What Causes Cancer???

                            SPONSORS

 

         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...WHOLESALE.

                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer

Treatments...WHOLESALE...Everyone knows someone that Has or

Died From cancer.

                    http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw
                     

            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today

                http://tinyurl.com/n8bygev

        Continued From Last Post

What Causes Cancer?

Introduction

You cannot believe how many emails I have gotten from cancer patients who
have gone through these three steps:
1) The patient had surgery to "cut out" the cancer,
2) The patient was told they were "cancer free,"
3) Months later the cancer "came back," which is called "regression."

Among other things, this article will explain what went wrong and will
explain how to prevent the cancer from coming back.

When talking about what causes cancer we need to talk about it at two
different levels.

The first level is talking about cancer at the systemic level, meaning what
conditions in the body allowed the cancer to grow out of control and how do
we deal with this issue.

The second level of talking about cancer is talking about what causes cancer
at the cellular level. In other words, why does an individual normal cell
become cancerous and how do we revert cancer cells into normal cells?

These two subjects are totally different subjects!!

We can compare these two levels by talking about a flood. We could talk all
day long about the damage a rain storm caused, such as the flooding of
rivers, the damage to crops caused by heavy rain, the damage to roads that
have flooded, etc. But that is only one level to talk about rain. We could
also ask what weather conditions cause rain to form in the clouds.

Thus, a scientist might talk about what causes rain up in the clouds, but a
newscaster might talk about the damage caused by the flooding of a river
caused by the rain.

The same is true about cancer. A cancer practitioner might research how to
kill cancer cells or revert them into normal cells, but a cancer researcher
might ask why the immune system was weak and why individual cells were
cancerous.

A discussion about what causes cancer at the cellular level is a totally
different subject than talking about what causes cancer at the systemic
level.

So let us start by talking about cancer at the systemic level.

What Causes Cancer - Systemic Level

Everyone has cancer cells in their body, so why does one person never get
diagnosed with cancer and another person is diagnosed with cancer?

Cancer is almost always caused by the same multi-step sequence of events.

First, nasty microbes and parasites get inside of the organs and make their
homes there. These microbes generally come from meat that was not adequately
cooked, but they can come from other sources.

Second, these microbes intercept glucose which was headed for the cells in
the organs.

Third, these microbes excrete (as waste products) mycotoxins, which are
highly acid and totally worthless to the cells.

Fourth, because the cells (in the organs) don't get the food they need
(because it has been intercepted), and because they are living in a sea of
filth (i.e. mycotoxins), the cells in the organ become weak.

Fifth, organs are made exclusively of cells. In other words, if you took all
of the cells out of an organ, there would be no organ. Thus, because the
cells in the organ(s) are weak, the organ(s) are weak.

Sixth, because one or more major organs are weak the immune system becomes
weak. Actually, the microbes weaken the immune system both directly and
indirectly.

Seventh, because the immune system is weak it cannot kill enough cancer cells
and the cancer cells grow out of control.

Thus, in summary, the "root cause" of cancer is microbes and parasites that
are in the organs or colon (or bloodstream), which weakens the immune
system!! However, in many cases it is a massive amount of filth in the colon
that can lead to a weak immune system

 The reader might have noted the "or bloodstream" note above. Cancer patients
who have microbes in the organs also have microbes in the bloodstream. Which
caused the other will vary by cancer patient. But microbes which originate in
the organs will spread the microbes to the bloodstream, and vice versa.

Exactly how much the microbes in the organs weaken the immune system, versus
how much the microbes in the bloodstream weaken the immune system, is not
known.

When thinking about the above steps, there are three major ways to 

cure cancer:

 

1) Safely target and kill the cancer cells,
2) Kill the microbes inside the cancer cells (which will be discussed below)
and the cancer cells will revert into normal cells,
3) Kill the microbes that are causing the immune system to be weak (and this
includes the microbes in the organs and the microbes in the bloodstream).

Actually, without doing #3, the cancer could come back again.


             Continued

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

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

Treating Cancer With Alternative Medicine.

                            SPONSORS

         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...WHOLESALE.

                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer

Treatments...WHOLESALE...Everyone knows someone that Has or

Died From cancer.

                    http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw
                     

            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today

                http://tinyurl.com/n8bygev

CANCER...The Big Picture

 

All cancer patients should study this article carefully. It is the main
article which discusses very critical issues needed for surviving cancer!!
This article should be read every month at least once, from top to bottom!!
Since 2002 I have communicated with many thousands of cancer patients or
their representatives. In many cases, the emails I have received included a
proposed treatment the cancer patient or their representative put together.

