. And by that I mean no surgical operations,
no chemotherapy, no radiation therapy, no drug therapy.
Let's look at
coronary artery disease, and the popular surgical treatment, angioplasty.
A balloon-like device is inserted into the artery alongside the
blockage, and inflated in order to compress the blockage, allowing
improved blood flow. Are patients given any other options? Not usually.
It has been shown that a change in ones diet, possibly accompanied
by fasting, can eliminate the blockage without surgery. This has
the added benefit of preventing blockage recurrence, assuming the
patient adopts a healthier diet.
It is interesting
to note that with the advent of angioplasty, a new disease has been
coined: re-stenosis. This is when a blockage reforms at the site
of the compressed blockage. That's why angioplasties can only be
performed a few times the blockage builds to such a point
that further compression is impossible. A bypass operation is usually
the next step. It is also interesting to note that when the blockage
is compressed, it makes it very difficult for the body to remove
it, if not impossible (because angioplasty is about as unnatural
as things get).
this operation be considered barbaric when a non-invasive way of
dealing with the problem exists?
I asked a cardiologist
why not give the dietary alternative to patients. He answered, "It's
pointless, they wouldn't go for it." Isn't it nice that this
decision is made for you. In reality, people do go for it,
rather than submit to surgery. They are able to see the wisdom of
such a decision.
And the same
holds true for coronary bypass surgery. I'm told this procedure
has a four percent chance of mild brain damage. Assuming the surgery
is successful, in these 4% of cases the patient can still function
fine, but realizes something has been "lost"; usually
memories. They're not the same person they were before the surgery.
Then let's not forget the possibility of the serious complications
associated with surgery. Wouldn't it be nice to be informed of a
much safer alternative to surgery? Especially one that would dramatically
reduce the probability of needing further intervention down the
This is not
as complicated an issue as one might think. Cancerous cells are
natural. I'd be willing to bet that everyone, at one time or another,
has had cancerous cells in their body. Why do I say it's natural?
Our bodies have a defense mechanism to deal with cancerous cells.
I doubt this mechanism only developed over the past few centuries;
it's probably been with us since we had cells.
So why has such
a normal process grown to such devastating and epidemic proportions?
define "cancer". It's when the body has more cancerous
cells than it can eliminate. The cancerous cells get a foothold
and grow, and eventually disturb body functions. They put one at
cancer? Simple. Cancer is caused by the cumulative effects of
the contributing factors.
are those that build up over time. Easy enough to understand. Now,
if we can get a handle on the "contributing factors",
we'll have cancer licked.
Let's look at
the two most important things that contribute to cancer:
that burdens the body, can damage cells, and thus can create cancerous
that burdens the body, impairs its ability to eliminate cancerous
So you see,
burdens are a Double-Whammy, a "one-two punch". Logic
would dictate that if you reduce the burdens, you reduce the chances
of building cancer.
cancer runs in my family!" Here's a quote that should help
put this in perspective.
runs in my family. I have an aunt who died of the same kind
of bladder cancer I had, my mother had breast cancer, I have
many uncles who had colon cancer... but Im adopted.
Steingraber, Author, Activist (Her
in everyone's family. The autopsies of people who have died from
diseases other than cancer, very often show cancer. So, if the heart
disease didn't get 'em, the cancer most probably would have. True,
the cells of my family's lungs may be inherently weaker than the
cells of your family's lungs. Thus lung cancer is more prevalent
in my family than colon cancer, which your family seems prone to.
But this "genetic predisposition" is a non-issue. We're
born with certain cells that are weaker than others. So what? That
fact shouldn't change how we protect ourselves from degenerative
disease in general, should it? And since degenerative diseases like
cancer are diseases of lifestyle, we can do a lot to avoid them.
picture is worth a thousand words
above is of four genes from two sets of identical twins. The
top two genes are the same gene superimposed over each other
and are from six-year old identical twins, the bottom two superimposed
genes are from 70 year old identical twins. The bright yellow
areas are where the two genes are identical. At birth, the genes
of identical twins are exactly the same, but as you can plainly
see, as identical twins age, their gene expression can become
different from each other, and this is caused by differing
lifestyle practices. Cancer is a disease of lifestyle.
and other degenerative disease are resolved naturally, it doesn't
get much press. It's not hard to understand why. The treatment of
degenerative disease is BIG business. Now, I'm all for contributing
to economic prosperity, but not when it's at the expense of my
health! I sort of expect to get ripped off at the auto mechanic,
and I deal with it the best I can. But bottom line, it's only money.
