Almost 100% of all newly diagnosed cancer patients go with orthodox medicine first,

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.


                             SPONSORS

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

                

           Continued from 2/26/14



If we put all of this together we come to the following facts:

    Almost 100% of all newly diagnosed cancer patients go with orthodox
medicine first,

    About 97% of these patients die, or are sent home to die and later
die, due to their cancer and/or their cancer treatment,

    Only a very small percentage of the cancer patients sent home to
die ever go with alternative cancer treatments, they simply go home
and die,

    Of those who do go with alternative cancer treatments, only a
very small percentage of them ever pick a treatment strong enough to
give them a 50% chance of survival.

Is it any wonder that deaths from cancer continue to rise in spite
of the power of some of the alternative cancer treatments?

So, what is the cure rate of recently diagnosed cancer patients who
go with alternative medicine exclusively? It depends on how dangerous
their cancer is and what treatment they pick. There are more than 400
alternative cancer treatments.

If they pick the best possible treatment for their situation, when
they are first diagnosed, a 90% or higher true cure rate is fairly
easy to achieve. Overall, there are at least two dozen alternative
cancer treatments that can come close to a 90% overall true cure
rate across the board for those who use alternative cancer treatments
exclusively and pick a potent treatment right from the beginning.

The amazing thing is that orthodox medicine has had its own
opportunities to have its own 90% cure rate. There are two incredible
substances that allow chemotherapy to safely target cancer cells:
insulin and DMSO.

Insulin allows small amounts of chemotherapy to target cancer cells
because of the way it works with the cell membranes. The treatment is
called Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT). Very, very few medical
doctors use this highly effective orthodox protocol.

DMSO actually binds to small amounts of certain chemotherapy drugs.
The DMSO, which has a very high affinity for cancer cells, then pulls
the chemotherapy into the cancer cells with it. On this website, this
treatment is called DMSO Potentiation Therapy (DPT).

DPT and IPT are two treatments that are easy to combine. It is a
very potent treatment. But don’t ask your oncologist about it, he or
she has probably never heard of it.

Because these two treatments use very low doses of chemotherapy (about
1/10th a normal dose), and because the chemotherapy targets the cancer
cells, these two treatments are very potent and have virtually no side-
effects.

But orthodox medicine does not use their own discoveries! They would
rather have a 3% cure rate than a 90% cure rate!! See this article
about DMSO and chemotherapy:

So, if this is true, and it is true, why haven’t you heard this on
television a hundred times during your lifetime? Why don’t movie
stars, investigative journalists, etc. constantly tout the vast
superiority of alternative cancer treatments?

Why You Haven’t Heard These Things Before

Treating cancer is more about information than it is about anything
else. People who know the best of the best alternative cancer
treatments have the information they need to have no fear of cancer.

But everything you have heard throughout your life is not based on
who has the most truth, it is based on who has the most money. If
you haven’t figured that out by now, you better figure it out real
quick.

The average American knows absolutely nothing about alternative
cancer treatments except rumors about people who probably used the
wrong treatment. Let us consider the reasons for this lack of accurate
and useful information about alternative cancer treatments with the
following list of facts:

Fact #1) Virtually every American gets the vast majority of their
information directly or indirectly from the media, which includes
television, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. Only the Internet,
books and emails would not be considered part of the media (so far
anyway).

Fact #2) The pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars a
year advertising in the media.

Fact #3) In the 1940s, the book: The Drug Story was published by
newspaper owner Morris Bealle. This book exposed the vast corruption
in the media due to advertising dollars. In other words, it exposed
why newspapers (this was before television) refused to tell the
truth about corruption in corporations due to their fear of losing
advertising dollars to these same corrupt corporations.

However, it was well known long before the 1940s that advertising
money bought influence with the media. Actually, this was known no
later than the 1880s. In other words, for more than 100 years the
media has clearly understood that if you say things in the media
that are true, but cut into the profits of your advertisers, you
will quickly lose not only your advertising revenue from that company,
but possibly from many other companies as well (who also fear any
type of honesty).