In some cases their proposed treatment was a single treatment,

such as carrotjuice or laetrile (vitamin B17) or enzymes, etc.

Here is why a person might pick a single treatment. Suppose they see a
testimonial on the Internet which talks about a person who cured their newly
diagnosed liver cancer with carrot juice. Is the testimonial truthful? Most
likely it is truthful. But does this testimonial mean that carrot juice, by
itself, will cure ALL cancer patients?!

Many, many natural substances can cure slow-growing cancers which have not
spread very much and the patient is newly diagnosed and the patient has never
had any chemotherapy, radiation or major surgery. But such cancer patients
are rare indeed.

The typical cancer patient today, who seeks out natural medicine, has had
extensive chemotherapy and radiation (and may still be using them) and has
probably had some major surgery.

Their cancer has already spread significantly, the cancer is spreading
quickly, their immune system has been destroyed for several reasons, they
have large amounts of lactic acid in their bloodstream (which is one of many
things that can make a cancer patient weak), their liver and bloodstream are
full of microbes, their digestive tract can barely extract nutrients from any
food because of damage by chemotherapy, and so on.

Advanced patients...  

 

have "one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel"(as we say in the
United States). Carrot juice, by itself, will not cure suchpatients!! Nor will
laetrile or hydrogen peroxide, by itself.

Picking a single cancer treatment, any single treatment, is the most common
mistake made by cancer patients who are new to alternative medicine!! They do
not understand that the power and speed of the protocol must be greater than
the power and speed of the cancer.

I am going to say that again because it is so important: The power and speed
of the protocol must be greater than the power and speed of the cancer!!!

That is why a person must know, at the beginning of their treatment, what the
"power and speed" of their protocol is!!

Also, many alternative cancer treatments can be combined. Much of this
article is to explain why several alternative cancer treatments need to be
combined to treat the cancer. They are combined either to be synergistic or
to do different tasks.

This article contains some very old articles, so the terms "treatment" and
"protocol" are not consistently used. But I will tell you how they should be
used. A "treatment" is a single treatment, such as laetrile or enzyme therapy
or carrot juice, etc. A "protocol" is a combination of several "treatments."

Why is a "protocol" needed? 

The reason is that an advanced cancer patientneeds help in several different
areas!! A "protocol" should be designed todeal with several different issues.

Furthermore, some of the individual treatments in the protocol should have a
reputation of curing cancer by itself!!

For example, someone once asked me if the Cellect-Budwig protocol had ever
cured cancer. I mentioned six treatments in the Cellect-Budwig protocol, each
of which had cured cancer by itself! Most of the protocols on this website
also contain several treatments, most of which have cured cancer by
themselves or they have some specific purpose for being in the protocol!!

But there is more to it than that. For example, if someone has a fast-
spreading cancer they will need one highly alkaline protocol (a person should
generally not use more than one highly alkaline protocol at a time, except at
the beginning of their treatment for a short time) or one or more potent
oxygen protocols or both. This is to slow down the spreading of the cancer so
the treatment will have more time to work.

Before going on, let's talk about what causes cancer so we have an idea of
how to treat cancer.

by R. Webster Kehr,

Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc.

             Continued

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

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

Mainstream Mis-reporting about Cancer...

                            SPONSORS

         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...WHOLESALE.

                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer

Treatments...WHOLESALE...Everyone knows someone that Has or

Died From cancer.

                    http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw
                     

            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today

                http://tinyurl.com/n8bygev

Don't Let Mainstream Mis-reporting about Cancer Kill Your Chances 

of Good Health

    I know I'm not the only person disappointed with the news media. It's
rife with sensationalism and biased stories. Worst of all are the "journalists"
who go in search of tabloid-style stories and don't bother with
the details.

    What happens in these cases? We end up watching biased stories that
appear to be objective but aren't. I recently saw a bogus news segment on
thermograms, so I want to set the record straight on how this early detection
tool can save you from breast cancer despite what some know-nothing
journalists may say. It could save your life.

Mammograms versus thermograms

    The news report I saw knocking thermograms was based on ONE case of a
woman who received a false negative, indicating she didn't have cancer when
in fact she did. The reporter then trotted out sound bites from a couple of
radiologists (who make their living off of X-rays) to say that of course
thermograms aren't good for much and women should stick to mammograms.

