Cancer.   Mistakes; and Trying to Avoid Them.

Rae West.   5 March 2022     |   Also on this site: Skrabanek on cervical cancer and myths (1998) | van Steenis Asthma Air Particles and Cancer (1997) | Diet and Smoking links with Lung Cancer (written 2013)

The so-called 'COVID' event from about 2020-2021 has made it clear that medical issues are under serious control of worldwide Jewry and their collaborators, both voluntary and unwilling. It is not possible to hope these forces work in the interests of non-Jews. It is essential to consider the part played by Jews epidemiologically, including speculation on the remote past.
      This of course is a simple extension of investigations into Jewry into the perhaps more obvious details of wars, frauds, religions and so on.
      Cancer has clearly been selected by Jews as a likely topic for fraud, with the twin possibilities of taking money from goy victims, and killing them. Judging from TV ads, the myth that half the population will get cancer "at some time" is setting out the target group. In view of the success of the COVID scheme, it is a serious threat, needing personal and unofficial action.
My page started with discovering Lorraine Day of drday.com who was an 'AIDS' activist, and later an 'alternative cancer' person. These pictures, from her website, show her 1993 'tumor', which led to her recommendations. She appeared widely in the US media, since she had some understanding of AIDS, but spoilt her case with her simple US-style fundamentalism.
Transcript of parts of Dr Lorraine Day's talk with James Laffrey. From his video 1 Oct 2020.

“ In about 1990 I was chief of orthopedic surgery at San Francisco General during the height of the AIDS epidemic [Dr LD seems to have no doubts that AIDS was genuine] ... I had no idea that Jews were running the world, or running medicine, which they are and were at that time. I was an advisor for the CDC at one time (thirty years ago) ... Dr Fauci was around then—he was lying then, he's lying now. The CDC was lying then; it's lying now. I was working with Julie Gerberding she was in the Infectious Disease Department ... they allow us new antibiotics and so on ... Julie Gerberding became head of the CDC after this ... on my first show on AIDS Julie Gerberding was there too and she lied through her teeth ... NIH... they were all liars.

Everybody at San Francisco it turned out was Jewish... I could never figure out why the Head of Pediatrics had the smallest service, the smallest number of beds, was kind of the kingmaker ... his name was Moses Grossman [NB: Jews have many genetic defects, costs they want offloaded onto 'goyim'] ... only much much later did I understand ... the Assistant Dean at San Francisco General was Elliott Rapaport, who was Jewish, the head of Internal Medicine was ??Merrill ??Sandy who was Jewish, the head of General Surgery was Bill Schechter who was Jewish, the Mayor at that time was Dianne Feinstein who was Jewish, the Chief Administrative Officer of the city who was over the medical things like hospitals was Roger Boas, who was Jewish, the Director of Public Health was Mervyn Silverman, who was Jewish. But I didn't even put all that together until much later.

... couldn't figure out why the homosexuals were put over healthcare workers ... they kept lying to us ... about 80% of our patients were high risk, drug addicts and male homosexuals... ”
Off-topic, but worth quoting Dr Day: Pneumonia is an end stage of almost every disease. Because when people get sick they get bedridden and they don't exercise and their lungs get congested and then they die. So pneumonia is on almost every terminal chronic illness. So it's not an entity in itself. It's lie upon lie ... Nobody dies of the flu either. Years ago when the flu vaccine came out I got the statistics from the CDC ... they said 37,000 people die every year of flu and pneumonia. ... They put those two together because nobody dies of the flu and 37,000 people die of the flu because it's the end stage of almost every disease and so to get people to take the vaccine they have to put the two together so they can scare people!
Dr Day (Orthopaedic Surgeon; Head of Department). And shrewd critic of Jews, and Christian believer. She was a victim of what she thought was a tumor (in 1993), and she subsequently promoted healthy living as a cure (see the right-hand picture, above). Maybe as a result of Bible awareness. She's opposed the US medical system, including its domination by Jews.

In my view, Dr Day's diagnosis was wrong.   But her recommendations and suggestions must have worked for many people.

When I found Aixur's French blog, I was impressed; French medicine is less mechanical and money-driven than American and British, for reasons rather mysterious to me, but including crude Jewish interventions, such as Pasteur's; Anglo Jews were more concerned with empires and money and war.

Below is a reproduction of an English translation of a page by Aixur on cancer. (This link displays his blog: blog-of-aixur.html, but for technical reasons I've reformatted it, below. I have not included the comments. For much fuller detail, look at his blog, http://www.repenser-la-medecine.com/quotidien/ and scroll down to look for 'categories').

