Saturday, November 16, 2013

How Chemotherapy Can Be "Justified"


         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...

         Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!

I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!
Check it out.

           Continued From Last Post

How Chemotherapy Can Be "Justified"

First of all, chemotherapy cannot be "neutral." If it does not increase the life of the patients significantly (compared to those who refuse treatment), then orthodox treatments are not only worthless, they do an enormous amount of damage. Orthodox treatments destroy the immune system, destroy vital organs, cause immense pain and sickness, can damage DNA, etc.

Let me say this another way. Everyone has cancer cells. The body's immune system routinely kills cancer cells and stops the spreading of cancer. Thus, cancer patients obviously have a weakened immune system to begin with. Chemotherapy further weakens the immune system, making the body even less resistant to cancer. Thus, even though chemotherapy kills cancer cells, it also weakens the immune system, kills normal cells, etc. Thus, chemotherapy does both good and bad. But does it do more good or more bad?

Now listen to this carefully: the only way to justify using chemotherapy and radiation is if these techniques significantly extend the life of the patient compared to no treatment at all and compared to those who go the alternative route. Because of the damage that orthodox treatments do, there is no other way to justify the use of orthodox medicine. But it appears that it does not extend life except in rare cases. So why does the medical community use surgery, chemotherapy and radiation?

    “Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.”
    Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer

One of the problems with the concept of "remission" is that the medical community conveniently forgets to tell you how many patients "relapse," meaning come out of remission ("relapse" is frequently called "regression"). Read this quote carefully:

    "Ovarian cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage and, as such, is one of the deadliest and most difficult cancers to treat. Therapy can eradicate the tumors, but most patients relapse within two years ... Normally, when a woman is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she undergoes surgery to have the tumors removed. The ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and parts of the bowel are often removed as well. Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of patients then go into remission, a period of "watchful waiting." "The problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as 90 percent of women will relapse and die," says Berek. When the cancer returns in other surrounding tissue, it is more virulent and resistant to chemotherapy."
In other words, virtually all ovarian cancer patients go into remission, but 90% of them also come out of remission, in what is called "relapse," and die within 5 to 10 years. Then why even bother to talk about "remission" if 90% of the patients also relapse? To make chemotherapy sound good, that's why.

More importantly, it "justifies" the medical community to use more and more chemotherapy, and stronger and stronger doses of chemotherapy. But if 90% relapse, what proof is there that "remission" has a significant effect on life expectancy? If dosages get stronger and stronger, then there is more and more damage to the immune system, which makes a person even more vulnerable to cancer, either the original kind or another kind. Many women who have ovarian cancer had breast cancer (and thus chemotherapy) earlier in their lives.

    "Two years ago, Hazel was diagnosed with breast cancer. She described her chemotherapy as the worst experience of her life. 'This highly toxic fluid was being injected into my veins. The nurse administering it was wearing protective gloves because it would burn her skin if just a tiny drip came into contact with it. I couldn't help asking myself, 'If such precautions are needed to be taken on the outside, then what is it doing to me on the inside?'"

What Most People Die Of

Most people who "die of cancer" really die as a result of the treatment of the cancer by orthodox methods before they would have died of the cancer itself. In other words: the treatment kills them before the cancer kills them.

Most cancer patients die of malnutrition (cancer cells steal nutrients from normal cells thus cancer patients need a stronger than normal immune system) or opportunistic infections caused by a weakened immune system.

    "The powerful drugs used in cancer chemotherapy effectively kill reproducing cells, including both the malignant tumor cells and also, as a side effect, many cells continually reproducing such as hair follicle cells and those lining the gut, leading to severe nausea & vomiting. These side effects can be very severe and many patients find these difficult or impossible to tolerate, falling into a wasting syndrome through malnutrition brought on by a combination of reduced appetite and poor gastrointestinal efficiency, which can itself shorten life expectancy."
Chemotherapy also destroys the immune system in several different ways (including the damage done to the gastrointestinal tract causing less immune building nutrients to be absorbed, among other ways), making people much more susceptible to infections. Of course orthodox medicine, always wanting to treat symptoms in the most profitable way, are trying to solve the malnutrition and immunity issues rather than fixing the chemotherapy issues.

Because chemotherapy is so toxic, a person might ask: "can chemotherapy kill the all of the cancer cells before it kills the patient?"

But let us get back to our main question: "does the concept of 'remission' equate to the concept of 'length of life since diagnosis?'" Most people assume there is a direct correlation, however, the damage done by chemotherapy and radiation, and the severe shortening of life due to the complications of these two treatments, cause severe doubt as to the equivalence of 'remission' and 'length of life since diagnosis.'

