 
The information in the book you are about to read is important. As a matter of fact, it could save lives – possibly your own, or that of a loved one. Therefore, I hereby give you my full permission to pass it on to others: give a copy of this eBook to any, and all of the people you know. You may share it on Facebook, or other platforms of your choice, in its original, unmodified form. However, it must be given for free; you may not charge for the book in any way. If you would like to translate it into another language, you may also do that, though in that case, please contact me, and inform me before doing so. (There are no fees involved.)

– David Bolton, Saginuma, Japan, January 30, 2020

A rational Approach to Cancer Treatment –

... and why Big Pharma isn't interested

by

David Bolton

* * * * *

PUBLISHED BY:

David Bolton

A rational Approach to Cancer Treatment – and why Big Pharma isn't interested

Copyright © 2019 by David Bolton. All rights reserved.

* * * * *

You can see all of my works at my Amazon page:

David Bolton's Amazon author page

or at my website:

www.dboltoncreations.com

A triple Dedication:

To my mother, Nancy Bolton

To my father-in-law, Nobuo Kiyama

To Eloisa

– for it was their experiences with cancer, and their ultimate

passing, that motivated me to write this book

Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction

Painful Memories; righteous Indignation

The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies

How to deceive People without telling a single Lie

So you've been diagnosed with Cancer...

"Causes of" − or Contributors to? − Cancer

Do you really want to live?

"To make the best of what is in our power, and take the rest as it occurs."

The "Baking soda/high Alkaline Diet" Cancer Treatment

A relevant Aside

Some Evidence for the Hypothesis of the "Alkaline" Remedy

The macabre, ritualized Dance of Death

The Difficulty of judging "scientific" Results

Exploring how our Minds work

The "War Metaphor" for Cancer Treatment

Bribery and Corruption: hiding in plain Sight, yet few seem to care!

The "best-hidden" Culprits

When the Cancer-stricken simply won't listen to Reason

Vitamin and Mineral Supplements for Cancer Patients

A "beginner's Program" for Cancer Treatment

For Nobuo-san, from David

The Dangers of misplaced Optimism

Which Industry cares most about your Health?

If faced with Cancer, what would I myself do?

Epilogue: Join the Movement to rectify the Abuses of the Industry

Authors' Bio
Preface

Suppose you were speaking with a medical doctor, and you asked her the following question: "Doctor, do you think it would be a good idea for me to do everything I can to strengthen my immune system?"

Can you even imagine that she would respond: "No, I don't think that's such a good idea at all." Would she not rather say something like: "That would be a great idea. The stronger your immune system, the healthier you're going to be!"

No matter whether you are now healthy, or are suffering from an illness, either minor (e.g., the common cold) or extremely serious in nature (such as cancer) – everyone would be better off if he did all he could to fortify his immune system.

Before you criticize me for stating the obvious here, consider the fact that many of the "treatments" offered by the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry are not only not designed to help your immune system; quite the contrary, many, if not most, of the prescription drugs given to patients actually weaken their bodies' defenses. Even worse: for illnesses that clearly signal that a patient's immune system is already in a weakened state − cancer is here a prime example – "treatments" like chemotherapy are routinely employed even though it is well-known to just about every physician on the planet that chemotherapy not only further weakens, but can eventually totally destroy even a healthy immune system.

This tragic irony is due to two misconceptions, in addition to what is, in my view, an ethical crime.

The first misconception, held by a surprisingly large number of medical personnel, is that the human being is merely a sort of highly developed machine: if something isn't working right, you have to "fix the parts", and hope that the body will soon be "working" again. This misconception has led to excesses such as prescribing antibiotics liberally, even for things such as the common cold (that is almost always viral in nature, and thus will not respond at all to antibiotics). Note well: these antibiotics, in addition to having other side effects, will kill necessary bacteria in the body, and this will weaken your body instead of strengthening it. (Read  this article from the site of the Mayo Clinic).

The second misconception is that if there are "bad cells" present in the body, the best we can do is try to "kill them off" in order for the patient to be able to recover. This is the reigning medical paradigm as far as present-day mainstream cancer treatment is concerned, and has led to techniques such as radiation therapy, and chemotherapy.

Yet even in cases where, after chemo treatment, the cancerous cells have "disappeared", it happens very often that some months, or a few years later, the cancer returns, either in its original location, or somewhere else in the body. In all-too-many cases, chemo doesn't "kill all those bad cells" at all. Quite the contrary: during the months of chemo treatment, it can often be seen that the patient's condition worsens even more quickly than it had been doing before treatment. We tend to chalk this up to the cancer itself, although practically anyone who is informed about the dangers of chemo would reasonably have to conclude that the rapid deterioration of the patient's condition was not the result of cancer alone, but was largely the fault of chemotherapy.

That chemotherapy can well be deadly − even for healthy people − was amply demonstrated by the criminal activity of an oncologist in the Detroit area, who in 2015 was sentenced to 45 years in prison for diagnosing even completely healthy patients with cancer, so that he could make a fortune by treating them with chemotherapy. As a result, many of these patients suffered irreparable damage to their health; others died. (Read the CNN article: "Patients give horror stories as cancer doctor gets 45 years"; also  this one).

As horrifyingly tragic and outrageous as this case is, is does serve to show very plainly that chemo drugs will permanently injure, and even kill, people whose health is not bad at all. Imagine then, what they will do to those whose immune systems are already severely weakened by cancer!

For this reason, I feel that even when doctors are not criminals (and fortunately, the great majority of them are not), they are nonetheless engaging in what could be called – ethically speaking – a crime when they recommend, and administer chemotherapy to people whose types of cancer have been proven to not be helped through chemo treatments.

I can hear some of you now: "What? How can you dare to say such a thing, David? Where's the proof of such a bold statement?" I urge you to read on, because the proof exists, in the form of a scientific study: a systematic review of the medical literature, that took into account tens of thousands of patients in the U.S. and Australia, and which showed plainly that for nine common types of cancer, chemo contributes nothing whatsoever even to five-year survival rates (let alone to achieving a cure).

That's right: every day, chemo drugs are being given to patients who have types of cancer that will not respond to chemo – which means that those patients are going to be much more harmed than helped by such an invasive "treatment". Later, I will not only quote from this study, but will provide download links to it: this is necessary because "mainstream" cancer sites will not give you this information. Why not? Well, that's another part of the "criminal" element present in our topic. The Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry rakes in literally billions of dollars per year thanks to chemotherapy. So is it reasonable to expect that they will give you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth as far as chemo is concerned?

By this point, you may be thinking that I am merely some sort of "prophet of doom", and that reading this book will only take away any hope that you might have – whether you be a cancer patient, or a family member of someone stricken with the illness.

But don't despair, for nothing could be farther from the truth. If my only message to you were that chemo should almost always be avoided like the plague, I probably would not have written this book, for I know the importance of hope. Yet you will find on these pages many reasons why you can, and truly should have hope, for I will show you a path that has sometimes led to complete cures for cancer. I myself know two people who achieved a complete, and real cure, through totally natural means. And it will cost you next to nothing!

Now: I am not a doctor, nor do I work in the health-care industry. But I do have a pretty good head on my shoulders, and have spent quite a bit of time looking for the truth as far as cancer treatment is concerned. You will find many links in this book, to articles, scholarly studies, etc. For you see, the truth is out there – though don't expect to always get it from the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry, for their main concern is not your health and welfare, but rather, their exorbitant profits.

I defy anyone – doctor, or layman – to challenge the main message I am giving my readers in this volume. It is a message I have already stated, and which I will state again and again throughout the book, in the hope that even the most superficial of readers will absorb it.

Here it is:

"If you have cancer, you should do anything and everything you can to strengthen your immune system".

Is there really any honest individual in his or her right mind who would deny that? Read on, and feel free to challenge what you find if it doesn't make sense to you.

I am convinced that if you follow my reasoning, you will come to basically the same two main conclusions that I have reached. First, that the best way to treat cancer is seldom chemotherapy. Second, that despite this, there is definitely hope for recovery, if a patient is willing to take charge of the situation and is determined to fortify his immune system.

In some of my books about other subjects, I might, at the end of the introduction, write something like "Enjoy reading about (whatever the topic happens to be)". I will refrain from wishing you an "enjoyable read" here, though, for I realize that the subject is anything but enjoyable. Nonetheless, it is of supreme importance. If you ever (God forbid!) fall ill with cancer, you will only be able to make the right decisions about the proper treatment if you have the facts – and many essential facts are routinely withheld from us by the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry. Read this book, follow the links to the articles and scientific studies, and above all, think for yourself: allow reason to be your guide, instead of blindly trusting the suggestions or recommendations of others.

Introduction

Although I began writing this book on November 17, 2017, it had been in fact well over four years in the making, for certain personal events of 2013 had very often crossed and re-crossed my mind. Ever since that emotionally most trying year, I have known that eventually, I would simply have to share my experiences with the world − not merely to "vent", but rather, to make people aware of certain horrifying abuses on the part of the medical industry, and more importantly: to encourage you, the people, to demand your rights as patients, and as citizens.

It was in 2013 that my mother was diagnosed with cancer (soft tissue sarcoma), and I returned to the States to help care for her (I have been living in Japan since 2009).

At that time, I knew virtually nothing of cancer, chemotherapy, or other possible treatments for this dread disease. Yet faced with the responsibility of caring for my mother, and of finding as much information as possible on what might help, or even cure her, I used almost all my free time to do research into methods of cancer treatment, whether mainstream or alternative.

During the weeks from May 22 (when I arrived in America) to July 6 (when my mother passed away), I accompanied her on many visits to physicians. My sister, who lives in the same town as our mother (Hanover, PA), told me about doctors she and my mother had visited over the course of the previous twelve to fourteen months.

My mother had had a tumor in her lower leg that she first noticed about a year and a half before she died. Being referred to a specialist by her family doctor, she wasn't even examined by that expert, but rather, by his "physician's assistant" (PA). Quite apparently, that man lacked the medical knowledge to recommend that which I later learned was standard procedure in cases of tumors: namely, a biopsy. For no, he did not even mention doing a biopsy. Instead, he asked her if she would like to have an operation to remove the tumor.

Our mother, Nancy Bolton, had never had an operation in her life, and so was fearful of this prospect. She asked if there were some other alternative. The "physician's assistant" replied by saying that if she didn't want an operation, she could simply come back in a year and they would see how the tumor was developing.

In a perfect world, we would all know enough about medicine that we would immediately recognize when doctors − or as in this case, their assistants − are making an obvious mistake. Yet in 2012, when I talked to Mom on the phone and she told me about the tumor for the first time, I had no idea about standard procedure in such cases, or just about any other medical cases. Therefore, no alarm bells went off in my head when she said she was to return to that doctor the next year.

Of course, now I know that those alarm bells should have been ringing at a deafening volume; I should have immediately asked: "But didn't he tell you to get a biopsy?" But as I said, I had no idea of such things, and don't we generally tend to trust what doctors (or even their "assistants") say?

In retrospect, I naturally regret my ignorance. For when my mother returned to that physician a year later, and the assistant took a look at the tumor − that was now much bigger − he immediately called in the specialist for whom he worked. The doctor, upon seeing the state of my mother's leg, looked half panicked, according to my sister. (He was no doubt fearing we would sue him for not following standard procedure and doing a biopsy the year before). He told our mother she would definitely need an operation as soon as possible.

She had the operation in May 2013; all seemed to go well. I got back to the States shortly thereafter and began helping her as much as I could, for she naturally had difficulty walking. The surgeon who did the operation (who was one of the few truly competent physicians I dealt with during those trying months) had told me that they would do some tests sometime after the operation to see whether cancer cells from the tumor had spread to the lungs, for this was the greatest danger.

In the time before that visit, my first doubts as to the competency of certain physicians arose. My sister Ellen had been reading up on tumors, and had discovered that the expert our mother had visited the year before should definitely have insisted on doing a biopsy. In fact, his assistant didn't even mention the procedure, and as I said, the specialist for whom he worked did not even examine our mother, although I'm sure that the bill he sent to the insurance company was every bit as high as if he himself had done the examination.

How could it be, I thought, that such things are going on? If someone goes to an expert, whose fee is even much higher than that of a family doctor, should not that physician him/herself examine the patient, instead of relegating that task to an "assistant"?

Sure, assistants do play an important role in many contexts. Why, as any child can tell you, Santa Claus has a bunch of assistants, called "little helpers", so that he can be sure to have enough toys prepared for every single child in the country once Christmas rolls around. But in that case, all they are doing is making and distributing toys; they are not giving you advice concerning life-threatening diseases.

The world of medicine is hardly a child's fantasy, is it? When you have a serious medical condition, your life could be on the line. And why do "specialists" exist? Is it not because they have a higher level of knowledge specific to the patient's illness? Why, then, would a specialist not examine the patient himself, and instead give this task to an assistant, whose level of medical expertise is in no way comparable to that of the expert?

In my mother's case, the fact that it was an assistant, and not the specialist, who first examined her, led clearly to her death, since that assistant did not have either the knowledge or the professional presence of mind to mention the necessity of doing a biopsy. But since I myself was not there at that session, how can I be sure that he didn't recommend that procedure? Because not only did both my mother and my sister assure me that he did not do so, but after my mother's death, I carefully studied the hand-written report of that assistant, and saw clearly that all he recommended was that she return in a year.

If only I myself had not been so ignorant, and had known enough to tell our mother to get a biopsy as soon as she told me about the tumor in 2012!

Returning to May 2013: it struck me that that specialist wasn't the only doctor who had erred. In the year between the appearance of the tumor and the operation over a year later, my mother had visited her family doctor a number of times (the one who had recommended the specialist). So why hadn't he ask her: "What did the biopsy on that tumor show, Nancy? Is it benign?" By so doing, he would have learned that a biopsy had not been done; he then could have phoned the specialist and asked why it hadn't been done, upon which the specialist, realizing that his assistant had made a mistake, could have immediately contacted my mother and told her to get a biopsy well before the tumor had grown very much.

But no. Her family doctor seemed to have put the whole thing out of his mind. Not once did he ask about any biopsy results. This, to my mind, is akin to malpractice, is it not? Once the operation had finally been done in May, 2013, the family doctor did highly recommend an oncologist specializing in chemotherapy. My mother, who was the gentlest person I have ever known, was unfortunately all-too complacent where "authority figures" were concerned. Therefore, not wanting to reject her physician's recommendation, she agreed to pay a visit to the oncologist.

As it turned out, that doctor was by far the worst of the lot, as you will see in the next chapter.

After experiencing so much incompetence on the part of physicians whose elevated fees might suggest that they would at the very least prove more useful than harmful, I thought of writing of our experiences just after our mother died. However, I must confess that I was unable to do so. Witnessing our beloved mother's physical decline, great suffering, and eventual death had left me emotionally devastated. I was depressed for months following that extended trip home, though I realized that that was a natural part of the grieving process. No, I did not take any medication for depression, for I already knew of some of the horrible effects of such drugs. More than anything else, my philosophy of life − and death − got me through that time of grief drug-free.

Although I am an author who has written many books on a variety of topics, I nonetheless could simply not bring myself to begin to write about this one, for it would have saddened me even more to have to relive those painful times during the course of writing such a book.

Yet in 2017, an acquaintance of mine in Spain, whose name was Eloisa, fell ill with cancer. I once again took up my internet research, and learned more − not only about cancer, but most significantly of all, about the clear abuses of what I shall call the "Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry".

In particular, I happened across − by what I can only call a fortunate coincidence − a serious mainstream medical study that reveals some shocking facts about chemotherapy as a means of cancer treatment.

Note: In 2013, during my mother's illness, I tried as hard as I could to find just such a study, but to no avail. I was unable to find a single official study that gave clear statistics on just how much chemotherapy can help patients with certain types of cancer. At that time, I was dumbfounded: should not such statistics be routinely made available − nay, should they not be regularly given − to patients who have cancer? And yet the numbers were nowhere to be found. I did read that there was an agreement between the government and the Pharmaceutical Industry, which allows that industry to not make all their statistics available to the public. Don't be alarmed if that last sentence makes you angry; we should all be completely outraged that truths concerning our very lives are being constantly hidden from us.

Clearly, something was, and still is, "rotten in Denmark". (Just a saying: in fact, there is more transparency in Denmark than in the U.S. where cancer statistics are concerned.) How could it be that the companies that produce drugs, many if not most of which have ominous side effects − how could it be that they are allowed to not tell the people everything they know about the efficacy and usefulness of those drugs?

I was soon to discover that the situation was even worse than that. Namely, that even when asked directly, an oncologist may well not tell you the truth, but will instead brush off your very serious questions as to the usefulness of chemotherapy, all in a despicable effort to convince you to resort to that therapy. And why? Because they simply want to profit from your loved one's sad plight for as long as they can before death ensues, even if they know for a fact that the treatment they are recommending does no good whatsoever, and thus can only be harmful to the patient.

I know that this is a brutal-sounding accusation. And yet, the medical study that I recently discovered very clearly shows that my conclusion is the only one that can be reached.

Further research revealed that the problem is much greater still, as you will see over the course of this volume.

In other books of mine, at this point in the introduction, I might wish you a "happy read", but I shall refrain from doing so here. For I can assure you that by the time you are finished with this book, you will not be happy at all. Quite the opposite: I believe you will be saddened, and above all, angered; and that your anger will have assumed the form of a most justified righteous indignation. And this is good, because as unpleasant as such feelings may be, in this life-and-death context, the outrage you feel will hopefully motivate you to take a few simple, yet concrete steps to contribute to rectifying some of the shameful abuses of the "Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry" − abuses that, if left in place, could easily put you or a loved one in a premature grave.

As far as book topics go, you can't get much more serious than that, can you? So brace yourself, and read on...

****

A few words about the structure, and the tone of this book:

Although the sections of this volume do form an entirety as far as the main themes are concerned, you will find that the individual chapters can also be read as separate essays. For this reason, there is a relatively high frequency of repetition of essential points. That indeed was my intention. Being well aware of the degree to which the average person has been "indoctrinated" by the Medical/Pharmaceutical Industry to believe that this industry has "only your best interests" in mind, I felt it necessary to use repetition in order to impress upon the reader the supreme importance of a number of main points, and of the inevitability of several logical conclusions which show that all-too often, it is money, and not your welfare, that is the main motivator for many people in the field of medicine.

It is also for this reason that I have purposely chosen to avoid a tone that is always moderate and "objective". Yes, I will give you facts: some of them indisputable scientific facts that prove my points eminently well. Yet when dealing with a subject that touches upon the suffering of millions of people − cancer patients, their family, friends, colleagues − I feel it is nothing but appropriate to express the emotions that the present state of things naturally evokes in anyone who has a sense of what is right and what is wrong. As you will see, there is a lot wrong with our health care system, more than enough to anger even peace-loving individuals; more than enough to motivate all of us to join together in protest, and demand the changes that are so desperately needed.
Painful Memories; righteous Indignation

On November 17, 2017, I happened to find the results of a serious medical study concerning cancer. After reading it, I was, quite frankly, furious.

Why? I will begin by recounting a scene from the most emotionally painful time of my life.

In 2013, my mother had an operation to remove a cancerous tumor from her leg. The diagnosis was "soft tissue sarcoma". It was hoped that with the removal of the tumor, the danger of the cancer spreading could be stopped. A couple of weeks after the surgery, I drove her back to the surgeon's clinic, so that we could find out the post-surgical test results. Our hope was that the cancer had been checked; our fear, that it had spread.

I asked to talk to the surgeon alone, for I wished to learn the truth − the complete truth − unadorned and unadulterated.

I will never forget that conversation, though I would have good emotional reasons for wanting to do so.

"Doctor, I would like to hear the truth. Just how bad is it?"

The physician spoke with an expression of heart-felt sympathy, and to his credit, he was indeed straightforward. He explained that the worst had occurred. The cancer had spread to her lungs, and that this meant that there was practically no hope whatsoever of conquering it.

You can no doubt imagine how devastating it was for me to hear that my mother was condemned to death. It was, up to that time, the most heartrendingly sorrowful moment of my life, only to be surpassed by other moments in the following six weeks, culminating in her passing.

Trying to remain focused, I asked how long she had to live. He responded: "A year at the most, but it could be a lot less."

I then asked whether some form of treatment, chemotherapy for instance, might be effective.

The doctor was direct and honest: "Considering the severity of this type of cancer, as well as your mother's advanced age and weakened state, not only wouldn't chemotherapy do any good; one single session would, in my opinion, probably kill her."

You can't be much more honest than that. Yet I still feel gratitude towards this physician for sincerely giving me a straight and honest answer to my question.

Several weeks later, our family physician recommended that she see a local oncologist, a specialist for chemotherapy. Mom had already told us that under no circumstances did she want chemotherapy, and since the surgeon had told me several weeks before that one chemo session would almost certainly kill her, I could only agree. Nonetheless, perhaps not wanting to "disobey" her doctor, she did arrange for an appointment with the oncologist.

My brother Steve and I accompanied her to the appointment. The oncologist, a women who looked to be in her early forties, was quite friendly, and even cheery. For me, it would not be easy to display such cheer if I had to deal every day with people who are at death's door, but I suppose that cultivating such a façade is a lot better than greeting your patients with the mien of an undertaker.

While my mother was waiting in another room, the doctor had a conversation with Steve and me. In that talk, she highly recommended treating my mother with – chemotherapy.

It was most difficult for me not to show anger. Had not the surgeon who had removed the tumor said in no uncertain terms that one session of chemo would kill her? And now, here was an oncologist trying to talk us into just such a "therapy"!

Steve asked a most logical question: "Doctor, you said you have a lot of experience in this field, and that you studied under one of the most renowned chemo experts in the country. So maybe you could tell us what the statistics show. In other words, for a person our mother's age and condition − 85, who has soft tissue sarcoma that has spread to the lungs, and who is now at stage 4 − for such a person, what are the chances that chemo would help her?

"Oh well", the physician replied, "I don't know the numbers off hand, but you know, many people choose chemo for this, and other types of cancer."

I was finding it difficult to not insult her − or even to keep from slapping her in the face. Here was someone who used chemotherapy on patients every day; someone who was injecting extremely strong drugs into the bodies of people whose illness had already weakened them fatally, and she "didn't know the numbers"? If you were a physician, and were providing a "treatment" meant to cure, wouldn't you make sure to "do your homework" and find out what those statistics were? Wouldn't you think she'd have said that although she didn't know the numbers, she would call her mentor in New York − the guy she praised as being one of the best in the country − in order to learn what those statistics were?

I smelled a rat, and it wasn't hard to recognize her motive, especially when she said:

"Oh, you don't have to worry. I saw that your mom has a great insurance plan, so you won't have to pay anything for the chemotherapy."

My translation: "Hey guys, don't worry about your inheritance. The insurance company will pay for all of this, no matter how many thousands of bucks it costs!"

This alone was an insult. If I had thought that this, or any other treatment would have saved, or even significantly prolonged, my mother's life, I would have paid any sum necessary. After all, had not our mother dedicated her life to raising us, to doing everything she could to help us, nurture us, and take care of us when we were ill? The very suggestion that we might hesitate about accepting chemo because we might have to sacrifice the inheritance, or even our own money, struck me as an insult.

But it got worse. During the weeks I had been caring for my mother, I had read as much as I possibly could about alternative cancer treatments. Again and again, I learned that thousands of doctors (most of them referred to as alternative physicians) highly recommended very specific diet plans as a means of fighting, or even curing, cancer. Thus, it seemed logical to me to ask about the value of nutrition.

"Tell me, doctor", I began, "What sort of dietary changes might possibly help our mother?"

"Oh, I'm not a nutritionist", she informed us with a smile, "But you know, I think you should let your mom eat anything she wants. If she wants cheesecake, give her cheesecake!"

My anger almost surged to the surface; it took great self-control to not hurl the vilest insults at her. For what was she really saying? That she clearly saw that hope was futile; that at this stage, there was nothing we could do to help my mother; that she, a trained physician, knew nothing of nutrition. But, here she was, trying to convince us to sign off on chemotherapy, which according to the surgeon, would kill her at a single session!

I'm sure you've put the pieces together for yourself. For me, it was plain. This "doctor" wanted to "treat" our mother as soon as possible, using a method that she no doubt knew would not only not help, but that would probably kill her right then and there.

And why in God's name would she want to do this? Could it be that she was trying to convince us because she would stand to pick up about $10,000 for that first session of chemo?

What would you say about someone who, for the sake of money, would try to convince you to subject your mother to a process that was in all likelihood going to rob her of a few more weeks, or maybe even months, of life? What would you say about a physician who, although dispensing poison (chemo drugs) to dying people every day of the week, does not know the statistics concerning whether how much that treatment might help?

I would say that such a person is a charlatan, one that should not only be barred from medical practice, but who should probably be sitting in a jail cell. And yet this woman is, as far as I know, still practicing oncology, and is still "treating" patients in Hanover, Pa.

But you may ask: why am I now, over four years after my mother passed, so furious, just because I recently read the results of a scientific study?

The study in question − "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" − was published in 2004. It is a study which followed rigorous scientific procedure. True, it does not deal with all types of cancer; that was not its aim. However, it does show the statistics relevant to 22 types of common cancer, including the one that afflicted my mother: soft tissue sarcoma. And keep in mind: the chemo drugs used today are largely those that were approved before 2004, and that are still in use today.

At this point, some of you might be thinking: "But no doubt chemo drugs have improved greatly since 2004". Unfortunately, this is not so. For if cancer drugs have greatly improved since 2004, why have the survival rates increased only very minimally since then? And could those slightly increased survival rates have more to do with people becoming more aware of the importance of life-style changes (increased use of vitamins and mineral supplements; exercising; giving up smoking, etc.) than with supposed advances in chemo treatment? Above all: why has a comprehensive scientific study concerning the efficacy of chemo drugs in fighting cancer not been done since 2004? Also: why is this 2004 study, despite its relevance even today, so difficult to find? Why don't doctors seem to know these statistics? And if they do know them, why don't they share them with their patients who have been diagnosed with cancer? Could it be because if patients were aware of the dismal record of chemotherapy in contributing even to five-year survival rates (let alone to curing the disease), they would almost certainly opt to reject chemotherapy, which would in turn lead to great financial losses to the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry? Question upon question, the answers to which, I assure you, will not be freely given to you by the great majority of medical professionals. And this is, in my view, a true scandal, for being fully informed is the right of everyone who has fallen ill with a life-threatening disease.

In 2013, while caring for my mother, and spending all of my free time searching for anything that might help her, I also tried to find precisely such statistics, yet to no avail. You see, although the study I mentioned had appeared nine years earlier, and contained information that was (and is) still highly relevant, and that everyone who has cancer and is considering chemo should know, it is still not very easy to locate, unless you know its title, or just happen to "stumble across it" − as happened to me the other day.

Why is this? How could it be that a truly scientific study, undertaken by experts in the field, and that contains information of such crucial import for cancer sufferers − how could it be that its findings are not given to everyone who suffers from this dread disease?

Now: if you are an oncologist, you almost certainly do know of this study; if you don't, then you are guilty of gross negligence. For how could you inject poisonous chemo drugs into a dying person, in the "hope" that enough "bad cells" are killed off before the patient succumbs to the pernicious side effects of the drugs themselves − how could you ever take such a drastic step without even bothering to investigate the probability that those drugs, statistically speaking, will do more harm than good?

When I read this study, I understood why that oncologist four years earlier had responded to my brother's question with a merry "Oh well, I don't know the numbers off hand". I also know why she didn't offer to contact her mentor to request those numbers. As a matter of fact, she was obviously not about to make those numbers available to us, for if she had, we would have plainly seen that for soft-tissue sarcoma, as well as for eight other types of common cancer, chemotherapy contributes nothing whatsoever to 5-year survival rates. And thus, considering the extreme side effects of chemo, not only would it not have helped our mother at all, but it would most likely, as the honest surgeon had told us, have killed her in the first session.

Yet there she was, chatting on and on, doing her utmost to persuade us to accept just that "treatment".

Of course, we refused. I remember making a few quite pointed remarks before we left, saying that we were not interested, and that that was the first and last time we ever wanted to see her. Steve said afterwards that I may have been "too hard on her". I didn't agree. And now, over five years later, as I view the scientific study that shows plainly that chemo contributes nothing to the cure, or even to the five-year survival rates, of soft-tissue sarcoma, I feel that (pardon the emotion) I was being far too nice to that quack, and that a slap in the face would indeed have been the most appropriate response!

In the end, my mother survived only another few weeks − weeks that were marked by her further rapid physical decline, extreme physical suffering, and emotional agony. Those weeks were the most difficult of my entire life, and yet I wouldn't trade them for anything, for they gave us all the opportunity to take gradual leave, to let Mom know how much we loved her, and how much we appreciated all that she had done for us over the course of our lives. Had we decided to go the chemo route, we would have been robbed of those final weeks. Our mother would have been killed by chemo, probably within a day at most, or even an hour. But hey, the oncologist would have picked up an easy $10,000, so at least someone would have been happy!

Later on in this book, I am going to tell you about that tremendously important 2004 study that I found. If you (or a loved one) have cancer, it is absolutely essential that you know about it. I am fully aware that almost no doctor or even oncologist would ever tell you about it, for if people knew the real statistics, many would reject chemotherapy, and that would lead to a yearly loss of billions of dollars for the "Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex".

Yes, things really are that grim. Yet I am not asking you to simply "take my word for it." In addition to giving you links so that you yourself can download the study, I will mention books and articles that I've found that point out all-too clearly the fact that the main goal of the Industry is not your health and welfare, but their profits.

Nonetheless, don't be afraid that if you read this book, you will be robbed of your "final hope". For some types of cancer, there is plain evidence that chemotherapy can help. The major study on "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy" only deals with 22 types of cancer (of course, there are many more varieties). And you should know that even if yours is one of the more common types reported on, there is definitely hope. However, that hope does not come from the "Industry" at all. It comes rather from a method of treatment that is increasingly gaining recognition among alternative physicians throughout the world − and yes, even some honest "traditional physicians", those for whom the welfare of their patients is infinitely more important than their own financial income.

What is this type of treatment? Here it is in a nutshell:

Doing everything you possibly can to strengthen your immune system: immediately adopting a diet of optimal nutrition; giving up any bad habits that may be weakening your system; exercise; and a careful evaluation of your mental and emotional state.

Yes, it can be as simple − and as cheap! − as that.

Allow me to summarize the main points I am going to make in this volume:

1) Cancer treatment today − and medicine in general − is a huge industry involving extremely powerful corporations for whom financial profit is the number one goal.

2) Any method of treatment that is not "main stream", and that for this reason will not contribute to the profits of the industry, is routinely played down, quietly suppressed, or outright opposed by that industry.

3) Even many doctors are not aware of the facts about many types of drugs they prescribe, due to manipulations in the flow of information by the Pharmaceutical Industry.

