Why everything you know about cancer is wrong
Five Questions You Need to Ask About Cancer
1. Does DNA damage really cause cancer?
2. Are traditional medicine's cure rates really accurate?
3. How involved is ‘Big Pharma' in preventing natural treatments reaching cancer patients?
4. Why does the mainstream media not cover encouraging and successful natural cancer treatments?
5. Who are some of the doctors that have developed natural cancer treatments?
Most people think that cancer is caused by DNA damage and that orthodox medicine is frantically searching for a cure for cancer. There are two problems with these beliefs. Both beliefs are complete nonsense and come from the propaganda and deceptions of television.
We believe cancer is not caused by DNA damage. The definition of a cancer cell is a cell with low ATP energy (i.e. a low level of adenosine triphosphate). It is difficult to imagine a cell biologist who thinks that DNA damage can cause low levels of ATP energy. Only a very, very small fraction of DNA has anything to do with the creation of ATP energy. Yet the media glorifies all of the “cancer researchers” who are diligently trying to “fix” the DNA damage of cancer cells.
In our research, we have found that the low ATP level is actually caused by microbes which are inside the cancer cells, generally Helicobacter Pylori. This is an amazing microbe that can have 16 different sizes and shapes and sizes depending on the pH it is exposed to. For more advanced information, see: Advanced Cancer Theory.
This microbe intercepts glucoseA type of sugar; the chief source of energy for living organisms. as it enters the cancer cells and thus reduces the amount of glucose available to be converted into pyruvate. With less pyruvate, the cell will create less ATP energy (of course I am skipping many steps in this process). For a more detailed discussion read What Causes Cancer.
Killing cancer cells is “old school” but there is nothing wrong with things that can safely target and kill cancer cells (such as purple grape juice), but the new approach is to kill the microbes inside the cancer cells. This was first done in the 1930s but that technology was persecuted and shut down by the FDA and AMA. It has been restored, however, by the High RF Frequency Devices (which are not their real name, which we cannot use on this website due to the FDA).
About cure rates
You probably think that orthodox medicine (e.g. the pharmaceutical industry, oncologists, the American Medical Association or AMA, etc.) has a 5-year cure rate for cancer patients of more than 50 percent. A “5-year cure rate” would mean, by definition, that 50 percent or more of their cancer patients are still alive five years after being diagnosed with cancer.
You have probably been told that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not only doing its best to find cures for cancer but are shutting down “quacks” who are pretending to cure cancer but in fact do not know how to cure cancer. You have also probably been told that the media is constantly looking for who has the best cure rates for cancer so the media's investigative journalists can keep the general public apprised of who has the most effective cancer treatments, and so on. We believe this is not so.
Cure rates are not an academic issue because you, the reader, may get cancer someday or you may know someone who gets cancer, such as a spouse or relative. Your very life, or the life of a friend or loved one, maybe on the line as you decide who is telling the truth about cancer research.
Choosing a cancer treatment is literally a life-and-death decision. The “cure rates” for different cancer treatments can range from 3 to 95 percent for the same type of cancer.
So let's talk about cure rates. First, what is the overall 5-year cure rate of the oncology profession according to their own statistics? Second, what was the cure rate of a South African immigrant who used nothing but purple grape juice to treat cancer?
Before reading on, take a guess at the answers to both of these questions and write your answers down to see how you did.
According to Dr. Jonathon Stegall, the answer to the first question is this:
“A 2004 study in the journal Clinical Oncology evaluated the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival rates among adult cancer patients. In other words, the goal of the study was to look at how significant chemotherapy's role was in successful treatment outcomes (defined by oncologists as 5-year survival). In order to arrive at a meaningful conclusion, data from many previous studies were pooled and analyzed. The 22 most common cancer types were included in the study.
“The results were surprising. The overall contribution of chemotherapy to five-year survival in American adults was 2.1 percent. This means that approximately 98 percent of the credit for survival was attributed to all other treatments, such as surgery, radiation, nutrition, etc.
“It is important to note that this study is often misquoted. You have probably heard this statistic quoted in a way which suggests that those receiving chemotherapy only have a 2.1 percent 5-year survival rate.
“In reality, the average five-year survival rate for cancer is 69 percent. This includes all stages of cancer and makes no distinction between who received which treatments. However, given the most commonly used treatments in oncology today, it is safe to assume that many of these surviving patients received chemotherapy.