    The news report didn't say a word about the terrible inaccuracy of
mammograms, the countless false negatives and false positives. If we're going
to condemn screening procedures for one false negative, mammograms would
have been outlawed years ago.

    Early detection is key when it comes to any cancer, and breast cancer in
particular. And it's a fact that thermograms are a safe, valuable early
detection tool for breast cancer.

    The problem is, no single early detection tool is flawless. Mammograms
are the most well-known, and they certainly detect some cancers. But they're
also virtually useless when it comes to detecting tumors in the dense tissue
of younger women.

    On top of that, mammograms can deliver false-negatives, false-positives,
over-diagnosis, over-treatment, and radiation exposure. Last I checked, the
false-negative rate was around 20 percent—meaning mammograms will miss
one out of five breast cancer tumors.

    They're also virtually useless for women under age 40—and though rare,
it's the younger-than-forty crowd that develops some of the most malicious
strains of breast cancer.

Consider thermograms instead

    Thermography is not "alternative medicine" as such. It's legal in the
United States and widely used in Europe. In the U.S., conventional medicine
has thrown it on the alternative medicine dust heap because it poses a threat
to mammography, a huge, profitable industry with tens of thousands of people
making a living off it.

    The FDA approves thermography as safe but doesn't officially support it
and says it's not an alternative to mammography. But given the FDA's poor
track record in supporting safe, non-invasive, proven health treatments, you
shouldn't let that stop you from reaping the benefits of thermography
screening.

    If you don't know about it, thermography is a form of digital infrared
imaging that's completely safe—no radiation exposure whatsoever. It's based
on the concept that early tumor sites project more heat than normal breast
tissue. This is because of the increased blood vessel circulation and
metabolic changes that take place when a tumor first develops.

    A thermogram pinpoints the abnormal heat levels that cancerous and — this
is important — pre-cancerous areas generate. These areas pour out excessive
heat long before a mammogram or any physical examination can detect a thing.

    But when it comes to thermograms, the key thing is to look at changes
over time. So anyone who gets a single thermogram and thinks that's the last
word on their risk factor is missing out on crucial information.

The single-bullet approach

    While I absolutely do think some screening tests are better than others,
it riles me when a news program puts out a sensational story that paints a
tool as worthless. It's like the medical industry taking a single-bullet
approach to healthcare, trying to pigeon-hole illnesses into one-size-fits-
all problems and solutions. Healthcare isn't that easy, and it never will be.

    Here's what you have to remember. Most high-tech screening procedures are
flawed in some way. Take mammograms, for instance. They're just X-ray
pictures of the breast. Not only do they not work well on dense breast
tissue, as mentioned, but they're subject to error. The machine can
malfunction. The technician who interprets your results can screw up. Or a
tumor just won't show.

    In a thermogram, the tumor site needs to be caught at a certain growth
stage. And again, interpretation is subject to human error. The images have
to be interpreted by a skilled, experienced thermographer. And as I said
earlier, it's the changes seen in a series of images, taken over a period of
years, that most accurately flags cancer risk.

    If this sounds alarming, it really isn't. The abnormally hot areas that
turn up in thermograms can take many, many years to develop into cancer.

Immediate treatment isn't needed. You've got time to observe how they change
— and to proceed to other tests such as biopsies and mammograms if they seem
warranted. Cancerous areas literally get hotter every year, and a thermogram
can often see this occurring long before an X-ray could ever detect a mass.

    We already know one in five cancers can't be detected by mammography.
Some of those cancers can be picked up by a thermogram. On the flip side,
there is the occasional tumor site that won't show up on a thermogram, but
may with a mammogram or other screening test. In fact, some studies show an
increased survival rate when mammography and breast thermography are used
together.

It's in your hands…

    I'd say the best possible tool for fighting breast cancer is simply
awareness. Know your options and choose what feels best for you based on your
age, genetic risk, tissue density, and access. I'm not a fan of some of the
diagnostic tools out there, but if you opt to use them, make sure you go in
with eyes wide open. Ask questions. Don't be a meek little lamb who does
whatever doctor says. If you ever have any kind of doubts, get a second
opinion. Push for it. It's your life we're talking about.

Thank You Lee Euler

 

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

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

Is cancer really an enemy???

                            SPONSORS

         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...WHOLESALE.

                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer Treatments...WHOLESALE...Everyone knows someone that Has or

Died From cancer.

                    http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw
                     

            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today

                http://tinyurl.com/n8bygev


           Continued From Last Post

Is cancer really an enemy attacking you?