My point is to say that the measurement statistics of orthodox medicine (i.e. response, remission and markers) have no bearing on life expectancy because they do not compare the benefits of chemotherapy (killing of cancer cells and reduction of tumor size) versus the damage done by chemotherapy (e.g. destruction of immune system, destruction of vital organs, etc.). Nor does the reduction in tumor size have anything to do with life expectancy (I will talk more about this later).

    "It makes no sense at all to use chemotherapy and other treatments that damage cells and tear down and weaken the immune system, when the problem in the first place is that the immune system is too weak already. Even if the tumors go into remission, these treatments have damaged other cells which are more likely to turn cancerous."


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

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

Friday, November 15, 2013

What Does "Remission" Really Mean (Cancer)?


         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...

         Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!

I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!
Check it out.

           Continued From Last Post

Before going any further, it is necessary to introduce a metaphor.

Suppose there are 10 automobile manufacturers: Companies B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 (the "B companies"), and also Companies G1, G2, G3, G4 and G5 (the "G" companies). Suppose the B companies make cars that start to break down after 50,000 miles, just after the warranty runs out (the "B" stands for Bad). Suppose that after 100,000 miles virtually all of the cars manufactured by the B companies have needed a new engine, a new transmission, and a new air conditioner, just to name three things their cars routinely need. In fact, these companies buy cheap parts and charge outrageous prices for their poorly built cars. They also use 80 year old metal technology to insure their customers have to buy new cars every 3 or 4 years.

Suppose also that the G companies make cars that last an average of 300,000 miles without any major repairs (the "G" stands for "Good"). They buy quality parts for their cars, build them extremely well, use the newest metal technologies, etc. in building their cars.

Suppose also the B companies are the much older, much larger and much richer companies. By virtue of their age and size, their advertising money is many times greater than the advertising money of the G companies. Since the media are always loyal to their advertisers, the media always does what the B companies want them to do and always say what the B companies want them to say. It's not that the B companies "tell" them what to say, that is not necessary. What happens is that if the media says something that makes the B companies angry, the B companies will withdraw their advertising money and give that money to a competing media company that follows the rules. Everyone knows the rules.

Suppose we define the "life" of a car to be the number of miles the original engine lasts. For the B companies the average "life" of their cars would be less than 100,000 miles. For the G companies the average "life" of their cars would be greater than 300,000 miles.

Suppose we refuse to allow air conditioners to be replaced when they break and define the "quality of life" of a car to be the number of miles the original air conditioner lasts. Again, for the B companies the average "quality of life" of their cars would be much less than the "quality of life" for the cars of the G companies.

Suppose we define the "strength of movement" of a car to be the number of miles the original transmission lasts. Again, for the B companies the average "strength of movement" of their cars would be much less than the "strength of movement" for the cars of the G companies.

If we built a chart comparing the cars of the B companies to the cars of the G companies, with these three statistics accurately reflected, no one in their right mind would buy a car built by a B company.

But remember that the B companies have the most money and the most clout with the media. So what can they do to get customers? They can do a lot of things that distract potential customers from the important statistics. But the most important thing they will do is suppress these statistics. Their goal is to divert people's attention from the statistics (which are suppressed) and get them to think of other things.

For example, in their advertisements they can talk about the "style" of their cars, the "popularity" of their cars or how "powerful" their engines are. They can advertise their cars using pretty women who look lonely, giving the impression that someone who buys one of their cars will be seduced by every pretty woman in town. They can talk about the options available on the car. They can do a lot of things to avoid talking about the three important statistics I just defined. They can sell a lot of cars by distracting their potential customers from the data (i.e. from the truth). It could be called "selling by deception."

That is essentially what the medical community has done with orthodox medicine nomenclature. The most popular phrase heard in orthodox medicine is "remission." Orthodox treatments "put people in remission." That sounds really good. It sounds like everyone should get cancer so they can go into remission. However, as I will show, the word "remission" can be equated to the pretty woman in the advertisement. It is a nice sounding word, and it attracts millions of customers, but it distracts these "customers" from the statistics that are important.

What Does "Remission" Really Mean?

First of all, the National Cancer Institute defines "remission" as:

    "A decrease in or disappearance of signs and symptoms of cancer. In partial remission, some, but not all, signs and symptoms of cancer have disappeared. In complete remission, all signs and symptoms of cancer have disappeared, although cancer still may be in the body."
What exactly does this definition mean relative to the three "treatment decision criteria" mentioned above. You, the citizen, are supposed to assume that "remission" means a person is cured of their cancer. But that is not what the definition states. It states there is an absence of "signs and symptoms." So is there a correlation between the absence of "signs and symptoms" and the three treatment decision criteria above?