“At this point, it is important to discuss what 5-year survival means. In the oncology world, 5-year survival measures the percentage of patients who are still alive five years from the date of diagnosis. It does not mean that they are cancer-free, and it does not mean that they are completely healthy. Instead, it simply means that they have not died from cancer (or any other cause) in the five years since diagnosis.
“Survival rates can be further broken down. For example, cancer-specific survival looks at the percentage of patients with a particular type of cancer and can be further broken down to look at survival rates for each stage of cancer. Using the 5-year survival statistic with respect to breast cancer, we see that Stage 0 or Stage I breast cancer has a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100 percent.
“For Stage II breast cancer, the five-year survival rate is 93 percent, while for Stage III breast cancer, the 5-year survival rate is 72 percent.
“Stage IV breast cancer has a 5-year survival rate of approximately 22 percent. Thus, when we look at survival rates for cancer, it is important to be as specific as possible with regard to cancer type and cancer stage since some cancers have very poor survival rates while others have very good ones.
“I always tell my patients that it is important to look at survival statistics on the population level in order to know what we are dealing with, but it is equally important to realize that those statistics do not necessarily apply to them. Many factors contribute to treatment outcomes, and many of those are directly in the patient’s control.”
As if the battle against cancer weren't bad enough, some chemical companies seem dedicated to making you sick so that you will need prescription drugs. For example, Monsanto loves to put chemicals in your foods and loves for you to eat GMO foods. Because the average person has been brainwashed by the media, they think that nature can do nothing to help cancer.
The answer to the second question is this: Johanna Brandt documents her cure rate as 100 percent.
Johanna Brandt did not need to know how to cure cancer, Nature has to know how to cure cancer. And Nature has put at least 12 chemicals in purple grape juice that can kill cancer cells.
The best way to survive cancer is to figure out what Nature has already done.
Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments
Another natural medicine cancer researcher was Dr. William D. Kelley, a dentist turned natural medicine cancer researcher. He worked with more than 30,000 cancer patients using his protocol.
Dr. Kelley claimed a cure rate of 93 percent on his newly diagnosed cancer patients who had not had chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. Dr. Kelley was thrown in jail and later went to Mexico to treat cancer patients. Why did he go to jail? Because he used products to treat cancer which cannot be patented. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry and medical community had no interest in his treatments because they could not make huge profits from treatments that couldn't be patented.
Dr. Kelly used cancer treatments designed by Nature, such as natural enzymes. These enzymes made the cancer cells visible to the immune system and the immune system got busy. The enzymes were natural and could not be patented. Dr. Kelley died on Jan. 30, 2005, at the age of 79.
His treatment is not a mystery, just buy his book on Amazon — Cancer: Curing the Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or Radiation — or the original book One Answer To Cancer
Note: The Kelley Protocol is no longer one of the major cancer treatments in natural medicine, due to newer technologies, though it is frequently added to the newer and more powerful protocol.
Today, the instant someone hears the term “natural medicine” they immediately run out the door as fast as they can. But they are running away from the only highly effective cancer treatments. Nature is a lot smarter than any chemist.
Some people have treated their newly diagnosed cancer by using a very healthy diet and drinking a quart of carrot juice (with a little beet juice mixed in) every day. That is all they did. In fact, if all cancer patients did that instead of using chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, we believe the “cure rate” for cancer in America would jump dramatically.
But who would make huge profits telling cancer patients to drink a quart of carrot juice, mixed with a little beet juice, every day, and eat a healthy diet? Certainly not the medical community and certainly not the pharmaceutical industry and media. Carrot juice and beet juice cannot be patented. Nor can a healthy diet be patented. Nature knows best.
Scientists only understand about 3 percent of human DNA after studying it since 1953. This means scientists still don't have a clue what 97 percent of all human DNA does.
Dr. Philip Binzel claimed an 81 percent cure rate using liquid laetrile from apricot seeds. He got liquid laetrile from Mexico. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tried to block the import of liquid laetrile into the United States. Fortunately, Dr. Binzel's son was an attorney and the FDA was defeated in court.
Dr. Royal Rife, a microbiologist, claimed a 100 percent cure rate using electromedicine to kill microbes inside the cancer cells. The American Medical Association (AMA) tried to buy him out. Rife refused so the FDA shut him down and destroyed his lab and inventory.
