Friday, April 11, 2014

Orthodox Medicine Q&A on The Treatment of Cancer.

REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.


                             SPONSORS


              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved.  

 

Orthodox Medicine Q&A on The Treatment of Cancer.


Question #1


  Chemotherapy and radiation put people into remission. Putting
people into remission proves that the total life (see above
definition) of a person is significantly increased by using
chemotherapy and radiation. True or false?

Answer: People equate the concept of remission with the concept
of cure. Technically, remission means nothing more than one or
more of the symptoms of the cancer are gone (e.g. destroying a
tumor may put a cancer patient into remission). However, even if
a tumor is destroyed, for example, and the person is judged to
be in remission, there still may be many areas of concentrated
cancer cells in the body. Thus a person can still have potentially
damaging areas of cancer in their body and they can still be
considered to be in remission.

There has never been scientific proof that the treatment of
symptoms generally relates to a longer total life. In other
words, there has never been scientific proof that the concept
of removing symptoms and the concept of increasing total
life are related. Indeed, the total life of cancer patients has
barely changed in over 80 years in spite of many improvements
in treating symptoms.

Furthermore, while many people do go into remission, for some
types of cancer, more than 90% of the people who go into
remission will come out of remission (which is called regression)
and will later die of cancer. Total Life has to do with the
eventual death of the patient, not the treatment of the symptoms
of cancer. Consider this quote:

Ovarian cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage and, as
such, is one of the deadliest and most difficult cancers to
treat. Therapy can eradicate the tumors, but most patients
relapse within two years  Normally, when a woman is diagnosed
with ovarian cancer, she undergoes surgery to have the tumors
removed. The ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and parts of the
bowel are often removed as well.

Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of
patients then go into remission, a period of watchful waiting.
The problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as
90 percent of women will relapse and die, says Berek. When the
cancer returns in other surrounding tissue, it is more virulent
and resistant to chemotherapy.
  
Of course the returning cancer is more deadly than the original
cancer because the person’s immune system was destroyed while
treating the symptoms of the first cancer. The cancer may never
have left the patient. Once chemotherapy has damaged the immune
system, the patient is left far more vulnerable to cancer.

An even more deceptive term has entered into the vocabulary of
orthodox medicine. The term is response. Again, people equate
the term response to cure. This newly ubiquitous term is even
more deceptive than the term remission. What does response
mean?

It only means that the tumor has shrunk a little. That’s all.

Orthodox medicine wants patients to think that the tumor is the
cancer and the size of the tumor equates to the cancer being
cured. This is utter nonsense. It is a clever trick to avoid the
issue of total life. Rather than extending the total life of
patients, they extend their vocabulary to be more and more
deceptive.

Question #2


If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis, orthodox
medicine considers that they are cured of cancer. Is this
concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of total
life?

Answer: It is assumed that the concept of cure (meaning
patients who survive 5 years after diagnosis), is equivalent
to the concept of total life. Consider two car manufacturing
companies, Company B and Company G. Let us define the total
life of the cars these companies manufacture to be the number
of miles the cars drive before the engine dies permanently and
has to be replaced. Suppose the total life of Company B cars
is 100,000 miles and suppose the total life of the Company G
cars is 300,000 miles.

Clearly, Company G makes far superior automobiles. How can the
Company B executives make it appear that their car engines are
as good as the engines made by Company G? They can lie with
statistics.

For example, what if Company B did a study of what percent of
Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car engines
were still running after 30,000 miles? Both companies would look
very good and you could not tell them apart. But if the study
were based on what percent of Company B car engines and what
percent of Company G car engines were still running after 250,000
miles, the truth about the inferiority of Company B car engines
would be obvious.

If the benchmark is carefully chosen to be well below the
average, any company will look good.

That is exactly how orthodox medicine lies with statistics. A
cure rate based on a patient living 5 years is like the engine
test after 30,000 miles  it is meaningless. The benchmark is
way too low. Cure rates should be based on total life and
nothing else. For example, some cancers are very slow growing.
The cure rate for these cancers is very high, when in fact a 15-
year cure rate would show just how poor treatments are for some
of these types of cancers.

But the lies of orthodox medicine on this issue go much deeper
than that...much deeper.

If you look up the word cure in the dictionary, or think about
the concept of curing cancer, you might come up with a
definition of cure for cancer as meaning the cancer patient
has been returned to his or her condition before they got
cancer. In other words, they have less than, or fewer, cancer
cells than the average person.

Why doesn’t orthodox medicine use that definition of cure? If
they did use that definition, and every few years they found a
true cure for a type of cancer, their cure rate would slowly
go up.