Generally, the determination of remission is based on a reduction in the size of the tumor or in the change of some tumor marker. These things may indicate the number of cancer cells in the body, but they are very, very crude estimates of the number of cancer cells in the body. These numbers also do not measure the pain and suffering of the patient (i.e. the quality of life) or the status of the immune system, which is very, very important if all of the cancer cells have not been killed.

Make no mistake about it, chemotherapy and radiation shrink the size of tumors. They also kill cancer cells, lots of them. But in the process of doing these things there are potentially dozens of side effects, such as: death, destruction of a major organ, intense pain, extreme sickness, etc. and the death of many, many normal cells. Chemotherapy does not discriminate between normal cells and cancerous cells, and since there are more normal cells than cancer cells, chemotherapy kills far more normal cells than cancerous cells.

So it is logical to think that the concept of "remission" tells us quantitatively what the "length of life since diagnosis" is? Let us break down the "length of life since diagnosis" into its pieces using the concept of remission:

What percentage of people die before they go into "remission?"


What is the average "length of life since diagnosis" for those who die before they go into remission?

What percentage of people live long enough to go into remission 

and die of cancer or cancer treatments (directly or indirectly) while they are in remission?
What is the average "length of live since diagnosis" for those who survive long enough to go into remission and die while they are in remission?

What percentage of people go into remission and later get cancer again

(either the same type of cancer or some other type of cancer) and thus come out of remission and become cancer patients again? What is the average "length of life since diagnosis" for those who come out of remission and get cancer again?

What percentage of people who go into remission are actually "cured," 

meaning they never get cancer again and do not die of anything related to their cancer or their cancer treatments? What is the average "length of life since diagnosis" for those who are actually "cured" of their cancer?

If we had all of these statistics, we could calculate the "length of life since diagnosis" for cancer patients using orthodox treatments. In fact, I would love to see all of the above statistics for orthodox medicine patients. But of course these statistics are not available. There is simply a lot of hoopla that people "go into remission."

Is it possible that the whole concept of "remission" is designed to hide simple statistics that would tell us how effective or ineffective chemotherapy and other orthodox treatments are? In other words, it is so very simple to calculate the "length of life since diagnosis" for orthodox medicine patients, why isn't it just calculated? Why is something so simple made into something so complicated?

It would be an easy thing to calculate the "length of life since diagnosis" for people who refuse treatment. Doctors say it would be unethical to ask people to not take orthodox treatments, but there are plenty of people who refuse treatment, so why not calculate how long they live since diagnosis? Then this number could be compared to a very simple "length of life since diagnosis" for cancer patients who go through orthodox treatments (of course the patients in each group would have to be grouped by sex, age at diagnosis, type of cancer and stage of cancer at diagnosis).

If we had the "length of life since diagnosis" for patients who took orthodox treatments, and compared this number to a similar group of patients who had refused treatments, we could quickly tell whether orthodox treatments were any good. But none of this data is kept, it must be dug out.

    "My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than when used in immediate life-threatening situations."
    Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity.")
If the real data would lead to the conclusion that people who go on orthodox treatments live significantly longer than people who refuse treatments, or refuse treatments and take an alternative treatment, you can rest assured the orthodox medicical community would keep these statistics. But they don't keep those statistics, which leads a logical person to conclude they have something to hide.

    "A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr Ulrich Abel, has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world, asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.

    "The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that

The overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was 'appalling' 

because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can 'extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers'. Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as 'a scientific wasteland' and states that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless and is akin to the 'emperor's new clothes'--neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy, even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! (Lancet, 10 August 1991) No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried. "


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

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

Thursday, November 14, 2013

The War Between Orthodox Medicine And Alternative Medicine


         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...



         Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!


I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!

Check it out.



This is the longest article of the series and it is the most important. Do not rush through it. I'm going to split it into 2 parts so everyone has a chance to read and hopefully pass it on. Folks, we have to get this informatiojn out due to the new health insurance and the decrease of medical professionals.

First, I am going to ask three questions. Write down your answers to these questions on a piece of paper before reading any further:

1) When you hear that someone has "gone into remission," what goes through your mind?
2) Because chemotherapy causes so much pain and suffering, what statistic would justify its use?
3) What does "cure rate" mean?"

Write your answers on a piece of paper, then read this chapter, then see how accurate your answers were.


A newly diagnosed cancer patient has several options to deal with their cancer:

Treatment Options For Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patient

Have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation (i.e. orthodox treatments), as prescribed by their doctor (this may include orthodox treatments other than surgery, chemotherapy and radiation).

Have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, but drop out of the treatment program prematurely.

Refuse all treatments (i.e. have zero surgery, zero chemotherapy, zero radiation, zero alternative treatments, etc.).

Have alternative treatments after extensive orthodox treatments and after doctors have given up all hope for the treatment of this patient.

