My friend Madeline diagnosed with breast cancer…..Euro Cancer Travels part 6
Coming home from studying at 5 holistic cancer treatment facilities in Europe, we were met by the mother of my long-time friend who traveled with me to run my camera. Before we even got to baggage claim, Madeline (name changed) tells me:
“I’ve just had a lumpectomy, and the biopsy indicates Stage 1 breast cancer. Talk to me.”
Of course, I have a lot to say. Over the course of a couple of weeks, she meets with the oncologist, the radiation oncologist, and reads my blog, and we talk on the phone, texts, and emails.
A few weeks later, I get a text from her.
She says she is choosing radiation. She wants to live just 20-25 more years anyway and is just going to hope for the best. She says she can’t stand being hot, so hypothermia’s out. And she doesn’t want to take a benzo to withstand it, which I’d suggested, and she feels she has “run out of options.”
Her daughter tells me, “Write my mom what YOU would do.” I refuse. Doesn’t feel ethical, I say. So a few minutes later, Madeline texts me, “Please tell me what YOU would do.”
So I write her the following email. I’m sharing it with you. I’m hoping you learn now about how many good options you have outside the cancer industry’s Slash / Burn / Poison trifecta. Because very frankly, it’s a 50/50 proposition, whether we face cancer in a lifetime. Might as well get educated early.
You asked what I would do if I were faced with your choices. I’ll answer that, only because you asked. But first, to some things you said in your long text to me this morning.
You’ve spent 100 hours reading. Unfortunately, the case studies you describe are heavily cherry-picked and manipulated.
If you live five years, in those clinical trials, you’re a success. If you die a day after that, of a heart attack caused by the treatment, you’re still a success. You count in their five-year survival stats.
If you die earlier, many studies have been documented to drop you from the study group!
If you live with many years of miserable side effects, and develop a secondary cancer in Year 6, caused by exposure to all those radioactive isotopes? You’re getting the idea: again, you’re counted as a success.
The studies generally do not track or report secondary cancers, and your risk rate of this is MASSIVELY higher, having undergone radiation.
Keep in mind that the radiation is burning and mutating every cell it touches. Those cells replicate copies of themselves, so mutated genes are highly likely to develop and organize as cancer clusters. Six months later, five years later. You’re often battling inflammatory side effects for years, after radiation.
Just this week, I was in Mexico studying at Hope 4 Cancer, with Tony Jimenez, M.D., Carlo Santiesteban, M.D., and Xavier Curiel, M.D. All traditionally trained docs who have left traditional medical practice because it does not work, and because it harms people.
I met a woman there, Karen, from Dallas, who did chemo and radiation for her breast cancer and deeply regrets it now. When the breast cancer came back, it was a large (5-cm) tumor right on the scar tissue that has never gone away from her radiation. Two weeks before finding the lump, she told me, she had a root canal on a tooth that is connected, via the energy meridians well documented in science, to that breast.
You mention you have “run out of options.” Far from it, there are many options, and neither radiation, nor doing nothing, are acceptable options to me, personally. Those are the two options compared in the studies. Radiation, or nothing.
But what about the people who do LOTS to increase programmed cell death (apoptosis), starve out the vascular system of the tumor, oxygenate the body, induce an artificial fever to burn out cancer cells and increase killer cell and white-blood cell activity, decrease sugars that feed cancer, alkalize the body’s tissues, and cleanse the blood of parasites, bacteria, and toxic undigested proteins? To rebuild the gut lining, eroded and inflamed in virtually all cancer patients, to restore the immune function there and metabolize foods. To juice-fast, so the body can take the 35% of its energy resources it normally spends in digestion, to neutralize cancer cells instead.
Those people are not in your studies, compared to those few who “do nothing.” Those who do nothing are also heavily pre-treated with prior radiation and chemotherapy. Those who do nothing tend to be the elderly. You see how this manipulates the statistics that you are presented with, making it appear that burning your body is a sensible treatment? Those who do radiation are women in their 20’s to 60’s. Those who do nothing are in their 70’s to 90’s, and may have many other health problems.