4) For cancer specifically, the very best treatment may well be one that you yourself can do, all but free: namely, adopting an optimally healthy nutrition plan, as well as a change in life-style: getting exercise, giving up smoking and drinking, etc. And yes, there are cases where such changes actually cured people completely of cancer − even people who were late-stage four, and who had been given only weeks to live by conventional doctors. I will tell you about some of these cases that I myself am familiar with, though of course, there are many more.

5) If you or a loved one have cancer, you absolutely must do everything you can to get the real facts, so that you do not fall prey to the propaganda of the "Industry". I use the word "propaganda" not as an exaggeration, but as a precise description of what is being disseminated today, at sites such as that of the American Cancer Society, cancer.org. I will delve into this more deeply in the chapter: How to deceive People without telling a single Lie.

6) The Pharmaceutical Industry routinely does as much as it can to manipulate the flow of information concerning the oft-times harmful drugs they produce. They do this by regularly not publishing studies that show that certain drugs

a) have no more of a positive effect than a placebo;

b) have side effects that are downright dangerous;

c) are very expensive and are often less effective than cheaper ones.

And they do all of this for one clear purpose: to make even more money.

7) Through such tactics, even physicians themselves are regularly deceived by the Industry.

8) As a patient, you have the right to know the truth right down to the very last detail as far as your illness, the drugs prescribed to you, and possible treatment methods are concerned. And as regards chemotherapy, you will find clear evidence in this book that you are not being told those truths, and may well be receiving chemotherapy for a type of cancer for which chemo will do you no good, but will only contribute to further weakening your system − and yes, possibly killing you before your time.

9) Doctors are often "seduced" into continuing to prescribe the Industry's drugs by what a growing number of physicians – and concerned governments − term as "bribery": the bestowing of lavish gifts on the doctors, that can easily amount to $10,000 in a mere four months (see this  ABC news article if you don't believe me; you will be shocked). This is clearly a blatant conflict of interests, and should be banned by an act of congress as soon as possible.

10) As dire as the present situation is − and it is absolutely atrocious − there is some good news, too. And that is, that we the people can join forces, rise up and do something to correct this shockingly corrupt system. We can demand our rights as citizens, taxpayers and patients. In the final chapter, I will tell you exactly what you yourself can do to join the movement. No, I will not ask you for money; I will leave the greed to the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry. Rather, I will suggest some very simple steps that you can take to help get America's health-care system on the right track: a track that always favors you the patient, and not the voracious financial interests of the "Industry".

The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy

to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies

Such is the title of a landmark study − a "systematic review", to be exact − published in the peer-reviewed medical journal "Clinical Oncology" in 2004.

So what is a "systematic review"? I quote from Wikipedia: "A systematic review aims to provide a complete, exhaustive summary of current literature relevant to a research question." It does this by: "collecting and critically analyzing multiple research studies or papers, using methods that are selected before one or more research questions are formulated, and then finding and analyzing studies that relate to and answer those questions in a structured methodology".

Scientists began doing systematic reviews in the 1980s, and the method was soon recognized as being extremely important for researchers. Why? Because it takes all the relevant published literature and data into account.

You see, many so-called "scientific studies" are paid for by the Pharmaceutical Industry, which has a clear financial interest in obtaining results that will shed a positive light upon the drugs they produce. Thus, they routinely manipulate the studies they are funding, so that the results indicate that their product is good, whereas in reality, it may well be of not much use at all, or worse: it could do more harm than good.

You may (understandably) think that I am exaggerating. I assure you, I am not. I myself need not go into details about the despicable tricks the Industry uses to convince others that their products are much better than they in fact are. Fortunately, there are physicians, experts in their fields, who have already recognized these abuses, and have written extensively about the full extent of this problem. Two such experts are  Dr. Ben Goldacre and  Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche, whose books I recommend to anyone who would like to learn of just how bad the situation with "Big Pharma" is. (Click on their names above to see their books at Amazon.com).

Getting back to the concept of the "systematic review", here is what Dr. Goldacre has to say:

"A systematic review is an unbiased survey of all the evidence on a given question. It is the best-quality evidence that can be used."

In other words, a systematic review, since it deals with all the evidence available, not just the information that the Pharmaceutical Industry wants us to believe, is the best method there is for getting to the truth about which drugs, or methods of treatment, are in fact useful.

The study "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" set out to find the facts about the extent to which chemotherapy actually helps patients. Due to the great amount of time necessary to complete such a study for even a single kind of cancer, the authors decided to limit their research to 22 of the most common types. Also, the study did not cover other treatment methods: "We did not attempt to evaluate the effect on cancer outcomes of hormones, immunotherapy, antibodies, tumor vaccines, gene therapy or other novel techniques."

Therefore, keep in mind when viewing the study that it only deals with chemotherapy, and its contribution for the 22 types of cancer studied.

Yet despite the admitted narrowed focus of the review, its results are absolutely shocking, for it reveals that for many varieties of cancer, chemotherapy contributes either extremely little, or even nothing at all, to helping people survive.

You can read the study yourself, and indeed: I encourage you to do so. No, it is not easy to find this systematic review. Not to get "conspiracy-minded" here, but it would almost seem as if certain powers (perhaps including your own physician) do not want us to know of this scientific study. How else could you explain why cancer.org, the site of the American Cancer Society itself, does not even mention this tremendously important work, let alone tell us what it reveals? Clearly, the industry is putting its own financial prosperity well ahead of your health and well-being. But more on that site later in this book.

The information that the systematic review "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy" reveals is of the utmost importance to anyone who is considering receiving chemotherapy treatments. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, if an oncologist does not provide his/her patients with the information given in this review, he or she is guilty of malpractice, at least ethically speaking. Legally, it is a different matter: our laws are such that medical practitioners can get away with much more than you could imagine. (I learned that lesson first hand during my encounter with the oncologist who wanted to "help" my mother with chemo.)

Here are several links where you can download the study, for free. (Note that there are other sites that charge the hefty sum of $35.95 to download this very same pdf file. Those sites are typically ones that distribute − for a fee − scientific papers. You would think that where such crucial information is concerned, they would provide them free of charge to everyone. Or could it be that such sites receive funding from the Pharmaceutical Industry, and thus have little interest in informing the public of studies whose revelations could cost that industry billions of dollars in losses every year?)

I would like to add that when looking for sites to download this study, even though I typed in its exact name (which someone not familiar with it would of course not know), it was very difficult to come up with even two links where it can be obtained for free. Why is it that such an important paper is so hard to find on the Internet? Decide for yourself.

In any case, the download is free at a few sites; here are three links, including one from my own site.

The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies

 Link 1  Link 2 (  Link 300222-5/pdf)) Caution! This third link should only be used if you wish to pay $35 for exactly the same PDF file that the first two links offer for free. So why am I including this third link? Because it links to an "official", that is, mainstream medical site (Clinicaloncologyonline.net). I include it so you can see that yes, this is a serious mainstream medical study. It is interesting, though, that "Clinical Oncology", which almost no doubt has ties to "Big Pharma", wants you to pay $35 to download the PDF. Could it be that they don't wish this information to fall into the hands of the unsuspecting public? Once again, decide for yourself!

Should you for some reason not be able to download it from any of these places, never fear: simply send me an email, and I will be glad to send it to you (dboltoncreations@gmail.com).

Once you have the study, I encourage you to please send it to anyone you know who has been diagnosed with cancer (or to one of that person's family members). You could well be saving a life by doing so. In addition, please also send them this eBook as well, so they learn even more.

Although the results speak for themselves, I would like to go over the most important details here, since it is vitally important that you be able to understand just what this ground-breaking work reveals. However, for anyone not used to reading such scientific documents, it could be easy to reach wrong conclusions about the information contained therein.

Here is the table that you will find on page 4 of the study:

I would like to explain the different categories and numbers on this page, since it might be easy to get confused. Here is an explanation of each column:

1) Malignancy. This gives the name of the type of cancer studied.

2) ICD-9. Not relevant for our purposes. This gives the code number of this specific disease, according to the "International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems".

3) Number of cancers in people over the age of 20. This gives the total of the cases studied for that type of cancer.

4) Absolute number of 5-year survivors due to chemotherapy: the number of people who survived for at least 5 years thanks to chemotherapy.

5) Percentage of 5-year survivals due to chemotherapy. In other words, out of all the people with this type of cancer who were studied: what percentage lived for five years thanks to chemotherapy?

This last column deserves a bit more attention. Imagine that one day, your physician hands you a diagnosis of cancer. Trying to help you see the "bright side", he suggests that you opt for chemotherapy treatment. After your initial shock and dismay, you might (indeed: you should) ask the simple question:

"Doctor, according to the statistics, what are the chances that chemotherapy will help me live another five years or more?" Of course, you might phrase that question differently, for example:

"Doctor, please tell me what the chances are of chemotherapy curing me?"

I'm sure that many thousands of people ask their doctors this question when they receive the sobering diagnosis. And I'm equally sure that many, if not most of those doctors, do not tell their patients the truth, either because...

1) They themselves are negligent, have not done their "homework", and are therefore not aware of this study (though it was published years ago).

2) They don't want to "scare" you by revealing just how unlikely it is that chemo could ever help.

3) They know that if you do accept chemotherapy, there will be a lot of money to be made.

For whatever the reason(s), most doctors will not give you the information shown in this document − even though it is, I stress once again, a scientific study that was published in Clinical Oncology, a peer reviewed journal.

Before we go on, allow me to express my opinion on this situation, in clear and strong terms:

1) Any doctor who does not know of this paper has been negligent in his/her duties, for the results of the study are of tremendous importance for patients who have been diagnosed with one of these types of cancer. Any physician who deals at all with people who have cancer is under an ethical obligation to keep abreast of any scientific studies pertaining to cancer treatments, most especially to cancer treatments that involve the use of poisonous substances (such as chemo), and that could actually do much more harm than good. Of course, it is quite possible that your doctor does not know of the study merely because the "cancer industry" in the U.S. does its best to keep such documents from reaching even physicians. Nonetheless, any oncologist who doesn't know of it is in my view plainly negligent. Of course, you can help here...

2) If you ask your family doctor or oncologist about this work, and he claims to never have heard of it, offer to send him a copy by email, so that he may educate himself. (Feel free to send him this eBook as well. As a matter of fact, I urge you to do so!)

3) As a follow up, you might then later ask that same physician if he still plans to use, or recommend, chemotherapy for all those types of cancer for which it is totally useless. And should you do this, please let me know: I'd be very interested in his/her answer!

4) If you have recently been diagnosed with cancer, and your doctor is aware of the study, and has just recommended chemo for a type of cancer that the study shows to be untreatable with chemotherapy, then ask him how he could dare to suggest such a treatment, considering the fact that it would obviously do much more harm than good.

If he is offended by your question − big deal! After all: we're talking about your health here − indeed, about your very life!

Now let's turn to the statistics given by the report, so that we can see clearly what those numbers mean. We will choose stomach cancer as an example; the data is from the table on page 2 of the study (the fourth page of the pdf file):

The number of patients was in this case 3,001. The absolute number of 5-year survivors due to chemotherapy was 20; thus, the percentage of 5-year survivors due to chemo was 0nly 0.7%. That's right: over 99% of stomach cancer patients who received chemotherapy were not helped at all by that invasive treatment. One might even speculate (though the study does not suggest this) that at least some of these patients were not only not helped, but were even seriously harmed by chemo, since, as the American Cancer Society itself admits, chemotherapy can indeed be a cause of cancer, or of secondary cancers. Here some of the side effects they list on  one of their pages:

"Some chemo drugs can damage cells in the heart, kidneys, bladder, lungs, and nervous system." and: "Some chemo drugs cause long-term side effects, like heart or nerve damage or fertility problems." and: "Many side effects go away fairly quickly, but some might take months or even years to go away completely. Sometimes the side effects can last a lifetime, such as when chemo causes long-term damage to the heart, lungs, kidneys, or reproductive organs. Certain types of chemo sometimes cause delayed effects, such as a second cancer that may show up many years later."

Don't make the mistake of believing that they are telling us about these horrid side effects in the interest of honesty, or your well-being. No doubt they are listing them for legal reasons: if they failed to mention such effects, everyone who then suffers from these conditions after receiving chemo could get a lawyer, and sue them for millions.

If you read that page of their site, you will find that as horrifying as the possible side effects are, the text does as much as it can to play them down, using phrases such as...

"Many side effects go away fairly quickly after treatment ends."

Naturally: if you are being gradually poisoned, and then they stop giving you the poison, you would hope that at least some of the side effects would disappear, wouldn't you? Also notice that they mention neither which of the many side effects go away, nor how quickly they disappear. Could they not give us the statistics on this?

Or else:

"Side effects are not always as bad as you might expect."

OK, so they are not always as bad as I might expect. But pray tell, cancer.org: How often are they not as bad as people expect? In other words: where, on this page, are the statistics showing just how many people suffer the worst side effects?

Or else:

"Doctors try to give chemo at levels high enough to treat cancer, while keeping side effects at a minimum. They also try to avoid using multiple drugs that have similar side effects."

Gee, I sure hope so! Isn't that the least we could expect?

Or else:

"Every person doesn't get every side effect, and some people get few, if any."

Once again: why don't they show us the statistics as to just how many people get each of those side effects? Or are they trying to "sugar coat" the subject, in order to convince us to opt for chemo despite the terrifying side effects?

These are but a few examples of how the American Cancer Society, through its site cancer.org, uses carefully crafted written propaganda to sell us treatment methods that in many cases will not help us, but will rather do us significant harm. Think it through a moment:

1) As the "Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy" study shows quite plainly, chemo contributes nothing whatsoever to curing, or even to achieving five-year survival, for many types of cancer, and does next to nothing for other types.

2) Chemotherapy, as even cancer.org admits, leads to extremely strong negative side effects.

3) Therefore, if you are given chemotherapy for many types of cancer, it is doing you no good, and only harm.

The subject of how the ACS employs finely crafted propaganda to achieve its ends is, I feel, of tremendous import, which is why there is a chapter in this book on that subject alone. But for now, back to the systematic review.

First of all, I feel it is important to make sure that you do not draw any wrong conclusions from the numbers in this report. The study was very specific in its scope, investigating the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival rates. However, the results do not indicate that (using stomach cancer as an example) 0.7% of the people were cured of cancer through chemo; it merely means that of those thus treated, (only) 0.7% were still alive after 5 years, due to chemotherapy. In other words, of the very few (20 out of 3001 patients) who were helped by chemo, it is quite possible that at least some of these 20 individuals still had cancer.

On the bright side, do not conclude from the study that stomach cancer will definitely kill 99.3% (100% - 0.7%) of the people who get it. This statistic is not saying that at all. Cancer.org tells us that in 2017, approximately 28,000 people in the U.S. will be diagnosed with stomach cancer; of these, 10.960 will die. Thus, 39% will die, and 61% will live. Therefore, if you (or a loved one) have stomach cancer, you have a 61% of being alive after 5 years (not a meager 0.7%). However, as we can plainly see from the study, if you choose chemotherapy, it will do practically nothing at all (0.7%) to contribute to a cure. In addition, the side effects of chemo may be: loss of appetite; hair loss; diarrhea; mouth sores; increased chance of infection; bleeding or bruising after minor cuts or injuries; fatigue or shortness of breath; damage to the heart, lungs, kidneys, or reproductive organs; some other sort of cancer, in addition to the one you already have.

There are a few statistics at cancer.org, but they are all but irrelevant, and indeed useless, if you have cancer. What would most interest a cancer patient is this: of those who survived the type of cancer I have, just what treatment methods did those survivors choose? Was it chemo? Radiation therapy? Or perhaps did a good number of them survive, and even cure themselves, due to a radical change in diet and/or life-style? And yet, on the huge site of cancer.org, this crucial information is nowhere to be found.

Considering the facts that the systematic review shows − namely, that chemotherapy contributes to 5-year survival in only 0.7% of cases − would you really want to choose chemotherapy if you get stomach cancer? I know I sure wouldn't: the chances of it helping me would only be 0.7%, and due to its extreme side effects, the chances of it doing me harm are no doubt significantly greater.

Returning now to the page of the study, let's focus our attention on those results that are given by a little hyphen ( − ) instead of a number. As a matter of fact, it is of the utmost importance that you take careful note of the places in this table where those little hyphens appear, for they reveal a terrifyingly shocking truth.

Why? Because on this table, a hyphen ( − ) mean 0%. Yes, ZERO percent.

Where do those horrifying hyphens appear? They are placed in the columns for the following types of cancer:

Pancreas - Soft tissue Sarcoma - Melanoma - Uterus - Prostate - Bladder - Kidney - "Unknown Primary Site" - Multiple Myeloma

That's right: for nine types of common cancer, chemotherapy contributes nothing whatsoever to 5-year survival rates; and of course, nothing at all to curing patients.

When perusing a number of "alternative medicine" sites, I came across references to this study, yet saw that they really did not do it justice, and in my view − somewhat unfairly criticized chemotherapy.

"What?" you are no doubt thinking, "You, David, who seem to have declared war on chemotherapy, are saying that some alternative medicine sites unfairly criticize it?"

Yes, I am saying just that. The only statistic those sites mentioned was the "Total" at the bottom of the fourth page, namely, 2.1%.

I quote from one of those sites:

"FACT: approximately 2% of all cancers respond to chemotherapy."

Put that way, this is not a fact. Of the 22 types studied, 13 respond at least a tiny bit; 13 is not 2% of 22, but rather, 59%. The types that do respond are:

Hodgkin's (40.3%), Testis (37.7%); Cervix (12%); Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (10.5%); Ovary (8.9%); Esophagus (4.9%); Brain (3.7%); Rectum (3.4%). (Note: I recently read that as far as cancer of the testis is concerned, the success rate of chemotherapy has gone up since 2004, from 37.7% to about 40%.)

Thus, if you have Hodgkin's, or cancer of the testis, there's around a 40% chance that chemo could help. That total of 2.1% is the average of all 22 types. Why is it so dismally low? Because, as mentioned earlier, there are nine types of cancer which do not respond at all to chemotherapy. So what would I do if I had, for instance, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (10.5% in the list)? Would I think: "Well, a 10.5% chance of chemo helping is at least something; I might as well give it a shot!"

Truthfully, no, since the chances of it not helping, and therefore, due to its side effects, of doing more harm than good, would be 89.5%. Instead, I would opt for the line of (mainly) self-treatment that I discuss in a later chapter of this book. If, after about 2-3 months, alternative treatments were doing no good at all, and I were desperate, then yes, I might try chemo. But I believe that after three months of living as I shall describe in that later chapter, I would most likely be well on my way to a cure, and would have no need for chemo.

And if I had Hodgkin's, with its 40% likelihood of being treatable with chemo? Once again, I would first try natural methods, but would certainly remain open to the possibility of chemo, should all else fail.

In other words, to properly evaluate this tremendously important systematic review, we must not take that total figure of 2.15% and generalize to all types of cancer. Keep in mind also that there are many more types of cancer that are not mentioned here, since they were not within the scope of the study. For some of those types, chemo may well help to a degree. If the Pharmaceutical Industry has those figures thanks to its own studies, why don't they give them to the general public? Could it be because the figures for other types of cancer are every bit as depressing as the ones for the 22 types studied in this review?

Naturally, this is something we will only ever know if further studies (especially systematic reviews) reveal to us just how much chemotherapy contributes to the conquering of those other sorts of cancer. It is easily possible that the "Industry" already knows those figures. For this reason, we must demand that the government force the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry to reveal to the public all the study results in their possession, and as soon as possible.

Therefore, I would like to invite you to join a Facebook group I have set up, called "Make Big Pharma accountable!". Once we have a large number of members in this group, I plan to set up a petition, at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov When a petition is started at whitehouse.gov, it has only one month to achieve 100,000 signatures. If it reaches that goal, it will be passed on to people who will respond, and also, will be put in line to be reviewed by the White House.

Naturally, getting 100,000 signatures in only a month is no easy task! That's why I am doing this in two steps:

1) Get as many people into the Facebook group as possible over the course of the next 8-12 months.

2) When we have well over 100,000 people there, I can then make an announcement to the group, telling them that is is now time to sign the petition that I will have started. In this way, perhaps we can get 100,000 (or ideally, many more) signatures on our petition, to ensure that those higher up in the White House (and maybe even the president himself?) see our petition, and are convinced that certain abuses on the part of the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry must be stopped as soon as possible.

Therefore: please join the group, so that you will be able to take part in achieving real and positive change in what is at present an intolerable situation.

Here the link to the group: Make Big Pharma accountable!

***

As we saw in the study (whose data, though they are the result of a serious "official" scientific investigation are nowhere mentioned by the American Cancer Society at cancer.org), chemotherapy helps on average in only 2.1% cases of people who have 22 of the most common forms of the illness. For nine of those types, it contributes absolutely nothing: 0%. The side effects of chemo − freely admitted (though "sugar-coated") by cancer.org − are quite obviously so extreme, that no person in their right mind would ever want to suffer them.

Therefore, we can conclude, and very reasonably so, that chemotherapy should never be chosen to treat at least nine types of cancer.

But do the physicians behind cancer.org tell us this?

No, not at all. Although the ACS must know about the study discussed above, they mention chemotherapy as a treatment option for each and every one of the nine cancers that do not respond at all to chemotherapy (0% in the last column of the fourth page of the review). That's right: even though chemo does not help at all with these types of cancer, as the systematic review shows plainly, the American Cancer Society nonetheless lists it as a valid treatment option for all of these types.

And as the study also shows, for many other types of cancer, chemo contributes so little that almost certainly, it is doing much more harm than good. True, the study did not deal with other varieties of cancer, but only 22 of the main ones. Yet now I ask you: If the average contribution of chemo to 5-year survival rates for 22 common types of cancer was a meager 2.1%, do you really believe that its success rate will be a lot higher in the other types, those that were not included in the review? Sure, perhaps for one or two of those other types, chemo could help somewhat, maybe as much as 40%. But I would bet that even for the types not included in the study, the contribution of chemo is also shockingly low.

Naturally, at this point one might ask: "If chemo often does no good, and a lot of harm, then what about other treatment methods, such as radiation therapy?"

I have not found any systematic reviews on radiation therapy. No doubt the "Industry" knows those facts and figures as well, which of course leads to the question of why they aren't making such studies available to the public. I think it's safe to assume that if the statistics they have show that a treatment method such as radiation therapy (for example) can indeed cure cancer in a great majority of the cases, they would indeed share them with the public. The fact that they don't, suggests to me that with that method, as with chemo, the true statistics are most likely not very encouraging, to say the least.

Taking into consideration the facts that I have presented in this chapter, what would you call the irresponsible behavior of the Industry?

I will say it plainly: I call it criminal. And I join the thousands of others who have recognized such abuses in the "Medical/Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex" in accusing that industry of continuing to harm, and even kill, many people merely for the sake of being able to continue raking in billions of dollars of profits each year.

Harsh words, I know. But I guarantee you: the more you learn of the things that are going on every day in our health system, the more you too will recognize that what I say is true.

It is not my goal in this book to go into all the abuses being committed. Truth be told, I find it so depressing that I would not want to dedicate even more of my time to investigating and reporting on these conditions. Fortunately, I don't have to. During the course of the research for this book, I came across three excellent volumes that should definitely be read if you wish to know the full scope of this horrifying national problem (Two of the three were mentioned earlier). These books are:

1) Bad Pharma - How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients, by Dr. Ben Goldacre

2) Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How big Pharma has corrupted Healthcare, by Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche

3) The Secret History of the War on Cancer, by Devra Davis

These are just three of the books that expose the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, and how it is causing suffering, and even death, in our own United States, and in other countries as well.

The 2004 study "The Contribution of Cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in Adult Malignancies" is known in the medical community, yet medical professionals show no interest in giving their patients this vital information. Instead, they continue to recommend and use chemotherapy in thousands of cases each your, cases in which the type of cancer "treated" will not be eradicated with chemo. Quite obviously, they do this for their own financial gain; they are willing to submit people to further suffering, and even death, merely to enrich themselves.

What's that you say? Perhaps doctors recommend chemo out of ignorance? Maybe they truly believe that chemo helps with all types of cancer? In other words, maybe they just don't know of this study? Here, you yourself can help. If you have reason to discuss cancer treatment with your doctor, ask him whether he knows of this systematic review. If he doesn't, then ask for his email address, and send him a free copy of this book, so that he may download the study for himself. And if he/she later says "Well, that study is from 2004, and things have improved a lot since then", make sure you ask that physician to give you a more recent study that shows clearly how much the situation has improved. No doubt, he/she will not be able to do so, because it is simply not true that chemo drugs have developed to the point where they are curing a much higher percentage of people than 15 years ago. As a matter of fact, some of the chemo drugs used today are the very same ones that were in use decades ago. To give but one example: Cyclophosphamide (sometimes called Cytoxan) has been used regularly since 1959 – and that in spite of a list of side effects that would make your hair stand on end (hair that will soon be falling out if you decide to accept treatment with this drug).

I definitely feel that every doctor (and most especially, every oncologist) should know of this review. Of course, many do, yet do not share the information with their patients; this I consider to be an ethical crime. Nonetheless, I'm sure that there are some doctors who simply have not come across this essential, and most revealing study. After all, the Pharmaceutical Industry will certainly not send it to them! If this is the case with your physician, then by sending him this book (containing the download links to the study), you will be doing him an invaluable service.

But what if he takes offense when you offer to contribute to his education in this way? In such an event, I would suggest that you immediately sever all ties with him, and seek out a physician who is willing to add to his knowledge, no matter what the source, for any doctor who has that "I'm the doctor, so there's nothing you can tell me!" attitude is plainly letting his arrogance and vanity stand in the way of optimally helping his patients. And that's not the doctor that you − or anyone else – needs, especially when it is a matter of life or death!
How to deceive People without telling a single Lie

Paolo Sarpi (1552-1623), a Venetian monk, lawyer, statesman, historian, and scientist, was a friend of Galileo Galilei. I imagine he was speaking as a lawyer and a statesman when he once remarked: "I never tell a lie, but I do not tell the whole truth to everyone."

While reading through the pages of the website of the American Cancer Society, cancer.org, I am sorely tempted to think that those who are responsible for that site have taken that slightly tongue-in-cheek comment by Sarpi to heart, and made it their guiding principle.

But you may ask: Can someone quite effectively deceive you without uttering as much as a single lie? Of course they can. Consider the following situation...

Mary arrives home conspicuously late one night, and John, having already begun to doubt her fidelity, decides to ask a few questions...

John: "Mary, tell me the truth: you are seeing another man, aren't you?"

Mary: "Oh, honey, how could you ever ask such a thing? You should know that I love you very much!"

John: "But at that party we went to a month ago, I saw that you were flirting with Frank. Is he the one?"

Mary: "Frank? How could you ever think I would be interested in him? I married you, didn't I? That should show you whom I really love!"

John: "Give it to me straight: Are you sleeping with him?"

Mary: (Now crying): "Oh, you're terrible! I've loved you from the first day we met, and now..." (sobbing more loudly) "...you accuse me of such a horrible thing!"

John: (softening up upon seeing her cry so much). "Oh well, I didn't mean to upset you. I'm sorry. I guess I'm just a little too suspicious by nature. (He takes her into his arms to comfort her). "Now, now, don't cry. I'm sorry." (He smiles warmly) "Hey, why don't we get some sleep now? Tomorrow's Saturday. We can take a walk in the park, and then go to that nice little restaurant we noticed the other day, OK?"

Mary: (calming down). "Well... OK. But only if you promise to never again accuse me of being such a terrible person."

John: (relieved that she's no longer crying). "Oh, sure dear. I see now that you love me just as much as I love you!"

Happy ending, right? Yet you will notice that even if she was being unfaithful, she didn't tell a single lie: she may well love her husband very much, even though she did have an affair. Nevertheless, by not directly answering his questions, and by often answering them with other questions, she managed to successfully deceive him without telling a single lie.

So how does cancer.org go about doing its deceptive little dance around the truth, with the goal of withholding it − namely, the truth − from the public?

In this chapter, I will do an analysis of the cancer.org site, "reading between the lines" so to speak. I invite you to enter each page I discuss (I will provide the direct links), so you, too, can have a look, and judge for yourself whether what I say makes any sense.

We shall begin with their home page: cancer.org . About five seconds after clicking the link and entering the suite, we are greeted by a pop-up window that solicits our money:

Allow me to begin my critical analysis on this very first thing they present to us, their donation pop-up. The following critique will be expressed in a sort of "dialogue" form: "CO" stands for "Cancer.org"; "DB" are my initials. We shall begin with the very first sentence at the top.

CO: "Help us attack cancer from every angle"

DB: Really? Every angle? Including those "alternative" angles that, if successful, would lose your industry billions of dollars per year?

CO: "Your donation helps fund breakthrough research, free rides to chemo, free places to stay near hospitals, and so much more."

DB: Is that right? Let's take those points one by one...

1) "breakthrough research". If that is so, then why are you not doing serious research on totally natural treatment methods for cancer? After all, the discovery that one could cure cancer by diet, and a change of life-style alone, is a most worthy topic for research, is it not? If it is confirmed that such an approach works, it would save thousands of lives, and literally billions of dollars of the people's money every year. Would that not be the biggest breakthrough in the entire history of the fight against cancer? So why aren't you focusing a lot of your resources on that kind of research? I'll tell you why you aren't: Because if it were confirmed that natural treatment methods worked, you, the "Cancer Industry", would lose the tens of billions of dollars yearly that the public would be saving.

2) "free rides to chemo".

DB: Why, how generous! One single session of chemo costs thousands of dollars; much more than enough to pay for a ride to the oncologist, I would say. It reminds me of a casino that offers free bus rides from the city center to the casino's location. Not that the casino owner is being "generous": he pays for the rides knowing it's going to pay off for him in the end. And considering the abysmal track record of chemo, the comparison with gambling is chillingly appropriate. Except with chemotherapy, it's not only your money, but your very life that's at risk.

Here's a question for you, cancer.org: Wouldn't it be a good idea to also pay for the "ride to the cemetery", once chemo has failed, and claimed another victim? The average funeral in the U.S. costs about $8,500; the average cost of chemotherapy over a period of eight weeks costs $30,000. So if chemo fails, and the person dies (maybe even prematurely due to the horrendous side effects of chemo), wouldn't it only be morally appropriate for the Industry to pay for those funeral costs? Now, that would be a sign of true generosity, would it not?

3) "Free places to stay near hospitals".

DB: Chemotherapy, that costs an average of $30,000 over only eight weeks, easily generates enough cash to justify paying for a place to stay near the hospital. Once again the casino analogy: whenever a "big player" shows up at his favorite casino, he will often receive his hotel suite for free. Sorry, cancer.org, but I don't see your offer of "free places" to be generous, but rather, it is along the lines of "Buy this $30,000 car, and we'll give you a free 24-inch TV set." In other words, it's a standard sort of sales pitch, and nothing more.