Have alternative treatments after some orthodox treatments, but the patient dropped out of the orthodox treatment program prematurely.

Have alternative treatments instead of orthodox treatments (i.e. they refused orthodox treatments).

Note that in the last three items, which deal with alternative treatments, there are over 100 different alternative treatments, thus there are really over 100 options available to a newly diagnosed cancer patient.

The key question to be dealt with is this: how do we determine which treatment plan is "best?" I think a normal person would judge the effectiveness of a treatment plan (or lack of effectiveness) on the basis of three criteria:

Treatment Decision Criteria

First, "length of life since diagnosis" (quantity of life, meaning how long do they live between diagnosis and death), and.....Second, "quality of life since diagnosis" (lack of pain and sickness).
Third, "strength of the immune system during and after treatments" (this is a measure of the body's ability to fight future cancer events).

For example, suppose Treatment A and Treatment B have identical "length of life since diagnosis" figures, but Treatment A patients have extreme suffering during treatment and patients of Treatment B have very little pain and suffering. I suspect that everyone would judge Treatment B as being the better or preferred of the two treatment plans.

These three treatment decision criteria can lead to some subjective evaluations. For example, suppose the patients on Treatment Plan C have a "length of life since diagnosis" of 12 months, and the patients on Treatment Plan D have a "length of life since diagnosis" of 11 months, but have far, far less pain, suffering and sickness during treatment. Which treatment plan is best? The answer is subjective, but I think most people would favor Treatment Plan D.

In short, we can intuitively define a treatment plan as "best" if it is the most desirable treatment plan, given the data of the three treatment decision criteria statistics. In other words, the plan picked by the most number of people who have accurate treatment decision criteria information about the treatment options would be judged the "best" plan.

For example, suppose a person had a list of all possible treatment options (even the 100 alternative treatments) and for each treatment option they had accurate data for all three treatment decision criteria (e.g. quantity, quality and immune system) for their type of newly diagnosed cancer at the stage in which they are in at the time of diagnosis. The person could look at the chart and within a few minutes pick their treatment protocol. It would be easy to decide which option to choose.

But therein lies the problem, what is the accurate data for the above treatment options for the three treatment decision criteria, for a specific type of cancer diagnosed at a specific stage? None of this data is available. You might be interested to know "why" this data is not available. That is what this chapter is about.

The Theory of Orthodox Medicine

Orthodox medicine is generally based on a three-pronged attack. To understand this attack, let us consider a person who has newly diagnosed colon cancer, which has metastasized to other parts of their body.

The medical doctors would first consider the density of cancer cells in various parts of the person's body. Most likely, the density of the cancer cells in the colon area would be higher than in any other part of the body.

The first rule of orthodox medicine is to cut out the parts of the body that have the densest level of cancer cells. This is called surgery. Thus, surgeons would cut out the sections of the body that have a dense level of cancer cells.

The second rule of orthodox medicine is to use chemotherapy to treat the less dense areas of cancer cells.

The third rule of orthodox medicine is to use radiation (i.e. radiotherapy) to complete the treatment plan. This might be to kill even more cancer cells and put the patient into remission.

Before going any further, I should talk about alternative treatments for cancer. First, alternative treatments for cancer rarely, and I mean rarely, ever depend on surgery.

For example, there were only three situations where Dr. Binzel, an M.D. laetrile doctor (which is one type of alternative treatment), advised surgery for his laetrile patients:

    "1. If the tumor, because of its size or position, is interfering with some vital function, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are best available.

    2. If the tumor, because of its size or position, is causing pain, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are available.

    3. If the presence of the tumor presents a psychological problem for the patient, have it removed."
Doctor Binzel also said: "If the tumor is remote, not causing any problems, and the patient agrees, I leave the tumor alone." It is important to understand the reasons for his statements. A tumor is a symptom of cancer, and generally does not threaten the life of a patient. It is the spreading of the cancer that causes life-threatening situations. Neither surgery, chemotherapy nor radiation stop the spreading of cancer. Only the immune system can stop the spreading of cancer.

It is interesting to note that none of his three reasons for surgery had anything to do with treating the cancer. All of the reasons were physical or mental, and had nothing to do with killing cancer cells.

Obviously, however, if a person has a small benign skin cancer, there is nothing wrong with cutting it off. This, in spite of the fact there is a superb alternative treatment for skin cancer called Amazon Tonic III(see my section on treatments).

Because alternative treatments rarely use surgery, this means alternative treatments work on the dense areas of cancer cells equally well as the less dense areas of cancer cells. This is because alternative treatments selectively kill cancer cells (directly or indirectly), and thus work equally well wether the cancer cells are dense or less dense.

