Cancer is a devastating disease with roots in genetics, diet, environmental surroundings and sometimes what some see as random chaos. But another villain may also be at the helm when it comes to spreading cancer: the very ones who claim to be preventing it. Chemotherapy is a harsh treatment designed to kill both good and bad cancer cells. Extremely high cancer return percentages have led many to believe that the chemotherapy treatments spawn more cancer. Women with breast cancer commonly die from brain tumors. Were they predisposed through genetics or is chemotherapy tainted? That might be rhetorical.
The idea and concept behind chemotherapy are somewhat astounding. In all the years that it has been around, how have we had nothing else in the way of evolution? The only way to treat cancer is by destroying all our cells? Natural, holistic therapies have long been buried by large pharmaceutical companies with an interest in cancer revenue. When all things are considered, we can see why there hasn’t been much in the way of evolution.
Well, in some ways, there has been evolution. Jimmy Carter cured advanced melanoma using what is termed as, immunotherapy. With immunotherapy, the immune system is boosted in order to fight the cancer cells which wreak havoc all throughout our body and organs. Carter curing his cancer this was was, of course, a big deal. But then again, it really wasn’t. Why wasn’t it? Because publicity for logical cancer cures just don’t exist. And secondly, it has actually been around for years.
Before we get into all of that, however, let’s allow our gut instincts a moment to do its own work: Think and conclude. My intuition tells me that fighting cancer by powering up the immune system makes all the sense in the world. I’m not a doctor, but I am sure that strengthening an army with more weapons helps them defeat an enemy invader. And that’s what cancer is – an enemy invader. The current accepted, and costly method, of chemotherapy, destroys the body. It beats down the immune system, which is why patients on chemo are assigned immune boosting drugs. Does it make sense to decimate our immune system when fighting a disease? A radical might think chemo is just keeping cancer treatments in business. A radical, I said, with a smile.
In 1890, a doctor named William Coley was the first to deploy immunotherapy (a good 135 years before Jimmy Carter ever found his melanoma cure in it). Coley would try to solve a woman’s cancer first with amputation. But that failed attempt led him down a more logical, more reasonable alternative path. This was many years before chemo or radiation, so Coley had no alliances working against his seeking a greater good. The patient he performed an amputation on led him down a road to find a better solution. A more logical and practical way to cure what ails us. And so he did. An article on today’s NPR details the life, the tragedy, the events which shaped Coley’s exploration into a new frontier. And it is a mind-blowingly outstanding read.
So in the winter of 1891, William Coley the surgeon became William Coley the detective. He headed for the tenements of the Lower East Side of Manhattan where the German immigrant community lived. He knocked on door after door asking for a man named Fred Stein who had a distinctive scar across his neck. After several weeks of searching, Coley found him alive and cancer-free.
So why did Stein’s cancer go away and stay away after he got a bacterial infection? Coley speculated that the strep infection had reversed the cancer. and wondered what would happen if he tried to reproduce the effect by deliberately injecting cancer patients with bacteria.
Coley connecting the immune system’s boost mode, if you will, to a cure for cancer, is groundbreaking, but also subjugated, material. With the exception of Carter, we rarely hear anything relating a boosted, more powerful immune system to curing cancer. We live in a society which has led us to believe that chemotherapy is the only option. In fact, we often call it a cure, even though the logic of the numbers doesn’t really add up.
TruthKings: See How Fluoride Is Slowly Killing Our Kids
Is fluoride bad for you? Should you be concerned about sodium fluoride being in your water or toothpaste? Learn why Sweden, Norway, Austria, Finland, China and more countries have banned fluoride. How did fluoride get approved for use in the United States and what are the health effects? Learn everything you need to know about fluoride and what you can do.
Fluoride pushers will have you believe that the chemical saves our children’s teeth, but this has never been proven. In fact, it has been shown that regions without fluoride infusion show no differences in tooth decay rates. Dietary changes, such as lowered sugar intake, have been shown over and over to prevent tooth decay. But pushers of fluoride, often dentist who provide our kids with candy, attempt to skirt this fact.
Fluoride is a neurotoxin. It contributes to lower IQ and other neurological issues. A research paper published on Harvard’s website leaves very little doubt regarding the harmful effects incurred from Fluoride on humans.
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
Fluoride is slowly killing our youth. While many communities choose to fight back, most remain subverted by the government and dental associations. Many parents report that while fluoride does scare them, their dentist typically bullies them into using the chemical. The human race has entered a period of a degenerative disease pandemic. Neurological disorders such as autism and Tourette’s continues to rise.