Consider this quote by a famous journalist to a group of other
journalists, given in the 1880s:

    There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history
[1880], in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know
it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions,
and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in
print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the
paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries
for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to
write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another
job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my
paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie
outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and
to sell his country and his [human] race for his daily bread. You
know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent
press?We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes.
We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our
talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of
other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

John Swinton (1829-1901) pre-eminent New York journalist & head of
the editorial staff at the New York Tribune. Quoted one night between
1880-1883. Quoted by Upton Sinclair in his 1919 book:

The Brass Check: A Study of American Journalism, page 400 Even though
Upton Sinclair was famous by 1919, because he was criticizing
corruption in the media, he had to self-publish this book.

Absolutely nothing has changed since the 1880s.

Fact #4) As a result of the above item, and the billions spent every
year by the pharmaceutical industry in the media, American journalists
are required to publicly be highly, highly loyal to the pharmaceutical
industry. A single verbal slip by a journalist on or off the air could
cost him or her their job. Prior approval by the advertisers is
required to say anything mildly negative about the pharmaceutical
industry.

These same rules apply to most major industries, not just the
pharmaceutical industry.

Fact #5) The orthodox cancer treatments (e.g. surgery, chemotherapy,
radiation and many others) used in modern medicine are equally
subservient to the pharmaceutical industry. Actually, modern medicine
was corrupt long before the pharmaceutical industry took over the
medical schools many decades ago. Medical doctors, who are under the
control of the American Medical Association, are not allowed to use
any natural substance in the treatment of cancer. Modern doctors are
taught nothing but medicine using prescription drugs.

Medical doctors are only allowed to use natural substances in the
treatment of the symptoms of prescription drugs. This is called
complementary alternative medicine or CAM. CAM is not designed to
treat any disease!

Because of the money of the pharmaceutical industry: the medical
community, the media and the politicians are all subservient to the
pharmaceutical industry. All are in the same bed together.

There are many books that have been written on these subjects.

Fact #6) While vitamin companies can advertise in the media, the
substances which are used in the most potent natural or alternative
cancer treatments are never advertised in the media. Thus, the media
receives $0 dollars of advertising related to viable alternative
cancer treatments.

Thus, there is a multi-billion dollar difference between what the
pharmaceutical industry spends on advertising and what is spent
for the main substances used in alternative cancer treatments. There
is an equally proportional difference in the opinions you gather from
watching or reading the media.

Fact #7) Taking all of the above items into account, is it any wonder
that the average American hears nothing good about alternative cancer
treatments anywhere in the media, but hears hundreds or thousands of
good things about orthodox medicine in the media every year (thousands
if you include pharmaceutical advertisements and televison shows which
glorify medical doctors).

You might not remember hearing anything good about orthodox medicine.
Every time you watch a role-playing show on television that glorifies
a doctor or hospital you are being indoctrinated. Every time you hear
a news program that implies you should go to your orthodox doctor for
some problem, you are being indoctrinated. Every time you hear a
pharmaceutical ad you are being indoctrinated.

But you never hear anything positive about alternative cancer treatments.

This is by design.

That is why surviving cancer is about information, not medicine.
The methods to cure well over 90% of all newly diagnosed cancer
patients has existed for decades. But the information about these
treatments is decades away and can only come from the grass-roots.

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved

 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Comparing Cancer Treatments

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

                             SPONSORS

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

An Example of One of the Potent Alternative Cancer Treatments

There are very few minerals that can get inside of cancer cells.
Two of the minerals that can get inside of cancer cells are cesium
and potassium. Once cesium gets inside of cancer cells it starts to
pull potassium from the blood into the cancer cells (potassium
supplementation is required when on this treatment in order to
replenish the potassium in the blood that was pulled into the
cancer cells). When there is enough build-up of cesium and/or
potassium inside the cancer cell, glucose is blocked from getting
into the cancer cell.

Since glucose is what feeds the cancer cell, the cancer cell will
eventually die from starvation. Not only that, but cesium and/or
potassium will also block the cancer cells from making lactic
acid, meaning they block the cachexia cycle at the cancer cell.
Other items also help block or overcome the cachexia cycle in
different ways (e.g. hydrazine sulfate blocks the cachexia cycle
at the liver).