Aixur has listed many problems with cancer diagnosis and treatment. It's entirely possible his blog may save lives. I've separated out his comments, and put them in abbreviated form with comments in my own words.


rethinking medicine
Aixur's blog




Archive for the 'cancer' Category

Lightning breast cancer case
Tuesday, December 23rd, 2014

A recent case of cancer in my entourage has just made me understand how a large lump can appear and develop in a very short time in the breast.

The case in question is that of a woman of just over 50 years of age. She had spotted a small lump in her right breast a month or two ago, but didn't want to worry.

Anyway, all of a sudden, around December 2 or 3, a large lump appeared in just a few days in the left arm. During the same time, the lump on the level of the right breast also began to grow. She was already 4 cm when the first examinations were carried out around the beginning of December, and 11 cm on December 19.

As I've said in other articles, if I don't believe in cancer, I think tumors exist. So, we can ask ourselves the question; since there is indeed appearance of a manifest size, is it really a tumor, or is it something else? A priori, nothing prevents it from being simply a tumour.

1) First possible explanation

But, in fact, when I was informed of this story, I thought mainly of an edema problem caused by a blood or lymphatic clot (this, because of the second explanation, which is presented below).

Indeed, it is the only other thing that can cause such a sudden appearance of a lump somewhere. And in fact, given the extremely fast side of the magnification, it is even much more probable than the hypothesis of a tumor.

Besides, there was no reason for a lump to appear on the arm as well, and as suddenly as on the breast.

And even more suddenly than at the level of the breast, since there, there was apparently already a small growth; whereas on the arm, there was nothing. So that would mean that in less than a few days, a few cells would have multiplied by 100,000 or 1 million. It's impossible in such a short time.

And then, for a few days, the lump in the breast seems to have seen the speed of its swelling very greatly decrease. While in a few days, she had to go from 1 cm to 4 cm, then in a week, from 4 cm to 10 cm, it seems that over the last week, she only grew by one centimeter, to go to 11 cm. If it's a rapidly growing tumor, it should continue to grow at the same breakneck pace. It should now be 20 cm, or even 30. It is not impossible that it stops at 11 cm, since I think that most tumors considered important stop growing at a fairly average size (but with a development that takes place over several weeks or months). But in the case of such a fulminant thing, it's still quite bizarre. But if it's edema, it becomes completely normal. Quickly, the edema reaches a given size and stops growing.

So to me it's clear that it's actually just edema, probably caused by a clot.

In this hypothesis, the clot blocks a vein, suddenly, the return of blood to the heart is hurt, water accumulates in the cells, and a more or less important edema forms at the blocked place. It is also possible that the clot is not blood, but lymphatic. The principle then remains the same: an edema forms because the lymphatic fluid cannot be evacuated, except that it is in the lymphatic system.

Regarding the lump in the breast, either it is another clot or it is an engorgement of the lymphatic system.

For the first case, it is possible that two clots have formed and one has gone to the arm and the other to a vein in the breast.

But it is more likely that the edema in the arm caused an overall overload of the lymphatic system. However, as the one was already overloaded locally at the level of the breast (hence the size already felt, which was probably only one or two swollen glands), this additional overload could have caused a congestion of the lymphatic system at the level of the breast, and eventually edema.

For the record, the lymphatic system is the sewer system of the body. It is a circuit parallel to the blood circuit. The blood circuit brings nutrients to the cells, while the lymphatic circuit collects waste from the cells. Like any sewer system, if there is too much waste, it can become clogged in one place or another.

In addition, the person in question is slightly overweight. However, it is possible in this case that the lymph nodes are swollen in the armpits or neck; this because the lymphatic system is more loaded than that of a person who eats little (there is more waste to eliminate). And there is a greater risk of developing blood clots (especially if there is consumption of products with anti-inflammatory effects in the diet, such as coffee). Indeed, the more the blood is loaded with particles, the more they risk aggregating together. So it's possible that it was the diet that led to the lymph node swelling. And it would have been a factor favoring the appearance of the possible clot.

In this case, the breast lump would not be a tumor, but simply lymphatic engorgement. The lymphatic fluid can no longer pass; and suddenly, it accumulates in the cells upstream and forms an edema.

And all of this would explain very well why the lump has grown so much in size in just a few days.

(continued...)