Andrew Wakefield continues to make waves as his documentary, Vaxxed, opens across the country. Pharma, the CDC, are among two large players attempting to silence him. However, Wakefield has persevered and is now stronger than ever. This is an enormous achievement for a man that had his medical license pulled in the UK for speaking the truth.
But about that medical license deal….
Wakefield, at the time of his research into the autism and vaccine links, had a partner named Prof. John Walker-Smith. That partner was scrutinized as much as Wakefield, but interestingly enough, a British court gave Walker-Smith a favorable ruling in 2012.
According to journal-neo.org:
In February, 2012, Mr. Justice Mitting held hearings on the charges brought against world renowned pediatric gastro-enterologist, Prof. John Walker-Smith, Wakefield’s co-researcher, in Britain’s High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court.
The Justice ruled that charges brought against Walker-Smith by the British General Medical Council’s Panel, the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” Walker-Smith won his appeal against a General Medical Council regulatory board that had ruled against both him and Andrew Wakefield for their roles in authoring a 1998 Lancet MMR paper, which raised questions about a link to autism. The complete victory means that Walker-Smith has been returned to the status of a fully licensed physician …”
Astonishingly, as the judge pointed out, the conclusions of the GMC board that stripped both Walker-Smith and Wakefield of their licenses to practice medicine in the UK were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion… The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are bothquashed.” He notes that the board’s trial of Walker-Smith and Wakefield had no actual complainants, no harm came to the children who were studied, and parents supported Walker-Smith and Wakefield through the trial, reporting that their children had medically benefited from the treatment they received at the Royal Free Hospital.
What does this say about the charges that implicated Wakefield? I’d say it shows a rather flimsy case. Wakefield has however proven his resilience through it all. He and his message are more popular than ever, attracting the support of celebrities such as Robert De Niro. Wakefield has done an incredible amount for parents and children. And he is going to continue to fight the good fight, with or without the support of simpleton court hearings. Wakefield’s partner’s case already proves that he did no wrong.
Prince Charles is 67 years old. And if you ask him, alternative medicine has been at the heart of his existence. His support for alternative healing has been well-documented (as well as well-criticized). Charles has long argued that alternative health practices, such as herbal medicine, should be given more focus and patients should have the right to choose. He’s never condemned modern medicine as much as he has pushed for alternative medicine to be given equal treatment.
In 2010, Charles published a book titled, Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World, which focuses on alternative health treatments, as well as diagnosis tools. Charles describes it as ” a practical guide to what we have lost in the modern world.” He focuses on architecture, farming and of course medicine. The idea is to rethink our modern approaches using traditional, historically proven models. The book shows a disconnect between man and nature.
His approach to diagnosing illness is summarized here:
I have also learnt from leading experts how we can understand a great deal about the causes of ill health through more traditional methods of diagnosis — for example, through examination of the iris, ears, tongue, feet and pulse, very much the basis of the Indian Ayurvedic system.
This is not to say that modern diagnostic techniques do not have a role, but let us not forget what we can gain by using the knowledge and wisdom accumulated over thousands of years by pioneers who did not have access to today’s technology. In fact, an over-reliance can often mean that the subtle signs of imbalance revealed by the examination of the eyes, pulse and tongue are totally missed.
Including the fruits of such knowledge, gleaned over 8,000 years of studying the relationship of the human body to the rest of Nature and to the Universe, can but only provide an extra, valuable resource to doctors as they seek to make a full diagnosis. Why persist in denying the immense value of such accumulated wisdom when it can tell us so much about the whole person — mind, body and spirit? Employing the best of the ancient and modern in a truly integrated way is another example of harmony and balance at work.
We are a big supporter of Ayurvedic treatments, particularly oil pulling. Many Ayurvedic treatments have shown amazing results, but studies are few and far between because pharmaceutical companies simply aren’t going to fund items which would eliminate their own need in the profit equation. So these alternative treatments are left to die, with the exception of those of us who are willing to try new, non-evasive, natural methods.
Charles has also had proposals blocked by Ministers in his home country whereas he asked that alternative medicine is given a fair shake. In other words, he was seeking to have modern doctors and pharmaceuticals regulated. He was shot down. This article was from the Telegraph in 2014.
The Prince of Wales is pushing for an acceptance of complementary medicines and urging medical watchdogs to regulate their professions in order to better protect patients.
Two years ago the Coalition pledged to bring in an official register of practitioners of herbal and Chinese medicines, which would see therapists regulated alongside other health care workers.
It followed two public consultations which found overwhelming support for the proposals.
But ministers have blocked the proposals, instead setting up a new committee – which has just secretly drawn up plans to spend a further 18 months re-examining the matter.