Getting back to orthodox medicine, you might ask yourself this question: "if chemotherapy is as good as people say it is, then why is surgery necessary?" In other words: "if chemotherapy is so good why isn't chemotherapy, instead of surgery, used on the very dense sections of cancer cells?"

To compare the two treatment types, if someone said chemotherapy was better than alternative treatments, then it would be logical that orthodox medicine would not demand surgery and alternative treatments would demand surgery. But just the opposite is true, chemotherapy demands surgery and alternative medicine has no interest or need for surgery. Something is wrong with this picture. But I am getting ahead of myself. We need to talk about definitions.

Remission, Response, Markers, etc.

I just mentioned that none of the above data is available. Then what exactly do doctors measure? They measure things like "response," meaning is there improvement in some criteria, such as a reduction in the size of a tumor. They measure such things as "remission," meaning the absence of symptoms. They measure such things as "tumor markers," which are a variety of measurement techniques to evaluate the cancer. And so on.


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

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

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Who Needs Drugs When You've Got Light?


         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...



         Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!


I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!

Check it out.


           Continued From Last Post

Who Needs Drugs When You've Got Light?

According to Tom Lowe, an entrepreneur and researcher who connects medical professionals with UBI devices, UBI therapy has been overlooked for decades as a viable cancer treatment -- a terrible loss for millions of patients who could benefit. It’s also a quick, drug-free cure for most infections, even serious ones like polio. Let’s take a look…

Continued below…

“The Only Side Effect is Chronic Good Health”

That’s what Australian researchers reported after gathering case studies from doctors who used this natural compound in the treatment of cancer and other diseases. Recent studies indicate that this therapy shows promise in destroying cancer cells, leaving healthy ones unharmed. One Florida oncologist reported that in 30 out of his 40 patients with stage 4 cancers, this common compound shrunk tumors by half or more.

Why did the mainstream turn its back on this safe and effective cancer treatment? Discover the answer and how to get all the details on the treatment, HERE.

Mr. Lowe cited some remarkable stats at the 40th Annual Convention of the Cancer Control Society in September of 2012:

    UBI therapy is backed by 70 years of history
    It boasts virtually no side effects
    Treatment is relatively inexpensive
    The efficacy rate falls between 60 and 80 percent

On top of that, ultraviolet blood irradiation has demonstrated a positive effect on over 60 diseases. And according to William Campbell Douglass, author of a book about UBI therapy called Into the Light, it has brought about remarkable results in both prompting cancer remission and extending the lives of patients who have been diagnosed with cancer.

Powerful healing results first seen seven decades ago

Though most commonly known as UBI, or ultraviolet blood irradiation, this is a treatment that goes by scores of other names: Biophotonic therapy, photo-oxidation therapy, photopheresis, ultraviolet blood therapy or UVB, hematologic oxidative therapy, extracorporeal photopheresis, and photo-luminescence.

It first came about in 1928 when Emmitt K. Knott, a scientist, began experimenting with light. He assisted in the case of a woman dying of sepsis (infection). Knowing that light kills bacteria and viruses, he withdrew a small amount of her blood, exposed it to light, put it back in her body, and miraculously, the woman lived.

The treatment was studied for the next two decades by scientists at prestigious schools like Georgetown University. A Dr. Henry Barrett reported treating over 110 cases of disease with UBI by 1940. The treatment was even cited in a 1949 issue of Time Magazine, which called it the “miracle of the future.”

But then the 1950s hit and all attention in the medical world began to focus on antibiotics and vaccines as the main tools to fight infections. However, in Russia and Germany, practitioners have continued to take an interest in UBI. Currently around 3,000 European providers offer it to their patients. The U.S. has only around 250 practitioners skilled in UBI treatment.

Twenty years ago, Yale University reignited interest in UBI after using it to treat T-cell lymphoma. The researchers even got FDA approval for the treatment. From there, Johnson & Johnson purchased and named it TherakosTM Photopheresis System. They now administer it in over 200 centers around the world and have treated more than 600,000 patients. Cost ranges between $2,500 and $4,000 per treatment, and patients require an average of 10 treatments total.

That’s interesting because, according to Tom Lowe, you only need a minimum of four treatments (depending on your illness). And many alternative doctors will give you the treatment for a much lower price.

Not to beat around the bush: $2,500- $4,000 per treatment is a ripoff. Mainstream medicine strikes again!

How UV light supercharges the immune system

Here’s how it works: Using a butterfly needle and a syringe, between 40 and 60 cubic centimeters (cc) of blood is withdrawn from your arm. Then it gets mixed with saline solution and passes through 26 seconds of ultraviolet light before being re-infused back into your body.

That’s it. As you can see, this isn’t a $4,000 procedure. But it does deliver $4,000 of value!