Tags: breast cancer and vaccination
Posted in cancer, Uncategorized | 25 Comments >>


Possible colonoscopy scams (diverticula, ulcers, tumors)
Wednesday, January 8th, 2014

About a month ago, I read a testimonial about a close person about a diverticulum problem. It made me understand how there could be a scam with colonoscopies.

What happened was that following a friend's colon cancer, the relative in question got a little scared and decided to have a colonoscopy. Bad luck, he was discovered to have a huge diverticulum (these are kinds of small pockets that are created in the wall of the intestine), which required an operation on the intestine.

Only, when we know the details of how things happened, we say to ourselves that there was probably a scam.

Before doing the colonoscopy, a laxative medication is given. It's used to clean out the intestines and colon, so doctors can see the walls of the intestines. This is what happened in the present case. However, shortly after, the person in question felt fever and abdominal pain.

These are effects clearly related to taking these drugs. Of course, it doesn't happen to everyone, but it still happens in a significant proportion of cases. So the doctors should have immediately incriminated the drug. But they didn't do that. They diagnosed a microbial disease. And suddenly, they gave antibiotics for about three weeks or a month to the person in question.

At the end of the treatment, they did the colonoscopy. And there they found the enormous diverticulum.

But the thing is, antibiotics can cause edema. And of course, the likelihood of such a thing is greatest where they are most concentrated, that is, in the intestines.

So, it is quite possible that the diverticulum in question was in reality only a simple edema caused by taking the antibiotic. Or it was a normal-sized diverticulum, but artificially enlarged by the antibiotic; by creating edema in the diverticulum.

In fact, the diverticulum appears as a hole in the intestine. So it is also possible that the antibiotic caused the formation of an ulcer (a hole) which then formed a closed cavity, which was mistaken for a diverticulum. Indeed, since antibiotics attack the walls of the intestine, they can cause ulcer formation. And of course, it is possible that there was already an ulcer and the antibiotic only made it bigger.

Here is a link to see what a diverticulum looks like: http://www.sfed.org/Diverticules-Colon-Rectum/Diverticules-sigmoidiens-et-coliques.html

So the scam would be this. Giving a laxative causes abdominal pain and possibly fever in a number of cases. Instead of incriminating the drug, it is declared to be an infection. Antibiotics are then given which will sometimes create edema or ulcers in the intestines. And we declare that edemas or ulcers are giant diverticula. Which requires an operation.

The person is therefore butchered for nothing. But for the hospital and the doctors, it's all profit.

And we can extend the possible scam to other problems.

To remain in the problem of the diverticula, one operates those which bleed. However, antibiotics sometimes also cause bleeding. So, if we give antibiotics, we risk having bleeding diverticula (or edema or bleeding ulcers that will be mistaken for diverticula). And we will then prescribe a surgical operation.

This also applies to ulcers.

The problem also concerns tumors and cancers of the colon. If a polyp, or a small benign tumor that is inflamed or bleeding, is found, it can be said to be cancer. And precisely, antibiotics can cause inflammation or bleeding. They can also cause swollen and inflamed glands. So if you find swollen and possibly inflamed lymph nodes in addition to a tumor or an inflamed or bloody polyp, that will further confirm the diagnosis of cancer. And then, the lymph nodes alone can be considered cancerous.

Of course, taking the laxative before the colonoscopy does not necessarily lead very frequently to taking an antibiotic, but very often, the person will have taken antibiotics or drugs attacking the intestines before the whole colonoscopy procedure (taking laxative included). In fact, if you do a colonoscopy, it's usually because you have a stomach ache or have bloody stools. However, precisely, if we have a stomach ache repeatedly, it is often because we have taken antibiotics, or anti-inflammatories. So very often the so-called cancerous tumors will actually be misidentified as such because of the upstream intake of antibiotics or anti-inflammatories.

That said, there are people who have polyps or small tumors caused by drinking alcohol. So drugs are not the only culprits. But one can think that they are all the same a major cause of false detection of false cancers of the intestines or the colon.



Tags: colonoscopies scam
Posted in cancer, Uncategorized | No Comments >>


American doctors earn money directly when they prescribe chemotherapy
Sunday, October 20th, 2013

I have just discovered a crucial detail concerning chemotherapy. In fact, American doctors make money when they prescribe them.

This is what we learn from Peter Glidden, an American naturopath.

It starts at 1:17.