And there are many others. In fact, the best cancer researchers ever are all alive today. We have had to develop very advanced cancer protocols because many of the patients we work with are very sick due to their starting their cancer treatment with orthodox cancer treatments.
All of the above natural technologies are currently used. The “Rife Machine” is now called a High RF Frequency Generator-Contact (15 watts) or High RF Frequency Generator-Plasma (207 watts). Well, that is not their real name. We are not allowed by the vendor to mention their real names. I will bet by now you can figure out why the vendor does not want us to use the real names of these devices. He is afraid of the FDA.
Natural medicine cancer researchers today use many of the above protocols, but newer products and newer combinations of products have made some of the above protocols obsolete if used by themselves.
A powerful combination of natural cancer treatments and electromedicine is needed by cancer patients.
That is why the experts put together protocols with names like Cellect-Budwig, Dirt Cheap Protocol, High RF Frequency Protocol, Cesium Chloride, etc.
What the media doesn't tell you about cancer
The media has conditioned the American people to believe that cancer is caused by DNA damage and that not even Nature can figure out how to cure cancer. But surprisingly, DNA damage has absolutely nothing to do with causing cancer. But even if it did – so what? If you safely target and kill the cancer cells, what difference would it make that the cancer cells have DNA damage?
A Nobel Prize was awarded in 1930/31 for the discovery that low ATP energy was the definition of a cancer cell. But it was a natural medicine cancer researcher (who obviously did not win a Nobel Prize) who discovered that the low ATP energy was caused by microbes inside the cancer cells which intercept glucose before it can be converted into pyruvate and then, via two chemical cycles, into ATP.
By killing these microbes, cancer cells can be reverted into normal cells. We now know it is not even necessary to kill cancer cells, they can be reverted into normal cells. See: Revert Cancer Cells Into Normal Cells
The DNA damage in cancer cells has absolutely nothing to do with causing cancer. The DNA damage is caused by the same thing that causes cancer — the microbes inside the cancer cells.
There are many cures for cancer. But these cures do not come from the pharmaceutical industry. The multi-billionaires/trillionaires who own the pharmaceutical industry have zero interest in the “little people” surviving their cancer.
The politicians, of course, side with the trillionaires because they are the ones who own the media and thus they are the ones who own the minds of the American people. You cannot get elected to the White House without selling out to the super-rich.
Cures for cancer must come from cancer researchers who have integrity and do not work for the pharmaceutical industry or Food and Drug Administration (Congress has given the FDA to the pharmaceutical industry as a gift to crush anyone who can cure a highly profitable disease) or any of the large cancer charities (which are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry).
The American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen For The Cure have no interest in curing cancer. They are collecting money. In fact, the American Cancer Society was really founded by John D. Rockefeller Jr. — son of the founder of the pharmaceutical industry.
No wonder the ACS has never found a cure for cancer. They have never been looking for a cure for cancer and they never will. The problem with curing cancer has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and information. People are told there are no cures for cancer, over and over, so they naturally believe it. But, we believe that is not true. The battle against cancer has nothing to do with cancer and everything to do with the manipulation of information by the super-rich. The media uses a very sophisticated brainwashing tactic that has been around for many decades.
Study this brilliant quote:
“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.” — Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives by Alan Bullock
Almost every time you turn on your television set you see a medical doctor being glorified. Why? So that when people are diagnosed with cancer, by a medical doctor, they will immediately want to know which medical doctors treat cancer.
This process has been going on for many years, long before you were born or television was invented. The Big Cartel of the media, the pharmaceutical industry, the politicians, the medical industry, etc. don't want people to know that cancer can be cured.
The secret cartels use the media to turn people into zombies. Thus, when a person is diagnosed with cancer they head for an oncologist like a robot.
Because there are many cures for cancer in Nature, the super-rich, who own the pharmaceutical industry and the media, make sure that no human being in America or in any other country, knows or believes that there are, in fact, scores of ways to cure cancer using natural medicine, meaning medicine from Nature.
Safely targeting cancer cells and killing cancer cells, or safely reverting cancer cells into normal cells, is not even remotely on the agenda of Big Pharma or Big Medicine or Big Media or Big Corrupt Politicians or Big Charities. But suppressing these cures is one of their highest priorities.
So what is on the radar of Big Pharma, ad nauseum? Profits, and lots of them. Curing cancer patients is literally the last thing on their radar.