Prince Charles is said to be increasingly frustrated about “delay tactics” which mean that the proposals may not be published until next year and then would be highly likely to be cast aside again as an election looms.
Charles was only pushing for public choice, rather than allowing people to be a pharmaceutical or diagnostic funnel by the medical powers that be.
Dr Michael Dixon, the chairman of the College of Medicine, which advocates an “integrated” approach to medicine – so that complementary therapies such as homoeopathy, acupuncture and herbal remedies are evaluated alongside mainstream medicine – said: “The Prince of Wales has consistently pushed for stricter controls over complementary medicines so that the public has a real choice about treatment, and is properly protected.”
Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt would eventually sign the Early Day Motion in support of homeopathy, alternative medicine. But the road for Charles has been filled with detractors and skeptics, many of such calling him a “nutcase” and “bad for modern man’s health.”
Between 2004 and 2005, Charles sent numerous letters to the powers that be lobbying them to give alternative medicine fair considerations. The letters were discovered some years later through incidental legal proceedings, at which time they were termed the “black spider” correspondence. This is an excerpt Charles wrote to the Prime Minister.
“We briefly mentioned the European Union Directive on Herbal Medicines, which is having such a deleterious effect on the complementary medicine sector in this country by effectively outlawing the use of certain herbal
“I think we both agreed that this was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. You rightly asked me what could be done about it and I am asking the Chief Executive of my Foundation for Integrated Health to provide a more detailed briefing which I hope to be able to send shortly so that your advisers can look at it.”
extracts,” the Prince wrote.
The worst of it all comes in 2010 when Charles and four directors from his “College of Medicine” charity, had their establishment shut down as it was accused by government officials of fraud and money laundering. The charity was of course, controversial in the country and scientist often termed it as “quackery.” But was it shut down because pharmaceutical companies didn’t appreciate Charles’ approach? According to The Guardian, no one was formally charged after the investigation shut it down.
The four directors of the college are former fellows or directors of the prince’s charity, the Foundation for Integrated Health, which shut in April after Scotland Yard began a fraud and money-laundering inquiry. Police later charged the charity’s finance director, George Gray, with theft totalling £253,000. None of the directors of the new college have been accused of wrongdoing in the investigation.
The College of Medicine had been registered as the College for Integrated Health shortly after the intimidation tactics ended. Charles push for deployment of alternative health treatments has been documented for over a decade at least, making him one of the most prominent figures in the fight for a faithful healthcare system.
Charles also has been lined to alternative, chemical-free vaccines. Charles and the Queen were heavily scrutinized and eventually the products were pulled from the shelves.
A homeopathic pharmacy endorsed by Prince Charles and the Queen has been told to stop advertising sugar pills labelled as childhood vaccines.
The government’s medicines regulator stepped in after an investigation by BBC Inside Out South West.
It found a number of homeopathic products on sale at specialist retailer Ainsworths labelled as vaccines or bearing the name of a childhood illness.
The programme also found evidence the company’s owner Anthony Pinkus was prepared to recommend homeopathic pills to parents as an alternative to the whooping cough vaccination.
As [Vaxxed: From Cover-Up To Catastrophe] gathers steam throughout the country, playing to sold-out shows, great reviews on Fandango and a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 85% more attention is being shifted to the manipulated science behind vaccinations and the alarming Autism epidemic. Quietly, behind the scenes, there is another CDC whistleblower lurking in a Federal Courtroom in Utah, this according to an article at TruthInMedia.com
According to the January 4, 2016 motion, “Dr. Zimmerman was a successful University employee until she accused [her supervisor], among others, of research misconduct and ethical misconduct. Defendants retaliated against Dr. Zimmerman for raising legal and ethical questions of employees’ impropriety” Zimmerman’s complaint includes specific concerns over alleged uncorrected errors in the ADDM Network’s reported autism analysis for Utah.
“On or about December 2012, Dr. Zimmerman also reported the same concerns she had made to the University’s Privacy & Security office to the United States Department of Health and Human Services…. She reported her concerns to the CDC as well. “
Depositions from Zimmerman and her former colleagues suggest that the alleged data errors were serious and have the potential to produce major differences in reported Utah autism rates. In the 2008 ADDM Network Report, Utah autism rates were the highest in the country at 1 in 47. In the 2012 report released today, Utah rates plummeted nearly 20% to 1 in 58 as most other ADDM Network sites reported either rising or stable autism rates.
While we have all heard this story before with Dr. Thompson, the basis of Vaxxed: The Movie, and his claim of similar unethical manipulation of data. This second researcher coming forward, along with the successful release and critical reception of the movie, may finally shift the spotlight to independent research into the connection between vaccinations and the Autism epidemic.