And besides: we are on the donation page here. So it is not really cancer.org who is paying for all these goodies, but you, the public, who are being asked for donations to pay for them. In other words, it's not enough that you, the patient, if you get cancer and chose chemo, will have to pay $30,000 for eight week's treatment; you will also, by donating to cancer.org, be paying for the "free rides to the clinic" and the other goodies they so "generously" hand out. But let's move on...

The donation buttons themselves suggest the amounts you should give. They start at $50. Why don't they just have that one "Other amount" box, and then the space to fill it out? Because they want you to give at least $50. For some of you out there, $50 is no small change. If you are one of the millions of people getting the minimum wage of $7.25 (as of 2017), $50 represents almost seven hours work time, or almost an entire work day. Of course, if you have a better position − for example, if you are the CEO of the American Cancer Society − you will earn $50 in about six minutes instead of the seven hours that a minimum wage worker needs to earn that amount. (An aside: In 2017, the CEO of the ACS – a so-called "non-profit organization" − will receive compensation and benefits totaling about one million dollars. That's an average of over $83,000 per month, or almost $4,000 per work day: about $500 per hour, or $8.3 per minute. Therefore, their CEO makes $50 in about 6 minutes, instead of the nearly seven hours you would need to work to earn that same amount. No wonder the lowest suggested donation on this page is $50: for those in the tax bracket of the CEO of the ACS, $50 is only chump change!)

There is also that button for "Other amount", so that if you can only give a few dollars, they will accept that as well.

Naturally, it could be the other way around: maybe you are wealthy, and desire to do more by donating a truly large amount of money. Yet no matter how much you wish to donate, you might want to know just how much of your money will be going to the good cause itself, and how much will be eaten up by organizational costs, salaries, fund raising efforts, and other expenses.

Daniel Borochoff, the president of "Charity Watch", a non-profit organization that helps donors make informed decisions, was quoted in a  CNN article published in May, 2015. Here is an excerpt from that article:

"When it comes to vetting charity groups, watchdog organizations say follow the money.

The average annual American household contributed $2,974 to charities, and Americans donated $335.17 billion to charities in 2013 overall, according to recent statistics by the National Philanthropic Trust.

'Good charities give roughly 70% of their income towards the actual program and fulfilling their mission statement, while less than 30% of the cost should be allocated towards solicitations and operations costs,' added Borochoff."

Thus "good charities" spend only about 30% on "solicitations and operating costs", and 70% on their stated cause.

So how does the American Cancer Society measure up in that respect? Let's check it out!

At "Charity Navigator" we see the figures, under "Financial Performance Metrics": the ACS.

On  this page, we see year-by-year ratings for the ACS, from 2001 through 2015. It would appear that instead of getting better and better marks, the American Cancer Society is getting worse and worse. In other words, they are becoming less efficient as time goes by. How else would you explain the fact that their rating dropped from 87.28% in 2001, to a dismal 71.48% in 2015?

If your child's grade average dropped from 87 (B+) to 71% (C-), wouldn't you be justifiably concerned?

Apparently, the ACS is spending an ever-decreasing percentage of its funds on valuable programs, and an increasing amount on salaries and fund-raising efforts. That latter area is, as we can see on  this page (under "Financial Performance Metrics") exceptionally well-funded: a full 34.9% of the money you contribute goes for trying to get more money, of which over a third will also be spent trying to raise even more money, etc., etc.

True, in any capitalist country, big businesses spend a good portion of their capital on advertising. Car manufacturers, for example, spend many millions per year advertising their cars, in an effort to get you to buy one. And when you are convinced by a car commercial to get that type of vehicle, you pay the money, and end up with a fine new car.

And what do you get when you are persuaded by the commercials, magazine ads, fund-raising events, etc. of the American Cancer Society to give money to them? You get the assurance that they will do everything they can to help you, should you or a loved one fall prey to cancer. However, the elephant in the room here is the looming question: Are they really doing everything they can to conquer cancer, for instance, by exploring all the possibilities, including those that might turn out to be the least expensive, and the most healthy for you?

No, they are not. Instead, they are doing everything they can to encourage the development of treatment methods that are ridiculously expensive, and that in large part have side effects that may well make your health much worse, or even kill you before your time.

This is an accusation that you will find repeatedly in this book, and the weight of the evidence supports it fully, as we saw plainly in the chapter on the systematic review "the Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy". Additional damning evidence is the fact that despite the millions they spend on research, they still have apparently not done scientific studies on the possibility of treating, and perhaps even curing, cancer by using fully natural methods: proper nutrition, and a change in life-style.

And why don't they fund such studies, which could well lead to definitive scientific confirmation of the hypothesis that by using natural methods, many types of cancer could be totally cured with practically no financial expenditure on the part of the patient, or the insurance companies?

I've said it before, and will say it again, and again: Because if this were indeed proven, the Cancer Industry would lose billions of dollars every year. Despite the noble intentions of many individual physicians and other health care servers, for the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry, the most important thing is not your health and well-being; it's their obscene profits that they continue to rake in year after year, by doing their utmost to convince you that only they hold the key to your health. And as the systematic review on chemotherapy shows us quite well, much of the industry propaganda is nothing more than a well-veiled lie designed to rob you of your money, no matter what the cost to your life.

Let me give you two links to articles about the American Cancer Society (ACS) that you would do well to read − and think about − before you accept what you see at cancer.org as being "the honest truth":

# Article one:  The American Cancer Society (ACS), "More Interested in Accumulating Wealth than Saving Lives," Warns Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

# Article two:  Is it Time to Boycott This 'Anti' Cancer Charity?

I could easily move from page to page of the cancer.org site, and offer a critique every bit as biting as the one you've just read, but I think you probably already get the picture.

Instead, we will explore that site in a more general way, but from a fundamental, extremely important perspective: that of the poor soul who has just been diagnosed with cancer, or who has a loved one who has recently received such a diagnosis.

If you yourself are in such a situation, I'm sure you will be able to identify with our example, so please read on.
So you've been diagnosed with Cancer...

I sincerely hope that this never happens to you, but let's face it: many thousands of people receive the dread diagnosis every year. As a matter of fact, approximately 39.6% of people will be diagnosed with cancer at some time during their lives.

You leave the doctor's office in a sort of daze. You can't quite believe what you've just been told. Surely there must have been some mistake? This couldn't be happening to you − cancer, like death itself, always seemed to be something that happens to other people, but certainly not to you! And yet here you are, facing the most disquieting uncertainty imaginable: will you still be alive a couple of years down the road, or will you gradually waste away and die a pitiful death, causing your loved ones months of emotional anguish in the process?

The doctor has told you that chemotherapy is one option you ought to consider. Once you arrive home and plop down into your favorite armchair to try to mentally come to terms with all of this, you remember that when you asked your physician what the statistical probability is that you will be cured of your cancer through one or the other of these treatments, he was peculiarly evasive. He said he didn't know the exact numbers, but that most people do choose one of those treatment options.

You wonder how it could be that he, a trained specialist who is professionally obligated to keep abreast of advances in his science, was not able to give you the numbers. After all, this information is of the utmost importance to you, is it not? You thus go to your computer to do a bit of research in order to discover just what the odds really are that such an invasive therapy might indeed save your life.

In Google, you come across the site "cancer.org". In their section on statistics, you discover that for your type of cancer − let's say, stomach cancer − the 5-year survival rate is only between 31% and 67% (the latter figure applies if it is treated before spreading to other organs).

Chemotherapy is going to be very expensive, so it's only natural that you now are anxious to know how much chemo will improve your chances of survival. In other words: cancer.org has listed the statistic that of all the people diagnosed with stomach cancer, 31% survive for at least five years. But they do not say which treatment method(s) those people used. Surely, there must be a difference?

In cancer.org's page on treatment methods for stomach cancer, they list surgery, chemo, targeted therapy, radiation therapy, and Immunotherapy. OK, fine. There are options, it appears. That's the (seemingly) good news. But now, you simply must find out: of that 31% of people who survive stomach cancer for at least five years, how many of them opted for chemo? For radiation therapy? For one of the other options listed? And more importantly:

Assuming I choose chemo, how much will it contribute to my chances of surviving five years or more?

For after all, that is the essential question. If you are to choose a treatment, especially one that costs a fortune (and all of the "standard" treatments are extremely expensive), shouldn't you know what the probability is that that treatment will be successful for you? Considering the huge number of people who are diagnosed with cancer every year, surely someone must know just how likely it is that any single one of the treatment methods will help, right?

Yet though you read every single page on the cancer.org site, you can't find that crucial information anywhere.

Thus, for all you know, the 31% that survive stomach cancer could have chosen any one of those treatment methods, or maybe, just maybe, some of them didn't resort to any of those methods, but chose so-called "alternative therapies" instead. (This is even more likely to be the case for the 67% whose cancer had not yet spread, and who treated it using natural methods). Is this not extremely important for you to know? Thus, why does cancer.org not tell us these numbers?

You then spend some days doing research in other sites, desperately seeking the information that you crave in order to make the right decision about how to deal with your illness. Finally, you come across just what you need, at least as far as chemo is concerned. It is a study published in 2004, entitled "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy on 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" (discussed earlier in this book.) True, the study was done some fifteen years ago, but your research has shown that there haven't been any tremendous changes in chemo. True, different combinations of drugs are often used, and sites like cancer.org say that success rates have therefore risen somewhat. Yet it is plain that they haven't gone up all that much. You study a graph at cancer.org that shows death rates due to stomach cancer, and see that the death rate has indeed gone down between 2000 and 2015: whereas slightly more than 5% were dying of that specific disease in 2000, in 2015, that figure was slightly less than 5%. A step in the right direction. You speculate that this improvement could be due to better combinations of chemo drugs. Of course, on the other hand, this decrease could also simply be due to people becoming more aware of the importance of diet. Perhaps fewer are dying of stomach cancer now because more people have adopted healthier nutritional habits, cut down on drinking alcohol, etc. Therefore, the graph at cancer.org does not help you much at all.

Now you feel that perhaps you are over-thinking the issue. After all, you see on the graph that fewer people are dying of stomach cancer, and at that very site, they speak at length about expensive therapies such as chemo, so there must be some connection, right?

Yet you have this nagging doubt: if indeed many more people are surviving stomach cancer thanks to chemo (for instance) then why don't they put it plainly? In other words, why don't they say something like this:

"In the year 2000, the contribution of chemotherapy to five-year survival rates was X %. In 2018, that figure improved: now, thanks to developments in chemo drugs, the survival rate is higher: X%"

Don't you, and everyone else who has been diagnosed with cancer, and who are on the verge of accepting an extremely costly treatment method, deserve to know all the facts?

Yes, of course you do. But you will not find those facts at cancer-org, or at any other site that is in collusion with the Pharmaceutical Industry.

And as your further research will show quite plainly, the reason why cancer.org and other such sites do not tell you all the facts about how effective their treatment methods are is because if they did, many, if not most people would not choose any of those methods, but would instead choose more natural, and much cheaper therapies, which would result in the loss of billions of dollars each year for the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry.

That is the only logical conclusion you can reach after you have carefully read the systematic review that you stumbled across, "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy on 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies".

Why? Because in that systematic review, we find that the contribution of chemotherapy in cases of stomach cancer is only 0.7%. In other words: of the 31% of people who are diagnosed with stomach cancer, and who survive for five years, chemo contributes to the survival of only 0.7% of them. Obviously, the great majority of stomach cancer survivors are not being helped by chemo at all, but by some other treatment, either main stream or alternative. Of course, if some other main stream treatment were shown to be extremely successful in treating this cancer, the medical industry would no doubt give that treatment preference; they would tell us (for example) that "this or that therapy contributes 90% to five-year survival rates in cases of stomach cancer". Of course, they do not tell us that, and legally, they could not, since it would be a lie. The very fact that chemo is sometimes recommended for stomach cancer, despite the shocking fact that it contributes a mere 0.7% to survival rates, is strong evidence that perhaps none of the main stream methods is worth much at all to the patient. Though plainly, each and every one of those methods is worth a whole lot − in dollars − to the Medical/Pharmaceutical Industry.

Now you wonder why it took you so long to find the systematic review on the Internet. Surely, a study of such tremendous relevance to cancer sufferers should be easy to find?

Considering the importance of the information given in the study, one might think that cancer.org, and other "official" cancer sites would offer it as a free download. Yet in such sites, you will not find a single mention of this study. As a matter of fact, unless you know its exact name even before you've discovered it, your chances of finding it are quite slim indeed. But now, you have found it, and eagerly turn to the page that reveals just how much chemotherapy contributes to five-year survival rates in cases of stomach cancer, for this is the information that your doctor could not − or would not − tell you; the information that you sought in vain at cancer.org.

Reading the study, you find what was mentioned above: the contribution of chemo to 5-year survival rates among stomach cancer patients is only 0.7%. In other words, there's a 99.3% chance that chemo will not help you at all. As a matter of fact, due to the severe side effects that chemo drugs have, such a "therapy" would almost undoubtedly do you much more harm than good.

Then it fully dawns on you: This is why you received no clear answer either from your oncologist, or from cancer.org. For if they told you the truth, you, and many others, would obviously reject the idea of chemo altogether, and neither your oncologist, nor the Pharmaceutical Industry, would make the fortune they take in every year thanks to chemotherapy.

Naturally, you would now wish to discover just how much radiation therapy, and those other treatment options mentioned at cancer.org, might contribute to survival. Yet those statistics are also not revealed to you.

I myself have not seen a study about radiation therapy, nor the other therapies, which is as comprehensive, relevant and clear as is the systematic review about chemo. In this book, I have chosen to focus on chemo, though I strongly suspect that the Industry has no interest whatsoever in letting people know the full statistics pertaining to any one of the methods they promote.

Nonetheless − as a patient, or as a family member of someone who is suffering from some sort of cancer − you have the right to know all the facts, including the precise statistics that the Industry no doubt possesses, and yet refuses to make public.

And just in case you read the pages of cancer.org, the official site of the American Cancer Society, and are tempted to believe what they say unquestioningly, allow me to quote from TruthWiki (the highlights are my own):

"In a debate this year, Dr. Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society did not deny the agency's connection to corporate interests. 'The American Cancer Society views relationships with corporations as a source of revenue for cancer prevention,' said Dr. Thun. 'That can be construed as an inherent conflict of interest, or it can be construed as a pragmatic way to get funding to support cancer control.'

So it is in fact true that the ACS' 22-member board was created in 1990 to solicit corporate contributions. It's also true that board members include Gordon Binder, who is the CEO of Amgen, a biotechnology company that sells chemotherapy products. Another board member, David R. Bethune, is president of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid Company. In fact, many board members seemingly stand to make more money by treating cancer than by preventing it.

But as Thun said, these relationships are "pragmatic" ways to garner funding. Money, according to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, is the name of the ACS' game. The Chronicle of Philanthropy is a watchdog organization that monitors major charities. After analyzing the ACS' budgets and programs, they concluded the agency is "more interested in accumulating wealth than saving lives."

******

I have no illusions as to the state of mind of someone who has just been diagnosed with cancer, or who has a loved one who has recently received such a diagnosis. Shock, disbelief, denial, hopelessness, depression, and above all, tremendous fear – all conspire to cloud the minds of both the patient and his/her family. It takes a tremendous effort of will to even approach a semblance of mental clarity; despair seduces everyone involved into putting one's faith in the medical professionals, even without insisting on being informed of all the facts that might be available (such as the systematic review so frequently discussed in this book). Indeed, when fear takes hold of a family, most would prefer not to know "the whole truth", for they are terrified that that truth might be that death will soon be knocking at their door.

To this, I will say two things that I want you to consider. Read them, and re-read them as many times as it is necessary for you to grasp their supreme importance:

1) It is absolutely necessary for you to ask your doctor(s) the right questions, and to formulate those questions as precisely as possible, in order to get the facts – all the facts – about any treatment option recommended, and most especially, about "treatments" whose side effects alone could end up killing you before your time.

2) There are good reasons to believe that someone who has cancer is not at all in a "hopeless" situation. The truth is, you might just be able to do away with the cancer yourself by adopting certain life-style changes that will greatly strengthen your immune system – whose weakened state, due to your previous life-style, might well be the very reason why you got cancer in the first place.

I realize that this is a seemingly "daring" statement. Yet since I myself have known people who, when dealing with cancer, cured themselves completely by using the most natural methods imaginable, I do dare to make this statement. And by the way: the methods they used cost them virtually nothing at all.

Now, as for point 1): the questions you should ask your doctor(s) if and when chemotherapy (or any other expensive, invasive treatment option) is recommended, or even suggested, are:

1) How much does chemotherapy contribute to five-year survival rates for my type of cancer? (The systematic review dealt with in this book gives those figures quite precisely, yet only for 22 types of cancer).

If the physician does not know this, politely ask him/her to find out, and let you know. If, on the other hand, he/she says something like "Well, I don't know the numbers, but I do know that most people in your condition opt for chemo", then respond in this fashion: "Excuse me, doctor, but I don't want to bet my life merely on 'what other people tend to do'. Instead, I want to know the facts. And I must assume that, considering the huge amount of money that such a treatment would cost, there must be some objective statistics available as to the success rate of the treatment method. So please get this information for me as soon as possible, OK?"

I know that most people usually don't speak so directly to their physicians, since they tend to show great respect for these professionals. There's nothing wrong with being respectful towards an individual who has dedicated his or her life to helping the ill. Nonetheless, let me be plain: if you are diagnosed with cancer, your life is on the line. If you choose the wrong treatment method, you might just end up dead before every long. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary for you to discover all the information possible about the treatment methods available. Thus, you must do all you can to find out the success rates of those treatments. I think you will agree that the importance of sparing your doctor's ego dwindles to nothingness when compared to that of saving your very life.

Therefore, I repeat. The first question you should ask is: "How much does chemotherapy contribute to five-year survival rates for my type of cancer?" Ask for this information in writing, or in printed form. You can justify this request by saying you would like to show it to your spouse, or other family members, before making any final decisions concerning treatment. Of course, you also want it in writing just in case your physician, when telling you the numbers, isn't being honest: having it in writing would assure you that the numbers weren't just "made up", because if they were, it would open the door to a malpractice lawsuit, which every physician greatly fears.

To sum up: when faced with a cancer diagnosis, before accepting any expensive, invasive, and potentially extremely harmful treatment (chemotherapy, or radiation therapy, for example), you should definitely insist on being given objective statistics on the success rate of these treatment options. If these statistics are not available, you may consider it a clear warning sign. Why? Because if the success rates were very good, there would no doubt be clear statistics showing how much they help people; if they aren't available (or are not freely given to you), you should smell a rat, for almost certainly, the statistics would show that those treatment options do not help at all, or at the most, they help only a little. And considering their severe side effects, one can safely assume that they will do you more harm than good.

In the following chapter, we will consider cancer from a perspective that is rather different from that which is routinely given by the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry. I shall be suggesting a sort of "paradigm change" − so open your mind, and let reason be your guide!

"Causes of" − or Contributors to? − Cancer

Everyone "knows" that there are many so-called "causes" of cancer. Here's a sampling of some of the things that we need to be concerned about, since experts tell us that they are said to cause cancer. The list was compiled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer; I found it in  this article from The Telegraph.

1) Tobacco Smoking; 2) Sunlamps and sunbeds; 3) Aluminum production; 4) Arsenic in drinking water; 5) Alcoholic beverages 6) Chinese-style salted fish 7) Secondhand smoke; 8) Smokeless tobacco products; 9) processed meat; asbestos;

10) Epstein-Barr virus; 11) Estrogen; 12) Outdoor air pollution; 13) solar radiation, 14) X-radiation...

From contaminants in the air we breathe, to those in the water we drink and the food we eat, to the sunlight that keeps us warm (to mention only a very few of the culprits), we are constantly exposed to common, practically unavoidable factors that "cause" cancer − not to mention the myriad of others that we might possibly try to avoid if we happened to notice them. And if we finally succumb to the seemingly inevitable − that is, if we fall ill with cancer − we may just end up being attacked by even more causes of cancer, for as even the American Cancer Society reveals to us (in what might be seen as a rare moment of complete honesty), "mainstream" treatments for cancer − chemo- and radiation therapy − can themselves cause "secondary cancers". (As mentioned on two of the pages of cancer.org:  here and  here.)

Considering the multitude of factors that "cause" cancer, we shouldn't be surprised if cancer affects 38.5% of people at some time during their lives (Source: here.) Indeed, we should be amazed that there is anyone at all who will not get cancer in his or her lifetime!

In preparation for a later chapter, in which I shall propose a somewhat novel (but totally reasonable) approach to dealing with cancer, I would like here to question the use of the word "cause" in the majority of contexts in which it is used.

As an example, we'll take smoking as an alleged cause.

Please don't misinterpret the following paragraphs: I am definitely not defending smoking in any way. As a matter of fact, I absolutely detest that habit. As a child, I suffered from bronchitis and asthma, two conditions which were no doubt worsened by my father's incessant smoking. I have never smoked as much as a single cigarette or cigar in my life, and never will. Nonetheless, I wish to take smoking as an example, since we all hear constantly of how it causes cancer, and I would like to challenge the use of that word "cause".

First, let's define the word "cause". Here's the definition given by dictionary.com:

"A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."

Thus, we see that a cause leads to an effect. This is nothing new to anyone. At the pool table, you hit a ball with the cue stick; that ball moves, and hits a second ball. The cause of the second ball moving is the first ball that struck it. Try this experiment one hundred, or even a thousand times in a row, and you will always get the same outcome: if a ball is struck by another one, it will move. Cause and effect, pure and simple.

Yet how then can we explain the fact that of the millions of people who smoke, not all will get cancer? As a matter of fact, a good number of them might well smoke till the day they die – ultimately succumbing to something other than cancer, or to some other smoking-related illness. If smoking were indeed a cause of cancer, then everyone who smokes would definitely get cancer. However, since this is not the case, then is it correct to say that smoking causes cancer?

I almost felt a twinge of guilt while typing those last few sentences, thinking of how someone in the tobacco industry might see them, and quote them in order to defend the sale and use of tobacco products. As I said before, I hate smoking, and certainly would not recommend it to anyone. Nevertheless, I do not think that smoking, or for that matter, just about anything else on the long list of "cancer causes" mentioned above, should be called a "cause".

Instead, I feel that the word contributor is the preferable term.

When someone gets cancer, how often is a doctor able to say what the cause is? I would bet that it is only rarely that a cause can be determined. Sure, if you happen to have lived near Chernobyl, where the nuclear disaster occurred back in 1986, and you get cancer five years later, there is good reason to suspect that the high dosage of dangerous radiation you were subjected to was the cause of your cancer. But if it was, then why didn't everyone there end up with cancer? In  this NBC news article from 2005 (19 years after the disaster), we read that although cancer rates had definitely risen in the region (especially thyroid cancer), the death toll due to radiation-related cancer wasn't as high as had been expected. So yes, it is safe to say that the extremely elevated presence of radiation was a strong contributor to incidents of cancer, yet in a strict sense, it was not a cause, since many people who live in that area have not gotten cancer. Radiation as a contributor, but not as a cause. After all, any pool ball that hits a second one truly does cause that second one to move; but if 1,000 people are exposed to radiation, and only 500 of them get cancer, then it would be a slight misuse of the word cause to use it in this context.

There is a good chance that you are now thinking that I am "nitpicking" here. Yet I am not merely playing with semantics. Rather, I find it vitally important to recognize the difference between causes of illnesses, and contributors to those illnesses.

With certain illnesses, the situation is much clearer than with cancer. Let's take malaria, for instance. This disease is caused by infection with one of five types of the Plasmodium parasite. This parasite is usually transmitted to humans by mosquitoes who are infected with it. If someone has malaria, it is because he has been infected by this parasite. In this sense, we can say that the parasite has caused the disease (though even here, there are exceptions: people who, for some reason or another, seem to be immune to that parasite).

Or take the case of a person who jumps off a building. If you leap from a tall building, and land head-first on the pavement, any coroner would rightly conclude from the subsequent damage to your head that this was the cause of your death. If a thousand people leapt from that same building, and hit their heads just as you did, they, too, would almost certainly end up just as dead as you. Thus, we can reasonably speak of a "cause-effect" relationship here.

Yet with the so-called "causes" of cancer, the situation is different:

Not everyone who smokes (for example) gets cancer. However, statistically, there are more cancer sufferers among smokers than nonsmokers. Therefore, we can say that smoking contributes to getting cancer.

Not everyone who drinks chlorinated water gets cancer; however, it is often said that there are more cases of cancer among those who drink chlorinated water than among those who drink water without chlorine added. Thus, chlorine in the water supply can be said to be not a cause (since most people who drink it do not get cancer), but rather, a contributor to cancer.

Not everyone who eats red meat gets cancer, yet it could be that those who eat meat are more prone to getting it than those who don't. Here again, red meat could be called a contributor to cancer, but not a cause.

Why is it much better to talk of contributors to cancer, instead of causes? Is a mere word really so important? Yes, I think that it is, because not only is it more precise, but much more importantly, when we speak of "causes", we gradually adopt the attitude of a victim. You all know what this is like: here a few examples of such a mindset:

− "I'm overweight because of all the sugar they put into the food."

− "I'm really mad at you because you did this."

− "I probably got cancer because of the paper mill in the next town."

You see the pattern? We often think in terms of "cause and effect" where that is not a valid perception:

− You are overweight not because of all the sugar they put into a lot of foods, but rather, because you chose to eat those foods.

− You got mad not because someone did something, but because you chose to get mad as a reaction to whatever was done.

− You got cancer (most likely) not because of the air pollution, or because of any other single factor, but rather, because your immune system was weaker than that of those who do not get cancer. And it may well have been weaker because of life-style choices you have made over the course of your life.

Thank you for bearing with me. I shall now get to the main point:

There are many factors that contribute to cancer, yet few of these could be considered causes. That is to say, despite the omnipresence of such factors − pollution of every sort, bad personal habits, genetic disposition, etc. − many people never get cancer. This raises a question of tremendous importance:

How could it possibly be that there are so many individuals who do not get cancer in their lives, even though they are exposed to the same dangers that everyone else is, and may also indulge in the same dangerous habits, such as smoking, drinking, or eating an unhealthy diet?

Take a moment to ponder that question. Did you come up with an answer? Most probably, you have:

Many people do not get cancer because they have strong, well-functioning immune systems.

Returning to our "pool table" analogy: imagine a ball that is firmly glued, or otherwise attached, to the surface of the table. What happens when another ball hits it? That second ball bounces off it, but the glued ball simply doesn't budge. So it is with a person whose immune system is fully healthy: cancer doesn't have a chance.

There are in fact some people who are immune even to diseases such as HIV.  This article discusses how 10% of Europeans are resistant to HIV, due to a genetic mutation that they carry. Of them it could be said that their immune systems are "healthier" than normal.

The American Cancer Society also realizes the importance of a healthy immune system. They have made it the basis for a new cancer treatment, called "Immunotherapy". One type of immunotherapy, called "CAR T-cell Therapy", unfortunately can have some really unpleasant side effects, as we can read on  this page of the cancer.org site:

"Serious side effects can include very high fevers and dangerously low blood pressure in the days after it's given.... Other serious side effects include neurotoxicity or changes in the brain that cause confusion, seizures, or severe headaches. Some patients have also developed serious infections, low blood cell counts and a weakened immune system. These side effects can be life threatening."

This sort of treatment is anything but cheap. I quote from  onclive.com

"Novartis' just-approved chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) is going to be introduced on the market at a price of $475,000 for a single infusion, an amount that is within the range anticipated by oncologists and that Novartis characterized as well below a price level that could be justified on cost."

One would think that if a new therapy costs many times that of chemo, it would at least not have any bad side effects. But with this one, just as with chemo, the side effects can be horrendous indeed, including a weakening of the all-important immune system, and even death.

Thus we see where the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry is headed: towards "therapies" that are more and more expensive, and yet which despite their exorbitant prices, can end up further weakening us, or even putting us into our graves.

Reason itself suggests to any thinking individual, another, and almost certainly better path.

As we have seen in this chapter, a strong immune system is our best defense against any illness, cancer included. We have also seen that there are many "contributors" to cancer.

Therefore, quite logically, if you get cancer, you should immediately do two things:

1) Reduce the effects of as many of those contributors as possible.

2) Do everything you can to strengthen your immune system as quickly as you can.

I'll put it this way: if you are diagnosed with cancer, and you truly want to get better, you absolutely must begin to do those two things at once.

There are many alternative physicians these days who maintain that that is all there is to it: that if you follow this advice completely, in most cases, cancer will disappear from your system.

Yet even if, for some reason, you decide to use a mainstream therapy such as radiation or chemo, reducing the effects of possible cancer contributors, as well as doing everything you possibly can to strengthen your immune system should also be done. Doing so could well make you cancer-free, and thus save your life.

Therefore, if you really want to live, that is what you must, and will do.

But why do I say "if you really want to live?" Isn't that something I should take for granted? Not necessarily, for it could be that deep down inside, you actually do not want to live.

This is a subject which, unfortunately, is almost never dealt with in mainstream cancer sites such as cancer.org, or even in sites dedicated to alternative methods. It is a topic that the average person might not want to even consider, but it is indeed crucial, and is a factor that no cancer-sufferer should try to avoid. Therefore, I am making it the subject of the next chapter.
Do you really want to live?

To ask someone who is suffering from a dangerous disease whether he or she really wants to go on living might at first seem like the height of insensitivity, and even stupidity. After all, don't we all want to live long, healthy lives?

No, I don't think that all of us do. Allow me to present the evidence for my standpoint.

If someone wishes to live a long life, would he or she...

− Smoke? Use drugs, both legal and illegal, at the drop of a hat? Drink alcohol to the point of drunkenness, and do so frequently?

− Would any health-minded person totally avoid anything resembling exercise, and eat far too much as well, thus becoming extremely overweight? Would he/she have a diet consisting mostly of junk food, containing far too much sugar and fat?

− Would a health-conscious person easily fall prey to anger, or allow him/herself to regularly become emotionally stressed in other ways? Would they dedicate their time to the mere pursuit of pleasures, instead of dedicating a good amount of time to self-improvement?

And yet, so many of us live in exactly such a fashion.

What would any totally objective observer − for instance, some intelligent alien who has come to Earth to study human behavior − conclude after observing how millions of humans live? Would it (the alien, that is) conclude that "Earthlings do everything they can to lead long, healthy lives"? Would it not rather come to the sad conclusion that "Humans have a very clear tendency to self-destruct by behaving in a manner that is not at all conducive to having a long, healthy life"? (If you – like me – find the subject of how aliens might possibly see us as being humorously entertaining, you might get a laugh from another of my books, entitled: "God, UFOs and the Death of JFK: An Alien Perspective on Belief and Reason". After all, with all this talk about cancer, a little laughter might lighten things up a bit!). Now, as I was about to say...

