from PreventDisease Website
According to the conventional wisdom of mainstream medicine, the world's leading health practitioners in alternative, complementary and integrative medicine have it all wrong and are misinforming millions in practice and on the internet with a barrage of myths and misconceptions they claim are causing more harm to cancer patients.
Could this initiative to sway opinion by leading cancer authorities
possibly, just possibly, be related to the revolution that is
happening around the world - highlighting the
ineffectiveness of toxic chemotherapy and radiation, bringing cancer
cures such as cannabis to the forefront, or the emerging mass
markets now creating awareness on the reality of our food and the
consequences of the cancer industry itself?
It's because of our success in tackling infectious diseases and malnutrition that we now get cancer. It's perfectly normal for DNA damage in our cells to build up as we age, and such damage can lead to cancer developing.
Cancer has existed as long as humans have.
There are very few records that show (officially)
the age of our ancestors before then 18th century, but there is a
reasonable amount of evidence suggesting there were many people
living hundreds of years in prehistory and beyond.
We just don't know for sure, so to use any type of
argument that cancer existed or did not exist to any extent in
prehistory involves making a great deal of assumptions.
But what kind of progress?
mortality rates are not due to decreases in incidence. More people
are getting cancer, but they're staying alive longer. What the
cancer industry does not point out is that the trends clearly show
that we haven't eliminated cancer to any extent, but we have managed
to be able to diagnose it and treat it and thus profit from the
actual disease itself.
Diagnosis and treatment are the money
makers in this industry. Actual prevention is not. So when it comes
to prevention, conventional medicine has stuck its head in the sand.
Why The Cancer Industry Claims This Is a Myth
There's no such thing as a 'super-food' or
medicinally powerful herb and any assertion has no scientific basis.
In fact, there is so much
evidence that super-foods exist and have anti-cancer properties,
that any claims suggesting the opposite are a good measure of where
the credibility lies among many of these industry quacks that make
such preposterous statements.
Yet, several authors have written extensively about previous recommendations of the ACS, specifically regarding the potential of super-foods to prevent cancer. Northridge Hospital Medical Center lists several super foods using the ACS as a source.
posted a super food infographic also using ACS as a source. But
information on super-foods on the ACS website does not appear to
One irritating problem that confuses the public is that most dietitians have no foundation of practical knowledge in nutrition.
They propagate mainstream opinion on the validity of the food pyramid - that bread, cereal and grains should be the mainstay of our diets and that fruits and vegetables are all equal.
Most dietitians I know don't use the term super-food because they're not taught what super-foods are in school.
The only thing they are taught is that
"super-foods" are non-medical terms popularized in the media to
promote unsupported health-promoting properties in foods.
Some suggest they are also low in calories but that does
not always apply to all super-foods
The top six foods with the highest antioxidant values on the ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) scale are cheaper and more readily available than the more expensive alternatives and they all are proven to prevent cancer.
For example extracts of black, red, and white sorghums had
strong antiproliferative activity
against human cancer cells.
dozens of studies which prove cannabis cures cancer. A quick
search on Pubmed for "cannabinoid" will yield almost 18,000 results.
The pH of the blood is tightly regulated by the kidneys within a very narrow and perfectly healthy range. It can't be changed for any meaningful amount of time by what you eat.
There's no evidence to
prove that diet can manipulate whole body pH, or that it has an
impact on cancer.
truth is, you can't make huge shifts in blood alkalinity or acidity,
but you can small shifts that are significant enough to reverse
If the pH of your blood falls below 7.3, the result is a condition called acidosis, a state that leads to central nervous system depression. Severe acidosis - where blood pH falls below 7.00 - can lead to a coma and even death.
If the pH of
your blood rises above 7.45, the result is alkalosis.
Cancer cells can't live in an alkaline environment.
The reason acidosis is more common in our society is mostly due to the typical American diet, which is far too high in acid-producing animal products like meat, and dairy, and far too low in alkaline-producing foods like fresh vegetables.
Additionally, we eat acid-producing processed foods like white flour and sugar and drink acid-producing beverages like coffee and soft drinks.
We use too many drugs, which are acid-forming; and we use
artificial chemical sweeteners like NutraSweet, Equal, or aspartame,
which are extremely acid-forming. One of the best things we can do
to correct an overly-acid body is to clean up the diet and
Dr. A. Keith Brewer explained that in alkaline environments and high pH condition, the acid toxins of the cancer cell are neutralized and rendered nontoxic. Acidic toxins, and not the tumor lump per se, is what brings about the death of the host.
In the high pH condition, the life of the cancer cell is short. The dead cancer cells are readily absorbed by the system and eliminated.
This condition forces the body to borrow minerals - including calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium - from vital organs and bones to buffer (neutralize) the acid and safely remove it from the body.
Once a person is diagnosed with cancer, the most effective way of reversing the disease is to move towards an alkaline diet and shift blood pH towards the 7.41 range.
This is accomplished most effectively with raw fruits and vegetables and daily greens which maximize phytonutrients and enhance the immune system's potential to reverse cancer. No, the body will not dramatically shift blood pH, but it doesn't need to for cancer cells to die.
Even a small shift will reverse cancer and prevent the body from borrowing minerals from organs and bones to compensate for a nutritionally deficient diet.