The logic behind diluting the blood is that one study showed light couldn’t penetrate more than five blood cells deep (30 microns, or 1 ml). So diluting the blood makes the therapy much easier to administer, not to mention more effective. The calculated mixture works out to be about 12 percent blood and 88 percent saline, which still absorbs 99.9 percent of the UV light. It also means less clotting time, a lower chance of problems, lower disposal quantities, and fewer staffing/nursing costs.

Now, we all know that putting something dank out in bright sunlight for a few hours is bound to kill the smell, lighten the stain, or eliminate bacterial spread. UBI treatment works the same way. The type of activated light from the 400-780 nanometer point on the visible spectrum (white light) flat-out kills bacteria and viruses.

UBI tears apart the DNA strands of the offending particles and sends them back into the body where they exhibit a vaccine-like response. Many people wonder why the treatment requires only 40 ccs of blood at one time, but researchers in this field counter by pointing out it only takes 1 cc of a vaccine to get an effective immune response.

It helps that bacteria and viruses in your bloodstream will absorb five times as much photonic energy as your red and white blood cells. That’s exactly how the UV light exposure kills infecting organisms. The fragments of those killed-off infectious agents are what stimulate the vaccination-like response in your body and go on to heighten your immune response. From there, your supercharged immune system is able to launch a new attack on harmful agents throughout the body.

Now of course, the body has to respond to the treatment. But assuming it does, then any form of virus or bacteria in your blood gets eradicated. And along with ramping up your immune system, the treatment also improves circulation and oxygenates tissues.

If you turn to UBI to treat an autoimmune disorder like lupus, allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, or even a rash, it has a balancing effect that is helpful in 50 to 60 percent of cases. Other benefits to treatment include anti-inflammatory effects, stimulation of red blood cell production, and improvement in blood flow.

It’s even known to cure shingles in two days. Two days! If you’ve ever had shingles – one of the most painful diseases known – you can appreciate what a blessing it would have been to have access to this therapy.

It should be in every doctor’s office in the country – not in a mere 250. And it should cost maybe $100, not $4,000. (Again: The original UBI therapy offered by alternative doctors doesn’t cost anywhere near the price of Johnson & Johnson’s new FDA-approved boondoggle.)

UBI is definitely useful as a cancer therapy, though several practitioners recommend using it as part of a multi-pronged approach. It’s an ideal adjunctive therapy for cancer in that it adds oxygen to the body, cuts pain, reduces inflammation, and decreases infections. Lifestyle, immune system, nutrition, and detoxification all go hand-in-hand with UBI.

One to two treatments per month are recommended. And several practitioners also view ozone therapy as a treatment that complements the effects of UBI.

An ideal treatment to add to any pro-health regimen

The biggest argument against UBI is that “light simply can’t do that.” And there’s very little new research about it, including dissenting comments. You won’t even find anything about it on Quack watch, the website run by mainstream docs known for lambasting virtually all alternative therapies—both the good and bad ones.

    To the best of my knowledge, UBI is a really effective therapy, and an absolutely safe one. So why aren’t more hospitals and doctors using it? For starters, there’s the ever-present challenge that it’s not mainstream, not officially accepted. There’s also a good dose of skepticism and ignorance out there, plus there’s not enough money to support more research. And of course, it’s not currently business-driven and is being held back as a widespread treatment by the FDA (although it’s not actually illegal -- doctors can legally administer UBI under section 21).

    Is it worth a try? Absolutely.

Lee Euler, Publisher

Thank You  Dr. Mercola

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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

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

Sunday, November 10, 2013

High Cholesterol Is NOT the Cause of Heart Disease


         The Solution For Disease FREE Health...



         Prevent Alzheimer's With Natural Remedies!


I just found the coolest way to make money from your computer!

Check it out.


High Cholesterol Is NOT the Cause of Heart Disease

    There are two parts to this persistent myths relating to cholesterol and
heart disease:

        The idea that eating cholesterol and saturated fat raises cholesterol
levels in your blood, and that high cholesterol in your blood is what drives
the risk for heart disease

    Some of the healthful fat sources listed above are also sources of
dietary cholesterol, such as eggs. Contrary to early studies, which suggested
eating cholesterol-rich egg yolks raises your cholesterol levels, we now know
that’s actually NOT true.

        “That’s been pretty thoroughly disproven in the scientificliterature,”
Kresser says. “You have between 1,100 to 1,700 milligrams ofcholesterol in
your body at any given time. But only 25 percent of thatactually comes from
your diet, and 75 percent is internally producedprimarily through your liver.
Why would that be? Because cholesterol is soimportant to the proper function
of your body that your body tightlyregulates its production. If you don’t eat
enough cholesterol, your body willmake more. It needs more cholesterol,
not less.