This is why I have long believed that many people in fact are subconsciously seeking their own demise. Yes, I realize that you may object here: "But David, people are just trying to enjoy life; it's not that they want to die!"

Whether Sigmund Freud was correct in everything he wrote about our "death wish" ("Todestrieb" in German), I know not. Yet considering the types of behaviors listed above, a very good case can be made for the hypothesis that many of us are in fact acting in ways that will lead to a shortening of our lives.

For this reason, it might not be off the mark to conclude that if a person gets cancer, he or she has actually fallen prey to a subconscious desire to part from this life.

No, I am not saying that this is always the case. I am saying that this is a distinct possibility, and one that should be taken very seriously indeed if we wish to do everything we can to effect a cure. In other words, to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to restore our health, we should never neglect the potential psychological contributors to cancer (or to any other sickness, for that matter).

Sadness, depression, anger, despair, stress, nervousness, tension, the absence of a sense of meaning in life, a lack of fulfillment in relationships, loneliness, envy, spite, resentment, the absence of a healthy sense of humor − all of these factors do not contribute to better health. Quite the opposite: they can, over time, lead to illness.

Back when I lived in Granada, Spain, I was once conversing with a physician, who worked in a local hospital, about the influence of mind on health. She told me the following:

"I've noticed that certain people who had serious, truly life-threatening diseases would sometimes recover fully, whereas others, whose sicknesses weren't really that bad at all, would end up dying. The difference in such cases seemed to be their attitude: those who, despite being gravely ill, nonetheless had a positive attitude combined with a definite will to live, were those who recovered. On the other hand, some people, whose illness wasn't all that terrible, might well end up dying if their attitude was one of depression, despair, and hopelessness. It seems that we can will ourselves to go on living, or the opposite: we can bring on death by the extremely negative attitude that we have towards life."

This subject is quite delicate. If indeed it be true that an individual with cancer has fallen ill at least in part due to certain psychological factors, how can you, as a family member, bring up this topic? Could you ever have a conversation such as this one with a parent?

"Well, dad, now that you have been diagnosed with cancer, maybe we should talk about your emotional life. Are you really happy with mom? I notice you tend to get angry at times: could it be that you have some inner conflicts that keep you from accepting life in a positive way, and instead you react far too negatively?"

I know that I for one could never have had such a talk with either of my parents! Not only would it be treading on far too unpleasant territory; they would have thought that I was a bit crazy, for in their thinking, falling ill was more a result of some external factors, and not of an inner willingness to accept disease. After all, the reigning paradigm of the 20th century was that disease is something that attacks us from without, and thus must be fought using the wonders of modern medicine.

Not that such an attitude is totally off the mark. Modern medicine has saved literally millions of lives; many pharmaceuticals have made amazing contributions to the health of the population (although of course some of them do far more damage than good).

However, the connection between mind and body is a topic that is gaining more and more recognition, even in mainstream medicine. For example, every doctor knows about the so-called "placebo effect": the fact that (for example) if you give a patient a pill that has no medicine at all in it (a sugar pill, for instance), that patient might well feel better, and even recover, simply because he believes that the pill will help.

True, placebos will not cure everyone, but that this effect exists, is clear to physicians both mainstream and alternative.

The opposite is also known: the "nocebo". If you give someone that same sugar pill, yet tell him that it has a number of negative side effects, there is a very good chance that the person will actually experience those side effects, even though there was nothing in that pill that could in fact cause them: it is merely the person's belief in the side effects that causes them to actually occur.

The power of belief over one's well-being can be seen in everyday, practical situations. Many years ago, I was with a girlfriend who couldn't sleep, since she had been bitten by a mosquito, and the itch was keeping her awake.

Knowing about the strength of belief, and the placebo effect, I immediately had a solution.

"Don't worry!" I told her with a smile, "I have the perfect medicine. It is guaranteed to relieve the itch right away. Wait a minute, I'll go get it."

Returning with a daub of simple moisturizing cream, I applied the "wonder ointment" to her bite, and lo and behold! After just a minute, she said it didn't hurt at all anymore!

Having learned hypnosis at an early age, I have long been aware of the power of the human mind to influence the body. I believe that every physician should be required to study hypnosis, not just as a peculiar "aside" during medical school, but rather, to master it, and to employ it to help patients when an occasion presents itself. Of course, it is much easier for a doctor to simply prescribe something, and that of course is what the Pharmaceutical Industry wants them to do (and even bribes them to do), for how will the "Industry" make more money if a physician uses hypnosis, and not drugs, to cure many of his or her patients?

Though placebos can work quite well with ailments such as headaches, insect bites, upset stomach, and many others, to try to rely on them to cure cancer would be foolish. True, the power of belief can (and I'm sure does) help cancer patients to a degree: if the belief in a full recovery is extremely strong, it could well save someone's life. Nonetheless, I think we should keep in mind that which is almost certainly a fact: namely, that cancer, in many, if not most cases, is a result − the result of (most likely) a combination of factors in one's past that have led to this self-destructive disease.

One of those factors is no doubt often one that is mental/emotional. There are signs that even mainstream medicine is gradually realizing this as well. For instance, I recently found an article in the site of the National Institute of Health on the hypothesis that laughter has a positive effect on the immune system. (View it here.)

In  another article at that same mainstream medical site, we read about the "novel" hypothesis that there is a connection between the immune system and the emotions in general. I put the word "novel" in quotations because this idea is truly nothing new: thousands of natural physicians have been saying this for many years. Nonetheless, it is truly refreshing to see that little by little, mainstream doctors are finally coming around and have opened their minds to the point that they are actually considering viewing the issue of health from a total mind/body perspective, instead of merely continuing the practice of treating all illnesses as "foreign invasions" that must be combated using dangerously invasive drugs.

As we have seen, the evidence is mounting that your feelings and thoughts can have a decided impact on your health. Other factors being the same (diet, exercise, etc.), people who think positively, and who have a happy and fulfilling emotional life will generally also have a relatively strong immune system, whereas individuals who are habitually pessimistic, and whose feelings are distinguished by an excess of sadness, guilt, despair, a sense of meaninglessness, etc., will probably have immune systems that are not as strong as they could be, and that may even weaken to the point that they contribute to the onset of a number of illnesses − including cancer.

As you can see, perhaps my opening question − "Do you really want to live?" − no longer seems so silly after all. If you want to be sure that you are doing everything possible to cure cancer, dealing with the patient's thought patterns and feelings should play a vital role in any therapy, whether mainstream or alternative.

Unfortunately, this is only seldom the case. Mainstream medicine is largely dominated by the view that the patient must simply submit to whatever the doctors recommend, which is almost invariably a treatment based on (expensive) drugs, while any possible mental/emotional contributors to the illness are practically totally ignored. And if perchance an observant physician does notice that the patient is (for example) depressed, what will he most likely do? Prescribe yet another drug, an antidepressant, which in turn will have a list of immune-system weakening side effects! This is both ironic, and deeply disturbing.

But don't despair: if you or a loved one have cancer, there is no law that says you must limit your curative efforts to what doctors say. You yourself can play an essential role in the healing process, and indeed, you should actively do everything you possibly can to assure that your immune system is strengthened.

This theme runs throughout this book. Here, as we are focusing on the mental/emotional component in disease formation, I think it is appropriate to give you a number of questions you should ask yourself if you have cancer:

1) Up to now, has my life really been fulfilling, and happy? Have I been able to appreciate being alive? Am I able to find joy even in the routine of everyday life, or have I long felt bored and unsatisfied with what life has been giving me?

2) Have I been able to find humor in life? Can I laugh at myself when I am frustrated or dissatisfied, or do I react instead with anger, depression, and/or bitterness?

3) Am I doing the things in life that I believe will give me the most true happiness and satisfaction, or have I been simply living the way others think I should live?

4) Am I happy in my relationships? If not: am I able to recognize the role I myself have played in these relationships not being so good, or have I commonly simply placed the blame on the others?

5) If I indeed do see where I am to blame, do I perhaps tend to exaggerate my own guilt? Do I think that maybe I'm just a "bad" person? Am I able to forgive − not only others, but also myself, when they, or I, don't live up to my (perhaps unreasonable) expectations?

6) Do I tend to dwell on the past, instead of concentrating on the present?

7) Do I often try to escape from what I know I should be doing by resorting to artificial stimulants, drugs, an excess of TV, or other types of passive entertainment? Do I really try to make the best use of my time here on earth?

8) Do I habitually look towards the future with joyous anticipation, or do I rather spend a lot of time fearing the things that could possibly happen?

These are only meant to be examples of the sorts of questions you should ask yourself in an effort to discover the psychological factors that may well be playing a role in your illness. When pondering these questions, be honest with yourself. After all, there is no need whatsoever to tell others what answers you have come up with. It's only important that you yourself delve into your psyche, and try to come up with an honest assessment of your mental and emotional life.

Please note that I am not implying that everyone will find definite psychological correlations to the physical reality of cancer. I am merely suggesting that such factors can (and probably are) present, at least to a certain degree, and should therefore be recognized, and taken into account. After all, the main message of this book is that we should do everything we can to strengthen our immune system; therefore, we must never neglect those psychological factors that could well be weakening us, both physically as well as mentally.

In case your answers to some of the above questions happened to be of the negative variety, the big question would now be: What can you do about it? In other words, assuming that your life has not been optimal in a number of emotional respects, what concrete steps can you take to improve things? And for that matter, if you already have cancer, is it "too late" to make such fundamental changes? The answer to this last question can only be discovered if you give it a try! And as for "What can you do about it?", each person's path will most likely be somewhat different from those of others. However (if only as an example), allow me to give a few suggestions on how you might go about making positive psychological changes – changes that could well decidedly tip the balance in your favor when dealing with cancer.
"To make the best of what is in our power, and take the rest as it occurs."

– Epictetus (55-135 AD)

This quote by the ancient stoic philosopher is one that you should memorize, and use as one of your guiding principles in your efforts to recover from cancer.

"To make the best of what is in our power..." On a psychological level, what then can and should you do to markedly increase your chances of recovery? In our last chapter, I gave suggestions as to some of the questions you should ask yourself about your life, your satisfaction and happiness, and the like.

So now, let's suppose you have done just that, and come up with (for instance) the following honest answers:

"The truth is, I haven't been really happy for a long time. Life seems to be one constant grind. I am in a rut. Always doing the same things, working in a job I don't particularly like, and that doesn't allow me to realize my true potential. As a matter of fact, I'm not even sure about what my potential is, since I've never really dared to "do my own thing", but instead always just tried to live up to expectations that other people had for me.

"On top of all that, I've let myself go physically. I stopped caring years ago about whether or not I was in shape. After all, since I'm married, there's no need to try to be attractive to others. Life simply doesn't seem to have much meaning. People live, then they die. Does it really matter when death comes? Maybe my time will soon be up, and I should just accept it."

The above is, of course, only an example. In your own case, the realizations you discover may vary quite a bit, but assuming that you really took the time to delve into your mind and answer the questions honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the answers you came up with were at least in part similar to the above example.

So now, considering the thoughts/beliefs in our example, what could you do to begin to change that way of thinking; indeed, to change your life, that may have become more of a burden than a joy? I will be brief and to the point: below, step by step, are some of the actions you can take:

1) Try to see, and constantly keep in mind, that making changes in your way of thinking, and in your life, is not simply an option. If you wish to overcome your illness, and become healthy once again, you should see it as an absolute necessity. For there is a good chance that you developed cancer precisely because of your emotional state, and habitual way of thinking. Therefore, improving yourself in these respects will increase the odds of recovering. And even if your thoughts and beliefs played no role in cancer emerging, developing a more positive attitude and raising your happiness level will in any case improve the probability of recovery!

2) If you see no meaning in your life, then give yourself one. How? You can go about it this way:

a) Ask yourself what you could possibly do to make your life seem more meaningful:

− contribute some of your time to an organization that helps other people.

− help out at your church (should you be religious).

− set up a Facebook page dedicated to helping people, animals, the environment, etc.

− begin to learn a new skill.

− start reading about a subject that always seemed interesting to you, but that you never "had time" to delve into.

− get a pet – dog, cat, bird or whatever – and take joy in caring for it.

− take a little trip, with family, a good friend, or even alone, just to "get away from it all" for a few days.

− start taking yoga classes: you will learn to relax, and control your mind better, which of course can help you in dealing with cancer, and heading towards recovery.

And what if you already are doing some of the things in the list above, and still have cancer? Then perhaps you should do quite the opposite. That is, maybe you were leading such an active social life in order to escape from yourself, so to speak. In such a case, it could actually be important to begin to concentrate on yourself, and not so much on others. Thus, we see that each case is unique. Nonetheless, the main point is the same: if you have cancer, there is a good chance that something in your life up till now has not been "right" for you, and therefore, a careful examination of your life, and perhaps making some fundamental changes, could be just what you need.

If you spend a bit of time thinking about it, and writing down whatever pops into your head, I'm sure you will be able to expand the above list quite a bit. The important thing here is not exactly what you do – it's all about breaking out of your routine, doing something new, and getting enthusiastic about it!

You may wish to choose several new things to begin. But do something. Do not simply continue in your habitual rut. Besides a welcome "lifting of your spirits" that starting something new will provide, it will also give you something else: namely, the feeling that you are in control; that you are making positive decisions about your life, and about how you wish to live it. You will no longer feel that you are the passive victim of circumstances, but rather, that you are responsible for, and have determined to improve, the life you are leading. And now, for the second step...

b) Once you have decided just what you would like to do to get out of your "rut", the next essential step is... to actually do it! Begin as soon as possible. If you have decided on taking a little trip, plan it today. If you thought it might be nice to learn a new skill, begin reading about it right now, and plan to dedicate a small part of each day to learning more about it. If you have chosen to donate your time to a church or other organization, call that place right now and ask how you might be able to help them. In a word: act on your decision!

c) Read and re-read the chapter in this book entitled: "Exploring how our minds work". Then, do the mental exercises which I describe there. They are extremely powerful tools that will not only improve your mindset, but that could well put you securely on the road to a full recovery. Skeptical? No matter: doing those exercises will cost you nothing but 10-15 minutes a day, and they are in no way harmful − they can only help you. Don't just take my word for it. Do them, starting as soon as possible (today, for example!), and in a few weeks, you will see the positive effects they are having in your life.

d) During this process of reorientation, you may discover that if (one is tempted here to say "when") you do recover, you would like to live differently from before. Whatever insights you have come up with in this regard are certainly valid, and should cause you neither worry nor distress, even if it means changing your life in some ways that are not especially pleasing to others. Always remember: it's your life, and you have every right in the world to live it in a manner that is meaningful and fulfilling for you. Happiness is your birthright, and only you can and should decide which path to take to achieve that happiness. Who knows? Maybe you developed cancer in order to "wake yourself up", and to force yourself to make necessary changes in your life. I personally know one man for whom that was the case....

This man had been living a rather meaningless life, in his own estimation. Sure, he had a job, and earned enough to live comfortably, but he didn't really like that job. He spent his free time going out drinking, using drugs, seeking sex... you get the picture. His immune system eventually rebelled: a medical checkup revealed that he had cancer. He went the "chemo route" and (no surprise to me), his situation worsened by the week, to the point where the doctor stopped chemo, and told him he had only 3-4 weeks to live. But this gentleman was not the type to give up easily.

He went home and immediately decided he would do everything he could to stay alive: he stopped smoking and drinking, and quit the drugs; he completely changed his diet, adopting one recommended by alternative physicians for cancer; he changed his attitude, having first thought about what was really important in life (and recognizing that the pursuit of pleasure was not what was most important!). In short, he radically changed his diet, his behavior, and his mental outlook.

Two months later (yes, two months) he returned to the doctor, who was most surprised to see him alive. Upon doing some tests, they discovered that the cancer had completely disappeared. I met this man in 2010, about five years after he had received his "death sentence" from the doctor. As I write these lines (January, 2019), he is still alive – and well! Coincidence? I don't think so. A "miracle"? Well, maybe. But personally, I believe that he totally recovered from late Stage IV cancer due to his desire to live, coupled with his thorough change of attitude and thought patterns, and of course, also his determination and eagerness to do anything and everything that would strengthen his immune system.

Yes, there are people who completely recover from cancer, even in its final stage, yet they don't achieve this with chemotherapy, but rather with radical changes in their life-style, their diet, and their mind. Is this therefore a "guaranteed plan" for recovery? Well, no: practically nothing in life is guaranteed. However, such measures cannot be harmful, and thus, they can only help. In any case, they will significantly raise the probability of eliminating cancer from your life, and restoring your health.
The "Baking Soda/high Alkaline Diet" Cancer Treatment

This theory is, in a nutshell, the following:

Most cancer patients, when given a simple test to determine the pH level of their saliva (or urine), will get a result that is well within the acidic range of the scale, or in any case, significantly below the pH of water. Pure water has a pH of 7.

The body consists of at least 60% water. The brain and the heart are composed of 73%, while the lungs are 83%, water. Kidneys and muscles are 79%, the lungs, 83%. Even the bones are 31% water. Reasonable conclusion: if pure water has a pH level of 7 on the scale, and the human body (the averaging of all parts of the body) is at least 60% water, then does it not stand to reason that it is good to have a pH level of at least 7, namely, that of water?

On the pH scale, which goes from 1 to 14, 7 is considered to be neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic; more than 7, alkaline. It is well worth looking at this subject a bit further.

The blood will always have a pH level of between 7.35 and 7.45. What happens if the blood pH drops significantly lower than 7.35? You develop acidemia, which can lead to a coma, or death. And if the blood pH is much higher than 7.45? This can cause alkalosis, and can lead to strokes, and diseases of the central nervous system.

When reading criticisms of the "high alkaline diet", I have often seen the comment that since blood is almost always in the 7.35 to 7.45 pH range, raising the alkalinity of your diet is senseless, since the blood has a "healthy" pH level anyway. This criticism, however, is not logical. True, the blood pH lies between 7.35 and 7.45. However, if the rest of the bodily fluids and tissues have a pH level below 7, then the blood will have to extract as much alkalinity as possible from the nourishment, and the body, in order to maintain its 7.35-7.45 level. And if your nourishment is acidic rather than alkaline, the blood will have to draw so much alkalinity from the fluids and tissues of the body that they will be rendered even more acidic. Cancer thrives in an acidic environment. It would appear that even mainstream medicine is arriving at this conclusion; read  this article at Sciencedaily.com for more on this subject.

People with cancer will usually have a bodily pH (measurable with a simple pH test that you can do at home, using saliva or urine) that is well below 7. Now, if your pH is 6, this does not mean that your pH is "just a little lower than it should be". The pH scale is similar to the Richter scale that is used for earthquakes: it is a "base-10 logarithmic scale". Don't be scared by the terminology; it's really simple to understand: A 6 on the pH scale is 10 times lower than a 7; a 5 is ten times lower than 6, and 100 times (10 x 10) lower than 7.

To learn more about the "high alkaline" treatment of cancer, and other illnesses, I recommend the book "Rich man's Poor Man's Cancer Treatment", by Dr. Mark Sircus. I suggest that you learn as much as you can about sodium bicarbonate (common baking soda) as a healing agent;  The site of Dr. Sircus has a number of articles that you should read, and ponder.

My views on this treatment have developed somewhat over the last few years. Yes, I do believe it can work, since I myself know two people who had cancer (one in late stage IV) who made the dietary changes necessary, and completely cured themselves of cancer. On the other hand, I now believe that calling the treatment "Baking Soda Cure", or "high-alkaline diet cure", is missing the point a bit. Yes, I do think that eating a healthy, high alkaline diet, and using baking soda to raise your pH level as quickly as possible if you have been diagnosed with cancer, is an excellent path to take.

However, please note: I am not suggesting that baking soda is a cure for cancer. Rather, it serves to increase your body's pH level as quickly as possible. Of course, a high-alkaline general diet should also be adopted at once, because removing acidic foods from your diet will serve to help strengthen your immune system – and this is your goal, this is what can well cure you of cancer. If I were to ever receive such a diagnosis, I would certainly adopt such dietary changes, and would do everything else I could to fortify my immune system. For the reason why such treatments work is simply that they serve to strengthen your immune system. And this − the reinforcing of the immune system − is what can cure cancer.

As you can see in that last paragraph, I violated the rules of "good writing style" by using a certain term four times. I did it on purpose, since it is something that anyone with cancer should be concentrating on day and night: namely, the immune system!

Even the Medical Industry seems to have recognized this. As a matter of fact, it is the basis for the new development that they call "Immunotherapy". Don't get your hopes up just yet: their brand of immunotherapy will not tell you how to build up your immune system by natural means. After all, that wouldn't earn them any money. Instead, it is about extracting some of your healthy immune cells (T-cells) before you get cancer, so that if you ever do fall ill, they can be re-injected into you. All of this won't be cheap, however.

As you can read for yourself  here, the price for a single infusion (not including hospital costs) will be − brace yourself − $475,000. Yes, you read that figure correctly: four-hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars. And there could be some rather unpleasant side effects as well: dangerously high fevers, extreme fatigue, difficulty breathing, a sharp drop in blood pressure, tremors, headaches, confusion, loss of balance, trouble speaking, seizures, occasional hallucinations, and possibly brain swelling that could prove fatal (sources:  here and  here. (Note: Since I wrote this page, the site of the first link, "onclive.com", a mainstream medical site that deals with oncology, started to make people create an account with a password if they wish to read certain articles. Could it be that where articles showing the dangers of mainstream medical techniques are concerned, they wish to keep the general public in the dark? You decide! In any case, you can view the very same article by clicking the second link instead of the first.)

Gee, you sure get a lot for your half-million bucks, don't you? If you think you would like to trust Immunotherapy if you ever get cancer, I suggest you start saving your pennies now so that you may have recourse to this "cutting edge" treatment!

Oh, that's right, I almost forgot: one of the main subjects of this book is the idea that by completely changing your diet and life-style, you may well be able to cure yourself of cancer. The price for the "natural cure"? Practically free. Ah, you say, but what about the side effects? OK, I admit that there are a few side effects. However, they are all good. By abandoning habits such as smoking, drinking, and drugs, adopting a perfectly healthy diet, and exercising, the "side effects" will almost certainly be: more energy, a much better physique, enhanced staying power, an increase in attractiveness, and a boost in self-confidence, all of which will characterize "the new you". And imagine: you can get all of this while keeping your $475,000 in the bank, or safely tucked away under your mattress, if you prefer, since the "life-style cure" is indeed all but free of charge.

I suspect that the Pharmaceutical Industry will do everything in its power (and believe me: it has power) to convince the government to declare T-cell "immunotherapy" an "official treatment" to be covered by Medicare and insurance companies. In addition, the "cancer vaccines" they are working on could well lead to a government policy of having such vaccinations given in schools throughout the country − more billions for the Industry. (And one further step towards the bankrupting of America − as if we didn't have enough debt already! Not to mention all the children who might well suffer long-term side effects from such vaccinations.)

To reiterate: it should be clear that having a strong immune system would be the best way to fight cancer. Thus anything you can do to strengthen your immune system as much, and as quickly as possible should be seen as the very first step you should take if you ever get cancer.

Now, I realize all too well that natural treatments are constantly being attacked in articles funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry, or by those who simply don't know any better. I ran across an excellent example of this last year. Typing "Alternative Medicine" into Google, the very first site that appeared was that of a mainstream doctor who vehemently attacked alternative medicine, claiming that studies showed that it doesn't help at all when compared to "conventional" treatment methods. Skeptical of this claim, I read the fine print at the bottom of the page: it said that in the study, "alternative medicine" was considered to be any treatment out of the mainstream: diet, herbs, baking soda, talismans and amulets, witchcraft, voodoo, etc. You get the gist: in order to come up with the result they wanted (namely, that alternative medicine is a sham) they defined it by including things that are completely ridiculous, thus assuring that the final result would show that alternative medicine was not effective.

This site has apparently – and thankfully! – dropped down quite a bit in the Google rankings, since today, I am not able to find it at all. I did later read, however, that the doctor whose site it was is known to receive large sums from the Pharmaceutical Industry to attack anyone that criticizes that industry. I mention this case merely to point out that when doing your own research, you must not only read as much as you can, but read it critically, and don't ignore the fine print!

***

In April, 2013, when my mother was diagnosed with cancer (soft tissue sarcoma), I spent all my free time searching the web for possible alternative treatments. Having found information on the so-called "Baking Soda Treatment", and read of the theory behind it, I thought it seemed sound. In any case, since all my mother's doctor had to recommend was chemotherapy, and she did not want that at all, I figured that the high-alkaline method would be worth a try.

I bought a roll of pH paper (cost: about $12), and had her do the test. Result: her pH level was about 5: one hundred times lower than that of water! This is just what Dr. Mark Sircus, and others who recommend this treatment, say: cancer patients almost always have a low pH level.

I immediately wanted her to get on an alkaline diet, and also drink several glasses of baking soda water per day, in order to raise her pH as much, and as quickly, as possible. Unfortunately, she simply didn't believe that this would do any good at all, and refused, saying she didn't want to give up her favorite foods, and that she didn't like the taste of baking soda. My mother, like practically all Americans, had been largely "hypnotized" by years of indoctrination by the "Medical-Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex" to believe that only doctors "know best"; that only health-care professionals have the knowledge needed to cure.

True, my mother had read enough to know that she did not want to resort to chemo. Nonetheless, and no doubt due to her weakened state and terrible fear of cancer, she was very docile in many ways. For example, she went to see an oncologist who was a chemo specialist merely because her physician had recommended it − even though she had no intention of accepting chemotherapy.

I'm sure this is a common phenomenon in such a situation: even if a person is normally self-assertive, and somewhat of a "fighter" (which, in all truth, my mom wasn't at all), he or she may, after receiving the dreaded diagnosis of cancer, well become very passive, and willingly accept anything "the doctor orders". And in all-too many cases, this is like the sheep being lead to the slaughter, for many treatments not only will not lead to a cure, but will worsen the condition of the patient instead of improving it. In such cases, the patient often dies after months of suffering, and the family is left to grieve the loss. Yet even in the midst of tragedy, there are winners: namely, the physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry, who have earned many thousands of dollars before the patient passes away. (Forgive my sarcasm, but the more I learn of the horrors that are going on in the name of "healing", the harder it is to trust the system.)

Every day, we are bombarded with TV ads, magazine articles, and the like, that suggest that "modern medicine" has all the answers − or if not, that only they will find those answers in the future; that "alternative medicine" is akin to charlatanism, and can't really be taken seriously. Sure, even "normal" people with cancer might go to an alternative physician, but usually, only when their cancer has reached stage IV, when neither chemo- nor radiation therapy has helped at all, and when they are already at death's door. Then, and only then, would many people even consider visiting an alternative physician who knows the importance of nutrition and diet, and who may recommend serious changes in life-style as a means of treating cancer. But by then, it is often too late to do anything at all.

How much better would it be if, instead of waiting till the last minute, more people would visit an alternative physician, and follow his or her advice, as soon as cancer was diagnosed?

But then, insurance companies generally do not pay for visits to alternative physicians, and many people feel that if they need treatment, they should go to "regular" doctors, these being "official" healers whose high prices will be covered by insurance. Ironically, even if your regular physician does know the importance of nutrition, and believes that a complete change of life-style could well cure your cancer, he or she might be reluctant to recommend such changes as a line of treatment, since it is not "officially recognized", so that if you then die of the disease, your physician might be the target of a lawsuit. On the other hand, if he recommends chemotherapy and you die (probably all the more miserably, suffering from the many horrible side effects of chemo) such a lawsuit cannot be brought, since it is officially recognized.

Thus the Pharmaceutical Industry, like a huge octopus, has its tentacles extended throughout the country, and reaches down into our very personal lives. Thanks to their powerful lobby in Washington, they have seen to it that only those treatments will be "officially recognized" that they will be able to earn billions of dollars on. After all, if cancer were curable simply by changing your diet, and making other crucial changes in life-style, the industry would lose tremendous amounts of money every year. And that is the last thing they desire − even if it costs you your life. Of course, they could do a large-scale study to discover whether a mere change in nutrition and life-style could actually cure cancer, but then, why would they want to do that? For if they discovered that yes, such a line of treatment actually does work, they would end up losing over 150 billion dollars per year.

If you have trouble believing these admittedly strong statements, I think that you should seek out all the information you can on the abuses of this industry, either on the Internet, or at your book store, so that you may be able to competently judge the situation for yourself.

In any case, this is the sorry state of affairs in what we like to call the greatest country on earth!

Could it be that chemotherapy not only doesn't help many patients with certain common forms of cancer, but in fact, can even hurt them?

In an earlier chapter of this book, I presented you with a major scientific study done by proponents of standard medicine, that shows quite clearly that yes, it is true that in many cases, chemotherapy does nothing whatsoever to help patients. And that being the case, it is easy to conclude that due to its side effects, it is almost certainly doing much more harm than good.

To repeat the most important points in this chapter:

1) Cancer patients normally have a pH level well below 7.

2) The body is mainly water.

3)) Pure water has a pH of 7.

4) Therefore, a pH level of about 7 is ideal for the body.

5) Cancer thrives in an acidic environment.

6) If a person's pH level is below 7, it is in the acidic range.

7) The more acidic, the better cancer cells can thrive.

8) Therefore, if you raise the pH level of your body into the range well above 7, you will have a good chance of killing the cancer cells, eliminating them, and can become healthy once again.

About point 5). If you search the Internet using the keywords "cancer" and "acidic", you will find many sites advocating alternative medicine that will tell you that an alkaline diet can indeed be used as a treatment for cancer. On the other hand, you will find sites on traditional medicine that say that this isn't true. So what in the world are we to believe? Is it possible to cure cancer with diet and life-style change alone? As indicated elsewhere in this book, there are no large-scale studies to support this claim; yet I have also pointed out that the reason that such studies don't exist is that it is not in the interest of "Big Pharma" to do those studies in the first place, since if it is true that diet can cure cancer, that industry would stand to lose billions per year.

But let's look at the situation from the point of view of someone who has been diagnosed with cancer, and must decide how to go about recovering his health − if at all possible.

Now: As to the question of whether adopting a healthy "alkaline" diet will help you or not, there are in fact, logically speaking, three possibilities:

1) It will help in some way or another, either by curing you completely, or at least, by extending your life, and/or helping you cope with the pernicious effects of chemo or radiation therapy, etc.

2) It will not help at all, either for healing you, or for prolonging your life.

3) It will hurt you.

I think we can safely rule out 3) at once: the idea that an optimally healthy diet could ever hurt you is, as doctors both alternative and mainstream would agree, ridiculous.

As for 2), that would also be hard to believe. Diet definitely has some effect on the body, most probably a great effect. But even if its effect were to be weak, there is some effect, and that would naturally have to be a good effect, not a bad one.

That leaves us with 1): It will help you in some way or another.

So let's analyze this point more closely from the logical perspective.