The studies do not EVER compare those who seek other, holistic treatment. Treatment that understands the true nature of, causes of, and modus operandi of cancer. If you accept that you virtually ALWAYS have metastasis, because cancer isn’t a lump or a bump, but rather the general failure of your immune system, then we have to wonder why cancer-causing, lethal burning rays, directed at breast tissue where they told you the cancer was GONE, will help anything? Either it’s NOT gone, as they told you it was–they say it’ll come back if you don’t radiate, so why WOULD it come back, if it’s gone? (Their own logic is circular, or contradictory.)
Or it IS gone, so why would hitting the spot with cell-mutating radiation help anything? And why wouldn’t supporting and rebuilding your immune system to manage future cancer cells we always produce, be the answer?
We have come to accept them because those are the only things offered to us by very smart guys in white coats. But their education was provided to them courtesy of a few major industries—highly profitable, who will be out of business if they “cure” cancer. They aren’t bad people, the docs and nurses. They’re good people who have no idea that the system they’re working in is chasing its tail.
I know that hyperthermia would be very difficult for you because you are always hot, when other people are cold. Because you have a low core body temp. I suggested taking a benzodiazepine drug rather than writing that option off. Because hyperthermia is a very helpful process, as getting a fever is, when you have the flu. It’s how your body burns out the bad guys. Your immune cells function best at 104 degrees. A one-time use of benzodiazapene, which you say is “like Prozac,” is far, far less toxic than the permanent effects of the radiation you are considering. Radiation has a very long half life and continues burning and mutating cells and creating inflammation for a very long time.
You asked what I would do. I wouldn’t do chemo, ever. I wouldn’t do radiation either. Radiation may burn cancer cells for a while, out of a specific area, but they also make it far more likely that you’ll get a far more virulent secondary cancer later.
I would hop on a plane Jan. 1 and go to Paracelsus al Ronc. Dr. Petra’s my favorite doc of all the docs I’ve worked with. I feel that she is evidence-based, uses lots of careful, precise diagnostics, and is very well-educated in the best alternative therapies.
I like Dr. Tony’s Hope 4 Cancer in Tijuana, too, and they have an interesting photo-bio-dynamic therapy. They have BX Anti-Toxin. Lots of interesting treatments are available.
Every place I’ve been, when I ask, “What do you have the most success with?” they say, “Stage 1 and 2 breast cancer.” Every single one has given me that answer. They qualify it by saying their success rates go down significantly when a patient has been treated with chemotherapy or radiation. Because now the body, instead of putting its energy into fighting the invader, any cancer cells anywhere in the body, is desperately fighting the insult via burning gamma rays, and the further compromised immune system. Keep in mind that the recent surgery already sets your immune system back. The many drugs in the anaesthetic cocktail, plus the knife scattering cancer cells (higher probability of them spreading), is something the body must recover from. You probably have felt that your body has needed recovery time after your surgery.
I would completely immerse myself in learning the Coy diet there at Paracelsus, and also ask them for 4 glasses of green juice a day. I’d come home and eat, and juice, tons of organic, alkaline green foods. Cucumbers, celery, leafy greens, etc. Get that Norwalk Juicer, or at least a Breville, and make it my new best friend.
I’d eat NO SUGAR for two years. No refined sugar at all. Only small amounts of right-turning (unrefined) sugars in the form of fruits. Lower-carb grains like Spelt, Kamut, amaranth, quinoa, millet. No animal protein, except SMALL amounts, but only grass-fed, organic meat or sheep/goat cheeses, if you really feel you can’t live without it. No dairy products.
It’s hard to give up a sugar addiction. BUT! You’ll have a young, happy, thin body you haven’t had in decades–and get rid of inflammation in joints, aches and pains, mood swings, and energy lows. Those are the side benefits of the treatment you’ll get there. There are only side EFFECTS (bad ones) of the radiation treatment.
You’ll see your blood improve massively, with your treatment at Paracelsus al Ronc, under darkfield blood microscope—you can see it all!
That is what I would do. As I told you, I support and love you no matter what you choose! I feel compelled to share with you my conclusions after 20 years of reading cancer books and studying this subject and interviewing hundreds of cancer patients, and knowing MANY who survived and thrived after opting out of the modern cancer machine (Slash / Burn / Poison). It’s not that they did NOTHING; it’s that they chose OTHER treatment. I promise: the studies you read followed NO PATIENTS who tried other, holistic modalities. They can’t find or track them, plus they have no motivation to do so.