        The other thing that most people don’t know is that only free or
unesterified cholesterol can be absorbed from the diet through the
intestines. Most foods have esterified cholesterol that can’t actually be

        The first thing to understand is you don’t have a cholesterol level
in your blood, actually. Cholesterol is fat-soluble, and blood is mostly
water. For it to be transported around the blood, cholesterol needs to be
carried by a protein, specifically by a lipoprotein. These lipoproteins are
classified by density. So, you have very low-density lipoprotein or VLDL,
low-density lipoprotein or LDL, and high-density lipoprotein or HDL,
which are the main ones.

        I mentioned before the analogy that our bloodstream is like a river.
Remember that the lipoproteins are like boats that carry the cholesterol
andfats around the body. The cholesterol and fats are like cargo in the boats.

        So, here’s the really crucial point: up until about 10 or 15 years
ago, we thought that it was the concentration of cholesterol in the
lipoprotein (or the amount of cargo in the boat) that was driving the risk of
heart disease. But recent research indicates that it’s the number of boats or
the number of LDL particles that’s really the driving factor.”

    So, it’s not the amount of cholesterol that is the main risk factor for
heart disease, rather it’s the number of cholesterol-carrying LDL particles.
Oxidized LDL can also be a greater risk factor for heart disease. When
oxidative stress is high due to poor diet, insufficient exercise and sleep,
and chronic stress, or when your antioxidant capacity is low (again usually
because of a poor diet), then oxidative damage can occur. Oxidized LDL is
more harmful than normal non-oxidized LDL because it’s smaller and denser.
This allows it to penetrate the lining of your arteries, where it will stimulate
plaque formation associated with heart disease.

        “The more LDL particles you have, the more likely you are to have
some oxidized LDL, and they can be more atherogenic. However, oxidized
LDLloses their predictive value when it’s adjusted for LDL particle number.
Thatsuggests that LDL particle number may be an even more important risk
factorand may need a high number of LDL particles before oxidation becomes
a bigproblem,” Kresser explains.

What Raises Your LDL Particle Number?

    If the primary cause of heart disease is not high cholesterol, then what
is? Part of the reason why statins are ineffective for heart disease
prevention (besides the fact that the drug causes heart disease as a side
effect) is that drugs cannot address the real cause of heart disease, which
is insulin and leptin resistance, which in turn increase LDL particle number
via a couple of different mechanisms. While some genetic predisposition can
play a role, insulin and leptin resistance is primarily caused by a
combination of factors that are epidemic in our modern lifestyle:

        A diet high in processed and refined carbohydrates, sugars/fructose,
refined flours, and industrial seed oils

        Insufficient everyday physical activity. Leading a sedentary
lifestyle causes biochemical changes that predispose you to insulin and
leptin resistance

        Chronic sleep deprivation. Studies have shown that even one night of
disturbed sleep can decrease your insulin sensitivity the next day and cause
cravings and overeating

        Environmental toxins. Exposure to BPA, for example, can disrupt your
brain’s regulation of weight

        Poor gut health. Studies indicate that imbalances in your gut flora
(the bacteria that live in our gut) can predispose you to obesity and insulin
and leptin resistance. According to Kresser, gut inflammation can even affect
your cholesterol more directly.

            “There are some studies that show that lipopolysaccharide, which
is an endotoxin that can be found in some types of bacteria in the gut… If
the intestinal barrier is permeable, which shouldn’t be, of course, some of
that lipopolysaccharide can get into your bloodstream. LDL particles actually
have an antimicrobial effect. So, LDL particles will increase if there is
some endotoxin going into the bloodstream... causing a direct increase of LDL

    The culmination of the synergistic effect of these factors will put
pressure on your liver to increase production of lipoproteins, more
specifically: low-density lipoproteins (LDL), (i.e. more “boats in the
river”), which increases your heart disease risk.

    Another way leptin resistance contributes to increased LDL particle
number, and hence increased heart disease risk, is as follows: when a cell
signals that more cholesterol is needed for the cell to perform its function,
LDL receptor activity increases. The LDL receptor sits on the outside of
cells, and its job is to act as a docking station for the LDL particles
floating around in your blood. Once “docked” into the LDL receptor, the
LDLparticle can deliver the nutrients it carries into the cell.

    However, if you’re leptin resistant, the LDL receptor doesn’t get the
message. It’s not sensitive enough to hear the signal. And without LDL
receptor activity, the LDL particles floating around are never encouraged to
“dock” into the receptor, and this too directly increases LDL particle

    Besides insulin and leptin resistance, another common cause of elevated
LDL particle number is poor thyroid function. T3 hormone (which is the most
active form of thyroid hormone) is required to activate the LDL receptor,
which is what takes LDL out of the circulation. If you have poor thyroid
function or low T3 levels, then your LDL receptor activity will be poor, and
you’ll have a higher number of LDL particles. The good news is, if this is
the cause for your elevated LDL particle number, then addressing your thyroid
problem will reduce it.

