Other Kinds Of Cancer


Categories: The Analysis of Disease States: Helping the Body Recover
Sources: How And When To Be Your Own Doctor

There seem to be many other kinds of cancer, at least if you believe

the medical doctors. They divide up cancers and their treatments by

their location in the body and by the type of cancer cells present.

I do not see it that way. To me, a cancer is a cancer is a cancer,

and there is only one kind: it is an immune system collapse,

consequence of the deadly triangle of weak spleen, thymus and liver,

plus a toxic large intestine and weak pancreas. That organ profile

is found in skin cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, brain cancer,

cancer of what have you. How fast or how slowly the cells multiply

or spread, where they are located, what the cancer cells look like

in a microscope, these are irrelevant factors compared to the body's

ability to conquer the disease. Or die from it.



If the body's immune system can stop the growth of the cancers and

begin to turn them back before the cancer cells impinge

catastrophically on some vital function, the person can usually

survive. Even if the body cannot completely eliminate all the cancer

cells, but regains enough immune function to keep the existing

cancers in permanent check, a person can survive many years with an

existing, stable cancer without undue pain or discomfort. Still

having a non-growing tumor after a long fast indicates that a person

is a lot better than they were before fasting.



I believe that virtually everyone has cancer cells in their body,

just like viruses and bacteria. But most people do not develop

cancer as a disease because their immune function is strong so these

misbehaving cells are destroyed as fast as they appear. Mutated,

freely-multiplying cells are caused by peroxidized fats, by free

radicals in the body, by radiation (there has always been background

radiation on Earth), by chance mutation. There are naturally

occurring highly carcinogenic substances in ordinary foods that are

unavoidable. In fact some of these naturally occurring substances

are far more dangerous than the toxic residues of pesticides in our

foods. The body is supposed to deal with all these things; they are

all called insults. It is rarely the insult, but the failure of the

body to eliminate cancerous cells promptly that causes the disease

called cancer. So the treatment I recommend for cancer in general is

the same as the one described for breast cancer cases. Restore the

immune function.



However, as much as I lack respect for conventional medical cancer

therapies, I do think surgery can have a useful place in cancer

treatment along with hygienic methods. Some people just cannot

confront the lump(s). Or they are so terrified of having a cancer in

their body that their emotions suppresses their own immune function.

Even though surgery prompts a cancer to spread more rapidly, without

their lumps some cancer patients feel more positive. If surgery is

done in conjunction with rebuilding the immune system, the body will

prevent new cancers from forming.



Removal of a large mass of cancer cells can also lighten the immune

system's task. Not having to kill off and reabsorb all those cells

one-by-one from a huge cancer mass, the body can better conquer

smaller groups of cancer cells. And the die-off of large cancers

produces a lot of toxins, burdening the organs of elimination. This

is an argument for the potential benefit of a lumpectomy. However, I

do not support mastectomies, or the type of surgery that cause

massive damage to the body in a foolish attempt to remove every last

cancer cell, as though the cells themselves were the disease.



Sometimes cancer tumors are well-encapsulated, walled off and can be

easily removed without prompting metastasis. This type of tumor may

not be completely reabsorbed by the body in any case; though the

immune system may have killed it, an empty shell remains, like a

peanut shell. Sometimes the judgment calls about surgery can get

dicey. When surgery involves removing an organ. I oppose the loss of

useful body parts.



I have also known and helped people who believed they couldn't

recover without radiation and chemotherapy. What people believe is,

is. The emotions generated when a personal reality is suppressed,

ignored or invalidated will overwhelm an immune system. I always

tell those people who sincerely believe in it to go ahead with

standard medical treatment (while I'm privately praying the doctors

won't cause too much damage). However, when I am supporting a body

with supplements and dietary reform, have put that body on a

raw-food cleansing diet or even a raw food diet with nuts and grains

that hardly detoxifies, and then the person has had chemotherapy and

radiation, the medical doctors in attendance are inevitably amazed

that the side effects are much milder than anticipated, or

non-existent. And fewer courses of chemotherapy are needed than the

doctors expected.



For example, I worked with a little boy with leukemia. His mother

brought him to me while trying to resolve a conflict with her

ex-husband about the boy's treatment. The father demanded the

standard medical route; the mother was for natural therapy.

Eventually the father won in court, but I had the boy on my program

for three months before the doctors got their hands on him. Even

during chemotherapy and radiation the mother kept the boy on my

program. Throughout the doctors' treatment he had so few bad side

effects that he was able to continue in school and play with the

other children; he did not lose his hair (which would have made him

feel like a freak). He recovered. I don't mind that the medical

doctors took credit, but to my thinking, he recovered despite their

therapy.





More

;