For those who don't understand English, he says that doctors buy chemotherapies from pharmaceutical companies and then resell them; making a profit of course. It's perfectly legal. Those are the only drugs they're allowed to do that for. For all the others, they must content themselves with invitations to congresses, or other forms of indirect or hidden remuneration. But for chemotherapy, they earn money directly. And given the prices, it must save them a lot.

Of course, it's the kind of detail that changes everything. Because suddenly, they have a very strong interest in prescribing these drugs. It's a real gold mine. That's why although these treatments are often lethal, American doctors never criticize them.

Of course, I will be told that this is not the case in other countries (but hey, it has to be checked). But the thing is, Americans have been the opinion-makers in medicine for 30 or 40 years. And in Europe, the money very often comes from American pharmaceutical companies. If American doctors say white, the rest of the world says white too. So if American doctors have an interest in saying that chemo is a good thing, doctors in other countries also say that chemo is a good thing.

Posted in cancer, drugs, Uncategorized | 1 Comment >>

Metastases and Transfusion: Orthodoxy Doesn't Even Believe Its Own Theories
Monday, October 11th, 2010

I just came across this excellent reflection from a guy with the nickname hard3838 on this topic

http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/forum/medecine-nouvelle-germanique-ryke-geerd-hamer-t5585-600.html

“The idea that cancer spreads through the body in the manner of internal contamination is an assumption or supposition (but equivalent to a fact in traditional medicine). If this internal bodily contamination existed, all blood transfusions would have to be prohibited, due to the high risk of cancerous contamination. So far there is no 'cancer blood test' – and we are not aware of the presence of tumor markers used to test blood donors for cancer. This demonstrates that mainstream medicine does not take its own "metastasis" hypothesis seriously. (which is nevertheless a fact for this medicine (...)) or that it contradicts (finally refutes!) itself in the facts with each blood transfusion. >>

Indeed...



Tags: metastases and transfusion
Posted in cancer, Uncategorized | 10 Comments >>
Morphine, a major cause of death in cancer patients
Monday, June 14th, 2010

I think I have found a new element that contributes to the death of supposedly terminal cancer patients: morphine.

I had said in this post, that the cause of death during cancer was often the following. The patient sees his cortisol level increase sharply when taking chemotherapy. This retains water in the center of the body and conversely dehydrates the limbs. But, as chemotherapy also makes you lose weight, the patient becomes dehydrated overall. When the chemo stopped, he suffered a collapse in cortisol levels. This causes the center of the body to become dehydrated and the limbs to retain water. And as the body is globally dehydrated, the center of the body is then particularly dehydrated. Following this, a cough will often appear.

As there is going to be suspicion of pneumonia, the doctors will frequently give drugs which will involve a sudden mobilization of water in the belly. Mobilization which will be done to the detriment of the thorax (which will miss a little more water). As the center of the body is already very dehydrated, the thorax will be too dehydrated, and the heart will give out or the patient will be in a state of fatal respiratory distress.

So we have the following sequence in three acts. First act: chemotherapy, increased cortisol levels and overall dehydration. Second act: cessation of chemo, drop in cortisol levels and severe dehydration of the center of the body (and therefore the lungs), cough, diagnosis of pneumonia. Third act: antibiotics, death by heart attack, cerebral hemorrhage or respiratory distress.

But, the patient is not only taking chemo, there is another drug that is frequently administered to him: morphine. This is used to suppress pain that is supposedly caused by cancer (which is actually caused most of the time by the treatment).

However, morphine causes a number of side effects, including, among others, respiratory distress.

Is it because morphine lowers cortisol levels or is it just a vasodilator? Hard to say. On the one hand, there is hypotension and respiratory distress that are reported. Which goes in the direction of a drop in cortisol levels. But, it could be due to a simple vasodilator effect. And on the other side, there are certain symptoms of low cortisol that are not reported. But, we use morphine in conditions which must lead to the fact that we do not have time to see the symptoms in question appear, or else, we attribute them to other causes, or even, they are masked by taking other medications.

But hey, the effect is there; it causes respiratory distress and hypotension. Therefore, one can imagine the following. The patient is globally very dehydrated by the chemotherapy. And since he is in pain, they give him morphine. This causes respiratory distress that is blamed on some infection. We then fall back into the phase where we administer antibiotics. And there, the patient dies because of a heart attack, cerebral hemorrhage or respiratory distress.