But that is exactly why they don’t use that definition of cure.
They have no intention of curing cancer. As Dr. Bob Beck, a
PhD in physics used to say: a patient cured is a customer lost.

How can orthodox medicine maximize their profit per cancer
patient? In other words, they cannot control who gets cancer,
but they can control how much money they make per cancer
patient. They can do that by making cancer into a chronic
disease.

In other words, if can they extend the life of the patient, and
keep them on orthodox drugs and orthodox treatments, the
orthodox medical community can make more and more money
per patient.

It is easy to tell from their choice of a definition of cure
that that is exactly what they had in mind all along.

When the orthodox medicine people came up with their 5-year
cure rate they clearly had in mind that they wanted to convert
cancer into a chronic disease, meaning the patient was going to
be on prescription drugs for the rest of their life. That was
clearly their goal, because as they convert people into chronic
patients their cure rate will go up and up ( i.e. more and more
of them will hit the 5 year mark, but they will be on drugs for
life which may not be long after the 5 year mark).

Their definition of cure has NOTHING to do with how many
cancer cells a person has, what their health is, how long they
will live after the 5 year mark, how their immune system is
doing, how many microbes they have in their body, etc. etc.

Their definition of cure is only a number which reflects their
ability to convert cancer into a chronic disease. The more they
are able to convert cancer into a chronic disease, the higher
their cure rate, using their tricky definitions.

Orthodox medicine loves to use tricky definitions to make their
treatments look better than they really are, and to hide how
ineffective their treatments are. The American Cancer Society
is at the center of the deceptive definitions.

The reader should understand the difference between a treatment
and a true cure. A true cure, meaning the patient is made whole
and no longer needs prescription drugs, stops the profits of
orthodox medicine. But a “treatment” extends and expands on
their profits.

Orthodox medicine wants to treat cancer, not cure cancer.

In fact, orthodox medicine hates it when someone uses the term
cure for any disease. They want that term to be illegal because
it distracts the attention of people away from what they want
all profitable diseases to be chronic diseases.

                  Continued4/14/14

Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved.


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com


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

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Why Water Fluoridation Is a Scam


REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.


                             SPONSORS


              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i         


                  Cure Acid_Reflux Naturally
                    http://bit.ly/19QPluW



                  Continued from 4/7/14

By Dr. Mercola

Why Water Fluoridation Is a Scam


    Water fluoridation was invented by brilliant schemers who
needed to get rid of toxic industrial waste that would cost
them hundreds of millions of dollars for proper disposal. They
duped politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements,
which is not science, and sold them on a public health idea in
which humans are utilized to filter this poison through their
bodies, while 99 percent simply goes down the drain. Adding
insult to injury, they now MAKE hundreds of millions of dollars
selling this hazardous industrial waste, rather than having to pay
for its disposal.

    In his 2012 article "Poison is Treatment—Edward Bernays and
the Campaign to Fluoridate America"6, James F. Tracy reveals the
PR campaign that created this fake public health measure:

   The wide-scale U.S. acceptance of fluoride-related compounds in
drinking water and a wide variety of consumer products over
the past half century is a textbook case of social engineering
orchestrated by Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the ‘father of
public relations Edward L. Bernays, he writes. The episode
is instructive, for it suggests the tremendous capacity of
powerful interests to reshape the social environment, thereby
prompting individuals to unwarily think and act in ways that are
often harmful to themselves and their loved ones.

    I highly recommend taking the time to read Tracy’s
informative expose on how good PR can trump science and keep
you in the dark for decades, lest you dig a bit deeper. The oft-
quoted phrase that water fluoridation is one of the greatest
public health achievements of the 20th century was also created
by a Public Relations firm, not hard-core facts.

The Health Ramifications of Mass Medicating with Fluoride

    Scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a
"chemical having substantial evidence of developmental
neurotoxicity, and 25 studies have now reported an association
between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children—including
a recent study out of Harvard, in which the authors noted:

    The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high
fluoride exposure on children's neurodevelopment.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental
fluorosis unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth
that indicate overexposure to fluoride. But that's not all.
Studies have shown fluoride toxicity can lead to the wide-
ranging problems listed below.

****Increases lead absorption    
****Disrupts collagen synthesis    
****Hyperactivity and/or lethargy    
****Crippling skeletal fluorosis and bone fractures
****Genetic damage and cell death    
****Increased tumor and cancer growth    
****Disrupts immune system and inhibits antibody production     
****Chronic fatigue
****Brain damage, and lowered IQ and dementia    
****Gastrointestinal problems and kidney issues    
****Arthritic symptoms    
****Severe eye problems, including blindness
****Impaired thyroid function    
****Weakened bones, and fatal bone cancer (osteosarcoma)     
****Inactivates 62 enzymes    
****Muscle disorders health.