But natural medicine cancer researchers have been curing cancer for many decades.
For example, Dr. Royal Rife, a microbiologist, had a 100 percent cure rate on cancer by reverting cancer cells into normal cells. He did this in the 1930s by using gentle electrical currents (which is one form of “electromedicine”) to kill the microbes which are inside the cancer cells.
It is microbes inside the cancer cells that are blocking the production of ATP energy. Killing these microbes is what allows cancer cells to be reverted into normal cells.
The American Medical Association (AMA) tried to “buy out Rife” so they could destroy his machines. Rife refused their “offer” so the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shut him down and destroyed all of his lab and his machines that had not already been sold.
You probably didn't know about Dr. Rife because the media has never told you about his 100 percent cure rate. The media has also not told you that his device has been replicated using modern technology and that you can buy these devices over the Internet.
But Dr. Rife is just the tip of the iceberg of things you don't know …
The media iceberg
So why hasn't the media told you about Dr. Rife and Dr. Kelley and many others? Why haven't all of the media's high-powered “investigative journalists” told their viewers about Dr. Kelley? Do these “journalists” not know how to read or search the Internet? What are they looking for — lost cats? Maybe someone should tell them about Google.
Did it ever occur to anyone that the “investigative journalists” are not allowed to investigate the media because they work for the media? If the media is part of a cover-up, how are people going to find out? And who is going to believe there is a cover-up?
The media is like an iceberg. They tell you 10 percent of the truth and they bury the other 90 percent of the truth. You need a scuba tank to find the truth. The media tells you what they want you to hear, not what you need to hear.
Consider the words to this well-known song:
And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information
Oh, they can bend it all they want
— Waiting on the World to Change by John Mayer
When someone comes along and tells something truthful about what is beneath the water, you won't believe it. In fact, if you have read this far on this web page, pat yourself on the back because you are a rare person.
Why hasn't the American Medical Association forced its members to use Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments? The AMA certainly knows about Dr. Kelly's treatments because they, along with the Food and Drug Administration, had Kelley thrown in jail because he was curing cancer, cutting into their profits and making them look bad.
Why hasn't the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen Foundation, ad nausea, used their massive contributions and their clout in the media to tell the world about Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments?
In fact, there are only two cancer research organizations on this planet that teach about and research Dr. Rife's and Dr. Kelley's protocols: the Independent Cancer Research Foundation (which runs this website) and the American Anti-Cancer Institute in Washington state.
Obviously, both of these cancer research organizations are very, very small because the media never talks about them because they refuse to jump in bed with the pharmaceutical industry. Contributions to these cancer research organizations are measured in hundreds of dollars a month, not millions of dollars a month.
Why haven't the state medical boards forced the doctors in their states to use Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments?
Why don't the health insurance companies pay for the medical expenses of the cancer patients who use Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments? It would save their members billions of dollars a year.
Why hasn't Congress passed a law forcing all medical professionals to use the cancer treatments of Dr. Kelley?
Why hasn't the President of the United States ordered the Veteran's Administration hospitals to use Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments?
The reason is that everyone is looking for the most profitable cancer treatments, not the most effective cancer treatments. And the pharmaceutical industry has the most profitable cancer treatments. And everyone wants to be fed by Big Pharma.
Is there anybody on this planet who hasn't sold out to the pharmaceutical industry?
Those who have sold out to the pharmaceutical industry include the media (which may largely be owned by the owners of the pharmaceutical industry), the movie companies, Congress, the White House, the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the state medical boards, the American Medical Association, the health insurance companies, etc. etc. etc.
The health insurance companies are not allowed by the state insurance departments to write health insurance policies that pay the same percent for natural medicine cancer treatments as they allow to pay for orthodox cancer treatments. That is how deep the corruption and stupidity goes in the U.S.
High society clubs
The most important group in the above list is the media. They have the power to expose the corruption in medicine, politics, etc. But they don't because they also want a piece of the pie and they are owned by the multi-billionaires.
The media receives many millions of dollars every year from the drug companies in advertising revenue.
How are people going to hear that fact? Ponder that carefully.
Need I even tell you that the media doesn't make a dime to promote or talk about the cancer treatments that Dr. Kelley used? So the media doesn't talk about Dr. Kelley and his cancer treatments.
