The fact is clear that in primitive societies, people don’t die of cancer.by PROFKEITH on DECEMBER 19, 2008
The fact is clear that in primitive societies, people don’t die of cancer. This is supposed to be because they are healthier and eat properly. But who dares think the unthinkable: that the cause of the problem is doctors and when you don’t have them, cancer is insignificant?
It’s only when doctors using Western methods get involved that cancer actually becomes a problem at all. Then it’s suddenly a serious and probably fatal condition.
But it may be time for a re-think. Yesterday a major study was published which could change EVERYTHING doctors know and think about cancer.
Cancer has a purpose
If you’ve spent any time on my website you’ll know I’m a fan of Dr. Ryke Geerde Hamer, who’s radical cancer theory is that all cancers are Nature’s healing response to something, typically a severe psychic trauma or some other threatening event.
This makes sense to me. I’ve never believed in the absurd attitude towards cancer that it’s some kind of alien growth from another planet. It’s YOU, I mean it’s normal body tissue that has changed and started to do something else. It’s not a package from outer space that landed in your body!
I believe that if we seek to understand the true purpose of cancer (and ALL diseases have a purpose, whether or not it’s clear to us), we can solve this problem once and for all. Nature is not a fool and therefore if she switches on a mechanism, she has a reason for it.
To assume Nature is stupid and misled is the most dangerous kind of arrogance I know, not just physicians and surgeons, but most scientists are guilty of it.
In my profession, it’s killing people.
But the question hangs: is it because doctors are messing with it that cancer becomes so uncontrollable and dangerous? Well, new evidence suggest that’s very much the case.
Doctors and lay people have always known that some cases of cancer just go away without treatment. If Dr. Hamer is right, this is what should happen. The cancer manifests as a healing mechanism, the problem is resolved and the cancer heals and disappears!
Voila! As the French say.
How often this happens we have no way of knowing, because doctors get on the case and mess things up. I can infer from less-doctored societies, like the Eskimos and natural-born Indians, that if there is little or no doctoring, that the low rates of cancer are due to the fact that doctors are not getting involved. The cancers are there allright, but they go away! Nature takes her course; the “disease” resolves.
Now a new study had shed a great deal of light on what I’m talking about here. This is not some miraculous “spontaneous remission”; this is what is supposed to happen and does happen, when doctors leave matters alone.
Cancers heal themselves! And it’s NOT a rare thing at all.
The study, from Norway, which was published yesterday in The Archives of Internal Medicine (Dec 2008), suggests that even invasive breast cancers may sometimes go away without treatment and in larger numbers than anyone ever believed.
Maybe doctors should re-consider what they do? If the spontaneous remission hypothesis is credible, it should cause a major re-evaluation in the approach to breast cancer research and treatment; in fact all cancers.
But predictably, the old guard entrenched against any new discoveries, reacted with fury: “Their simplification of a complicated issue is both overreaching and alarming,” said Robert A. Smith, director of breast cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.
He’s paid a lot of money to keep cancer cures from the public (by which I mean if a cure is ever found, he’s out of his job, per the terms of the Society charter).
But many doctors have responded as I would wish and have started to re-think things. Robert M. Kaplan, the chairman of the department of health services at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, has already suggested that it could eventually be possible for some women to opt for so-called watchful waiting, monitoring a tumor in their breast to see whether it grows. “People have never thought that way about breast cancer,” Kaplan told the New York Times.
The study was conducted by Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a researcher at the VA Outcomes Group in White River Junction, Vt., and Dartmouth Medical School; Dr. Per-Henrik Zahl of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health; and Dr. Jan Maehlen of Ulleval University Hospital in Oslo. It compared two groups of Norwegian women ages 50 to 64 in two consecutive six-year periods.
One group of 109,784 women was followed from 1992 to 1997. Mammography screening in Norway was initiated in 1996. In 1996 and 1997, all were offered mammograms, and nearly every woman accepted.
The second group of 119,472 women was followed from 1996 to 2001. All were offered regular mammograms, and nearly all accepted.
It might be expected that the two groups would have roughly the same number of breast cancers, either detected at the end or found along the way. Instead, the researchers report, the women who had regular routine screenings had 22 percent more cancers. For every 100,000 women who were screened regularly, 1,909 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer over six years, compared with 1,564 women who did not have regular screening.
Of course the old guard is quick to point out that the findings do not mean that the mammograms caused breast cancer! That’s false: evidence shows that there is a significant increase in the risk. The “guidelines” are no more than a smokescreen for profiteering, not science. In fact the radiation exposure with mammograms may be as much as 1,000 times that of a chest x-ray (remember, mass screening with chest x-rays was stopped, because it caused more cancer than it detected!)
Dr. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and author of an amazing book “The Politics of Cancer Revisited” has described the guidelines as a sham. According to him “They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of ‘crimes against humanity.’”
It remains that, one way or the other, the die-hards have got to face the fact they are killing women. Either the mammograms cause cancer, in which case they should stop, or there is spontaneous disappearance of many cancers, which is being thwarted by medical intervention.
They can’t lie their way out of it in both directions at once!