  This is what the science is telling us about the ramifications
of fluoride use. And yet, rather than taking the precautionary
approach and stopping fluoridation until we know more, our
policymakers continue to blindly forge ahead; refusing to give
the scientific evidence the attention it deserves.

Congratulations on Keeping Portland’s Water Safe!

  According to the EPA’s local's president, Bill Hirzy, a chemist
in the EPA's Office of Toxic Substances, water fluoridation
remains a government policy because of institutional inertia
[and] embarrassment among government agencies that have been
promoting this stuff as safe.

    This is probably true, yet it’s shameful that the ADA, CDC
and other agencies would spend so much money trying to coerce
the continuation of this hazardous practice instead of just
yielding to the wishes of communities.

  Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health.
Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have
no place in our water supplies. So I urge you to join the
Fluoride Action Network’s efforts7 and your local anti-
fluoridation movements in the US and Canada.

    Please remember, people have been misled for generations
be patient with your friends and families who have been
improperly educated about fluoridation chemicals.   The tide
is turning, we are making a difference when we bring organic
consumers, environmentalists, and natural health advocates
together.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

    There's no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested.
Even scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a
chemical having substantial evidence of developmental
neurotoxicity. Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents
now have dental fluorosis—unattractive discoloration and mottling
of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly,
children are being overexposed, and their health and development
put in jeopardy. Why?

    At least when it comes to topical application, you have a
choice. You can easily buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash.
But you're stuck with whatever your community puts in the water,
and it's very difficult to filter out of your water once it's
added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

    The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of
water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride
Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation, both
in the United States and Canada. Clean pure water is a
prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and
other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies.

 Thank You  Dr. Mercola


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

Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

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

Monday, April 7, 2014

Major Victory as Portland, Oregon Votes NO on Water Fluoridation


REMINDER: In The Archive is all of the articles that I
have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.


                             SPONSORS

              The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
                       http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i



By Dr. Mercola


    We are beginning to win the battle. The tide seems to
have turned as a major victory was achieved late last month
when Portland voted against fluoride - thanks much in part
to the national support they received.

    Because of your support, I was able to help fund this
effort and took a few lumps in the media as self-serving,
as I sell a non-fluoride toothpaste.  Desperate campaigns
go to desperate measures, making personal attacks the norm.

    It would have been a dangerous victory for the CDC had
they won, Portland was a prime target as it is the largest
unfluoridated city in the US.

    Fluoride, of course, is a toxic substance that is
biologically active in the human body. It accumulates in
sensitive tissues over time, wreaking havoc with enzymes,
and producing a number of serious adverse health effects
including neurological and endocrine dysfunction.  Fluoride
should never be ingested intentionally.

    Yet despite the scientific evidence against the practice,
the United States lags far behind other nations in
acknowledging the mistake and ending this tragic public
health measure.  As usual, the big lie must continue to
protect faith in long term public health policies and
agencies.

    As a result, individual communities around the US have
taken up the fight to end water fluoridation in their own
local areas. On many occasions, I’ve asked you to support such
efforts and today, I’m very pleased to report that the latest
fight has ended in victory.  Your hard work to share this
information or contribute to the campaign proved essential,
and I am so proud and grateful to our motivated supporters.

Science and Integrity Wins in Portland, Oregon

    Portland, Oregon gets its water from the Bull Run
watershed; a 102-square mile protected watershed that is so
pristine and pure the city was even granted a waiver from having
to build a water treatment plant.

    On May 21, Portland residents voted on whether or not to
fluoridate their unusually pristine water supply, with No
getting 61 percent of the votes.

    It’s been a rocky ride for Portlanders who even had to
fight for the right to vote on the issue for the fourth time!

    Citizens had already voted 'no' on water fluoridation for
Portland in 1956, 1962, and 1980. But after more than a year
of secretive planning, fluoride lobbyists finally convinced
the Portland city council to begin fluoridating Portland's
water supplies. The decision was set to take effect by March
2014.

    Luckily, the citizens of Portland stood together by
gathering enough signatures to force the decision to a vote
yet again. As reported by Fluoridealert.org:

   We are proud of our Portland colleagues who used
science and integrity to defeat fluoridation and the public
relations blitzkrieg that backed it,’ says Paul Connett, PhD,
FAN’s Executive Director.

  ... Fluoride chemicals are the only chemicals added
to public water for the purpose of medication. Most western
countries, including the vast majority of Europe, do not
fluoridate their water.

    'Most of Portland’s media falsely reported that
fluoridation promoters had science on their side and that
opponents used emotion, says Connett. ‘Those opposed did
their homework, relying on recent scientific findings from
the National Research Council (NRC) and Harvard that raise
serious questions about the safety of current fluoride
exposures.’"