Many alternative physicians maintain that a complete change in diet and life-style can actually cure people of cancer. I myself know two people who actually did this. My sister knows two others who also did it. On the Internet, you will find the testimony of many people who did the same thing: cured themselves of cancer using diet and life-style change as their treatment. (See the site of Chris Wark for testimony of people who cured themselves.) Therefore, I feel I can say that yes, this can work. Would I say it always works? No, I would not. Most probably, there are some people who made these diet/life-style changes, yet whose lives were not prolonged. In other words, I am not saying that this course of treatment is always effective.

However, what I am saying is that if indeed a healthy diet can strengthen our immune system (and who could ever doubt this?), then adopting such a diet should definitely be done if you have cancer, for even if it doesn't cure you, it will at least give you a fighting chance, and will most likely extend your life.

I have a friend whose father had cancer back in the 90s. The doctors gave him six months to live. Not wanting chemo, he and his son designed an optimally healthy diet plan. In the end, he did die − but not within six months. Rather, he lived another four years, eight times what the doctors had predicted. Would he have lived so long if he had been eating the "normal" American diet instead of a healthy one, while submitting to chemotherapy? I highly doubt it.

Adopting a healthy diet will not be a significant extra expense. You simply buy different foods. The truth is, you have nothing to lose by adopting a wholesome diet and life-style. It is all but free. And even if you opt for chemo or radiation therapy, you can still make the dietary/lifestyle changes, as this will strengthen your immune system, which will need all the help it can get once it is being bombarded with chemo drugs and/or radiation.

I do hope this is clear: if you have been diagnosed with cancer, and you truly wish to survive, you simply must do everything you can to help yourself; therefore, immediately adopting a maximally healthy diet and lifestyle is absolutely essential.

This point is so important that I will repeat it again and again until I can feel fairly certain that just about anyone reading these pages will have understood it. Let me use a little metaphor that should make it even clearer...

Imagine that one day, you are walking down the street carrying a bag of groceries, when suddenly, you hear a dog barking in the near-distance behind you. You turn around and see, about a hundred yards away but closing in quickly, a vicious Doberman racing towards you, snarling, and obviously very aggressive. There is no-one else in the street, so you know it is chasing you!

Panicking, you look ahead of you and see a shop about 30 yards away that should be open now. It is the only place you see where you might be able to take refuge, so you know you must reach it before the raging beast catches up to you and tears you apart, perhaps even killing you.

So now, the question. Which of these things would you do in such a situation?

1) Think: "Oh well, I guess I should walk a little faster and get into that store."

2) Think: "I guess I should jog over to that store".

3) Not think much at all, but rather drop that bag you are carrying and run as fast as you possibly can towards that shop!

I assume that you chose 3), right? What fool would not run as fast as he could to reach that shop and put its door between him and the mad dog chasing him? Can you even imagine thinking: "Oh well, maybe I should walk a little faster?" No! You would instinctively run with all you might. True, you may have to drop your groceries, and some things might break. True, if you're not used to running, you might pull a muscle, and that could hurt for weeks. But assuming you do reach the store in time, enter it, close the door, and are then watching the dog on the other side of the heavy glass jumping up and barking at you, would you think: "Oh, maybe I shouldn't have run so fast... now my leg hurts!" No, of course not! You will instead be thanking God that you made it to safety in time.

What does this little story have to do with cancer?

Well, I have seen people who were diagnosed with cancer, yet who acted like the person who chooses to walk "a little faster". That is, after receiving the diagnosis, they think: "Oh, I guess I should eat a few more vegetables every week". Or: "Now that I have cancer, I'll cut back on smoking". Or: "Maybe I'll drink more water instead of soda."

Come on now!! If that dog were chasing you, what would you do? You would do everything possible to get to safety as quickly as you could.

And if you have cancer, you should do everything possible to help yourself. No half-measures. No "a little bit more of this" or "a little bit less of that". No, no, NO!

Rather: immediately stop smoking; immediately cut alcohol, and illegal drug use; immediately change your diet; immediately plan an exercise program to strengthen your body.

For in your case, the ferocious Doberman that is bent on tearing you limb from limb has a name, and its name is cancer. Don't walk... run, and fast! Do everything in your power to beat it, and render it harmless. Right now, as soon as you finish these lines, search for the optimal, high-alkaline diet on the Internet. And don't just read about the diet. Begin it at once. If you smoke, stop right now. Throw away your cigarettes, and tell your family to do everything they can to stop you if you are about to relapse. Smoking weakens the immune system. Therefore, even if the type of cancer you have been diagnosed with is not apparently related to the lungs, smoking is still bad for you, due to its negative effect on the immune system. Thus, no matter what sort of cancer has afflicted you, smoking should be given up at once.

If you are out of shape, you won't be able to do any heavy exercise at once, but you can do something. Take daily walks, building up the distance, and your speed, day by day. Do sit-ups and push-ups if you are able. If not, do lighter exercises, but do something. Exercise not only has a positive effect on the body, but also on the mind. Studies have shown, for example, that people suffering from depression are almost always helped if they adopt an exercise program. And since emotional issues can well be contributors to cancer, anything you can do to improve your psychological welfare should be adopted at once.

Write down the exercises you do every day; keep an agenda. Also, keep a written record of the foods you eat, and what you drink. And I mean write down everything you eat and drink, even before you consume it. Why? Because that way, if you are about to fall back into your old habits, and eat something unhealthy "just this once", the act of first writing it down will hopefully shame you into not eating it! Be sure to increase your water intake as well, for it will help to cleanse your system (preferably, drink only higher quality water that is not chlorinated).

I say again: I am one of the growing number of people who believe that cancer can be beaten by totally changing one's diet, and life-style. If I were diagnosed with cancer, I would certainly not want my system to be poisoned by chemo drugs; nor would I simply give up and patiently await death. Not at all! I would do everything possible to cure myself. That would begin with the adoption of a truly optimal diet. As for the lifestyle-changes, I wouldn't need to do much, since I neither smoke nor drink, and do regularly exercise. Nonetheless, there are also other factors to take into account, namely, emotional factors. Thus, if I had cancer, I would give a lot of thought to my general emotional state. Am I really happy in life? Do I see a meaning in life, one that gives me a reason to live a lot longer? Am I getting along with others as well as I should? Is my work fulfilling, or does it merely fill me with boredom?

***

In the end, only you can decide which path of treatment you should take. However, in order to make a truly informed decision, you should not obediently and unquestioningly do what doctors suggest, but rather, you should learn as much as you can about alternative, natural treatment methods. And it should be obvious by now that no matter what you choose, you should in any case adopt a maximally healthy diet, and life-style, right away, in order to increase the probability of obtaining a cure. As a matter of fact, to not do so would be a moral crime, for here, we are talking about saving a human life − namely your own!

*****

If you survey the opinions of "mainstream" physicians on this treatment, you will no doubt come across sentences such as "There is no scientific evidence to support such claims". And this is true. Yet this is true not because such a diet could never work, but rather, because there have been no "official", large-scale studies to support this theory. To put it more clearly, by way of example:

Suppose you personally knew thirty people who had been diagnosed with cancer, and who had completely changed their diet, adopting one that is said to be optimal for fighting cancer. And let's further suppose that in each and every one of these thirty cases, those individuals had been completely cured of cancer. (I am not saying that this is probable; it is merely a hypothetical situation, for the purposes of our example.)

So: in our thought-experiment, we have thirty people who had cancer, all of whom had cured themselves through diet. Now, you might say that in such a situation, one could indeed say that there was scientific evidence to support the claim that diet can cure cancer, right?

Wrong. Even if all thirty cancer patients whom you personally knew had in fact cured themselves merely thorough diet, the skeptics could still say "There is no scientific evidence to support such claims". Why? Because there is no official large scale study, done by the medical establishment, whose statistical results show that diet can effect cancer.

Since an increasing number of physicians − albeit generally those who are known as "alternative physicians" − recommend a specific diet for cancer, you might think that the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry would, as soon as possible, fund a large scale study to test whether diet can indeed have a positive effect on patients with cancer.

Why haven't such studies been done? Think about it...

From what I have read, it costs at least ten million dollars to do such a study, one whose results might then be taken seriously by the medical community. In the case of the effect of diet on cancer, a study of this nature would most probably cost several times that amount.

You may be thinking: "But wouldn't it be well worth it? After all, even if a study like that costs one hundred million dollars, if they then discovered that diet alone can cure cancer, it would be perhaps the greatest medical discovery of the last hundred years! People wouldn't need to be radiated, or to receive chemotherapy treatments that cause such discomfort, hair loss, a tremendous weakening of the body, etc. They could just change the way they eat, which wouldn't cost them any money at all, since they would only have to purchase different foods. Even people who are poor, and without insurance, could cure themselves. No one would have to go broke paying for exorbitantly expensive medical treatments!"

Yes, you are right: that would be an almost paradisaical situation, would it not?

But I think you may have already recognized that there is a problem here: a financial problem for the Industry.

The average cost of chemotherapy treatment in the first year of diagnosis is over $108,000. I recently found this information on the Internet:

"A 2011 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute determined the cost of all cancer care in the U.S. totaled $124.5 billion in 2010. The researchers projected the total cost would rise to $157.7 billion by 2020. "

(Source: https://www.drugwatch.com/2015/10/07/cost-of-cancer/)

Numbers that are plain, and startling: the yearly price of cancer care in the U.S alone is well over 100 billion dollars per year. How much might that figure be reduced if indeed certain cancers could be treated, and even cured, using diet alone?

And this is precisely why, in my opinion, official studies about the effects of diet and life-style changes on cancer are not being undertaken by the industry:

If such a study showed that yes, diet is an excellent treatment for cancer, the Medical- Pharmaceutical Industry would lose tens of billions of dollars every year.

Could this be a reason why that industry prefers not to do such a study? When then some people do in fact cure themselves with diet, the medical "experts" can always say: "There is no scientific evidence to support such claims". Which is true, if by "scientific evidence" you mean the results of "official" studies, which the industry is not doing. Yet if you happen to know someone who actually did cure him/herself from cancer by means of diet, is that alone not evidence that it is indeed possible?

Let's review the present situation in the next section. Points will be made that have been made before, yet due to the supreme importance of this subject, there's nothing wrong with repetition, as long as a clearer understanding of what we are facing is the result.

*****

Let us now return to the results of the crucially important systematic review dealt with in the chapter "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year survival in Adult Malignancies". This study clearly shows that chemotherapy contributes nothing whatsoever to 5-year survival rates for nine different types of common cancers, and it contributes next to nothing in a number of other types. In other words, chemotherapy does not help at all with many types of cancer. And since chemo has many dangerous side effects, it is easy to conclude that not only does it not help, but that it actually harms patients.

This study was done in the correct, rigorously scientific manner required in order to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (it was published in the journal Clinical Oncology in 2004). Obviously, anyone diagnosed with cancer should be aware of the results of this study, should they not?

Why, then, is this tremendously important study not even mentioned on any of the pages of cancer.org? Why do they totally ignore it? Allow me to speculate, and voice what you yourself are most likely, and almost certainly correctly, thinking right now: The American Cancer Society does not want people to see the results of this study, for if they did, many people would know that for a number of types of cancer, chemotherapy does no good whatsoever; they would therefore quite logically refuse such treatment, and their refusal would cost the Industry losses of billions of dollars per year.

I know that this is a strong accusation. But what other conclusion could be reached? It is unthinkable that the ACS does not know of this study. If they therefore don't even mention it in their site, it can only be because they do not want to do so. And I suggest that losing billions of dollars yearly would be a most powerful motivation to keep the people ignorant of the truth, would it not?

Secondly, I would like to point out something else that struck me at cancer.org.

On their page "Stay Healthy" cancer.org tells us some things we should do to lower the risk of cancer: stay away from tobacco, follow certain sun-safety tips, eat healthy, and exercise. Good advice, to be sure!

But let's think about it for a moment. They correctly tell us some of the things we should do to avoid cancer:

1) Avoid smoking. Studies (for example,  this one) have shown that smoking weaken one's immune system; to prevent cancer, it is important to have a healthy immune system, therefore, by not smoking, you are taking a step to keep your immune system strong. Good advice!

2) Exercise, too, has been shown to maintain a healthy immune system. Therefore, by exercising regularly, the immune system is benefited. Fine!

3) Eat a healthy diet. No doubt here, either: a healthy diet is almost a prerequisite for a healthy immune system. By eating the right foods, in the right quantities, we are doing our immune system a great favor.

This is all excellent advice from cancer.org, without a doubt. The implicit logic is undeniable:

1) If your immune system is weak, the risk of cancer appearing, and eventually even killing you, is greater.

2) A healthy life-style − not smoking or drinking, exercising, and eating well − strengthens the immune system.

3) Therefore, by living healthily, we will greatly lower our risk of getting cancer.

No arguments here! Cancer.org's advice is plainly worth following.

However... Suppose you already have cancer? What possibilities do you have to fight the disease? Let's find out. From cancer.org's main page, we click first on "Treatment and Support" at the top, then on "Treatment and Side Effects", and on that page, we click "Types of Cancer Treatment" (direct link to that page  here).

What do we then find? Two lists: "Common Treatments for Cancer", and "Other procedures and Techniques". In the first list, we see the following:

1) Surgery

2) Chemotherapy

3) Radiation Therapy

4) Targeted Therapy

5) Immunotherapy

In the second list:

1) Stem Cell Transplant

2) Hyperthermia

3) Photodynamic Therapy

4) Blood Transfusion and Donation

5) Lasers in Cancer treatment.

Wow, maybe things aren't as bleak as they seemed! That's quite a few options we have.

But wait...

A few paragraphs ago, we saw how cancer.org itself spoke of the necessity of not smoking, adopting a healthy diet, and exercising, in order to strengthen your immune system, and thereby lower the risk of getting cancer.

Wouldn't it then be logical to suggest the very same measures if you already have cancer? Why, I ask, does this page on cancer treatment not even mention the use of a healthy diet, exercise, and a very healthy lifestyle in general, as a means of treating, and perhaps even curing cancer?

A crazy idea? Not at all.

If cancer (at least in many cases, and for a number of types of cancer) comes about because of a weakened immune system, would it not make sense to do everything you can to strengthen your immune system if you actually get cancer?

Thousands of alternative physicians, the world over, recommend just that. If you have cancer, they say you should immediately adopt the healthiest life-style possible: no smoking, drinking or illegal drug use; adopting a very healthy diet, and exercise. In addition, you should examine your emotional life, since it is quite possible that issues such as depression, stress, etc., could well have played a role in weakening your immune system, and thus, could be contributing factors to cancer development.

I repeat: Why then, does cancer.org not even mention any of these measures as a possible way of curing cancer? I think you already know the answer to that, but just in case you haven't connected the dots yet, let's consider the cost of the treatments they list. Those costs are in the many thousands of dollars, the most expensive being Immunotherapy ($475,000). Ever wonder why health insurance is so ridiculously expensive? It's because if the insurance covers treatment methods such as chemo- or radiation therapy, the insurance company may end up having to shell out tens, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient. Of course, most of those methods (if not all) have dangerous side effects as well, which can lead to the patient's "death by treatment".

By contrast: what would it cost a cancer patient to adopt an optimally healthy life-style? Next to nothing at all. And the negative side effects? None whatsoever.

Could this be why cancer.org mentions the healthy life-style as a way of possibly preventing cancer, while totally avoiding any suggestion at all that such a life-style may actually be a good way to treat cancer? Could it be that they want you to think that if you already have cancer, you would be "well-advised" to choose an extremely expensive course of treatment, instead of simply strengthening your immune system by changing your habits, and perhaps thereby curing yourself? Naturally, if you did this, the Industry would earn nothing at all on you. And if most people did this, that industry would lose many billions of dollars every year.

In case you're thinking: "Well, there's no proof that adopting a healthy life-style would work", I remind you that there is no proof that chemo, radiation therapy, or any other "main-stream" therapy will work, either. How many people have you known, or heard of, who despite subjecting themselves to expensive chemotherapy, have nonetheless ended up dying miserably?

And besides: the only way we could know for sure whether the adoption of an optimally healthy lifestyle would work for the majority of people with cancer, would be to do large-scale studies, in which the progress of patients who have indeed chosen that option were carefully followed and examined.

Thus: Why isn't the "Cancer Industry" funding, and carrying out such studies? I'll put it plainly: it's because it's not in their financial interest to do such studies, for if it were proven that natural treatment methods were effective, that industry would suffer devastating financial losses.

I believe that yes − it is that simple.
A relevant Aside

Last evening, my wife went out with her cousin, who told her that her mother, who had had months of chemotherapy treatment, had been sent home after being told it was doing no good; the doctor gave her about three months to live. Although I only met my wife's aunt once or twice, I was of course saddened by this news.

Many months ago, she had been diagnosed with cancer of the pancreas. At the time, I had my wife tell her cousin about possible natural treatment methods (I could not do so myself, since the little Japanese I speak does not allow me to talk about anything complicated). Unfortunately, her cousin and her husband both decided to trust "modern medicine", and chose chemotherapy instead of any alternative treatment. At that time, I was not yet aware of the systematic review which is at the heart of this book. Therefore, I did not yet know the statistics about how much chemotherapy might contribute to five-year survival rates where pancreatic cancer is concerned.

Take a look on that page of the study, and go down the list to "Pancreas". What do you find in that line's final column? That evil little hyphen, meaning: "0%". Chemo helps in ZERO percent of cases of pancreatic cancer. And yet, her doctor here in Japan had apparently recommended it; an oncologist injected chemo drugs into the woman for months, before finally seeing that it was doing no good at all.

Did that doctor not yet know that chemo would not help her, and therefore, would only harm her, due to its dangerous side effects? Had he or she not ever read the systematic review that reveals this quite clearly? Or did that doctor know of the study, yet recommend chemo merely to make money? Or perhaps, because many other doctors use chemo, he/she was just following their example? I don't know.

Would the lady have recovered if she had chosen a natural treatment plan? Of course, I cannot say this with certainty, but I can say, based on the results of the study here explained, that it was completely futile to use chemo for pancreas cancer, and that therefore, with almost complete certainty, it did more harm than good. How well she would be doing if she had chosen a natural treatment, plan, I cannot know. But I do know that she chose chemo, which didn't help her at all, and now she has been sent home to die.

Earlier in this book, I told you of Eloisa, my friend in Spain who opted for chemo instead of going the "natural route", and of how she died after months of chemotherapy for two types of cancer that are highly unlikely to be helped at all by that method. Now, my wife's aunt is at death's door, after months of chemotherapy for a type of cancer that as we see in the study, and is not responding to that treatment. (Note: She passed away a few months later, yet another victim of both cancer, and chemotherapy.)

How many more people must suffer and die after being subjected to the drugs that are pumped into them by doctors who are either negligently ignorant of this systematic review, or else, who are harming their patients for mere financial gain? When will this end? When will our lawmakers finally recognize the full extent of this problem, and take the strict measures necessary to halt these abuses?

Don't forget to join our group "Make Big Pharma accountable!", so you will know when our petition to the government is ready for signing. In this way, you, too, can help cancer sufferers everywhere!

***
Some Evidence for the Hypothesis of the "Alkaline" Remedy

For me, my sister and my brother, seeing our dear mother wasting away, as the passing of each hour brought her closer to the inevitable embrace of death, was a source of well-nigh unbearable emotional pain.

In those weeks, I naturally did everything I could to care for her, and when she slept, I spent my time searching the Internet for possible alternative remedies. I learned that there are some doctors who believe that a radical change in diet does indeed offer a possibility for fighting cancer: a high-alkaline, sugar-free diet can, according to them, rid the body of cancer cells.

I told my sister of this possibility, and a week or so later, she told me that she had talked to a number of friends about this. She said that two of them knew people who had indeed recovered from stage IV cancer using special diets. One of them (the father of a friend of my sister's) used what she called "the blueberry diet": after being diagnosed with cancer, he ate as many blueberries as he could (and I imagine he also made other dietary changes as well). In the second case, a man with stage IV prostate cancer, which had spread to the bones, had been given a maximum of four weeks to live. At this late stage, according to the doctors, neither radiation, nor chemotherapy would do any good whatsoever. Understandably desperate, this man searched the Internet for any glimmer of hope he might find. He happened across the "Baking Soda Cure".

Don't misread my intentions here. I am not trying to push any one alternative remedy, nor am I suggesting that you, or anyone else, not use the "standard" form of cancer treatment in favor of some supposed remedy that hasn't received the official "stamp of approval" from the FDA, or official medical organizations. In addition, let me say that I am not trying to "sell" you anything at all. I was motivated to write this work, as I stated at the beginning, due to my anger at reading the results of a medical study, and of all that that study both revealed and implied.

Let's return to the man with prostate/bone cancer. Figuring that he was doomed anyway, this gentleman decided to "go for broke" with the "baking soda" treatment. Sure, he had read that drinking too much baking soda water can lead to indigestion, and even alkalosis: a pernicious condition marked by nausea and vomiting, numbness or tingling in the face and extremities, muscle spasms, and even stupor or coma. Thus, taking in too much sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) is not something you would normally want to do.

But his was no normal situation. He had stage IV prostate and bone cancer. The doctors had told him that nothing would help him, not even chemotherapy. (At least they were honest! I say this because I know for a fact that there are doctors that do recommend chemo even in situations where it could not possibly help at all, and would kill the patient even sooner than doing nothing.)

After reading that − just maybe − the high-alkaline method could help him, and having been told by the doctors that he had only 3-4 weeks to live, what did he have to lose? Would it be wise to not try out the baking soda treatment, just because he might get an upset stomach, or end up in a stupor? What did it matter? He was almost dead anyway!

Such being his thoughts, he decided to go for it. Several times a day, he drank glasses of water containing a specific amount of baking soda, as recommended in the sites he had read. In addition, he changed his diet to include only the foods recommended.

He later reported that on some days, he had drunk so much baking soda water that yes, he did get sick, and even vomit. But the next day, he continued drinking it.

Well over a month later, he returned to his physician, who was quite surprised to see the man alive. He requested that the doctor do a test to see if he still had cancer. To his astonishment, the physician found that the cancer had disappeared entirely.

I learned of this case in 2013, about five years after it had occurred, and at that time, the man was still alive, a full five years after he had been given the "death sentence" by his doctors.

A miracle, you say? Well, for me it is a lot easier to believe that the cure was brought about by the extreme change in diet that the man adopted, together with the intake of baking soda, since these measures will definitely raise your body's pH level. For as even "modern medicine" is gradually discovering, an alkaline environment hinders the proliferation of cancer cells.

True, you will find many sites on the Internet that say that this is not true. Yet why, then, have a number of scientific studies shown clearly that sodium bicarbonate does indeed have a clear effect on cancer development? Just this morning, a found several studies that have been, or are going to be, done whose hypothesis is that baking soda can help people with cancer. It is true that those studies which have already been completed were done with cancer cell development in mice, but these studies have shown that sodium bicarbonate definitely plays a role in inhibiting the spread of cancer. Here's an example of study, entitled: "Bicarbonate increases Tumor pH and Inhibits spontaneous Metastases." (If you aren't up to wading through all the technical jargon, skip to "Conclusions" near the end.)

No, this study (and a number of others that have shown similar positive results) were not done on humans, but on animals. Nonetheless, I also found that a number of hospitals and universities are planning to do studies based on the hypothesis that baking soda can help cancer patients. One may hope that those experiments are well-designed, and that the scientists involved are really searching for the truth, and are not being financed by the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry. Of course, that industry has more than enough funds to do such studies, and in other portions of this book I have stated that they should sponsor such research. Yet on the other hand, the danger is that they may somehow "rig" the study to get the results they want. Lest you think that I am some sort of "conspiracy theorist", allow me to say that this has happened before when that industry tested drugs that they produce, and wished to convey the impression that those substances really helped people, when in fact, the drug produced next to no effect at all. (See Doctor Ben Goldacre's book: "Bad Pharma − How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients"-for chilling tales of precisely this sort of deceit.)

Yet from what I can tell today, there is a growing interest among medical researchers – who have obviously been intrigued by what many alternative physicians have been saying for years – in planning and carrying out scientific studies in the area of the effect of sodium bicarbonate on cancer cells. Or perhaps I should say the effect of raising the body's pH level (and once again: the blood always has a constant pH level, though if the rest of the body is acidic, the immune system will be weakened). This can be done simply by a total change in diet, i.e., adopting a sugar-free, vegetarian diet. Mainstream physician William Li talks about the use of diet to inhibit cancerous tumor growth in an extremely interesting "ted.com" talk.  View it here. Doctor Li is the President and Medical Director of the Angiogenesis Foundation, whose site you can see here.

Yes, I can understand if you are skeptical about all this. After all, even if I do tell you of cases I personally know of, you might think I am "making them up", i.e., that I am simply lying to you. But let's use reason here...

If indeed you do get cancer, then even if you choose to receive an aggressive treatment such as radiation or chemo, would it not be wise to take other measures as well, in order to maximize the probability of recovering? Read that last sentence again, and think about it for a moment.

1) If you have cancer, your immune system is not functioning properly.

2) Having a strong immune system would help you fight off cancer.

3) Ergo, you should do everything possible to strengthen your immune system.

Logical, isn't it? And as any health care professional, traditional or alternative, will tell you, having a very healthy diet is always a good idea, for indeed, it is conducive to bolstering the immune system.

In this context, please note that a "healthy diet" is not at all like the typical American diet. If you do decide to change your eating habits because you have cancer (and in my view, you would be a fool if you didn't), then make sure you choose a diet that is recommended by alternative physicians for people with cancer. That is, make sure that is a high-alkaline diet, with no sugar, and all but meat-free. What's that you say? You do have cancer, but you're so used to eating the foods you like that you might not have the willpower to make such a radical change? If you're thinking that, then...

Wake up, my friend! You have cancer, for God's sake! You could well die of this sickness! Do you really not want to do everything possible in order to achieve a cure?

I apologize for my somewhat crude tone here. I assure you it is not a sign of contempt. It is precisely because I feel for you, and for anyone who has cancer, that I sensed the need to get emotionally "abusive" for a moment, to shake you out of your stubborn mindset.

Do you want to get healthy again, or would you prefer to waste away and die? If you choose the path of health, then by God, do everything you can to help yourself!

Yes, I do know it's hard (and yes, I freely admit it would be hard for me too); that precisely if you do have a serious disease, you "need" the comfort of your favorite foods all the more. It's easy for someone to direct you towards the right kind of diet, but much harder for you to make the nutritional changes suggested.

For this reason, you may want to design some "mental exercises" that will help you to change your eating habits. Read the chapter "Exploring how our Minds work" for details on those exercises. Using the principles explained there, you can create exercises for the specific purpose of training your mind to (even gladly!) give up your present diet, and to adopt one that is optimally healthy − a diet that could well greatly extend your life, and even lead to a complete cure.

"The macabre, ritualized Dance of Death"

Now that is a rather scary chapter title, is it not? Yet it is a good description of how I perceive the behavior of patients and their family members when a diagnosis of cancer is given.

If human beings were more rational than emotional, how would a family react if one of theirs came down with cancer? (We'll call him "Uncle Clive".)

I think they would begin by carefully analyzing the situation of their loved one: How has Uncle Clive been living? Does he have any habits that might have weakened his immune system? For example. Does he smoke, drink too much alcohol, or take a lot of drugs?

How about his diet? Is it healthy, or might it contain far too much sugar, red meat, "junk food", etc.? Does he eat enough vegetables?

Also: does he get enough physical exercise? Does he have a regular exercise routine?

What about his emotional state? Does he have a happy, fulfilling life? Could he be suffering from depression, perhaps without even being totally aware of it?

And not to forget: are there external factors that might have (also) contributed to cancer? For example: does Clive live near a paper mill? (It has been shown that populations that live near paper mills tend to have higher cancer rates). Has he been exposed to large doses of radiation?

On the (extremely important!) emotional level: Has he lost a love one in the past few years, which might have led to his losing interest in life itself?

After discussing such issues with Uncle Clive himself, and carefully analyzing all of these factors, the family would put all the answers into writing, in order to better judge which of these many factors might most probably have led to a significant weakening of Clive's immune system, thus contributing to the appearance of cancer.

During their analysis, they would almost certainly come up with several factors in Clive's life that in all likelihood have weakened his immune system to the point where cancer occurred. They would then take an eminently logical step, one that should be plain to anyone but the most hopeless fool:

They would, together with Clive, design a new life-style for him: one that contains...

1) Only the healthiest of diets, as recommended by alternative physicians: a high-alkaline, vegetarian diet, one that includes no sugar, and the regular intake of pure water, etc. In order to raise his pH level, Clive would drink several glasses of baking soda water daily.

2) A regular exercise program. If Clive is completely out of shape, such a program would have to begin modestly, perhaps only with daily walks (that would then be gradually increased in distance).

3) The use of positive suggestion would also be included. Clive would go to an expert in this area (for example, an alternative physician specializing in hypnosis/self-hypnosis), who would formulate suggestions that Clive would give himself throughout the day, and perhaps in sessions of self-hypnosis as well. This would be a means of utilizing the power of belief (which I deal with in the chapter "Do you really want to live?").

In that "rationally thinking" world, all of the family members would realize that the cancer now afflicting Clive is a result of factors in his life: not only ones related to life-style, but also emotional, and possibly genetic. In any case, he is here now (i.e., in a state of illness) because of factors related to his past. Therefore, that family would know that it is of urgent importance to change anything and everything in his life that could possibly have contributed to his getting cancer.

But now, there enters another factor, and one that is even more delicate: Clive's relationships. Let's suppose that the family members, all being honest and clear-thinking (for this theoretical family inhabits a world where reason is valued a lot more than in our own), consider the possibility that Clive is not really happy in his marriage. True, he and Diane have been married for some 25 years, and have, like everybody, had their ups and downs. But Clive, when asked, tells the not-so-pleasant truth: "The fact is, that though I do still love Diane, I am not happy with her. It's as if our relationship were empty somehow. She's always making me feel guilty for something or another, and rarely ever says anything really nice to me." Diane, who is sitting there with the others, does not seem very happy with his honesty, but being a creature of reason, she listens carefully, for after all: Isn't Clive's health more important than her ego? (Though admittedly, she can only have such a generous mindset because she is living in the "World of Reason".) She then speaks up: "Yes, Clive, I hear what you are saying. And you know, maybe this illness of yours will help me to think more positively about our relationship, and to make it a point to say nice things more often. Yet I would totally understand if you preferred a temporary separation, so that you can "spread your wings" a bit. Who knows? Maybe unhappiness in our relationship was one of the contributors to this cancer?"