Dr. A. Keith Brewer, PhD, discovered in the 1980s how cesium can
treat cancer. Aside from treating the cancer, it can treat the pain
of cancer within 12 to 36 hours, depending on what is causing the
pain. The liquid ionic cesium chloride used today is much more
potent than the cesium carbonate of the 1980s. The complete protocol
includes several other items.

The Cesium Chloride Protocol is one of the dozen or so alternative
cancer treatments that is rated in the top group of alternative
cancer treatments.

Like most potent alternative cancer treatments, this treatment is
so potent at killing cancer cells it must be paced, meaning
dosages must be set so the body has time to safely remove the
debris caused by the dead cancer cells.

Did you notice that orthodox cancer treatments must be paced
because of all the healthy cells that they kill. But alternative
cancer treatments must be paced because of all the targeted cancer
cells they kill.

Because of the number of cancer cells killed by the cesium chloride/
DMSO treatment, the cancer patient needs the expert advice of a
vendor who knows how to safely use these products. Fortunately, such
experts exist and are linked to on this website.

In fact, all of the most potent alternative cancer treatments require
expert advice over the telephone or in a clinic setting. For example,
the ozone RHP and ozone liquid I.V. treatments require expert advice
or a clinic setting.

Also, these most potent treatments generally cannot be combined
with each other (but they can be combined with some other alternative
treatments). The doses for these products are designed to kill
cancer cells at a rate that the body can safely handle the debris.
To combine such treatments may create too high of a die-off rate.

You probably believe that the true cure rate of orthodox cancer
treatments is around 40% and growing. This belief is the result of a
wide variety of fancy statistical tricks (which will be discussed
later). The fact is that if you get cancer, and you use nothing but
orthodox cancer treatments, your chance of surviving your cancer
(and surviving your cancer treatment) is less than 3%. And most of
those who are in the roughy 3% are on chemotherapy for life.

On top of that, even the 3% who do survive have had their bodies
so severely damaged that they are vulnerable to future bouts with
cancer. The cancer comes back as they say.

Here is what really happens to the typical cancer patient:

Step 1) The patient goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with cancer,

Step 2) The cancer surgeon cuts out the parts of the body with high

concentrations of cancer cells,

Step 3) The oncologists give the patient chemotherapy and/or radiation,

Step 4) They send the patient home in remission,

Step 5) The cancer soon appears again (because they didn’t actually
cure the patient),

Step 6) Go back to step 1)

This cycle continues until the patient is sent home to die (of course,
they are sent home to die after one more round of chemotherapy and
radiation).

Soon the patient dies. This is the cycle for virtually all cancer
patients. The only difference between one patient and another is how
many times the cycle is repeated.

This is medicine? This is like using a toxic chemical to fight a
spreading house fire.

One hundred years from now the medical doctors of the day will look
at the medicine of today in total and absolute disgust. There is
absolute ly no excuse for what is going on today in medicine.

The reader might be interested in knowing what alternative cancer
treatment experts have to deal with when they start working with a
cancer patient. Even before an expert in alternative medicine starts
working with a patient, two key things have happened in almost all
cases:

First, ninety-five percent of cancer patients who go with alternative
cancer treatments have already been given up for dead by orthodox
medicine or the patient has quit the treatment because it was too
painful or wasn’t working.

In other words, the patient first went to orthodox medicine and their
body was destroyed by orthodox medicine. This was time lost to use
the alternative cancer treatment. Furthermore, the patient was
severely damaged by the treatment.

Second, because so few alternative cancer treatments can cure people
sent home to die by orthodox medicine, very few of the cancer patients
sent home to die initially choose a treatment strong enough to give
them a fighting chance.

In other words, very few of these cancer patients picked one of the
most potent alternative cancer treatments even after leaving orthodox
medicine. This is an information issue, but in dealing with cancer
the issue of information is critical.