But my health is the most valuable commodity I have,
so I investigate alternatives to conventional ways of dealing with
health problems like cancer.
a patient is found to have a tumor, the only thing the doctor
discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the
tumor. If a patient with a tumor is receiving radiation or chemotherapy,
the only question that is asked is, "How is the tumor doing?"
No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical training,
I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or
chemotherapy. The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the
patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would
hear, "Isn't that marvelous! The tumor is gone!" Yes,
it was, but so was the patient. How many millions of times are
we going to have to repeat these scenarios before we realize
that we are treating the wrong thing?
cancer, with only a few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering
nor life-threatening. I am going to repeat that statement. In
primary cancer, with few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering
nor life-threatening. What is health-endangering and life-threatening
is the spread of that disease throughout the rest of the body.
nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of cancer. There
is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of the
disease. There is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent
the spread of the disease. How do we know? Just look at the
statistics! There is a statistic known as "survival time."
Survival time is defined as that interval of time between when
the diagnosis of cancer is first made in a given patient and
when that patient dies from his disease.
past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the early
diagnosis of cancer. In that period of time, tremendous progress
had been made in the surgical ability to remove tumors. Tremendous
progress has been made in the use of radiation and chemotherapy
in their ability to shrink or destroy tumors. But, the survival
time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty
years ago. What does this mean? It obviously means that we are
treating the wrong thing!" Philip Binzel, M.D.,
Alive and Well.
for treatment? One that gets the most effective results. If you
want to believe that traditional medical/pharmaceutical treatment
is the most effective way to deal with degenerative disease, that's
fine. There was a time in human civilization where the vast majority
of the people believed that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved
around the earth. This prevalent belief didn't make it so. This
belief had nothing to do with reality which is where our
bodies exist. I've seen with my own two eyes, how people can heal
themselves from serious maladies by simply respecting nature's most
important law, as it pertains to health.
the Body What it Wants, and Don't Give it What it Doesn't Want"
in principle, but if you've been born into and have come of age
in a society that doesn't teach this, your belief of what the body
wants and doesn't want is not going to have anything to do with
reality. You've been given a distorted view of health. If you care
about this, your most important commodity, you'll deprogram the
mis- and dis-information, and then acquaint yourself with the truth.
Whether you do this or not depends on where health is on your internal,
subconscious list of priorities. Health is high on my list, because
I can't enjoy life without it, so I've sought out the truth... it's
out there, it's just not very visible, and it's certainly not common
knowledge. You can find a lot of it here and at the other websites
listed under "Links".
even the wisest of physicians to our aid, it is probable that he
is relying upon a scientific 'truth', the error of which will become
obvious in just a few years' time." Marcel Proust
following statement from cancer specialist, Professor Charles Mathe,
who declared: "If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a
standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from
such centres have a chance."
writing in The Ecologist, reported recently: "After analysing
cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr. Hardin Jones,
Professor at the University of California, concluded '...patients
are as well, or better off untreated.' Jones' disturbing assessment
has never been refuted."
oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with
a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure."
Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901 "Medical Oncology
in the 90s"
patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does
not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been
documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy
for these tumors." Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of
widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not
changed in the last 70 years." Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar
1975 292 p 707
Prostate Cancer Studies Implicating Milk
Breast Cancer Terror
Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society Skewered in New Book
by Leading Cancer Expert
by Doctoring - Cancer: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
Found in French Fries, Bread, Biscuits, and Some Interesting Information
about the American Cancer Society
Why Women Should Not Get a Mammogram
Phones and Cancer
and Vitamin D
to view the website where the Philip Binzel, M.D. quote came from
Alternative Cancer Treatments Information Center).
therapies the pharmaceutical industry does not want you to know
to list of Articles