Of course, if in this "World of Reason" the typical cancer treatments of our world were present (which I highly doubt!), then the family would also discuss them: chemo- and radiation therapy, for example. They would return to the physician that diagnosed the cancer, and request precise and complete data as to the proven effectiveness of those methods. In fact, they would insist that the physician find those statistics for them. If they then saw that (for example) chemotherapy is indeed highly ineffective in treating the type of cancer involved, they would immediately reject such a "therapy". If, on the other hand, Clive's cancer were one of those which can just perhaps be successfully treated with chemo (for instance, cancer of the testes, for which chemotherapy contributes about 40% to five-year survival rates), he and the family, after careful analysis and rational thought, would decide what to do. Clive speaks up:

"The doctor said I could wait a month or two before starting chemo, after which time he will test me again to see if things are improving, or getting worse. So this is what I will do: During the next two months, I will do everything possible to strengthen my immune system. Starting right now, I will change my diet; begin a regular exercise program; make use of the power of positive suggestion; and in addition, I will avoid stress, arguments, and any sort of conflicts. Since Diane and I have been arguing a lot recently, either one of two paths must be taken: either you, Diane, will resolve to not provoke any conflicts, and to avoid arguing; or else, I will take a little vacation by myself. Having some alone time may help me see more clearly what I may have been doing wrong in a number of areas of my life. You wouldn't mind, would you, Diane?"

"Why dear, that could be a wonderful idea! After all, the important thing is that you recover completely, so anything that might lead to a recovery is just fine with me!"

Clive decides to put off the decision as to whether to recover at home, or somewhere else, till the next day. But that very day, he begins his new diet, which had previously been thoroughly researched by other family members, since naturally all of them wanted to do everything possible to help. They have also come up with an exercise program for him, tailored to his present physical condition: that very same evening, Clive takes a three-mile walk (his first long walk in years), and though tiring, he feels the better for it, not only because his body has gotten some exercise, but because he now feels that he is taking concrete steps towards health. (More about the importance of this in the chapter entitled "If faced with cancer, what would I myself do?")

That is the way things would play out in our hypothetical "World of Reason". Unfortunately, relatively few people would act this way in our world. Instead, the situation plays out in an ominous fashion – the macabre "Dance of Death" referred to earlier. It goes something like this...

Clive is diagnosed with cancer. Naturally, he is shocked and dismayed; he at first thinks it must be some mistake. His wife, Diane, is stunned as well, but she tries to cheer him up: "Well, not everybody who gets cancer dies from it. Just take it easy, and try to be positive. The doctors know what they are doing. After all, they're experts. So if Doctor Smith recommends chemo, then I'd say that's the way to go."

In fact, she doesn't really know the statistics for that type of cancer, but she does want him to feel better. Yet instead of simply trying to make Clive feel better, would it not be preferable to first gather all the facts? For instance: what is the 5-year survival rate for this specific type of cancer? And what would (for example) chemotherapy contribute to this survival rate, based on statistics such as those present in the scientific study presented earlier in this book?

Diane, despite her attempts to cheer Clive up, is in fact distraught, for she is thinking: "Oh my God, a year from now, Clive might well be dead!" But of course she doesn't say this.

Clive, still in a state of shock from the diagnosis, doesn't seem so optimistic...

"Well, I guess I could try chemo, though I know four people who had cancer and went the chemo route, and three of them died within a couple of years. So let's face it: maybe my time has come." Diane tries to brush this off: "Oh, what are you talking about? Maybe they found the cancer in time. A lot of people survive cancer, you know. Sometimes it just goes away by itself. And with chemo, there's a better chance that that will happen, right?"

Once again, Diane is speaking without having collected all the relevant data. For in fact, for some types of cancer, chemo has been shown to contribute nothing whatsoever to a cure; indeed, one may assume that quite the contrary: some people's lives are even shortened precisely because of chemotherapy. But after all, in this "macabre dance of death", all actions/reactions are "choreographed" in such a way that everyone concerned tries to put on a cheery face, and act like maybe it's "no big deal". Except, perhaps, the patient himself...

"Well", Clive continues, "Maybe you're right. But it could be that I'm a goner. So you know what I want to do? Enjoy life a little more. Hey, why don't you bake a chocolate cake? No sense in depriving myself of the little pleasures of life while I'm still alive!"

Wrong, Clive! Just the opposite: instead of continuing with your old habits, you should view cancer as a sort of "wake-up call", and therefore, you should do everything you can to improve your life-style to the maximum, in order to increase your chances of recovering your health.

Yet once again, this isn't how the "macabre dance of death" would have it. Instead, it calls for everyone to try to go on living as before, pretending that this cancer diagnosis might not be so serious after all. At the same time, there is a strong tendency to place oneself in the "hands of the professionals". Yet where is the guarantee that what "your doctor orders" is indeed what is best for you?

Clive and Diana, by blindly following their doctor's recommendations, are possibly becoming victims of the "Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry", as have so many others. For if they opt for chemo without knowing the true statistics of its effectiveness for Clive's type of cancer, they could be subjecting Clive to a "treatment" that will poison his system further, weakening his immune system even more, and lead to his premature death. Yes, this does happen.

However, I well understand their situation: fear causes them to react as if in a stupor, blindly following anyone who suggests that something or another might help. Of course, instead of becoming passive and simply obeying the doctor, they should actively research on their own. First, they should determine how much chemo might help (should Clive have one of the 22 types of cancer dealt with in the study so often mentioned in this book, that info can be found there). Also, they should definitely look into alternative treatments, beginning with ones that are virtually free, and that are based on these essential factors:

1) Diet: They should immediately adopt an optimal diet, as recommended by many alternative physicians.

2) Exercise: this not only helps to strengthen the immune system, but lifts one's spirits, psychologically speaking.

3) Giving up all negative habits that weaken the immune system: smoking, drinking, drugs, soft drinks, any food and drinks containing processed sugar... you get the idea.

4) The use of positive suggestion, and/or self-hypnosis.

5) Avoidance of stress, emotional conflicts with others, overwork, etc.

6) Careful thought about whether one actually wants to go on living: Do you see a meaning in your life? Do you look forward to each new day? What would you like to do, or achieve, before you die? Having clear reasons to go on living can contribute immeasurably to extending one's life.

In the case of Clive, neither he nor his family members follow this path. Instead, he figures "What the hell! I might as well enjoy the pleasures of life – give me another cigarette... and let's go to that new steak house tonight!" The family members do what they can to "cheer him up", though practically all of them are thinking that before long, they will be attending his funeral.

Would it not be infinitely better to not engage in this "macabre dance of death", but rather, take control of the situation, by gathering ALL the facts available, and then immediately creating a plan for strengthening Clive's immune system as quickly and effectively as possible?

I hear some of my readers now...

"But David, how can you say that Clive should change his life-style so drastically, when you can't prove that it will cure him?"

To that, I say the following...

1) How can doctors recommend chemo (and other invasive therapies) when they cannot "prove that they work." Quite the contrary: Statistics show that (in the case of chemo, for one) it does not work for many types of cancer, and due to its extremely negative side effects, it obviously does more harm than good. On the other hand, greatly improving one's diet, adopting exercise, giving up bad habits, etc., are all measures that do not have any negative side effects, and in addition, are all but free. Logic thus dictates that (whether or not one resorts to chemo) these measures should be taken immediately when the diagnosis is received. For if a measure cannot do any harm, is totally free, and could possibly save your life, why in the world would you not want to adopt it?!

2) Yes, I know that making such life-style changes is not easy. Yet here, it is literally a matter of life or death. If the prospect of dying does not motivate you to take concrete measures to do everything you can to recover, then could it be that you do not, deep down inside, want to recover? This is why I repeatedly stress the importance of doing a personal psychological evaluation, by asking yourself questions about your life at present, your reasons for living, your goals, etc. By coming up with honest answers to such questions, you may well discover that your beliefs about life and your habitual thought patterns have contributed to weakening your desire to live. Once recognized, these negative patterns of mind can gradually be modified, which could not only contribute to a recovery, but could also give you a more fulfilling life in the future!

In summary: If you, or a loved one, comes down with cancer, do not engage in the rigidly choreographed "macabre dance of death", blindly following doctors' recommendations, and becoming a passive victim of your "fate". Instead, research to find out all the facts to the most important questions; Act now to improve your life-style in every way you possibly can, and know that there are people who have done just this, and who have completely recovered from cancer. (You can read more "survivor stories" at the  site of Chris Wark).

Yet when you begin doing your on-line research, there are pitfalls that need to be avoided: namely, "scientific" presentations of certain "facts" that promote conclusions that are, in reality, almost without doubt totally erroneous. In the following chapter, I shall give an example of just such a case.
The Difficulty of judging "scientific" Results

I recently discovered an article on the Internet that reports on the results of a scientific study about cancer – results that would seem to be not only disheartening, but absolutely terrifying. (The article is at  this site.) Since it isn't all that long, I've decided to quote it in its entirety. (All highlights are my own.) Here it is...

"The Wall Street Journal and the CBC are reporting that about two-thirds of cancers are caused by random chance.

The WSJ: The researchers, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, analyzed published scientific papers to identify the number of stem cells, and the rate of stem-cell division, among 31 tissue types, though not for breast and prostate tissue, which they excluded from the analysis. Then they compared the total number of lifetime stem-cell divisions in each tissue against a person's lifetime risk of developing cancer in that tissue in the U.S.   
The correlation between these parameters suggests that two-thirds of the difference in cancer risk among various tissue types can be blamed on random, or "stochastic," mutations in DNA occurring during stem-cell division, and only one-third on hereditary or environmental factors like smoking, the researchers conclude. "Thus, the stochastic effects of DNA replication appear to be the major contributor to cancer in humans".

The CBC: The researchers said on Thursday random DNA mutations accumulating in various parts of the body during ordinary cell division are the prime culprits behind many cancer types.   
They looked at 31 cancer types and found that 22 of them, including leukemia and pancreatic, bone, testicular, ovarian and brain cancer, could be explained largely by these random mutations — essentially biological bad luck.   
The other nine types, including colorectal cancer, skin cancer known as basal cell carcinoma and smoking-related lung cancer, were more heavily influenced by heredity and environmental factors like risky behaviour or exposure to carcinogens.  
Overall, they attributed 65 percent of cancer incidence to random mutations in genes that can drive cancer growth."

*** End of article ***

Now if that doesn't scare you, I don't know what could! For what is it telling us? That it probably doesn't matter what we do: getting cancer is mere chance. Even if we adopt the healthiest life-style imaginable, many people will get cancer anyway. Wow! I don't know about you, but this seems totally horrifying to me!

Or I should say, it would be totally horrifying, if I were not someone with the ability to see through such things.

Don't get me wrong: most likely, the scientists who did this study were not trying to fool anyone. Of course, deceit would be possible, but let's assume they were completely honest every step of the way. That is, they studied all the data available, and saw that cancer appears as a result of random gene mutations that aren't affected by environmental factors.

However – there is one thing that they did not include in this study, and it may be the most important factor of them all where developing cancer is concerned. Which factor is that? It is the mind of the individual; his/her habitual thoughts, feelings, fears, attitude towards life, and general mindset.

Lest you think I am being a bit too "New Age" here, let me recommend a book that should be required reading in all of our schools.

Doctor Bruce Lipton was a professor of cell biology at the University of Wisconsin's School of Medicine, and later at Stanford. In his ground-breaking book "The Biology of Belief", Dr. Lipton explains his research, and promotes his (very well-founded) theory that genes can and do mutate due to signals they receive from the individual. Allow me to quote from the jacket cover of his book (highlights are my own):

"{Dr. Lipton's} experiments, and those of other leading-edge scientists, have examined in great detail the mechanisms by which cells receive and process information.

The implications of this research radically change our understanding of life. It shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology; that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our positive and negative thoughts.

This profoundly hopeful synthesis of the latest and best research in cell biology and quantum physics is being hailed as a major breakthrough, showing that our bodies can be changed as we retrain our thinking."

Precisely this is what I point out repeatedly in this book; it is something that even some alternative practitioners of medicine largely ignore. Namely, the influence of our thought/ belief/ emotional patterns on illness.

When we are beset with an illness of practically any variety, there is almost always a psychological component involved. Yet when that illness, like cancer, comes from within (i.e., is not obtained through contagion by others), we must always seek to discover aspects of our own thinking that may have been a major contributor to the illness.

Two people smoke: one of them, a moderate smoker, comes down with lung cancer; the other, who has always smoked more heavily, never gets cancer. Such things do occur. Why? Because besides the smoking, other factors were involved, almost certainly ones related to the thought/ belief/ emotional patterns of those two individuals.

No doubt that the scientists who did the above-quoted study knew very little, if anything, about the power of mind; if they did, they would never have published the dangerously partial "truth" evident in their report, but would instead have designed a study that would have taken these mental components into account. And if they had been acquainted with the work of Dr. Lipton (and others) they would have not failed to mention the great importance of the mind in cellular activity, and even in gene mutation.

I hope you see clearly why simply reading "scientific" articles can be dangerous to your health: if you believe unquestioningly everything you read in such studies, you may end up feeling that your situation is totally hopeless; that people are the poor victims of the whims of chance, and that there is nothing we can do about it (except, of course, resort to the extremely expensive, and often dangerous, "standard" treatments that the industry is all-too willing to provide). Yet I assure you this is not the case. Quite the opposite: we largely make, and control our lives, and we do it not only through conscious intent, but first and foremost, through our habitual patterns of thought, our beliefs, and our feelings/ emotions.

In the next chapter, I will share with you a little experiment that will show just how this works, and will give you a key to transforming your mind in a positive direction. It is a technique that can be used to great positive effect by everyone. For those with cancer, it is much more than that, for it could be a major contributor to saving your life!
Exploring how our Minds work

I'd like you to try this enlightening experiment. Please make sure you do both parts (designated below as "1" and "2") in the same session; do not do only the first one. Also: this exercise need only be done one single time, no need to repeat it! (Those that should be done repeatedly will be given a little later in this chapter.)

1) When alone, either reclining in your favorite armchair, or lying in bed, think of some incident in your life that was extremely sad: perhaps the death of a parent, a painful separation from a spouse, or girl/ boyfriend – something specific that caused you a great deal of sadness.

Remember just how you felt at that time: how the situation seemed so hopeless that you could cry (and probably did); how everything seemed so "dark" and desolate...

Re-experience how you felt then, wallowing in your sorrow for about 5 minutes. The chances are that by the end of those minutes, you will feel noticeably sadder than when you started. But also, you may well find that now, you are thinking of other sad things that happened to you during the course of your life. In other words, concentrating on the depression caused by one event has led you to make associations to other events in your life that provoked very similar feelings.

"Like attracts like" is a good description of what happens when we think of something. A simple example is when you talk with a family member about some other person in your family that you haven't seen in a long time. You begin by reminiscing about "Uncle John", and by the end of the conversation, you are recalling all sorts of things that happened "back then", some of which had little to do with your uncle.

This same principle works without fail where feelings are concerned: focusing on the sad event for only five minutes has not only made you feel sadder, but has brought forth memories of other depressing happenings as well.

2) Now, you are going to do the opposite. Recall an event in your life that was extremely happy: your wedding day; the birth of your first child; meeting, for the first time, the person who was later to become your spouse; winning the lottery... Choose one event, and remember how it "felt". Bathe in the positive emotions you experienced when it happened. After a minute or so, don't try to remember any more details of that specific incident; simply keep feeling the joy that that incident gave you. You will soon see that your mind wanders towards other happy times, and after this second five-minute time period, you are now feeling much happier!

Above, I said you should make sure you do both of these exercises in the same session. Obviously, this is so that you won't end up depressed for a while, which could easily occur if you stop the exercise after the first, "depressing" part. Yet after the "happy memory" session, you will feel much better, and what's more, you will have learned an essential lesson about the workings of the human mind:

What we habitually think about determines our emotional state. As we saw in the previous chapter, cutting-edge scientists like Doctor Bruce Lipton are convinced that the thoughts/ feelings/ beliefs we have can even trigger genetic mutations, such as those that lead to cancer.

I'm sure you will agree that if indeed there is a good chance that our mindset determines not only our emotional well-being, but even our physical health, then without a doubt, we should see to it that we do everything we can to think more positive, "healthier" thoughts.

***

Now that you've gained some clarity about how the mind works, we are going to put this knowledge into positive action.

Typically, when someone is stricken with cancer, his or her thoughts revolve around all the issues involved − different treatment methods, possible future suffering that could become almost unbearable, the emotional toll on the family, the prospect of looming death, and the like. Most probably, none of these paths of thought are uplifting; instead, they drag one down even more into a morass of negative emotion. Remember; the more we focus on the negative, the more negativity will creep into our minds, thus making a bad situation even worse.

Therefore, the first step we are should take is one designed to counteract this mental negativity by generating positive thoughts and feelings, in order to reap the benefits that they can provide.

By "positive thoughts and feelings" I do not mean lines such as this:

"Oh well, maybe things aren't so bad after all. Maybe I will be one of those lucky cases that chemo actually cures!"

Believe me, this is not positive thinking art all, it is merely wishful thinking. The key to positive thinking is not to wish; it is to generate a dynamically positive emotional state within − one that will then propel you to take positive action to improve your situation; one that may well even cause a harmful gene mutation to change its course.

The first "mental exercise" I gave you in this chapter is meant to be done only once, in order to become aware of how the mind works. Now, I shall present you with another one, which should be done ideally every day (though it doesn't matter if you miss a day here and there). Naturally, if you have cancer, you might wish to do it more than once a day.

As in the earlier exercise, you will be doing two five-minute sessions. However, now you will not do them "back to back", as you did for the first exercise. Instead, they should be done at two different times of the day. For example, one upon waking up in the morning, and the other when you go to bed. Alternatively, they can be done at other moments of the day, but try to space them at least a few hours apart. (Doing at least one of them just before going to sleep could have the benefit of "programming" your mind a bit better, since you take the positive suggestions with you into the unconscious state, where your subconscious mind can continue to work with them throughout the night.)

The purpose of these exercises is to gradually improve your thinking/ feeling patterns, in order to make you a happier person. Let there be no doubt: sadness and depression are weakening factors, and can harm your immune system, whereas happiness and joy strengthen you in every respect, and are thus extremely powerful transforming agents in one's life – ones that can well lead you out of illness into a state of full physical and mental health.

As a matter of fact, these exercises can be used by anyone, healthy or not, for just about any area of their lives they wish to improve. For instance, I myself used them to completely overcome stage fright when playing music in public. (I wrote a book about how I achieved this; anyone interested can see it  here.)

Now, as for the exercises: there are two of them, each one to be done for about five minutes. No need to time yourself: a little more than five minutes, or a little less, will also be fine. It doesn't matter which one you do first on any specific day, though as already mentioned, they should not be done back-to back, but rather, at different times.

***

First exercise: re-programming the "thinking" (conscious/ semi-conscious) side of your brain (the left side in most people).

Create a sentence that contains only positive words (i.e. do not include words like "bad", "sick", "cancer", "not", etc.), and that expresses the goal that you wish to obtain.

Here are some examples. If you so desire, you may use any one of these sentences, or else you can create your own. However, at least for a couple of months, you should stick with the same sentence, although you may modify it somewhat if you feel it will thereby become more effective.

Examples:

1) "My health is getting better by the day, as I am determined to do everything I can to strengthen my immune system. I am feeling happier as each day passes, for I know I am getting stronger, and will soon be in a state of full health."

2) "Every day, my attitude is getting better and better, for I know that my health is being restored by all the positive things I am doing for myself. Life is beautiful, and I will be around for many years to live it to the fullest!"

3) "My life is improving rapidly, and I notice how I am getting stronger, happier and healthier from day to day."

Of course, during the first few days, you will want to read the suggestion you choose, until you know it my heart. And this shouldn't take long, because now, when you have your session, you shall:

When alone – seated comfortably, or lying down – you will simply repeat your suggestion (1, 2 or 3 above, or a suggestion of your own construction), again and again. No need to try to imagine anything. Simply repeat the suggestion for the length of the five-minute session. If you wish, you can vary the speed: say it a few times slowly, then at normal speed, then quickly. Or perhaps you can say it once in a normal voice, then, upon repetition, more loudly, then softly, etc. The only important thing is that you repeat the sentence(s) again and again for five minutes.

This constant repetition will gradually implant these extremely positive ideas into your subconscious mind, where they will take root, and begin to transform your mind, inspire you with confidence and with the belief that things will go well, and move you to take all the steps necessary to fully restore your health.

To sum up: in this exercise, all that is necessary is that you repeat the suggestion again and again for a period of approximately five minutes. Should someone else be in the house, and you don't want them to hear you, no problem! You can, if you wish, repeat the suggestion to yourself (i.e., in your mind), without vocalizing. Nonetheless, if you have the chance, it is probably better to actually say the words, since that way, they will seem more "concrete". Another possibility is to vary: on one day, you can say them aloud, the next day, in your mind.

I said you should do them when alone, but this was mainly so that no one talks to you during your exercise. However, there are many situations where others might be around, yet we are largely undisturbed. For example, waiting in line somewhere, riding the bus, etc. There's nothing wrong with doing this exercise at such times – although naturally, it will be best to opt to do them "in your mind", and not aloud, lest others think you don't not have all your marbles!

***

Second exercise: Reprogramming the "imaginative" side of your brain

In most people, this will be the right side of the brain, and is associated with our subconscious minds. The goal here is to implant within your subconscious mind a clear vision of yourself as a happy, healthy, fulfilled individual, who has totally recovered from illness, and is now poised to enjoy life for years to come.

In this second exercise, you will not repeat anything at all. Instead, you will do this:

Imagine yourself, smiling, happy, healthy, and with a great zest for life and all the wonderful things it has to offer. Bask in the warm, joyous feeling you experience as you envision yourself in all your marvelous, vigorous splendor, and delight in this experience for five minutes.

OK, I can hear what you are thinking:

"But how in the world should I do that, David? After all, the truth is, I am not a happy person, and haven't been in years. And what's more, now I have cancer, for God's sake! How do you expect me to imagine that I am happy and healthy?!"

I hear you, but I say your objections are completely unfounded. Why?

Well, by way of explanation, let me ask a somewhat personal question.

Do you ever have sexual fantasies? You know, where you "do it" with someone you recently saw on the street, or perhaps with an attractive movie star? Or maybe, that you have sex with three or four people at a time?

If so, then I ask you: "How can you imagine such things, since they are almost all totally unrealistic! Do you really thing you'd have any chance at all of even meeting that movie star, let alone getting intimate with her (or him)?"

And yet the truth is, we all have fantasies of some sort or another, don't we? No matter that they are "unrealistic": we can lose ourselves in such fantasies, and enjoy the pleasant sensations that they give to us.

So now, back to our exercise. It does not matter whether or not you think the imaginings I am suggesting are "realistic" or not: Do the exercise, enjoy the sensations, and experience how, over the course of the days and weeks, they will begin to transform you, your life, and your health!

I repeat: in this exercise, you will imagine yourself – smiling, happy, healthy, and with a great zest for life and all the wonderful things it has to offer. You may envision yourself in different settings, if you desire: with friends, having a wonderful conversation; with your loved ones, enjoying a walk in the park; at the beach, taking in the sun, and feeling so nice and warm... But no matter what the scenario, during this exercise, always imagine that you are smiling, truly happy, content in all ways, and that you feel physically strong, vigorous and healthy.

The first time you do this exercise, you may run into what you may think is an obstacle. After just a moment of bathing in these positive visions, you may start to − laugh!

Why? Well, strange as it may sound, many of us begin to feel almost guilty when we "dare" to imagine ourselves as being so wonderfully happy and healthy. It's almost as if we have trained our minds to think negatively, to see clearly only the unpleasant things in our lives (and precisely this could have been a factor that contributed to the development of cancer). Now, when we envision ourselves in such a positive light, visualizing the "perfect you", it almost seems embarrassing, as if you had no "right" to see yourself that way.

So what to do if indeed you start to get somewhat embarrassed, and even laugh? No problem! Laugh all you want. But afterwards, return to the exercise, and sink once again into the stunningly beautiful vision of yourself as a joyously happy, completely fulfilled, and soundly healthy individual, knowing that you have a lot to live for, and totally convinced that you will soon be completely healthy, and will live happily for many years to come.

Once again: It does not matter whether right now, you see this as "believable" or not. Do it, and experience it as a "fantasy". You will soon see that after a couple of weeks (or even a few days), you will actually begin to feel better in every way: your confidence will grow; you will begin to think that yes, you will conquer the disease that has afflicted you; being inspired to live, you will find it easier and easier to do anything and everything to strengthen your immune system, and restore your health to the point where you will be even stronger, and more resilient than you were even before cancer entered your life.

Yes, this is possible. And if you truly wish to live, you can make it happen.

I understand that you may be skeptical after reading this chapter. Yet I tell you plainly: it is only logical that you do these exercises. What? You don't see the "logic" at all? Think harder. And now, allow me to spell it out for you.

There are cases where cancer – even late stage – disappears entirely. Some say these are simply the unexplainable, "miraculous" cases. Yet there is no need to believe in miracles. I am convinced that when such "miracles" occur, it is because the person made some essential changes in his or her life, changes that promoted the full restoration of health. These changes could have been in diet, or giving up bad habits; they could also have been changes in one's mental outlook, or emotional expression.

And now for the logic:

1) If you wish to belong to the group of people who completely recover from cancer "miraculously", it is only logical that you do anything and everything you can to restore your health.

2) As we have seen earlier, there is very good reason to believe that negative mental states – depression, discontent, anger, etc. – have a weakening effect on the immune system.

3) Therefore, anything you can do to eliminate these negative mental/ emotional factors from your life will contribute to strengthening your immune system, and will thus contribute to the restoration of your health.

4) Positive suggestion – as employed using suggestions such as the ones present in this chapter – can go a long way in "re-programming" our patterns of thought and emotion.

5) Ergo, it is only logical that you do these exercises daily, in order to reap the benefits that they can, and most probably will, have in your life.

Am I saying that they will "cure" you? No, not exactly. I never speak of cancer "cures" (or "causes"), but rather, of contributors to a cure, and contributors to cancer. (See the chapter "'Causes of' − or Contributors to? – Cancer" for more on this). But what I am saying is:

1) These exercise are free, and in no way will they hurt you.

2) Everything we do has some effect on us; therefore, doing these mental exercise will affect us in some way.

3) If the effect they have cannot be harmful, then it can only be helpful.

4) Ergo, they should be done on a regular basis.

There: was that logic plain enough for you?

So now: choose the suggestion you would like to use, and begin with either one of the two exercises ASAP – right this moment, if you can! Then, later, do the second one. Do them tomorrow, the next day, the day after that... Before long, doing these daily mind exercises will have turned into a habit. As you will see for yourself, it will be a wonderfully positive habit, which will have noticeable and lasting effects on your mind, and on your general outlook on life as well. And not to forget: they could well prove to be an important contributor to your full and complete recovery from cancer!
The "War Metaphor" for Cancer Treatment

During World War II, the allies bombed Germany mercilessly, hoping to destroy as many of the essential targets as possible: factories, munitions depots, train stations, airfields, docks, and the like. True, at times, the goal was merely to break the will of the population, and thus hasten surrender, but in general, they did not try to kill a maximum number of people, for they knew that there were also good people in Germany: those who themselves hated Hitler, and who would be able to contribute to the reconstruction of post-war Germany, and to the installation of a peaceful, democratic system. Nonetheless, we killed about 600,000 German civilians during those bombings. "Peripheral damage" that, though lamentable, was inevitable in order to achieve our strategic goals – such was our reasoning.

The methods of "standard medicine" when dealing with cancer is highly reminiscent of just this sort of strategy:

The patient is the "victim" of "evil cancer cells", which must be "eliminated" at all cost. Therefore, we will bombard his body with extremely powerful, poisonous drugs (chemotherapy) or radiation. Unfortunately, these techniques will also kill off a great number of good, healthy cells. But hopefully, we will manage to kill all the "bad cells" before killing too many good cells, which would lead to the death of the patient.

Is it a coincidence that chemotherapy began to be used in the 1940s, the decade that brought us World War II? I think not. The reigning paradigm at that time was one of "us against them" – enemies exist, and we must try to eradicate them. In our bodies, the "enemies" were the cancer cells, which we then began to bombard with drugs.

With many illnesses, just such an approach can and does work. Using penicillin in the treatment of many sicknesses works by killing off the invading bacteria or parasites that have entered our bodies from without. However, cancer is different: it is not a contagious disease, but one that comes about possibly due to gene mutations, and almost certainly a greatly weakened immune system. Therefore, our approach towards healing it should be quite different.

If your immune system is already weak – most likely due to your previous diet, lifestyle, or yes, certain genetic mutations (that could well have been brought about by psychological factors: see the ground-breaking work of Dr. Bruce Lipton) – then the very last thing you need is a "treatment" that will further weaken your immune system immeasurably, thus causing a whole array of negative side effects, and even secondary forms of cancer. Instead, you need to do anything and everything that will strengthen your immune system, and avoid/give up anything and everything that could further weaken your immune system.

Note: I am not saying you should not use chemotherapy under any circumstances: that is for you to decide. But before you make that decision, do not be foolish and simply follow the recommendations of doctors (doctors who stand to make a lot of money should you decide to go the chemo route).

Instead, before you choose chemo, wait a couple of months, and during that time, dedicate yourself totally to ridding yourself of cancer by adopting the healthiest diet possible (high-alkaline, sugar- and meat-free); by exercising; by raising your pH level through drinking several glasses of baking soda water daily; by doing a self-evaluation of your mental/emotional state, and incorporating self-suggestion exercises into your daily routine, in order to lift your spirits, and fortify your resolve to live. After these two months, get another medical checkup, to see whether the cancer has worsened, or... whether it has regressed, and perhaps even largely disappeared.

In other words, instead of blindly accepting the paradigm of "we've got to kill those cancer cells by bombarding them with poisons", you should concentrate on eliminating them by focusing on optimal health, and should do anything and everything you can to promote excellent health.

It is my opinion that the day will come when people, reading about the history of medicine, shall ponder with horror the use of chemotherapy. Just as we are disgusted today when we read about doctors doing lobotomies (cutting out part of the patient's brain to "correct" mental disorders − a technique employed wantonly during the 1950s), fifty years from now, we will be equally horrified when we read of doctors poisoning patients' bodies by injecting them with powerful drugs that almost no doubt hasten the deaths of many patients instead of curing them. As we all know, even in cases where chemo treatment does seem to rid the body of the cancer cells, it is quite common for cancer to return later. And this should not surprise us at all, for if the patient, thinking he is "cured", then returns to his previous, unhealthy diet/life-style, it is only natural that cancer once again develops.

Remember: First and foremost, it is about strengthening your immune system, and improving your thought/ emotion/ belief patterns (i.e., your mind). Do this, and you will be greatly increasing the odds that you, like a growing number of others, will be able to restore your health, and will never have to worry about cancer again.
Bribery and Corruption: hiding in plain Sight, yet few seem to care!

If you are a fan of old movies from the 30s and 40s, you've probably watched a scene such as this one...