The problem, as always, is money and greed. Doctors want to make money out of patients who don’t need any medical care, as well as the ones who are sick. Dropping the present approach would mean their revenues would suffer (smaller mortgages, less marble in the villa!)
The fact remains that many actions are carried out in the US that other countries don’t do. Here there is the insistence in biopsying every lump. That means women with no real cancer are being subjected to unnecessary procedures and run the risk of being inadvertently diagnosed as having cancer, being subjected to chemo and dying as a result.
In fact I have good evidence that women are being falsely (fraudulently) diagnosed as histologically positive, to help attract more revenues through costly and protracted chemo and radiotherapy. In any other sphere that’s murder; indeed, in medicine it’s murder, but is not being picked up.
These are hot claims, so let me steer back towards the main point I’m making, which is that doctors may “cause” a lot of cancer and unnecessary deaths, by refusing to allow that this disease will resolve naturally.
After all, in simple societies—like traditional Eskimos, the Hunzas in the Hymalayas and Amazon Indians—the disease is virtually unknown. I recently also published an article, quoting research into the Victorian diet, showing that even with less doctoring they had far, far fewer cancer deaths.
Actually, it was almost unknown at that time. A physician at one of London’s main hospitals (Charing Cross) told his medical students that lung cancer was “One of the rare forms of a rare disease. You may probably pass the rest of your student’s life without seeing another example of it”.
Don’t get caught by the phoney propaganda argument we are living longer than ever, so more cancer is showing up. In my piece I quoted extensive research showing we are NOT living significantly longer than our mid-Victorian counterparts (once past the first 5 years, our survival rates are pretty similar to those of 1850).
In any case, there is more to this; not only were cancers rarer but Victorians seemed to withstand the disease better than our modern citizen. It was not feared nearly so much, for this reason. Take breast cancer: the average survival time was 4 years, with a maximum time of 18 years. But this was almost all due to stage 3 and 4 (late) cancers.
If Victorian physicians had had our modern sophistication in diagnostic equipment, they would have picked up stage 1 and 2, so dramatically extending average post-diagnosis survival times. The average may well then have shot up to 10 years and maximum to 40- 50 years!
Let’s go back to the Norwegian study that is so exciting and controversial:
The study’s design was not perfect, but researchers say the ideal study is not feasible. It would entail screening women, randomly assigning them to have their screen-detected cancers treated or not, and following them to see how many untreated cancers went away on their own.
But, they said, they were astonished by the results.
“I think everybody is surprised by this finding,” said the journal editors. They spent a weekend reading and re-reading the paper (see, not every doctor is a crook or a sham). “Our initial reaction was, ‘This is pretty weird’ but the more we looked at it, the more we were persuaded.”
Dr. Barnett Kramer, director of the Office of Disease Prevention at the National Institutes of Health, had a similar reaction. “People who are familiar with the broad range of behaviors of a variety of cancers know spontaneous regression is possible,” he said. “But what is shocking is that it can occur so frequently.”
Although the researchers cannot completely rule out other explanations, they went to a lot of trouble to show these other interpretations are not valid.
A leading alternative explanation for the results is that the women having regular scans used hormone therapy for menopause and the other women did not. But the researchers calculated that hormone use could account for no more than 3 percent of the effect.
Maybe mammography was more sensitive in the second six-year period, able to pick up more tumors. But, the authors report, mammography’s sensitivity did not appear to have changed.
Or perhaps the screened women had a higher cancer risk to begin with. But, the investigators say, the groups were remarkably similar in their risk factors.
Die-hard Dr. Smith of the American Cancer Society, predictably, said the study was flawed and the interpretation incorrect. Among other things, he said, one round of screening in the first group of women would never find all the cancers that regular screening had found in the second group. The reason, he said, is that mammography is not perfect, and cancers that are missed on one round of screening will be detected on another.
But the study authors debunked this nonsense. Chief author Dr. Welch said that he and his colleagues considered that possibility, too. And, he said, their analysis found subsequent mammograms could not make up the difference.
The fact remains that now doctors must seriously worry themselves that they are blunderingly wrong by rushing to treatment:
I like the comments of Dr. Laura Esserman, professor of surgery and radiology at the University of California, San Francisco:
“I am a breast cancer surgeon; I run a breast cancer program,” she said in a NY Times interview. “I treat women every day, and I promise you it’s a problem. Every time you tell a person they have cancer, their whole life runs before their eyes.
“What if I could say, ‘It’s not a real cancer, it will go away, don’t worry about it,’ ” she added. “That’s such a different message. Imagine how you would feel.”
Now that WOULD be progress!
Well, I hope this article has brought you some hope. The main thing we have to fear with cancer is fear and confusion. All this will vanish when we understand it properly. Meantime, it’s a wake up call but not a death knell: you just have to get your health in order.
As I said, cancer is not some package from outer space dropped inside your body. The tumor is YOU. If you make the right changes, those tissues will go back to being healthy and normal.
Your diet, lifestyle and state of mind are absolutely critical. Do not allow shallow-thinking, ignorant doctors to tell you otherwise. There are, as you see, some good physicians working steadily, looking out for you!
Now go and read more in the pages on my site. There’s lots to learn up there:
Prof. Keith’s cancer stuff