How Intermittent Fasting Can Help You Address High Cholesterol

    I’m particularly fond of coconut oil because I believe it’s a useful
therapeutic agent to help you implement intermittent fasting, which is
perhaps one of the most valuable stealth strategies to get healthy—largely
because it can radically improve your insulin and leptin resistance. In that
respect, intermittent fasting is also a powerful way to address cholesterol
and LDL particle number.

Kresser explains:

        “Insulin resistance and leptin resistance are widespread problems...
and that’s one of the main driving forces in elevated LDL particle number.
The reason for that is that LDL particles carry not only cholesterol, but
also triglycerides, fat-soluble vitamins, and antioxidants... If you have
high triglycerides, which you often will when you have insulin or leptin
resistance, then that means a given LDL particle can carry less cholesterol,
because it’s stuffed full of triglycerides. Your liver will then have to make
more LDL particles to carry that same given amount of cholesterol around
the tissues and cells in your body.

        ...Intermittent fasting is one of many ways to improve insulin
sensitivity and leptin sensitivity, because there are certain processes in
the body that engage after you haven’t eaten for a period of time. They’re
all evolutionary mechanisms that are designed to help us survive in periods
of food scarcity. You have an upregulation in metabolism basically, and...
your insulin and leptin sensitivity improves.

        It’s a really good way for people to lose weight, which again will
improve insulin and leptin sensitivity, because obesity is both a cause and
an effect of leptin resistance. I think it’s a really great strategy for most
people; I do use it in my practice a lot.

        The only kind of caution might be in people who have pretty severe
fatigue, or are suffering from some kind of chronic illness, and need to eat
more often. But for most people, I think it’s great.”

    Coconut oil is most beneficial during the transition period from burning
sugar to burning fat, as it will not upset insulin and leptin resistance.

It’s neutral, yet it is rapidly metabolized and provides a good source of
energy. Fatigue can be a real challenge, so if you want to try intermittent
fasting but worry about flagging energy levels, coconut oil can be a useful
tool. You can even have some coconut oil during your fasting period as it
will not interrupt the beneficial processes that are happening while you’re
fasting. It’s mainly protein and carbohydrate that will interrupt those
processes. So having a little coconut oil in the morning might help you make
it through until you break your fast for your first meal. Kresser recommends
putting it in a smoothie, or even adding it to your tea or black coffee, if
the idea of eating the coconut oil by itself is too unappealing.

Tying It All Together

    Remember, the most important test you can get to determine your heart
disease risk is the NMR lipoprofile, which measures your LDL particle number.

This test also has other markers that can help determine if you insulin
resistance, making it doubly useful. If you have insulin or leptin resistance,
you’ll have an increase in LDL particle number and specificallythe number
of small LDL particles. The NMR lipoprofile measures that too, and gives you
 an objective score called the lipoprotein insulin resistance scoreor LP–IR. If
your LP–IR is above the recommended reference range, chances arethat you
have leptin and insulin resistance.

    Insurance usually covers the test, but if you order it yourself from Direct Labs
or Access Labs, it costs about $100. If your LDL particle numberis high, Kresser
recommends searching for the cause. Again, two of the majorones are insulin and
leptin resistance, which the NMR test will alert you to.

The third common cause is poor thyroid function. Chronic infections 

could also be a factor.

    Once you’ve determined the cause, you need to address those. Remember,
statin drugs CANNOT address insulin or leptin resistance, and they do NOT
affect particle size or particle number. They ONLY suppress cholesterol
production in your liver, which can make your situation worse. Kresser
advises paying careful attention to the following seven factors when
addressing insulin and leptin resistance:

        Diet: shifting toward the nutrient-dense-food-based diet with higher
fat and lower carbohydrate intake
        Intermittent fasting may be useful
        Make sure you’re getting enough sleep
        Exercise regularly, and make sure to incorporate high intensity
interval exercises, as they are particularly effective for improving insulin
and leptin sensitivity
        Avoid sitting too much, as that can have a direct adverse effect on
insulin and leptin sensitivity
        Minimize your exposure to environmental toxins as much as possible
        Optimize your gut health by eating fermented foods, soluble fiber
that enriches the beneficial gut flora, and avoiding food toxins and things
that harm your gut flora

    As you can see, the things you need to do to treat your high LDL particle
number are identical to what you would do to promote optimal health in

Thank You  Dr. Mercola

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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513

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