    Maybe our entire way of looking at cancer needs to shift from the "enemy attacking you" that requires a raging war… to something your body performs to protect you internally. I recently came across an interesting theory about that, proposed by Paul Davies, of Arizona State University, and Charles Lineweaver, Australian National University scientist.

    Davies calls cancer "not a random bunch of selfish rogue cells behaving badly, but a highly-efficient pre-programmed response to stress…"

    In other words, cancer may be your body's response to an unhealthy cellular environment. It may be more a symptom than a disease… your body's effort to "right itself" in the context of cellular and environmental conditions gone terribly wrong.

    If this is true, we'll need to question the prevailing theory that cancer cells are the result of rogue mutations that can kill us — and the prevailing treatment of killing them with chemotherapy and radiation.

Worse than cancer: Crippling fear and needless treatment for a nonexistent cancer

    If you view cancer as a chaos-driven, infinitely expanding mass of cells, you'll tend to make bad choices in the panic of the moment.

    NCI's panel opined:

    ...cancers are heterogeneous and can follow multiple paths, not all of which progress to metastases and death, and include indolent disease that causes no harm during the patient's lifetime.

    That's why this proposed redefinition of cancer is no small matter. It'll affect millions of people. Every year, 60,000 American women are diagnosed with DCIS, besides men with HGPIN, and the rest of the 2 million Americans with other cancers.

    The diagnosis unleashes shock and fear — which in and of itself can be a killer. Research shows that a cancer diagnosis can be as fatal as cancer itself.

    Published in the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2012, scientists evaluated 6 million Swedish adults regarding the psychological toll of a cancer diagnosis. After analyzing more than 500,000 cancer diagnoses, they concluded that the risk of suicide was 16 times higher, and the risk of heart-related death was 26.9 times higher — during just the first week following diagnosis — compared to people who were cancer free.

    Few women recover from the devastating fear and stress that follows a false-positive breast cancer diagnoses, even three years after they've learned the diagnosis was wrong and they're declared cancer-free. This finding about long-lasting damage is based on measurements of 12 psychological qualities, including a sense of dejection, anxiety, feelings of attractiveness, and negative impact on sleep, behavior, sexuality, and more.

    Even after being "cleared of cancer" the psychological impact was equivalent to actually having breast cancer. This finding is so shocking I can't help but think it's got to be a mistake, but that's what the researchers concluded.

    This is extremely likely to affect you or someone you love, considering you have a fifty-fifty chance of getting a false-positive at least once if you get a mammogram every year for ten years. One example: A woman in Texas was told she had Stage 4 terminal breast cancer, and was led down the road of chemotherapy and depression… only to learn much later that the diagnosis was wrong. She didn't have cancer in the first place.

    And she's not the only one, by ANY stretch.

    Disturbing? Yes. But this doesn't have to happen to you…

7 ways to avoid being the victim of a false positive

    You may not be able to avoid being told you have cancer due to a false positive from a screening test, but you can chart your own path and spare yourself the trauma of unneeded treatments.

    And it definitely helps to have thought this out beforehand.

    You and your loved ones have far more vested interest in your health than any medical professional you'll ever meet. So take the steps you can take, such as:

    Develop a "what-if" plan for yourself and your loved ones. Now, not later.

    Eat organic food, exercise regularly and avoid exposure to toxins as much as you can.

    Say no to tests that have a reputation for false positives. Mammograms and PSA tests are high on the list. Learn about the shortcomings of these deeply flawed tests and don't let yourself be railroaded into treatment.

    Get a baseline thermogram (if you haven't already) and repeat once in awhile to look for the patterns of body heat and inflammation that are early indicators of cancer. If you don't know what a thermogram is, read the article that follows this one and find out.

    ALWAYS — and I mean always — get a second and even a third opinion. Many things can and do go wrong with diagnoses. The life you save with a second opinion could be your own.

    Remember that early-stage cancer is highly treatable and almost always slow-growing. You've got plenty of time to study all your options and to try alternative treatments before consenting to conventional treatments.

    Don't jump into any conventional treatment protocol until your diagnosis has been confirmed two or three times. The results of surgery, chemo, and radiotherapy can be devastating. Natural treatments, on the other hand, can be started right away. And they'll improve your health in dozens of ways even if you don't have cancer.

    Above all, remember that you are in charge of your own health — not your doctor or your genes. Doctors make mistakes. Don't permit yourself to be rushed into anything.

Thank You Lee Euler

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

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

A cancer diagnosis can be downright terrifying.