That's where alkalizing agents come in.
The immune system can then thrive
and signal recovery which is facilitated through nutritional
mechanisms and alkalizing agents to maximize recovery and make
treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation or surgery completely
feeds cancer" myth distorts sensible dietary advice which must be
based on nutritional and scientific fact.
There is little doubt in
the scientific community that the high rate of carbohydrate
ingestion contributes to various metabolic diseases, including the
development of aggressive cancer.
Both carnivores and herbivores predominantly live from proteins and fat/oil.
Although herbivores ingest large amounts of complex carbohydrates (cellulose and other fibres), these are fermented to fatty acids by bacteria within the gastrointestinal tract and therefore exhibit an extremely low glycemic index.
release or even absence of glucose during digestion may explain the
low rates of cancer-caused mortality in herbivore and carnivore
epidemiological study in 21 modern countries that keep track of
morbidity and mortality (Europe, North America, Japan and others)
revealed that sugar intake is a strong risk factor that contributes
to higher breast cancer rates, particularly in older women.
This lowers pH values in cancer tissues via lactic acid formation. In turn, this intensifies the thermal sensitivity of the malignant tumors and also induces rapid growth of the cancer. Patients are then given whole-body hyperthermia (42 C core temperature) to further stress the cancer cells, followed by chemotherapy or radiation.
SCMT was tested on 103 patients with metastasized cancer or recurrent primary tumors in a clinical phase-I study at the Von Ardenne Institute of Applied Medical Research in Dresden, Germany.
Five-year survival rates in SCMT-treated patients increased by 25 to 50 percent, and the complete rate of tumor regression increased by 30 to 50 percent.20 The protocol induces rapid growth of the cancer, then treats the tumor with toxic therapies for a dramatic improvement in outcome.
For metastatic cancer cells, a shift towards growth is facilitated by an evolutionary novel microenvironment within the body, which is characterized by a permanent availability of high amounts of glucose due to a nutrition with a high glycemic index, the absence of periods of starvation, as well as reduced physical activity.
The more the body absorbs simple
carbohydrates in the form of artificial sugars
Radiotherapy helps cure more people than cancer drugs. Yet chemotherapy and other cancer drugs have a very important part to play in cancer treatment - in some cases helping to cure the disease, and in others helping to prolong survival.
Chemotherapy does not encourage cancer.
That's the only reason chemotherapy is still used. Not because it's effective, decreases morbidity, mortality or diminishes any specific cancer rates. In fact, it does the opposite. Chemotherapy boosts cancer growth and long-term mortality rates. Most chemotherapy patients either die or are plagued with illness within 10-15 years after treatment.
It destroys their immune system, increases neuro-cognitive decline, disrupts endocrine functioning and causes organ and metabolic toxicities.
Patients basically live
in a permanent state of disease until their death.
If they did publish the long-term statistics for all cancers administered cytotoxic chemotherapy, that is 10+ years and produced the objective data on rigorous evaluations including the cost-effectiveness, impact on the immune system, quality of life, morbidity and mortality, it would be very clear to the world that chemotherapy makes little to no contribution to cancer survival at all.
No such study has ever been conducted by independent investigators in the history of chemotherapy.
The only studies
available come from industry funded institutions and scientists and
none of them have ever inclusively quantified the above variables.
The cancer establishment must retreat from the truth to treat cancer because there will never be any profit for them in in eradicating the disease. There is no governing body in the world that protects consumers from being subjected to these toxic therapies or even known carcinogens in our foods our environment, because that too, will prevent the profits from rolling in.
It's a business of mammoth
proportions and must be treated as such.
To the scientists it says:
To the patients, on the other hand, it provides a warning:
So, in the early stages of tumors (the dubious ones) the recovery rates are extremely high, while in the following stages - that is, where they certainly are tumors - the rates are barely above zero.
The reason for the discrepancy is the qualification of the data and how a patient is assessed in terms of recovery. Immune reconstitution and tolerance, organ and metabolic toxicities, endocrine challenges, functional outcomes, quality of life, and neurocognitive outcomes are NEVER inclusively assessed in any clinical study discussing the long-term survival and recovery rates of cancer patients.
The damage to these systems slowly develops after chemotherapy, however if often does not begin to manifest throughout the body until several months or even years have passed.
It takes time, but within a 3-5 year period, most chemotherapy
patients begin to have many more symptoms of disease than they every
had before their diagnosis, due to and as a direct result of cytotoxic drug intervention.
Oncologists do not consider the whole spectrum of chemotherapy risks versus benefits and thus compromise quality of life for every patient they treat.
A study in the Annals of Oncology is one of few which assessed the different potential long-term adverse events associated with adjuvant chemotherapy in cancer, with a particular focus on long-term cardiac toxicity, secondary leukemia, cognitive function, and neurotoxicity.
The authors stated that the adverse events are
frequently overshadowed by the well-demonstrated clinical efficacy
and/or reassuring short-term safety profiles of the different
chemotherapy regimens commonly used today.
They observed a significantly increased risk for
occurrence of cardiac events accompanied by a persisting unfavorable
cardiovascular risk profile likely due to chemotherapeutic agents.
97% of the time, chemotherapy did
not work in regressing the metastatic cancers.