People trust the media, Congress, the FDA, the AMA, the ACS, Big Pharma, etc. etc. with their lives, but these organizations have betrayed the general public for the sake of great riches.
The truth is that the media and our politicians are gladly controlled by the owners of the pharmaceutical industry; who are multi-billionaires who couldn't care less about the health, well-being or lives of the “little people.”
It seems like everyone on earth wants a piece of the multi-billionaire's pies. Except for people like the late Dr. Kelley.
Well, there is more to it than that. Both the media, the pharmaceutical industry, the major banks, etc. are owned by multi-billionaires (and in at least one case – multi-trillionaires) who are all buddy-buddy with each other. They all know each other. They even have their own very exclusive clubs (e.g. the Bilderbergers). They are totally loyal to each other, which is precisely why the media is loyal to Big Pharma but not the common people.
Now let's dig deeper into the tactics of the media to understand why the media is so successful at controlling the minds of the general public to the point that the general public won't believe the truth even when they hear it. Their tactics are highly sophisticated.
The answer will take some explanation.
Sophistication of the media
So why do people run to their medical doctor, instead of to the Internet or their local health food store, when they are first diagnosed with cancer? Think about that for a moment before reading on.
The media controls the minds of the American people by showing “medical doctors” on television every chance they get, as already mentioned. Whether you are watching a movie, a drama, a sitcom, a news program, a comedy or whatever, there will likely be a medical doctor on the show at one time or another. Think about the Star Trek movies, for example. Was there a medical doctor in those movies? Yes.
It is tit-for-tat. The pharmaceutical industry gives money to the media for advertising and the media gives patients to the medical community by glorifying medical doctors on television and movies.
Furthermore, the general public thinks that Dr. Kelley, who had the 93 percent cure rate, was a quack because he did not use pharmaceutical industry drugs and he was not a medical doctor. It doesn't take a medical degree to tell cancer patients to take purple grape juice, a quart of carrot juice (with a little beet juice mixed in) or some other equally effective natural cancer treatment.
My point is that people trust their television to tell them what to do when they get sick. When people get sick they run to their doctor's office because that is what television has conditioned them to do.
Christ described this level of brainwashing in Matt. 23:27 in two words: “whited sepulcher.” The media paints the whitewash on the sepulcher (the general public only sees the whitewash) and thus the general public has no idea what is inside the sepulcher or that the sepulcher even exists. They can't see the bodies behind the television screen.
Running to their medical doctor in many cases is the right thing to do. But in other cases (i.e. in the case of nearly all diseases), it is the wrong thing to do. Your doctor has no clue how to cure cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, Multiple Sclerosis, ALS, and many other diseases. But there are people who do know how to deal with all of these diseases using natural medicine.
What all of this means is that many, many people intentionally promote and glorify ineffective treatments for cancer in order to share in the massive wealth of the owners of the pharmaceutical industry.
But to be very fair, most of the people who preach chemotherapy and radiation have been fooled themselves and they don't know the truth.
The nurses, the newscasters, the politicians. etc., like everyone else, also get their information from the media and their doctors.
The American Medical Association (AMA) is really nothing but a labor union. The AMA jumped in bed with the new pharmaceutical industry in 1907 and agreed to use the treatments that were most profitable for them, without any regard to the survival of their patients.
This may sound harsh, but the evidence is overwhelming that that is exactly what happened. The AMA had been corrupt long before 1907 and John D. Rockefeller, Sr., who started the drug companies to make more money from his oil, was already known to be a ruthless businessman who had a fantastic public relations department which existed to make him look like a respectable citizen.
In fact, the father of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. advertised himself as a “cancer doctor.” What did his father use to “cure cancer?” Raw crude oil which obviously did not cure cancer.
There is no “war on cancer.” What there is is a bottomless pit of money into which many people put their hands to grab money.
Foundation for the Advancement of Cancer Therapy
The Foundation for the Advancement of Cancer Therapy is pointing to a quarter-century of research that brings into question the decision cancer patients often make to undergo conventional treatments, including radiation  and chemotherapy, in hopes of prolonging life.
Drug company controlled news reports and popular thinking has led cancer patients to believe that decades of research have resulted in treatment practices that have improved cancer survival rates.
But, FACT points to work by credible cancer researchers that seem to fly in the face of this commonly held belief. The late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at Berkeley, Calif., conducted research spanning 25 years in the life of cancer patients that led him to conclude that untreated cancer patients  did not die sooner.