                            SPONSORS

         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...WHOLESALE.

                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

World's #1 Publisher of Information About Alternative Cancer

Treatments...WHOLESALE...Everyone knows someone that Has or

Died From cancer.

                    http://bit.ly/ZVR6Qw
                     

            New - Reverse Your Diabetes Today

                http://tinyurl.com/n8bygev

This Major Risk Could Be More Dangerous than Cancer Itself

    And then, almost without pause, come rounds of treatments. And in
millions of cases, it's a false alarm, a wrong diagnosis… a physically and
emotionally draining event that can do terrible damage to body, mind and
spirit.

    That's why the some of the top dogs in the cancer industry now want to
change the definition of cancer…

    They woke up and discovered that too many people were being misdiagnosed
and given treatments they don't need. Read on…

Have we finally identified the REAL enemy in the war on cancer?

    A new report by the National Cancer Institute confirms what many of us in
the alternative cancer care world have been saying for years…

    The famous "war on cancer" has been targeting the wrong enemy — and you
may become a victim of friendly fire.

    In late July, a National Cancer Institute report published by JAMA online
made the shocking statement that benign or premalignant conditions should no
longer be called cancer.

    This includes low-risk lesions like DCIS -- ductal carcinoma in situ, a
breast condition we wrote about in Issue #154. We were already warning our
readers back then that it was nothing to worry about. We called it "zero
stage cancer" — in other words, not cancer at all

    HGPIN is another condition that — suddenly -- is no longer defined as
cancer. HGPIN stands for high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, a
prostate condition diagnosed in millions of men and then over-treated.

    These are normally non-invasive conditions that don't require treatment
at all — let alone the aggressive treatment they're often given. They aren't
the enemy after all.

    As readers of this newsletter know, we've often questioned the use of
repeated, cancer-causing x-ray breast screenings and potentially misleading
PSA tests. They cause a great deal of needless fear and painful over-
treatment. And it turns out the emotional terror can do you great harm.

The War on Cancer: A bunch of hot air...This new study has grave 

implications, such as:

    Millions have received so-called life-saving early diagnosis, followed by
rounds of needless and damaging treatment — especially women with DCIS and
men with HGPIN.

    Will these folks now be reclassified as victims of iatrogenesis (medical
treatment gone wrong) with full rights to sue? (Iatrogenesis is defined as
harm caused by medical treatment or by medical practitioners, and may include
negligence, improper sanitation, medical error, misdiagnosis, drug adverse
effects or interactions, and more.)

    Anyone who is screened for cancer needs to reconsider the recommended
treatment plan in light of this new definition of cancer. It's important to
remember that the likelihood of a false positive over a 10-year period is
already higher than 50 percent if you do annual breast screening. But if all
doctors now give "stage zero cancer" a different name, it will become even
more frightening to be told cancer is in stages one through four. I wouldn't
hold my breath on all doctors applying the proposed standard universally
though, even if it's accepted.

    The money-grubbing, publicity-hungry pink-ribbon industry may be forced
to rebrand its message, as it has propagated false ideas about cancer and has
promoted the over-diagnosis and overtreatment of millions of women.

    There's no doubt that the practice of oncology in the U.S. (and many
other parts of the world) needs major reform.

"Treatment" can make your cancer cells 30 times more malignant

    The current rash of over-diagnoses stems from the fact that these "cancers"
are by and large slow-growing ones with no symptoms. They would
almost never progress to harmful status if left alone and ignored. Keep in
mind, the medical establishment has a motive for diagnosing phony cancers
andthen "curing" them (besides the money): It helps pad the statistics for
survivors and survival rates. How easy it is to survive a cancer that wasn't
a cancer!

    In fact, it's the fast-growing tumors that are much more challenging to
detect early. And this might surprise you: Even in those cases, many of them
would never progress to a lethal state.

    What's worse… certain of these tumors are enhanced and become 

more malignant because of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.

    UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers recently found that
radiation therapy transforms breast cancer cells into highly malignant cancer
cells — with 30 times higher malignancy after radiation treatments.

    What they found is that even when radiation kills half the tumor cells,
the surviving ones become resistant to treatment. So, radiation cuts the
total cancer cell population, giving the false impression that the treatment
is working… when in reality it increases the percentage of highly malignant
cells that can lead to treatment-induced death.

    This means it's not only possible you never had cancer in the first
place, but now the treatment is causing cancer cells to proliferate inside
your body. Talk about a double whammy.

             Continued

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

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