The heavy-set, jolly-looking policeman is making his rounds on foot through the neighborhood where he grew up. He walks past the fruit stand of an Italian-American vendor (whom we will call Luigi):

"Top of the mornin' to you, Luigi! How are things goin' today?"

"Good, good, Officer O'Malley!" Luigi responds with a big smile. "Oh... I just got these apples in yesterday. They're sweet, and taste really good. Here − have one!"

"Why, thank you, Luigi", O'Malley says as he nonchalantly picks out the best apple from the pile and takes a bite.

"Oh, take another one for your wife," Luigi generously offers him a second one.

"Thanks again, Luigi," the cop responds, accepting the gift. "You have a nice day now, you hear?"

"You too, Officer. See you later!" Luigi calls as the policeman continues on down the street...

Of course, these days, such a scene would be scandalous: police officers are not allowed to take any gift whatsoever, no matter how seemingly insignificant. Why? Because society is afraid that if they do, they might favor some citizens over others. In our fictitious scenario, suppose Officer O'Malley, having the benefit of getting free fruit every day, gives Luigi's establishment more vigilance and protection than he provides for the shops of others? This would be corruption; thus, we prohibit police officers from accepting any such "bribes" from citizens.

If only our standards of propriety extended to another area of life, one which is every bit as crucial to our safety as is the vigilance of the law!

In case you haven't guessed it already, I am referring to the blatant large-scale bribery and corruption that has completely permeated the medical community: namely, pharmaceutical companies giving huge "incentives" – i.e., bribes − to doctors in order to "motivate" them to prescribe more and more of the drugs those companies manufacture.

The following article shows how lawmakers are becoming increasingly aware of the extent of the corruption: "The Fight against Bribery in Pharma".

In the realm of cancer treatment: Were you aware that oncologists actually earn money not only for their role in chemotherapy, but also earn a profit on the chemo drugs themselves? This has led to many oncologists making sure they use the most expensive chemo drugs, so that they can rake in a maximum of profit. In addition, the price of cancer drugs is rising with stunning speed.  In this article, you can read about how the price of one such drug rose by a factor of 15 in only four years (from $50 to $768). In that same article, we find that drugs used for other illnesses are also rising obscenely. I quote:

"NextSource is just the latest drug company to be accused of excessively inflating prices. In 2015, Martin Shkreli, chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals, sparked an uproar after increasing the cost of anti-Aids drug Daraprim by more than 5,000 per cent, from $13.50 to $750 a pill."

How many times have you seen those commercials produced by the Pharmaceutical Industry that are designed to convince you that they truly care about you and your health? You know, the commercials that feature two senior citizens who look like the ideal grandparents; background music carefully crafted to set the mood, and thus make you more receptive to their sales pitch; a narrator with a warm, friendly voice who sounds like he really is compassionate...

Yet when you consider drug prices, and the rates at which they are increasing, it should be obvious to anyone but the greatest of fools: the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry is concerned first and foremost not with your health, but with their profits.

Unfortunately, due to the omnipresence of government aid programs and health insurance, many people don't seem to care too much about those prices. "Don't worry!" the oncologist said to my brother and me when trying to convince us to talk our mother into accepting chemotherapy, "I saw your mom has full insurance coverage, so she won't have to pay anything!"

But let's face it: someone is paying all the billions that the Industry takes in every year: taxpayers whose money goes to Medicare, Medicaid, and "Obamacare"; the people, or their employers, who pay extremely high health insurance premiums; and those without insurance, who have to empty their bank accounts to pay for excessively costly medical treatment.

Why do you think health insurance is so expensive, despite the competition between insurance companies? (Competition, as everyone knows, always tends to lower the prices for consumers.) Those insurance policies are expensive because of the exorbitant prices forced upon everyone by the health-care industry. And even worse... It is precisely because there are government programs, and insurance coverage, that that industry can raise their prices so quickly.

It's the same phenomenon we see with college tuition prices: if the colleges and universities know that students can get government loans to pay tuition, then they can easily raise their prices, knowing that they will not lose any paying students – all those students have to do is run up higher debts!

That "big money" is at the heart of something as essential as the maintenance of our physical and mental health is a truly sad state of affairs. And as if that weren't bad enough: the fact that some of the drugs that medical professionals regularly use on patients are no doubt doing more harm than good is a fact that should not only concern us, but that justifies any thinking person's righteous anger.

Allow me to give you an appropriate example, one that does not have to do with cancer (at least not directly). Back in the 90s, my mother was diagnosed with high cholesterol. For that reason, the doctor put her on medication. Statins are commonly used to lower cholesterol. Unfortunately, not only can they have undesirable side effects (such as muscle pain, diabetes, liver damage, etc.); they are also expensive. You – or your insurance company – will probably have to pay a few hundred dollars monthly for these drugs.

About twelve years ago, my sister was also diagnosed with high cholesterol. Not wishing to simply "follow the doctor's orders" and begin taking statins, she did a bit of research on the Internet, and read that there were people who lowered their "bad" cholesterol by taking a couple of Omega 3 (fish oil) capsules daily. These were much less expensive than statins, and, having no health insurance at the time, she decided she'd try that first. A mere three months later, she got another blood test, and her LDL ("bad") cholesterol level had dropped to well within the normal range!

Her story interested me greatly when I, too, was diagnosed with high cholesterol (according to my doctor, it is probably a genetic predisposition, since my diet is not especially high in anything that would cause high cholesterol).

Remembering my sister's story, I tried Omega 3 capsules, two per day, as she had taken. Three months later, I got a blood test – but alas! My cholesterol level was still high. However, I then thought about body size: I am 6ft 2in tall; my sister only 5ft 3in. Could it be that in my case, I should take a bit more? I started taking three capsules per day instead of two, and after three months, got another blood test: now, my cholesterol was well within the normal range. That was over six years ago, and since then, I have always been in that normal range – no doubt because I never fail to take my three Omega 3 capsules, spaced out over the course of the day.

Though it worked for my sister, and for me as well, I am not saying you will get the same results. Nevertheless, I do say that it is well worth a try. Why would you want to buy an expensive drug, one that has potential terrible side effects, when you could achieve the same results much cheaper using Omega 3? If Omega 3 does not work for you, you can always get on statins (though do read on).

Of course, if you have insurance, you might figure it's better to take the statins. After all, since they are "official" drugs, your insurance will probably pay for them (they will not pay for Omega 3). Personally, I would rather shell out a little money, and avoid harmful side effects. (Do note, though: if you are allergic to fish, Omega 3 is definitely not for you.)

I tell you this story merely to point out one area where a natural remedy can get you exactly the same results as expensive pharmaceuticals, without burdening you with any serious side effects.

No doubt you will find articles on the Internet claiming that Omega 3 does not lower "bad" cholesterol; that there are studies showing this, and others that are inconclusive. All I can say is, it worked for me and for my sister, and thus, it could quite possibly work for you as well.

The problem is, since so many health professionals are profiting immensely from the sale of drugs, how can we be sure that they really have our best interests in mind, and are not merely trying to get us on as many medications as possible, in order to enrich themselves even more?

How many of the drugs that people take are really necessary? At  this site (healthline.com) we read:

"The link between saturated fat and heart disease has been studied intensely for decades, but the biggest and best studies show that there is no statistically significant association."

And on the same topic, Doctor Ken Berry, in his excellent, informative book:  "Lies my Doctor told me – Medical Myths that can harm your Health", goes so far as to say:

"More and more, research is now showing that a high intake of saturated fats (butter, egg yolks, bacon) has little if any negative effect on heart disease rates. I predict we will continue to find that saturated fats in our diet are not negative, but are indeed vital to the function of multiple organs and body systems, the most important being the brain and its memory. Most doctors know that the human brain can burn glucose as energy. However, many doctors have forgotten that the brain can also burn selected fats as energy. Some progressive doctors are actually starting to believe that the dementia epidemic in our society could be at least partially treated or prevented by increasing the fat intake of the elderly, and perhaps even by stopping elderly patient's cholesterol medicine (statins)."

In other words: for years, doctors have been prescribing extremely expensive, potentially even harmful drugs (statins) because they believed that it was necessary to lower the "bad" cholesterol levels. How many billions of dollars has the Industry taken in thanks to the sale of statins?

Science journalist Maryanne Demasi has this to report (complete article here):

"Pfizer's Lipitor is the most profitable drug in the history of medicine. At its  peak in 2006, yearly revenue for Lipitor exceeded $US 12 billion.

Despite their patents recently expiring, revenue for statins is still expected to rise, with total sales on track to reach an estimated $1 trillion by 2020. Statins are very big business."

Could this be why statins are still being prescribed, despite growing evidence that they may well not be necessary at all?

Where such huge sums of money are involved, it is little wonder that corruption and greed take hold of people, and seduce them into thinking mainly of their profits, even if that means that others will be harmed. Thus, the Pharmaceutical Industry is quite willing to deceive not only the general public, but also the doctors who write the prescriptions. On the other hand, doctors who are regularly offered "bribes" to continue prescribing those drugs, may often think that those medications are truly the best option, and thus see it as a "win-win" situation: the patient gets treated, and the doctor him/herself benefits by free vacations paid for by the Industry (often in the form of medical seminars that "coincidentally" take place in beautiful tropical beach resorts, and the like), and other "perks".

What's that? You think I may be exaggerating? Then let's hear what Peter Rost, the ex-vice-president of the Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company (and, since making the following statement, one of the Industry's enemies), has to say...

"It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry."

A chilling revelation from someone who knows!

While researching on the Internet, I found a number of medical sites that claimed that the side effects of statins weren't really so dangerous. Is this true? I hardly think so. Why? Because it would seem that in addition to not giving all their raw data to independent researchers so that they may test the conclusions, those who do the research often manipulate the results.  A second article by Doctor Demasi gives a short summary of the situation.

So please, for your own sake: do not simply accept any medications your doctor recommends; do a little research on your own, to find out:

1) If the medical condition you have could possibly be treated just as well – and much more safely – with certain natural remedies.

2) To see whether the medication could have harmful – and long-term, perhaps even devastating – side effects.

Remember: it's your health and well-being – and ultimately, your very life − that is at stake!
The "best-hidden" Culprits

In previous chapters, I have repeatedly blamed the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry for valuing their own profits above your health. Yet there are more "culprits" to be blamed – ones who are the best hidden, though they are hiding in fully plain sight. I am referring to us, "the people".

How can I dare make such an accusation? Bear with me, and all will be made clear.

Thanks to the many conveniences that modern life has to offer – easy transportation in the form of cars, buses, trains, and planes; household appliances such as dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, refrigerators and the like; entertainment systems, and many more things to make life easier, and more pleasant – we have been brought up to feel we "deserve" to have it easy. Why should we have to make any more effort than absolutely necessary?

In the area of health, this demand of the public for "convenience" has motivated drug companies to do all they can to satisfy the whims of us, the people. Therefore, knowing that we are willing to shell out money for anything that will save us time and effort, those companies have specialized in coming up with "medications" for just about any sort of ailment imaginable – and some that you've probably never even thought about ("restless leg syndrome" is my own favorite example).

I once had a friend who suffered from migraine headaches, and I mean bad ones. Every time he was stricken, he would have to take some aspirin, and retire to a dark room for hours at a time.

Then he heard about a certain meditation technique that supposedly helped those with migraines. He already knew that smoking was bad for his condition, so he decided to give that up, and start a meditation routine. The result? The migraines largely subsided, and he began doing much better. But after a few months, he started smoking again, and quit meditation. The migraines returned, and once again, he was taking pain relievers.

We have come to think that there should be "a pill for everything", so that we ourselves can get by without making any effort at all.

Do you enjoy eating to excess, and are you therefore severely overweight? Well, you could do the logical thing, and get on a healthy diet, but then, that would require effort, wouldn't it? Instead, why not take some sort of drug to curb your appetite? (Though that drug most probably has undesirable side effects). And hey, if that doesn't work, you can always get one of those operations to have the fat removed from your body!

What, by God, has happened to us?! I mean, really: getting an operation to have fat removed, instead of doing it the natural way (diet, and exercise)? How lazy have we become, anyway? If I put on more weight than desirable, I would merely exercise more, and eat less (and yes, it is that simple!). How can it be that we have degenerated to the point where we aren't willing to put in any real effort at all to improve ourselves, so that we may lead long, healthy lives?

Though I have my theories about how these questions may be answered, this is not the place to expound them. There are more books about losing weight than anyone could count; even I myself wrote one a few years ago, in which I focused on little "tricks" that one can use to actually stick to a better diet (for anyone interested: it can be seen here.). Yet the truth is, though books can help, the basic principle is simplicity itself: to lose weight, change your diet, and be more physically active.

Here, I only wish to point out the degree to which we have become slothful (i.e., downright lazy!), and totally addicted to pills of all sorts, in order to avoid having to discipline ourselves.

Of course, there is a real "elephant in the room" here: namely, the use of illegal drugs (or legal substances such as alcohol) to get some kind of "thrill" or "pleasure trip".

Maybe in reality I am from another planet, for when I see how many people are willing to poison their bodies – and their minds – in the pursuit of pleasure, I sometimes feel that I must be some sort of alien, since I just don't quite understand it. I admit that I am exaggerating a bit here; I myself would be hard put to give up chocolate! Yet instead of popping pills, are there not enough natural and healthy pleasures out there that one might pursue? Walking in the forest; enjoying a good (and reasonably-sized) meal while watching your favorite TV show; sports; reading; listening to fine music... Why, I would think that sex alone can give just about anybody as much "natural pleasure" as he/she might desire! But to take substances that will alter your body's chemistry, and may end up even severely damaging you, just for a kick?

Let's face it: if there are in fact highly-developed aliens observing us from their flying saucers, we can assume that when they see how we behave, they must think we are a pathetic, sorrowful lot of creatures indeed!

OK, there: I just did it. I've committed that heinous "sin" that in a democracy, every politician, every salesman, and everyone else who wishes to persuade the public, must scrupulously avoid: I have dared to place blame for a terrible situation on... the people!

No matter; I am not a politician, so I have no need of currying favor before the next election. And my purpose is certainly not malicious. Quite the opposite. My goal is to make you think about what is happening in our society, as far as our health, and the health-care establishment is concerned. And in order to understand the complete picture, I feel it is necessary to not just blame "the others" (the industry, doctors, etc.), but also, to blame ourselves for our comfort-addicted attitude.

Anything worth achieving, is worth working for. Therefore, if you wish to achieve a state of health, is it not worth making a serious effort to improve yourself? If more people thought this way, so many of the questionable, and potentially harmful medications would be totally superfluous. The profits of the Industry would dwindle, and we would be much healthier, and happier.

If you have been diagnosed with cancer, it is high time to leave your comfort zone and make a serious effort to change your habits, and do everything you can to strengthen your immune system, in order to regain your health. For if you don't, that inevitable encounter with the Grim Reaper may come a lot sooner than you had planned.

Food for thought, is it not?
When the Cancer-stricken simply won't listen to Reason

By now, you should have realized that even if someone has cancer, all is not lost. Hope is only futile once the patient is actually dead. But suppose someone you know has cancer; you give them this book and any other information about natural healing possibilities you have learned about, and that person simply brushes it all off as if it didn't matter, as if their only hope were to resort to chemo; or else, they act as though they were lost no matter what they do?

Such a person might say things that on the surface seem "reasonable", for instance:

"Why should I try methods that haven't been scientifically proven? If anybody knows what might help me, it'll be the doctors, right? And besides, why should I change my diet, and even my life-style, if I'm going to die soon anyway?"

By this point in the book, I'm sure you will be able to give logical responses to those objections, and in a perfect world, your sick acquaintance would then heed what you say, accept it, and begin to take all those health-restoring measures in order to recover, or at the very least, to greatly improve the odds of recovery.

Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, and people sure aren't perfect, either!

Your acquaintance might still resist, and reject any positive suggestion you may have.

The question here is therefore:

How much should we dare to impose what we know on that person? How vehemently should we insist that he or she not simply "do what other people" do, taking the route that "doctors recommend" – doctors that, as we have seen, are often totally ignorant of the fact that chemo has been proven to actually not help at all for many types of cancers; doctors who stand to make a lot of money should the patient accept chemo?

You might think that the facts presented in this book should be enough to convince anybody to think long, hard, and critically before even considering chemotherapy.

Nonetheless, I can tell you from experience that this isn't always the case. Yet the reason for the apparent stubbornness of some people who have cancer, for their refusal to see the situation clearly and logically, can well be something that has nothing to do with the weak arguments they employ.

Instead, they resist sound advice because deep down inside, they have not only given up all hope, but worse: subconsciously, they actually want to die.

As painful as it might be for the friends and family members of the afflicted to even entertain this possibility, it is possible that "death from cancer" is part of that person's subconscious "life plan". If you are religious in a conventional sense, you might express this differently: it might be "God's will" that that person die soon, of cancer.

I myself believe that ultimately, we ourselves shape our lives to an extent that most don't realize. (Although most of this "shaping" occurs at an unconscious level). Nevertheless, we can never be sure of exactly what forces are at work in our lives. Therefore, we can never have certainty about whether or not dying of cancer is simply a "tragic event", or whether it might perhaps be a proper and fitting end to a certain individual's time here on earth. And because we cannot be sure of these things, we must seriously ponder the question of just how much we should allow ourselves to insist that the patient listen to our well-founded advice.

I myself had to wrestle with this question on a number of occasions, when people I knew had cancer: my mother, a friend, my father-in-law, and my wife's aunt. As you already know, my mother chose to not use chemo (a wise decision, since as I later learned, chemo never helps for that type of cancer, and thus would have merely hastened her demise). The other three individuals all went the chemo route, and all three died miserably within months.

In each case, I tried to impart all the information I could, yet it largely fell on deaf ears. Naturally, I thought that perhaps I should be more insistent; that I should risk even argument in order to make it clear to them that they must do everything possible to strengthen their immune system, to change their patterns of thinking, their life-style, etc.

However, after long and careful thought, I came to the conclusion that that would not be the best path, for perhaps this was the way they had chosen to depart life, and that I had to respect that choice. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" as the saying goes. Or in this case, "You can lead a person to reason, but you can't make him think".

Forgive that touch of humor. It is in reality my way of dealing with the very painful realization that sometimes, no matter what we do, people won't listen, and we have to accept that fact, even if it means having to suffer the loss that their death represents.

I wish I could say just how far you should go to get your point across to someone who has cancer, and yet (for example) continues to smoke, drink, eat poorly, etc. On the one hand, it is your ethical duty to try to help that person modify his behavior in order to improve his chances of survival. Yet on the other hand, if he resists all of your advice, there may come a point where it is best for you to just distance yourself (at least emotionally) and let things take their course.

In any case, criticizing, cajoling, nagging, and the like, should always be avoided. Instead, speak with the voice of reason, and always make it plain that you care about that person, and that if you occasionally seem "bothersome" with all of your suggestions, you are doing it because you truly care, and fervently desire that your loved one recover his or her health.

Finding the perfect balance between playing an active role in persuading a cancer patient to make essential changes in his life, and accepting the somber realization that possibly, death by cancer is what is "meant to be" is no easy task. Nonetheless, if, when talking to the afflicted, you always approach the topic with an attitude of genuine concern and true love, your message will have a greater chance of getting through. And if, despite your best efforts, the sick person simply refuses to make any changes at all, at least you will always know that you did the best you could.

This may seem to be a weak consolation, but there are times in life when it is the best we can get.
Vitamin and Mineral Supplements for Cancer Patients

While researching the use of vitamin and mineral supplements and the possible benefits they may have as a part of cancer treatment, I very often came across statements such as this one:

"Ask your oncologist (or doctor) before you take any type of supplements."

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Yet there is an assumption included in that advice that is far from well-grounded: namely, the assumption that your doctor and/or oncologist is an expert where the utilization of vitamins and minerals is concerned; that he or she is completely up to date on the most modern (and objective) research into the effectiveness of vitamins and minerals, and also is knowledgeable about all of the possible benefits of these substances when administered in larger-than-normal doses.

Believe me: the odds are that your doctor has huge gaps where this knowledge is concerned.

# Just today, I found a study at this site (sciencedaily.com), entitled: "Why high-dose vitamin C kills cancer cells". Though the results of this study were published more than two years ago, I'll bet your doctor has never read about it. Why? Because doctors, as busy as they are, more often than not simply don't have the time to read about every single study that has been done. And yet some of those studies indicate that certain supplements (vitamin C, in this case) can well be used to improve a cancer patient's chances of survival.

# I mention this article merely as an example; there are many more out there that you will no doubt run across while you are doing your own research. In this chapter, my aim is merely to point out how easy it is to be led astray, and to thereby ignore methods that may well be of great help.

Consider the "vitamin D" debate.

As far back as 2007, even the "mainstream scientific community" had come up with evidence that vitamin D quite possibly could have beneficial effects in the prevention, and treatment of cancer. Three scientists from the Departments of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, published a study entitled:

"Vitamin D signalling pathways in cancer: potential for anticancer therapeutics". Here a quote from that article:

"Data support the hypothesis that vitamin D compounds may have an important role in cancer therapy and prevention, and merit further investigation."

# See also an article from 2009, with the title "Doctors start to include vitamin D in fight against cancer". In it, you will read that physicians who are convinced that vitamin D can play a vital role in cancer prevention, and treatment, think that if someone already has cancer, mega-doses of the vitamin should be given (highlights are my own):

"Current Health Canada dietary recommendations for vitamin D range from 200 to 600 international units a day, depending on age, and were designed to promote bone health and not the far larger amounts being explored for therapeutic possibilities in cancer treatments.

"Dr. O'Connor says some breast-cancer patients have such low stores of the nutrient that they need to embark on a crash course of taking up to 50,000 IU a week for several months to bring up their levels. Other patients whose starting levels aren't so poor take a few thousand IU a day. She also monitors blood levels to make sure people don't get too much."

Thus, over 10 times the normal recommended daily dosage is given. Will your doctor/ oncologist know about this? Even if they have read about it, they may well respond by saying something like: "Taking large doses of vitamin D can lead to all kinds of negative side effects, such as fatigue, dizziness, nausea, and more." When faced with such statements, some people would then immediately decide to forget vitamin D, and do "what the doctor orders" (which will more likely than not be chemotherapy, whose side effects will be much worse than those of vitamin D, and which may well not help the patient at all.)

Yes, it is true that extremely high doses of vitamin D, over many months, could cause the side effects mentioned. But it is also true that those doses would have to be extremely high for such effects to occur − much higher than even the elevated doses used by Dr. O'Conner in her cancer treatment. And there is another factor to consider...

Many times, when we are ill, it is necessary to use substances in doses that are higher than we would normally take, in order to fight the serious illness we have. No doctor, mainstream or alternative, would recommend taking (for example) 20,000 IU of vitamin D per day. However, if one has cancer, an alternative physician may well recommend such an extreme dose, at least for a few months. The same goes for vitamin C: a healthy person would have no reason to take huge doses of vitamin C intravenously (to avoid bowel intolerance) two or three times a week. But if you are battling with cancer, an alternative physician may (and probably should) prescribe exactly that, in order to strengthen your immune system as quickly as possible.

In other words: when faced with an extreme illness, extreme measures must sometimes be taken.

That last statement could have come right out of the verbal repertoire of doctors who use chemo, right? After all, that is the main idea of chemotherapy: to subject the patient to poisonous drugs that will eventually overwhelm his system and kill him, unless they first kill enough cancer cells so that their administration can then be stopped.

If I had the choice between being injected with chemo drugs, or high doses of vitamin C, I sure know which one I would choose! For the vitamin C would certainly not kill me, and could possibly strengthen my immune system to the point where the cancer cells disappear, whereas the chemo drugs would not only weaken my system: they wouldn't help me whatsoever for a number of different type of cancer (See this chapter to refresh your memory on the evidence for this.)

In case you still feel that it would be better to rely on mainstream medicine for everything that ails you, and take any and every drug the doctor prescribes, perhaps you should read about a study done by a team of physicians at the world-renowned Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, entitled: "Johns Hopkins Study suggest medical errors are third-leading cause of death in U.S."

# Horrifying as that is, things might be worse yet: certain other studies indicate that iatrogenic disease (that is, disease caused by the medical system itself) may be the leading cause of death in the United States. Here an article by Dr. Veronica Desaulniers, entitled: "Can Iatrogenic Disease Really Be the Leading Cause of Death in the US?"

# Read those articles carefully, and ponder what they could mean for your health and well-being!

#  A "Beginner's Program" for Cancer Treatment

# To begin, let me say that I am in no way suggesting that people who have been diagnosed with cancer should ignore medical doctors, and rely solely on this, or any other natural treatment method. What I am saying, however, is the following:

# 1) Even if you are inclined to rely on "mainstream" medicine, you should also consult a reputable alternative physician, in order to learn more of natural treatment methods. True, you may have to pay out of your own pocket when visiting alternative physicians, but if you have a life-threatening disease, isn't it worth it? Note: When I refer to "alternative physicians", this of course includes naturopaths of all sorts. However, if I were to choose an alternative physician, I would only choose a naturopath who is also an accredited "mainstream" physician. Why? Because despite all the criticism I am hurling at certain mainstream practices, I am fully aware that modern medicine has, in many respects, done wonders for human health and longevity. True, some of the methods they employ do more harm than good, and even lead to a premature death; chemo is probably the number one culprit in this respect, but there are others as well.

# Yet in many other areas, mainstream treatments of course do help, and are preferable. Therefore, I would wish to have a doctor who knows both worlds: he or she would know what mainstream medicine recommends, but would also be an expert on non-invasive, natural techniques, and would have the experience to know when to employ each sort of treatment for the maximum benefit of the patient. Therefore, when searching for the right physician for yourself or a loved one, do not hesitate to ask the physician about his or her credentials in both areas.

# 2) If you do decide to accept treatments such as chemo- or radiation therapy, you should first try certain natural methods (as outlined later in this chapter), for at least a month or two. Then, get tested once again: if the cancer has regressed at least somewhat, you may well be on the right path: keep going with the natural treatment, and see if that isn't really all you'll need. If, however, after a couple of months of serious dedication to the natural plan, the cancer has worsened, then you can always consider invasive methods – but you should do so only after seeing proof that a method such as chemotherapy actually does contribute to five-year survival rates for the type of cancer that is afflicting you. (As we saw in an earlier chapter, it contributes nothing whatsoever to lengthening lives for at least nine types of cancer – even though many doctors recommend, and use it, for those very types: activity that is, in my view, bordering on the criminal.)

# 3) While you are doing your own research on cancer treatment, you will probably run across the opinion that vitamins and minerals should not be taken during chemo, since they might interfere with its effectiveness. Thus – and highly ironically, in my view – an oncologist, when asked, might say that the patient should stop taking vitamin supplements. I say that this is ironic, because (for example) vitamin C strengthens the immune system, and since the immune system is designed to fight off "invaders", then by taking vitamin C, your immune system is fortified, which might lead to it doing all it can to render the poisonous chemo drugs ineffective.

# But is it really the case that vitamins should not be taken during chemo? I quote from an article entitled: "Vitamin and Mineral Supplements during Cancer treatment"

# "A 2007 review of studies from 1966 to 2007 found no evidence that antioxidant supplements interfered with chemotherapy, and some researchers believe that antioxidants may help to protect normal cells without interfering with the effectiveness of cancer therapy. This review included studies using glutathione, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, ellagic acid, selenium, and beta-carotene and concluded that antioxidants may improve tumor response to treatment and survival rates, in addition to aiding patients' tolerance to treatment. Another systematic review of 33 studies found evidence that using antioxidants with chemotherapy resulted in less toxicity, which in turn allowed people to complete full doses of therapy."

# There are two common views with respect to the use of vitamins during chemotherapy, and these views diverge all the more where mega-doses of vitamins are concerned:

# a) The opinion that vitamins and minerals should not be taken during chemotherapy treatment.

# b) The opinion that yes, they should be taken, since they minimize the negative effects of chemo, without hindering its effectiveness.

# Note that this is not simply a question of "mainstream versus alternative physicians": each of the above-mentioned views are held by many members of the mainstream medical community. (Of course, practically all alternative physicians not only recommend the use of vitamins − even in very high doses – but would more often than not suggest that chemo not be used at all.)

# If you have cancer, have decided to resort to chemo, and wish to know whether or not you should also take vitamin and mineral supplements, please do not simply abandon the use of such supplements because your oncologist told you to do so. Instead, ask that oncologist whether he or she is a nutritional expert, and has been trained in the benefits of vitamin and mineral supplements. If the answer is "no" (which it most probably will be), then I suggest you change doctors fast! It is namely all-too-easy for doctors to say "Don't do this or that". Yet if they say such a thing, they had better be absolutely certain that their command makes sense. In our context, if a doctor tells a patient who has decided on chemo to stop taking vitamins and minerals, that physician may be robbing his patient of his last hope of strengthening his immune system, or at least of protecting it somewhat from the pernicious effects of chemo.

# ***

# I would now like to include the full text of a short eBook that I wrote for my father-in-law when he was diagnosed with cancer of the liver, and was considering beginning chemotherapy. At that point, he felt weak, but really didn't look too bad at all, though the diagnosis had been given about six months earlier, and the cancer had doubtlessly developed much earlier than that. Unfortunately, he decided to resort to chemo: a mere three months of such "treatment", and he looked like he was at death's door. At that point, the doctor stopped chemo (which of course he most likely never should have administered in the first place). My father-in law, his immune system practically destroyed by the chemo, held on another four months before finally succumbing.

# Naturally, I have often asked myself how long he would have lived had he not trusted chemotherapy; if instead, he had done everything possible to strengthen his immune system, beginning with the recommendations that I gave him in the eBook I wrote for him. Of course, there's no way of knowing this. Nonetheless, since the chemo did not help, it could only (and very obviously did) hurt. Therefore, it is quite logical to assume that if he had not used chemo, and had instead strengthened his system by natural means, he almost certainly would have lived longer than he did – and possibly, may even have been cured.

# If you have any doubts about anything you are about to read, do not hesitate to ask your doctor. However, make sure that that doctor is one trained in alternative as well as "standard" medicine. Why? Because I can tell you for a fact that many mainstream doctors will reject, without even seriously considering, suggestions such as taking larger doses of vitamins, and they will do so without having been thoroughly trained in nutrition. Therefore, you need the advice of a physician that is both "mainstream" and "alternative", for such doctors do have extensive knowledge about nutrition, the efficacy of vitamins and minerals for certain conditions, etc.

# I readily confess that my recommendations no doubt could have been better, had I had more time to research. As it was, my father-in-law was going to start chemo within a week or two, and I felt I should show him that there were other possibilities as quickly as I could.

# Once again: before starting with such a plan, you should first make an appointment with a naturopathic physician, show him/her a printout of this plan, and ask if, in your specific case, it is fine as it is, or whether certain modifications should be made to suit your particular circumstances.