This is why the people who know what they are doing at treating cancer
may be dealing with people who were treated by an inferior orthodox
cancer treatment and an inferior alternative cancer treatment for their
situation. This is a great deal of time lost and usually a large
amount of damage to the body.

The issue of starting their treatment with orthodox medicine and then
considering the time it takes the patient to find a really potent
treatment, are two things which put a cancer patient and cancer expert
at a huge disadvantage.

Alternative medicine has lost between 1 and 4 years to treat the
patient and build their immune system  because the patient was using
orthodox treatments and/or weak alternative cancer treatments. Is it
any wonder that even the experts only have about a 50% cure rate?

           Continued on 2/28/14

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved

 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.

Desperate Times for Vaccine Risk Denialism

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.

                             SPONSORS

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

By Barbara Loe Fisher

    These are desperate times for those denying vaccine risks.
We know it because we are witnessing so many acts of desperation
being committed by doctors determined to shut down the public
conversation about vaccination and health.

    Vaccine risk deniers are working overtime to restrict public
access to information, cover up vaccine injuries and deaths and
violate the human right to informed consent to medical risk-taking.

No Flu Shots? No Employment

    2013 was only a few days old when public health agencies and
medical trade groups called for veteran nurses and other health
care workers to be fired for refusing to obey orders to get
annual flu shots  no exceptions and no questions asked.

    It did not matter that the risky and notoriously ineffective
influenza vaccine turned out to be almost useless in preventing
infection with the most prevalent influenza strains circulating
in the US this year.

Proposed State Legislation to Force Vaccine Use

    This was followed by the introduction of legislation backed
by public health officials and Pharma-funded medical trade groups
like the American Academy of Pediatrics in states like Texas,
Oregon, Arizona and Vermont.

    Their goal is to remove or restrict non-medical vaccine
exemptions in state laws so doctors have more power to force
vaccine use by children and adults - no questions asked and no
exceptions.

Institute of Medicine Report: Where Is the Good Vaccine Science?

    In mid-January came the eye-opening Institute of Medicine
committee report acknowledging that only 37 scientific studies
have examined the safety of the current US vaccine schedule for
newborns and children under age six, which now totals a stunning
49 doses of 14 vaccines5 compared to 23 doses of 7 vaccines
recommended in 1983.

    The lack of enough good scientific studies meant the committee
could not determine whether the number of doses and timing of
government recommended vaccinations is - or is not - associated
with development of chronic health problems like seizures,
autoimmunity, allergies, learning disabilities and autism in the
first six years of life.

New U.S. Autism Prevalence Statistic: 1 Child in 50

    In March, a report was issued by the National Center for
Health Statistics estimating that among children attending school
in America today, 1 child in 50 has been diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorder (ASD). In 2004, that number was 1 child in 150.
In 1992, it was 1 child in 500, and in 1986 it was 1 child in 2000.

    By April, which is Autism Awareness Month in the US, there was
a full court press by doctors inside and outside of government to
dismiss any association whatsoever between steep increases in the
numbers of vaccinations given to children during the past 30 years
and corresponding steep increases in the numbers of children
developing autism.

    Those doctors know, but a lot of young parents today don’t know,
that the public conversation about vaccine-induced brain inflammation
and chronic brain and immune system dysfunction, including autism,
began 16 years before a study was published in The Lancet in 1998
examining the potential association between the MMR vaccine and
autism.

CDC Study Fails to Confirm Offit's Claim That 10,000 Vaccines Are
Safe for Babies

    On Good Friday, April 1, during Easter and Passover observances,
a study conducted and funded by the Centers for Disease Control was
 released by the Journal of Pediatrics declaring that increasing
exposure to antibody stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in
vaccines is not associated with risk of autism and, therefore,
vaccines don’t cause autism.

    It was a pathetic attempt to validate a Machiavellian hypothesis
forwarded in 2002 by pediatric vaccine developer Paul Offit claiming
that an infant could safely respond to 10,000 vaccines given at any
one time.