In fact, in many instances, they lived longer than those undergoing conventional cancer treatments, such as surgery, chemotherapy  and radiation.
Professor Jones first presented his shocking research results at the American Cancer Society's Science Writers' Seminar in 1969. His findings confirmed an earlier paper he wrote in 1955 that shed doubt that common forms of treatment truly extended patient life.
In his earlier paper, Dr. Jones illustrated how cancer study results were skewed to conclude that treated patients fared better. For example, patients who died while receiving treatment were not included in results, giving an unrealistically rosier picture of the survival rate of treated patients.
In his 1969 presentation, the professor pointed out that research continued to shift results in favor of treatment. For example, patients whose cancer was extremely advanced were routinely placed in the group not receiving treatment. This left more patients who were less seriously impacted in the treated group, resulting in a higher survival rate for that group.
Once this bias was statistically corrected, Dr. Jones found that the survival rate among untreated patients was actually greater than among the patients undergoing treatment.
Dr. Jones was able to determine that survival among breast cancer  sufferers were four times longer when conventional treatment was refused. Such patients typically lived an average of 12 1/2 years, compared with those undergoing treatment who lived only three years on average, leading the cancer researcher to conclude that without a doubt, radical surgery did more harm to cancer patients than it did well.
Meanwhile, FACT points out, there has been no published work refuting the evidence presented by Dr. Jones. On the contrary, his conclusions have been supported by the work of other recognized researchers. Among them was Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Dr. Maurice Fox who published his paper in 1979 stating that radical mastectomy did not bring about better survival rates than simple lump removal.
He also wrote that patients opting out of medical procedures actually had a lower mortality rate than those who chose to undergo treatment. Further, patients who received early diagnoses died even sooner, likely due to the duration and intensity of treatment.
Even those advocating conventional treatment as the best choice for cancer patients cannot dismiss the toll such procedures take on the body. Cancer patients opting to undergo such treatment plans must cope with greater pain and suffering, often to the point where it greatly impacts the quality of life.
Patients undergoing conventional treatment can expect to cope with an often horrific list of serious side effects, including cancer growth and death. For example, as a known cancer-causing agent, radiation can actually spread cancer and lead to deadly metastases. Left untreated, however, the original cancerous tumor can often slow cancer's spread.
Other common conditions that develop as a result of treatment include hemorrhage, tissue death, compromised immunity, liver failure , kidney dysfunction, blistering, prolonged vomiting, disorientation, anorexia, enteritis, and bone marrow depression, among other serious ills.
Bringing these researchers' conclusions to light leaves cancer patients with a more difficult decision-making process, but one that may offer renewed choices. As always, patients ought to consult with a trusted medical doctor and loved ones in formulating the decision of whether or not to undergo treatments like radiation or chemotherapy.
As with many decisions they face, cancer patients will need to review all information available to determine the best course of action. Choosing a path that includes conventional treatment should be done based on available scientifically-grounded evidence and personal preference, not out of pressure or fear that avoiding treatment will surely condemn the patient to a shorter life expectancy.
See more at:
Learn about Liberty & Power, and finding liberty in today's world, especially in these most interesting times. Or here for something ‘new'
Try this: http://libertypreservationcustercounty.wordpress.com/
Interested in freedom & Liberty?
It also was recommended not to eat more than 4 ounces of meat per day and to consume some branched-chain amino acids each day.
Final comments about Big Pharma, the FDA, AMA, etc.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have jointly or individually “legally” shut down many clinics of cancer researchers who knew how to cure cancer. They have also shut down vendors of products that were highly effective against cancer. They also scare other vendors who pretty-much have to go into hiding.
What if the FDA opened a cancer treatment center that used all of the natural cancer treatments they have shut down and some that are common knowledge which they did not shut down? What would the cure rate of this clinic be for newly diagnosed cancer patients?
The cure rate would be 100 percent.
Thus, both the FDA and AMA cannot claim they do not know how to cure cancer. If they make such a claim they are lying, which is what they seem to do best.
Both the FDA and AMA know how to cure cancer. They just choose not to cure cancer and they choose to sit by and do nothing (except persecute or murder people who know how to cure cancer) while hundreds of thousands of Americans die every year because they trusted the medical associations, pharmaceutical industry, media, Congress, corrupt charities, ad nauseum.