# With that being said, here is the full text of the book I wrote for Nobuo-san, the kindly gentleman whom I was privileged to know as my father-in-law...
For Nobuo-san, from David:

Some important Recommendations concerning Cancer

As everybody knows, cancer is an illness that is related to a weak immune system. Whether you choose to use chemotherapy or not, there are some things you can definitely do to strengthen your immune system. Therefore, anything, and everything you can do to make your immune system stronger is good!

Most people (and even doctors) talk about "causes" and possible "cures" for cancer. This, in my view, is not only simplistic, but obscures the issue, as it misses a most important point:

It is always difficult to isolate a specific "cause" of cancer. Rather, there are contributors to the cancerous state. These contributors are related to at least one, but probably more, of the following areas:

1) Nutrition: having a diet that is not optimal for that specific individual

2) Deficiency of certain vitamins and minerals

3) A weakening of the system through certain life-styles, habits, etc.

4) Mental/emotional factors.

5) Outside influences: (e.g., chlorine in the water, air pollution, absorption of chemicals in deodorants or other products, traces of pesticides in the food we eat, etc.)

Now: It is not possible for one person to totally change environmental factors (5). However, it is possible for you to address issues 1) through 4), and by so doing, you can greatly strengthen your immune system, which will then do what is necessary to eliminate the cancer cells.
Let's take these issues one by one:

*** Area 1: Nutrition ***

1) Nutrition. Having an optimal diet is of course good even if you are healthy. But if you are ill, it is of tremendous importance. Unfortunately, many doctors know very little about nutrition; for this reason, it is of course essential to get dietary indications from a nutritionist. Eating simply whatever you want is naturally not good at all in case of cancer, for the following reason:

a) Anything we eat does one of three things: 1) It has no effect on us (this is practically impossible!) 2) It affects us positively; 3) It affects us negatively

b) Eating the healthiest foods cannot be harmful to us; therefore, it will have a positive effect on us.

Now the question is:

What is an optimal diet for people with cancer? Here are some of the most important points:

a) Eliminate sugar from the diet. This is very important. (Read this article)

b) No artificial sweeteners.

c) No high-fat dairy products. (Use almond milk instead of cow's milk). Use olive oil instead of butter, or corn oil.

d) Drink:

1) A lot of pure water (good mineral water). Recommended: at least two liters per day. Water should be room-temperature. Do not get "reverse osmosis" water; use preferably ionized water, with high pH.

2) Green tea: some of the water drunk can be (and should be) in the form of green tea (several cups a day).

3) Squeeze half a lemon into the mineral water once or twice a day; also, ground ginger is excellent for the liver; it can be added to the green tea, and also to drinking water (example: mix lemon juice and ground ginger into the drinking water.)

4) Vegetable juice: Raw fruit and vegetable juice: extremely good for the immune system! Easily sipped throughout the day, this provides enzymes and high levels of vitamins and minerals. Here's a sample of what you could include, to make a lot of juice that you can keep in a big container in the refrigerator: carrots; apples; strawberries; lemons; mint; spinach; oranges; blueberries; blackberries; ginger root. Also: good-quality Apple Cider Vinegar: put on salads (for example) or one tablespoon mixed in water: use often!

Note 1: Blueberries are extremely good for cancer patients. Try to eat large portions of them every day.

Note 2: Drink only high-quality mineral water. (We will send you some). It is highly recommendable that the water be high-alkaline. (Watch this video for more.)

Note 3: Ask the dietitian if there is a limit on the amount of water you should have.

More on Nutrition: the following is from  this site:

Grocery Store Shopping: The Best Diet for Liver Cancer Patients

"The first things to consider are the guidelines offered by the dietitian. Usually there will be specific amounts of protein, fat and carbohydrate that you'll have to adhere to. For example, many patients with liver cancer are suffering from a nonfunctional liver, and it's difficult to process a high protein diet in this circumstance.

"Thus, when shopping at the grocery store, you don't want to get too many protein foods (beef, pork, turkey, chicken, duck, capon, buffalo, lamb, fish, shellfish, yogurt, cheese and milk). However, you will still want to get enough protein so you aren't contributing to causing protein malnutrition and end up watching your loved one's muscles waste away.

"When planning a diet for liver cancer patients, the dietitian will have a goal of calories needed for the day. This matters a lot. You will want to have enough calories, but not too many calories since overeating will tax the liver and could worsen the symptoms your loved one is having."

***

*** Area 2: Vitamins and Minerals ***

Now: certain vitamins are essential to maintaining a strong immune system. If someone is already sick, it is recommendable to take much larger doses of certain vitamins (ones that a growing number of scientists think can have a strengthening effect on the system). This will do no harm, even in doses considerably above average.

Here, I will list the vitamins we have sent to you, along with the recommended dosages in cases of cancer. I can send you a computer file with more details, with references to studies, etc., in case you are interested in reading more.

1) Vitamin C: 3 or 4 tablets (500mg each) per day. (When talking to an alternative physician, ask about the possibility of receiving much larger doses of vitamin C intravenously, perhaps two or three times a week.)

2) Vitamin E: Dosage: 2 capsules per day (each at a meal, not at the same time.)

3) Vitamin D: 2 per day, preferably with meal; 3-4 per day possibly better. (Author's note: I recommended at the time only 2-4 capsules of vitamin D per day, because I knew that my in-laws were skeptical about the efficacy of vitamins. Yet there are even mainstream researchers who are exploring the possibility that even "mega-doses" of vitamin D could be useful for fighting cancer.)

4) Magnesium Citrate: 1 per day

5) Omega-3: 3 capsules per day

6) Echinacea: 2 capsules per day, with meals, or open capsules, put into green tea.

(stabilizes the white blood-cell count when doing chemotherapy)

7) Astragalus: 3 per day, preferably with food

8) Coenzyme Q10: 2 per day, each one at a meal (See  this article)

9) Selenium: 3 per day

*** Summary of Subject: Nutrition and Vitamins/Minerals ***

An optimal diet is of great importance: preferably, you should eat no meat, but rather, fish. (Salmon is especially good). Reduce carbohydrates. But eat a lot of vegetables, and fruits!

It is extremely important to add vitamins and supplements to the diet when someone has cancer, and even more important when they are receiving chemotherapy, since that treatment weakens the body, and the immune system.

Also: Garlic is excellent! Try to eat it every day, raw (one spoon of crushed garlic, taken with a glass of water), or fried.

Also: Apple Cider Vinegar: add one tablespoon to the water you drink a few times a day.

Also: Essiac tea (we can help you find it). It is excellent for your condition.

So, please follow these guidelines:

1) "Eat small, frequent meals throughout the day. Eating frequent small meals will ensure your body is getting enough calories, protein, and nutrients to tolerate treatment... Try eating 5- 6 small meals or "mini" meals about every three hours. Choose protein-rich foods."

Get protein from nuts, eggs, soybeans and beans (preferably no meat!).

2) Take the vitamins we sent you, in the doses recommended. Don't forget to take them!

3) Drink at least 2 liters of mineral water during the day. Part of this can be in the form of green tea, or water with lemon juice, and perhaps ground ginger. If you can drink more than 2 liters per day, even better. And: it's is very good to add baking soda to the water whenever you can: at least one-half teaspoon of baking soda per glass of water. Lemon can also be added to this, and ginger as well. (But don't drink baking soda water just before or after eating: take it at least an hour before you eat, and wait a couple of hours after eating before drinking it again.)

*** Area 3: habits, life-style issues ***

Of course, drinking alcohol should be strictly avoided. No coffee, or black tea, either (only green tea). In addition, the diet should not contain sugar, or artificial sweeteners.

Any physical exercise is good, if your strength permits. Walking, stretching, arm exercises, etc. Naturally, you should not exaggerate; take it easy. Exercise is not only good for the body, but for the mind, since it is a gesture of wanting to live and be healthy; an affirmation of the belief that you will recover from the illness.

*** Area 4: Mental and Emotional Issues ***

Where illness is concerned, the mind and the feelings are often involved. This involvement can contribute to:

1) The illness and its development. Feelings such as sadness, despair, hopelessness, a lack of purpose or meaning in life, etc., can contribute to the development of sickness and disease. For this reason, it makes sense to take some time every day to think about this, in order to perhaps discover which negative feelings or thought patterns have, up till now, contributed to becoming ill. Then, you can think about how these patterns might be changed.

2) On the positive side: by developing and having positive thoughts and feelings, we can strengthen our immune system, which will contribute to recovery from disease. Laughter, for example, has been shown to contribute to health. (At the "Cancer Treatment Centers of America", they offer the patients "Laughter Therapy"!) In other words: all positive, happy emotions that we cultivate contribute to our good health.

Visualization techniques can be of great help in the recovery process. I would be happy to visit you some day, and tell you how these simple mental exercises work, and will show you how to do them. (They only require about 10 minutes per day).

*** IMPORTANT ***

Many people who have cancer believe that "all is lost". They might try chemotherapy, although not even the doctor seems too optimistic about the chances for survival.

However, I personally know two people who had serious cancer, and who saved themselves.

One of them, an American man who is now in his fifties, had stage 4. He tried chemotherapy for months, and it did no good. He only got weaker and weaker. Finally, the doctors told him that there was nothing they could do for him. They said he had only about three weeks to live. Basically, they sent him home to die.

But the man decided to try something else. He completely changed his diet, and began taking many vitamins and minerals. He concentrated totally on becoming well again. What happened? Two months after the doctor had sent him home to die, the man visited that physician, who was of course surprised to see him. They tested the man, and... he was completely free of cancer. That was over ten years ago. I saw that man about two months ago, and he is alive and well: the cancer had disappeared, and did not return.

The second person I know is a woman from South America; she had breast cancer. She did not want chemotherapy. Instead, she made dietary changes, like the ones I recommend in these pages. The result? In a few months, the cancer totally disappeared.

My sister also knows two people who cured themselves of cancer in this way. In both those cases, the cancer was late stage, and the people were on the path to death, and yet, by completely changing their diets, they both were cured.

Therefore, I know that it is possible to be cured from cancer through the correct diet, and intake of vitamins. Follow the diet strictly, take the supplements (vitamins, minerals), and also, something else very important: you must also believe you can become well again. You must want it, since that will give you the motivation to do what is necessary to recover your health.

Finally, I would like to say that of course, I offer you any help you may need. I believe that it is possible for you to recover from this illness, if you do everything you can to strengthen your immune system. Please contact mes at any time if you would like to talk, ask me about anything I have written here, or if you would like to have more information.

Here are a few questions you could ask your doctor when you see him:

1) Could you make an appointment with the hospital nutritionist? (Perhaps you have already done that; I don't know.) Even better: make an appointment with a nutritionist who is independent (that is, who is not connected to the hospital), to ensure that the advice you receive will be objective.

2) For the type of cancer you have: can the doctor tell you what percentage of people are helped with chemotherapy? If he doesn't know the exact statistics: can he look them up for you? Perhaps he could give you the name of a scientific study done about the effectiveness of chemotherapy on liver cancer patients? Since chemotherapy has a number of very negative side effects, it could actually weaken your immune system. Therefore, unless the doctor can show you that the benefits definitely are stronger than the negative side effects, you may want to reconsider receiving chemotherapy.

We wish you well, and I say again: please don't hesitate to contact us if there is anything at all we can do for you!

David

*** End of eBook insert ***

#

# Of course, I cannot know if my father-in-law would have recovered had he followed these suggestions (as it was, he took only one or two of the vitamins, and drank mineral water). I do know, however, that he chose to treat his cancer with chemotherapy, with no positive results whatsoever, and that he died a few months after that.

# True, perhaps we should just say that "his time had come", but then, this has always struck me as a mere consolation after someone has died. Maybe, on an unconscious level, "death by cancer" was the way he wanted to bow out of life; who can tell? Nonetheless, certain questions will always be in my mind:

# 1) Suppose he had not chosen chemotherapy; how long would he then have survived?

# 2) Suppose he had decided to do everything possible to recover, and consulted an alternative physician instead of a mainstream oncologist?

# 3) What emotional issues might have been involved in his illness? That's nobody's business but his own, of course, but I mention it because it is extremely important.

# Naturally, I will never have the answers to these questions as far as Nobuo-san's case is concerned. Yet considering the number of people I have known personally who have died not long after being subjected to chemotherapy, I do wonder how long it will take before our medical system wakes up, and recognizes that such invasive, immune-system weakening "therapies" are in fact not helping people, but more probably, hastening their deaths, or even downright killing them.

# More and more people – including physicians who deal with many cancer patients – have been coming to precisely that realization. Namely, that it makes no sense to use "treatments" that severely weaken an already-debilitated immune system. One such physician is Dr. Ben Johnson.

# I heartily suggest – no, let me change that wording: I most definitely insist – that you click on the link I will provide and watch a four-and-a-half minute video featuring Dr. Johnson. In less than five minutes, and without using any technical jargon whatsoever, Dr. Johnson sums up the situation concerning standard cancer treatment today, telling quite clearly why it is a completely wrong approach. The focus should be not on "killing cancer cells", but rather on "strengthening the immune system", a point that I have been making repeatedly throughout this book. I just found this video the other day, but was delighted to find such a down-to-earth, concise summary of so many important facts presented by an expert. As a matter of fact, in my estimation, there is more wisdom in Dr. Johnson's short video than you will find in all of the many pages of cancer.org. Watch this video now by clicking on this link:

# "The Danger of a weak Immune System"

# Watch the video, read the transcript, and watch it again if necessary. Using reason as your guide, ponder what you hear, and absorb the message, for what Dr. Johnson says contains the key to conquering cancer, or practically any other disease: a healthy, strong immune system is absolutely essential to restoring your health, whereas methods such as chemo will weaken, and eventually destroy, your immune system.

# Yes – (and despite the objections you may hear from the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry and their minions, who stand to lose billions if the people stop using their methods) − it is as simple as that.

# To conclude, here is another article, one that deals specifically with vitamin C:

# "High Dose Vitamin C makes Cancer Treatment more effective, Trial shows"

# As interesting as the article is, there remains one looming question: if mega-doses of vitamin C (given by intravenous infusion) "makes cancer treatment (such as chemo) more effective", could it not be that in fact, it is the vitamin C that is helping rid the body of cancer, and not the chemo drugs? Ergo, would it not be infinitely more reasonable to receive the mega-doses of vitamin C without using chemo or radiation at all? Precisely this is suggested at the end of the article:

# "If the approach (i.e., giving high doses of vitamin C) proves effective in future clinical trials as well, the new treatment could also be significantly less costly than the standard treatment. To put this into perspective, 9 months of intravenous vitamin C treatment as part of the phase II trial currently costs less than one dose of chemotherapy."

# I hope that what you have read in this chapter has convinced you of at least one thing: namely, that if you (or a loved one) have cancer, and must decide on some sort of treatment method, you owe it to yourself to consult a physician who possesses expert-level knowledge of nutrition, and of the benefits of vitamin and mineral supplements. And this most probably will not be either your present family physician, or your oncologist. Therefore, please seek out a doctor who has been trained in both mainstream and alternative therapies, and make an appointment with him or her as soon as possible!
The Dangers of misplaced Optimism

It has long been clear to me why so many people accept chemotherapy when they are diagnosed with cancer: desperate for anything that might help them, they convince themselves that chemo will be their salvation. But is this a reasonable conclusion?

Let's have a look at what Dr. Peter Wise writes on this topic, in an article published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal):

"Patients overestimate potential drug benefits. In an important multi-centre study, almost 75% of 1200 patients with metastatic colorectal and lung cancers considered it likely that their cancers would be cured by chemotherapy. Yet a cure in these situations is virtually unknown."

(Highlights in the above quote are those of Dr. Wise, not my own. The full article can be found here.)

This is pitiful, is it not? Almost 75% of patients with certain types of cancer think they will be cured by chemotherapy, whereas in fact, it cures practically no-one.

Should you yourself ever be in such a situation, please ask the physician who recommends chemotherapy to show you evidence for the cure rates of chemo for your type of cancer. I'll bet he tries to evade the question! For the fact is, chemo contributes very little even to five-year survival rates, and almost never can be said to "cure". True, perhaps in some cases the cancer does disappear, and this could be seen as a cure. But in how many of those cases does it then return after a number of months, either in the original location, or somewhere else in the body? This is a sure sign that the patient was not cured at all. It is also strong evidence that the factors that originally contributed to the development of cancer are still present within the person's body, and life. This is why it is of supreme importance to do anything and everything possible to strengthen the immune system, as emphasized so often in this book. By taking the concrete steps outlined in this chapter, there is a good chance that you will not just be alive next year, but that you truly will be cured.

Therefore, don't let fear of death lull you into complacence; into believing that an extremely invasive "therapy" such as chemo is your "only hope". Instead, follow the path of reason: strengthen your immune system, and develop an optimally healthy mindset. Know that others have been cured doing exactly that, and that for this reason, there is a good chance that you can as well!
Which Industry cares most about your Health?

The Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry prefers to call itself the "Health Care Industry", no doubt because that term sounds considerably more caring. Of course, they make their billions not on your health, but rather, on your sicknesses. There is an industry, however, that very obviously does care about your health. The companies that work in that industry truly do want you to live long, and very healthy lives. I am referring here to the Insurance Industry.

Think about it: What could be better for a health insurance company than to have thousands of healthy customers, people who, month by month, pay their expensive insurance premiums, and yet who never have to go to doctors, have operations, take exorbitantly-priced medications, accept invasive "therapies" such as chemo or radiation therapy, and the like? Such a company would be making pure profit, and would practically never have to pay for anything!

Therefore, why don't we have a look at what a well-known insurance company recommends as far as staying healthy is concerned?

A few weeks ago I found a PDF booklet made by Kaiser Permanente, an "integrated managed care consortium". To quote from Wikipedia:

"As of October 2017, Kaiser Permanente had 11.7 million health plan members, 208,975 employees, 21,275 physicians, 54,072 nurses, 39 medical centers, and 720 medical facilities.[2]As of December 31, 2017, the non-profit Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals entities reported a combined $3.8 billion in net income on $72.7 billion in operating revenues.[1] Each Permanente Medical Group operates as a separate for-profit partnership or professional corporation in its individual territory, and while none publicly reports its financial results, each is primarily funded by reimbursements from its respective regional Kaiser Foundation Health Plan entity. KFHP is one of the largest not-for-profit organizations in the United States."

Kaiser Permanente is a sort of insurance company: you pay your premiums, and if you then need medical assistance, you go to one of the medical facilities that is part of that system. Like any insurance company, Kaiser Permanente wants its premium-paying members to stay healthy. That's why they published "The Plant-based Diet Booklet". (Click on title to download.)

On page two of that booklet, we see a quote by Carmelo Mejia, MD:

"As I see skyrocketing incidences of conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease, I am profoundly aware that there is so much potential for preventing or even reversing most of these problems through very inexpensive life-style changes based on proper nutrition."

On page seven, we read of the benefits of a plant-based diet: "Lower risk of developing cancer and diabetes" and "May slow the progression of certain types of cancer". (All highlights are my own.)

By contrast, cancer.org, the official site of the American Cancer Society, that has close ties to the Pharmaceutical Industry, while mentioning the importance of diet, gives a slant on the issue that is subtly − though essentially − quite different. There, we find the statement:

"Nutrition is an important part of cancer treatment. Eating the right kinds of foods during and after treatment can help you feel better and stay stronger. Learn more about the importance of good nutrition during and after cancer treatment here."

Did you notice the difference? The Insurance Company recommends the plant-based diet as part of a treatment for cancer ""May slow the progression of certain types of cancer". (One might speculate that their cautious wording is probably due to their desire to avoid lawsuits slapped on them by the Pharmaceutical Industry). Cancer.org, on the other hand, says no such thing. They make it a point to mention that good nutrition is important "during and after cancer treatment" (i.e. chemo, radiation therapy, and the like.); indeed, they use that phrase twice in only two sentences, no doubt just to make sure you get their message: "You need our treatment!"

In this book, I have emphasized the fact that cancer is a condition that develops in large part due to life-style; poor diet is one of the factors that contributes to its development. What could be more logical, then, than to improve one's diet, not only as a means of preventing cancer, but also, as a strategy for defeating it? Yet Cancer.org, desirous of having you choose to resort to an extremely expensive therapy, would have you believe that a good diet is important "during and after treatment", but they do not even suggest that such a dietary change may be a treatment in itself, and perhaps the only one you will need.

Now: I am not saying that the specific dietary recommendations given in the Kaiser Permanente booklet are precisely the ones that you as a cancer patient should follow: only a physician well-trained in nutrition and its importance in fighting cancer (i.e., an alternative physician) will be able to tell you precisely what sort of diet will most increase your odds of complete recovery. Nonetheless, the Kaiser Permanente booklet is an excellent start – and as I mentioned at the beginning of this section: it is written not by people who make insane profits on your illness, but rather, by an organization that really does want you to stay healthy, as does any health insurance company!

If faced with Cancer, what would I myself do?

It is said that every gray cloud has its silver lining. Back in 2013, when I was caring for my cancer-stricken mother, I was quite unable to see any "silver lining"; everything seemed completely dismal.

Yet I have come to recognize that the saying may be true after all, for I do indeed see that that grayest of my life's clouds did indeed contain the proverbial "silver lining".

How so? Because thanks to all that I have learned about cancer, I have been able to apply my reasoning abilities to the subject, to the point where I now feel confident that cancer is not the unbeatable, dread monster it is made out to be, but rather, it is a condition that can indeed be conquered, assuming that you are willing to seriously apply the right strategy, and dedicate yourself uncompromisingly to recovering your health.

Before 2013 − when I knew next to nothing about the subject − if someone had asked me what I would do if I got cancer, I would have reacted like most people. Namely, I would have said that I'd do what the doctors recommend, and hope for the best. Yet I would have added that I sure hope it never happens, because being diagnosed with cancer seems akin to receiving a death sentence!

Today, however, my view is completely different. For now, if I ever were diagnosed with cancer, I would know just what to do, and would immediately begin to implement a sound strategy to fully recover my health.

Allow me to share this strategy with you. Of course, if you prefer to go the chemo or radiation route, that is your right. Yet even if you do, I strongly suggest that before you accept such invasive, weakening "therapies" you first (for example, for a couple of months) follow the plan I outline below. Then have yourself tested again: if the cancer has worsened, you can still take the chemo (but make sure the doctor shows you evidence that it can help for your specific type of cancer!). Yet if, when you are tested, the doctor says that the cancer is beginning to recede, then you should not do chemo- or radiation therapy, but rather, you should continue with this strategy for a few more months, and see what happens. For it is quite possible that by following this plan, you will recover your health.

Now, here is the "seven-step plan" I would implement if I ever received the "dread diagnosis"...

***

1) First of all, I would seriously ponder the fact that if I do not make some radical changes in my life, there is a good chance that I could end up dying of cancer. I would ask myself: "Is this really the way you wish to die? Don't you have many good reasons for wanting to live longer?" I would try to be as honest as possible with myself, and consider my answers to those questions very carefully. I would then do a personal analysis of my thought and emotional patterns (see the chapter "Do you really want to live?")

2) I would immediately change my diet, adopting one that is vegetarian, and high-alkaline. I would not do this in a half-hearted way, such as simply "eating a few more vegetables with my meals". Rather, I would totally eliminate meat, sugar, and any foods that are acidic from my diet (including black tea, and coffee – though I myself don't drink coffee anyway). In addition, I would drink a lot of pure water every day, including several glasses of mineral water containing baking soda (see  this article for an excellent summary of the use of baking soda as a part of cancer treatment). It goes without saying that if I smoked, or took illegal drugs, I would immediately stop those pernicious habits at once, no matter how difficult it might be to do so. In addition, I would find a physician who is an accredited MD, but who is also trained in nutrition and in alternative treatment methods, in order to receive expert advice on the details of an optimal diet in my specific case.

3) I would plan to take a number of vitamins, some of them in mega-doses (Vitamin C and D). In the case of Vitamin C, this would mean finding the proper clinic to have the vitamin administered intravenously (since the bowels don't tolerate large doses taken orally). Of course, I would consult with a physician trained in both mainstream as well as alternative medicine when selecting the vitamins. Nonetheless, I would take the time to do my own research as well, exploring the most recent theories, and discoveries, in the area of the use of vitamins to cure cancer.

4) I would make sure to exercise (in my case, to keep exercising, since I already do). If I never exercised, I would start doing do. Nothing really strenuous at first: maybe just taking daily walks that I would extend from day to day, making it a point to walk a bit faster each time; some sit-ups, push-ups, basic stretching, and the like. Exercising not only helps to strengthen your physical immune system, but is also great for boosting your self-confidence, and for keeping your spirits up.

For example, several studies have shown that exercise almost always helps in cases of depression, and it is quite possible that someone who has cancer had been suffering from depression even before the diagnosis (and all the more so when he/she learns of the cancer). Did you know that it is quite possible to have depression and not even realize it? Before you scoff at this idea, please read this article: "Can you be depressed without knowing it?"

5) I would immediately incorporate the mental exercises described in this chapter into my daily routine in order to develop an optimally positive attitude, as well as to program my subconscious mind in order to begin to restore my health.

6) If I didn't already have any projects, I would start one: learning about a new subject that had always interested me, but that I never seemed to have time for; helping out at a local church or charity; dedicating more time to enjoying the company of friends, or to meeting new people... This not only would help to give me a more positive attitude, but would also give me clear, concrete reasons to go on living. The inner desire to live can go a long way towards restoring one's health.

7) To make sure I had all the bases covered, I would do some research into people who had had cancer, and who beat it. I would learn all I could about what they did to recover their health. A good place to start would be this page at the excellent site of Chris Wark: "Natural Survivor Stories". Do read as much as you can at that site, for Chris is one of those who opted out of chemo, and healed himself through diet.

After deciding "Yes, I do want to stay alive!" I would dedicate myself almost completely to achieving a recovery – no half-measures. After all, cancer is a matter of life and death, and what's even more sobering: it's a matter of your life or death. In such a situation, the only reasonable course for one to take is to (here I go again!) – do everything possible to quickly, and maximally, strengthen your immune system.

To sum up more concisely: if I were ever diagnosed with cancer, I would immediately begin doing these six things:

1) Do some deep soul-searching, to determine whether I really want to go on living for many more years.

2) Stop all bad habits (ones that weaken my immune system), and adopt all good habits that would strengthen my immune system. This would include a radical change of diet, as outlined earlier in this book. Seek out a good alternative physician, one who has experience treating cancer with natural means.

3) Plan a regimen of specific vitamins that will strengthen my immune system.

4) Begin to exercise (or keep exercising).

5) Employ the mental exercises explained in this chapter on a daily basis.

6) Begin a new project (or projects), one that would add meaning to my life.

7) Read all I can about people who "beat cancer", who totally recovered, and listen carefully to what they did to achieve their results.

Yes, I know that things like the radical dietary change, for instance, is not easy. But let's face it: as I said before, it is a matter of life and death – and this fact should be more than enough to get you to take positive action by actually doing everything possible to recover your health.

In order to shock you into making the changes necessary, I will even dare say this: A person who has been diagnosed with cancer, yet who is not willing to do everything possible to beat it, probably deserves the painful death that could well be the result of such indifference. If you do not value your life enough to take positive measures to preserve it when necessary, then subconsciously, you have chosen death over life. But is that the person you wish to be? I sure hope not! So decide right now to take action, to do anything and everything you can to strengthen your immune system, and know that there have been many others who had cancer, yet who conquered it doing exactly that.

Hope has not completely vanished until one is dead. And unless you are reading these lines from the spirit world, YOU are alive; YOU have the ability to make changes in your life. If you really wish to do so, YOU have the power even to save your own life. Use that power now. Set aside your fears and worries, and TAKE ACTION – action that will put YOU in control, and that will lead you back to good health.

Should you decide to stay passive, by letting others (such as doctors, family members, etc.) decide everything for you, by accepting chemo (even for those types of cancer which it can't help at all), by continuing to eat poorly, etc., please know that despite my often harsh tone, I do not condemn you. For even if you submit to deadly passivity, it is your life, and if you prefer to give up your own power, and place your life into the hands of others, you are free to do so.

But of course, I suggest that instead of surrendering to passivity, and even to death itself, you first do some serious thinking about your life, its value to you, and whether you really want to go on living. And if you do, you will take action; you will regain control of your destiny by... (and here it is, one last time) doing anything and everything you can to strengthen your immune system.

I wish you well on your journey, no matter where it takes you, and however it ends. And know that even though you and I have never met, and probably never will, I do care about you, for ultimately, we are all brothers and sisters.

David Bolton

Do continue on to the next page, for the Epilogue is a very important part of this book!

Epilogue: Join the Movement to rectify the Abuses of the Industry

We, the people, can make a difference. It is high time that we speak out, making our voices heard throughout the country, through both chambers of Congress, and through the very offices of the White House.

No, this is not "Mission Impossible". We can do it, and all it will take is gathering together enough of us to sign an official whitehouse.gov petition. If we manage to collect enough signatures, it will come to the attention of the White House; the more signatures we have, the more likely it is that our collective voice will be heard loud and clear, and that the politicians will have little choice but to respond by doing what they can to reign in the Pharmaceutical Industry, and do more to control its excesses and abuses – abuses which are harming our citizens, and bankrupting our system.

Therefore, allow me to make one final appeal...

Please join our Facebook group: "Make Big Pharma accountable!". When we have at least 100,000 members (preferably many more than that), I will set up, and then announce to the group, the whitehouse.gov petition I will have created. At that point, all you will have to do is sign that petition within a month of the announcement. Let's see to it that our lawmakers do more to stop the abuses of the Industry. Click to go to our group now: "Make Big Pharma accountable!", and join us!

After all, it is our very lives that are at stake in this issue: yours, those of your loved ones, and the lives of future generations – in the U.S. and throughout the world – who do not deserve to be at the mercy of the money-grabbing scheming of the Medical-Pharmaceutical Industry.

Yes, I am sure that there are many good doctors, and other health-care professionals reading these lines, who themselves know of these industry abuses very well, and who also would like to take a stand to see to it that changes are made. So naturally, we welcome you as well! And I would like to thank you for being among those doctors, nurses, and other fine, ethical-minded professionals who always put your patients' interests first.

I'll see you all at the group... Bye for now, and I wish you a long, happy and healthy life!

David Bolton

Author's Bio

David Bolton is a writer, teacher, speaker, musician, actor and astrologer. His interests include history, psychology, politics, philosophy, quantum physics, classical music, hypnosis, and all areas related to self-improvement. David is the author of many books, which can be seen at his Amazon author page , or at his website, dboltoncreations.com.

As a musician (harpsichordist) who now focuses on the possibilities of digital recording, David has begun a Youtube channel dedicated to presenting the works of many rather unknown composers to a broader public. You can view his channel, and listen to his recordings, here:  "The Digital Harpsichordist".

You may contact David at dboltoncreations@gmail.com