    However, an eighth grade science class student with an
elementary understanding of health research methods, the bioactivity
of various vaccine ingredients and the difference between naturally
acquired and vaccine acquired immunity could figure out that the
absence of an unvaccinated control group meant the study was fatally
 flawed. It proved absolutely nothing about the potential relationship
between administration of multiple vaccinations in early childhood
and the development of autism among genetically diverse children
with and without increased biological susceptibility to adverse
responses to vaccination.

Pediatricians Label Social Networking Parents 'Nonconformers'

    On April 15, Pediatric News published an online survey stating
the obvious: a person’s knowledge, values and beliefs, as well as
the opinions of friends and families in social networks, strongly
influences decisions about vaccination. Parents, who expressed
doubts about vaccine safety and used alternative vaccine schedules
for their children, were pejoratively labeled as "nonconformers."

    Pediatricians commenting on the survey suggested that non-
conforming parents did not base their vaccine decisions on rational
logic and scientific evidence because they were influenced by
nonconforming friends and misleading information on nonconforming
websites. Apparently, there was no consideration given to the
fact that nonconforming parents found the poor science and empty
rhetoric buttressing one-size-fits-all vaccine policies entirely unconvincing.

Journalist and Magazine Attacked for Article Questioning Gardasil Safety

    April was also the month that a veteran journalist and radio
show host was personally attacked by pediatricians and public health
officials in Buffalo, New York for daring to write an article
questioning the safety of the Gardasil vaccine and urging parents to
make informed vaccine choices. Outraged doctors threatened to
financially ruin the magazine that published the article by destroying
the magazine’s paid advertising base unless the article was retracted.

Offit Plays Class and Race Card to Demonize Smart Nonconforming Parents

    By the end of April, a CNN reporter quoted doctors blaming
outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps on unvaccinated people
in developed nations, who spread their vaccine safety doubts on the Internet
and jeopardize the health of people around the world.
Crassly playing both the class AND race card, the magical thinking, attention
seeking Dr. Offit offered the opinion that It is the
upper middle class, well-educated Caucasian parents who are shunning
vaccines. They have generally gone to graduate school, are in
positions of management and are used to being in control, he said
flatly.

    Doctors playing the blame game apparently disagree about whether
nonconforming parents asking questions about vaccines are simply
stupid and irrational or are just over-educated, rich white folks
refusing to acknowledge the intellectual superiority and infallibility
of those with M.D., PhD or MPH written after their names regardless
of the color of their skin or how much money they make.

    Doctors like Offit, Halsey, Plotkin, Omer, and others denying
vaccine risks are blaming everyone but themselves for the miserable
statistic that 1 child in 50 in America develops a type of brain and
immune dysfunction labeled autism when it used to be 1 child in 2000
before they dumped three times as many vaccinations on babies.

Regression into Poor Health After Vaccination: A Universal Experience

    What doctors drowning in denialism refuse to accept is that,
today, everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated and
was never healthy again. That pattern of regression into poor health,
that universal experience of suffering after use of a pharmaceutical
product that has a long, well documented history of risks and failures,
is why the public conversation about health and vaccination in the
21st century must and will continue. It will continue until doctors,
who are pushing more and more vaccines on children and adults already
more highly vaccinated and sicker than ever, come up with a much
better explanation than it’s bad genes, better dignosing or all a coincidence.

Vaccine Makers and Doctors Shielded from Liability Have Ethical Duty

    In the US, vaccine manufacturers are shielded from product
liability in civil court and doctors promoting and administering
vaccines are also shielded from vaccine injury lawsuits. Doctors
without legal accountability have an even greater ethical duty to
encourage patients and parents of minor children to become educated
about all risks and honor the vaccination decisions patients or
parents make, even if the doctor does not personally agree with the
decision made.

    Freedom of thought, speech and conscience are deeply valued and
constitutionally protected rights in America. The public trust in
the integrity of public health policies is destroyed when defensive
doctors unwilling to share decision-making power fail to respect the
human right to informed consent to medical risk taking and behave
like schoolyard bullies instead of compassionate healers committed
to, first, doing no harm.

Thank You Barbara Loe Fisher

 God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

Have a great day...unless you have made other plans.