    Six months ago, fluoridation was also rejected by voters
in Wichita, Kansas by a 20 percent margin. In April, Israel
announced it will end its mandatory fluoridation program,
and Ireland has proposed legislation that would make water
fluoridation a criminal offense! Canada has also seen a 25
percent drop in fluoridation programs over the past five
years as a result of increasing public awareness about the
associated dangers.

Coordinated Smear Campaign Lost Out to the Truth

    Portland residents did face a very tough battle. The
American Dental Association (ADA), Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) and the PEW Charitable
Trusts spent significant time coordinating their lobbying
efforts to the Portland City Council, which eventually led
to the Council unanimously voting to force fluoridation
chemicals on their citizens.

    Fluoridation proponents also spent close to $1 million on
their propaganda efforts leading up to the May 21 vote four
times the amount raised by the anti-fluoridation campaign
which they used to flood Portland with misleading ads and
editorials touting fluoridation as an urgently needed tool
for solving the dental crisis in the city’s poor
neighborhoods.

    Portland was the largest non-fluoridated city in the US,
making it a major target for pro-fluoridation advocates.
Fortunately, they failed big time. Portland has now set the
tone for other cities campaigns to rid themselves of this
toxic and unnecessary chemical.

    Proper diet, dental practices and access to mercury-free
dental services are the solutions to the problem of dental
cavities. Since we know that sugar causes cavities, perhaps if
the ADA, CDC, PEW and others really wanted the fluoride to go
to the right people, maybe they could lobby the junk food
companies to add fluoride to their soda and candies, opposed
to fluoridating drinking water. That would make more sense if
you believe fluoride can solve the problem of tooth decay,
wouldn’t it?

Water Fluoridation = Mass Medication Without Prescription

    Fluoride is not a nutrient. And while there is prescription
-grade fluoride, the fluoride put into drinking water is not a
prescription drug but an industrial waste product. However, it
is put into the water as a "drug" to help oral health, and it
is done without the consent of those receiving it. Even if you
accepted the premise that it works systemically, opposed to
topically only, there is no justification to force it on people
under the premise of slightly lowering tooth decay, as everyone
has the option of using it topically as a toothpaste if they so choose...

    The fluoride chemical typically added to water is hexafluorosilicic
acid (HFSA), which is a byproduct of the fertilizer industry. It
is a hazardous material they cannot easily dispose of. In fact,
it’s illegal to dump it into rivers and lakes or release the parent
gases into the atmosphere. And municipalities that decided to stop
fluoridating their water had to keep going until all the chemicals
were used up because they couldn’t afford the hazardous waste
disposal fees!

    Dr. William Hirzy from the EPA has pointed out that if it
goes into the air, it's a pollutant. If it goes into the local
water, it's pollution. But if the public water utilities buy it
and purposely pour it in our drinking water, it's no longer a
pollutant. All of a sudden, by some magic sleight of hand, it's
a beneficial public health measure... But dilution is not the
solution to pollution.

Fluoride Chemicals Also Pollute Drinking Water with Arsenic

    A recent study also shows that 90 percent of toxic arsenic
in our tap water comes from fluoridation chemicals. As reported
by Living Green Magazine:

   Industrial-grade fluoride chemicals added to US public water
supplies contain arsenic that the EPA classifies as a human carcinogen.
Switching to low-arsenic pharmaceutical-grade fluoride will save
society $1 billion to $14 billion annually, according to research
published in Environmental Science & Policy, led by former EPA
senior scientists who are experts in chemical  risk assessment,
reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

   Although never studied for safety or efficacy,
ydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) is added to public water supplies
as a purported cavity preventive. The industry-funded group that
regulates water additives, NSF International5, allows several
toxins in HFSA, including arsenic.

    We need to end this outdated practice. Adding
hexafluorosilicic acid to drinking water to prevent tooth decay
is based on politics, not science. Why should a water department
be given the power to medicate anyone when they don't take a
health history, they don't pass out a listing of side effects,
monitor the dose or the effect? This is tantamount to gross negligence.

    According to a 2006 report on water fluoridation produced
by the US National Research Council, the benefits from fluoride
are topical only, and cannot be achieved through ingestion. It
also detailed positive associations between fluoride ingestion
and bone fractures, cancer, reduced IQ and dementia.

    I predict that water fluoridation will become known as one
of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated against the public in
the 20th and 21st century. In the future, water fluoridation
will be compared to tobacco science, DDT science, asbestos
science, and thalidomide science all grossly manipulated to
hide an incredibly costly truth.

Thank You  Dr. Mercola


                  Continued4/09/14

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


Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com

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