(Even though the studies you saw say radiation decreases your chance of recurrence, I’ve already told you that non-treatment of breast cancer involves a much OLDER study group. And, a well-known study of hundreds of ovarian cancer patients age 80+ in Sweden showed that those who did NOTHING, lived more than a year longer than those who did chemo or radiation. Like I said, it’s not ethical in the U.S. to not treat cancer at all. Even Medicaid and Medicare pay for the $100k – $1 million cancer treatments for the poor and the elderly. The only people who DON’T get treated in America are the very old who don’t want it! Keep that in mind as you review those “case studies” your text refers to, of those who do NOTHING versus those who do RADIATION. That comparison creates a false expectation of success from radiation.)
So we have the same death rate, from cancer, that we did in 1974 under Nixon. That’s widely known, widely reported. Why, then, are your doctors convincing you that radiation is going to save you from recurrence of breast cancer? Have we seen gains in breast cancer survival rate? No we haven’t. I’ve sent you articles about that. All we’ve seen is that the diagnostic industry is catching Stage 0 and Stage 1 tumors. So we’re putting women into dangerous, deadly treatments earlier. Of course they survive it at a higher rate. They were healthy people. They would likely have not seen any health issues from that tiny cluster of cells for many years, if ever. In many cases, the body would have broken down and metabolized that growth, as it usually does.
So our data is skewed by early detection, and more healthy women in the treated group. But the overall death rate remains the same. So please don’t over-invest in the one-sided reading of case-study medical journal articles. Most if not all of the research is paid for by the drug and tech companies. Their goal is not to cure cancer. They are companies. Their goal is to TREAT cancer. Their goal is to PROFIT. They have repeatedly shown, and many books are published about this, by insiders, that their motives are contrary to the interests of public health. Why else does our oncology industry, in the U.S., do absolutely NOTHING or even LOOK at any other options, that aren’t high-profit technology and drug approaches?
You say hyperthermia won’t get deep enough into your tissues, since the tiny tumor they removed was very deep. Why, then, would radiation not have the same challenge? That’s lots of HEALTHY tissue it has to burn through, to get to the FORMER cluster of cancer cells. I don’t think that argument points to radiation as a solution.
Hyperthermia is the most STUDIED, and the most clearly efficacious, “natural” or “holistic” treatment. It being uncomfortable for you, maybe even intolerable if you’re totally awake for it, can’t be the reason to choose radiation. Choose radiation if it feels RIGHT to you based on all the evidence, and your gut. Because that’s a high-stakes decision to make.
You don’t want to take the benzo drug to survive a few hours of hyperthermia. But guess what—you had benzo drugs during your lumpectomy.
Just think on these things. Frustratingly, there is no giant industry to pay for publishing lots of papers on the effects of radiation. Those industries essentially own the medical journals, the medical schools, the residency programs, and continuing education. They must be looked at with a most critical eye.
Nor are there dollars to study the multi-faceted holistic approaches. However, Dr. Contreras at Oasis of Hope in Mexico, whose father was the first-ever integrative oncologist, published his own study of his patients’ five-year survival rates, compared to the published U.S. traditionally treated rates.
His survival statistics—apples to apples, since he used Stage 4 patients only—for ovarian, breast, lung, and colon cancers—are RADICALLY better. I point to those studies on my blog. Everywhere I’ve been in my holistic cancer research, they quote 80-95 percent success rates with Stage 1 and 2 breast cancers.
Congrats on losing 16 lbs! What you’re doing is a great weight-loss diet! It’s because you’re cutting out processed food. It’s not the greatest as an anti-cancer diet. You said green smoothies, fruit, fish, chicken, beef. Beef and chicken are full of hormones and antibiotics that are harmful to you, so I would cut WAY down on meat if cutting it out seems too hard, and eat ONLY organic / range fed / wild caught fish / chicken. Lots of metals and chemicals in farmed fish.
Eat the low-gluten or no-gluten organic grains in small amounts and make GREENS and VEGETABLES your #1 and #2 mainstays. That’s a great cancer diet. Remember, a cancer cell has 19 sugar receptors, and a normal cell has only 2. So sugars feed cancer. And, undigested proteins in the blood for the Standard American Diet practice of eating 20 percent animal proteins, is at the root of a lot of cancer, very well documented. So, greens, sprouts, vegetables, legumes, gluten-free grains, nuts and seeds, and a little fruits. That’s the best cancer diet! As much juicing of greens and vegs as possible!
Posted in: Research