This will happen more particularly when the patient will stop his chemo. Indeed, chemo increases cortisol levels. It protects against possible respiratory distress caused by morphine. So the two effects counterbalance each other. But when we stop the chemo, not only does the cortisol level collapse, which creates respiratory distress (as we saw in another article), but in addition, there is nothing left to prevent respiratory distress caused by morphine. Therefore, the likelihood of fatal respiratory distress or cardiac arrest increases dramatically.

The other time when it can happen is after a certain number of months of taking morphine, with regular increase in doses. As we consider that there is no real dose limit, we can constantly increase the doses, until there is a problem (the highest doses are almost 100 times higher than the lowest). So, or after a few months, the dose is so high that respiratory distress is very likely to occur. A drop in cortisol levels can also promote the onset of respiratory distress in this case.

It also seems that we recommend the use of drugs that increase cortisol levels and therefore cause hypertension, such as anti-inflammatories, or certain anxiolytics. It is also logical, since it can be used to fight against other pains or problems such as joint pain or depression. As a result, these drugs fight against the hypotensive effect of morphine. But inevitably, according to the doses of morphine and these drugs, the hypotensive effect of morphine will take over the hypertensive effect of these drugs or vice versa. So the result will look random. And since they are not aware of this problem, the doctors will think that morphine is not responsible for deaths by respiratory distress, since even with large doses, patients do not necessarily experience respiratory distress.

We can therefore think that morphine is another major cause of death in addition to those caused by chemo.

  Possible objections

So of course, we will answer that the doctors are aware of the respiratory problems linked to morphine. Yes, but here the person is supposed to have cancer. And that obviously changes everything for the diagnosis. In cancer, most of the time doctors will think that the respiratory problems are from the cancer and not from the morphine, especially if the problems are recurrent and the person is considered to be terminal. In addition, they will obviously seek if it is not a microbe which is at the origin of the problem (presence of the microbe which will be linked to cancer in the minds of doctors). And with their bogus antibody tests, they have every chance of finding one. So they'll conclude it's pneumonia, or tuberculosis, or something like that.

Orthodoxy might seek to minimize the hypotensive and respiratory distressing power of morphine. And that's what she does. In articles dealing with the side effects of morphine, these two effects are cited, but their importance is downplayed. Only the problem is that there are precisely cases of overdoses of heroin addicts, a drug with an action very similar to that of morphine. Heroin addicts die of what during an overdose? Respiratory depression (see Wikipedia ), cerebral hypoxia and hypotension (see hometox). And besides, some often advocate putting the person in cold water. Why ? Because cold causes vasoconstriction. As a result, the blood returns to the center of the body. It helps to fight against hypotension and to ensure that the heart does not give up and that the lungs are again sufficiently hydrated so that respiratory function returns to normal. The advice to elevate the legs if the person is lying down follows the same principle. Ditto for the idea of ??scaring him (production of adrenaline which will cause a reflux of blood towards the center of the body).

And in the book “Holy Morphine, Scourge of Humanity”, we talk about the time when morphine was a very popular drug (around the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th). And p.596, we cite a few cases of famous morphomaniacs at the end of the 19th century who obviously died of overdoses in their thirties.

Of course, relatively large doses are needed for these inconveniences to appear. But it does mean that these side effects are real. If these symptoms appear when there is an overdose, it means that they are already present (at less severe levels) at much lower doses of morphine.

Of course, there are people who are addicted to morphine and who do not die from it. We could also highlight the fact that there are plenty of heroin addicts (same type of effect and same problems of respiratory distress) who do not die after a few months.

But there, already, the person was badly damaged by the anti-cancer treatment. While heroin addicts have not suffered this. In addition, they are often elderly people; while heroin addicts are almost always young people, and therefore much more resistant. And above all, it is the doctors who decide on the doses. However, they will often tend to increase them more and more (since the person becomes acclimatized to the product and the doses must be increased to continue to suppress the pain). So, it's different from addicts, who can decide to limit their consumption depending on the side effects they notice or their state of health. Here, the person, as a patient, continues to take the prescribed doses despite the side effects (which are presented to him as being those of cancer).

In addition, as we have seen, patients often take other medications which will increase the cortisol level and therefore cancel the hypotensive effect of morphine, which drug addicts do not (even if many take speed-like drugs to counteract the effects of heroin). So a drug addict will notice that he is getting worse and worse. And he'll know it's because of the heroin use. Suddenly, again, he may decide to temporarily stop taking it, or to reduce the doses. Or he will go to see a doctor who will give him drugs that will tend to fight against the hypotensive effect of heroin. Whereas for the cancer patient, when the doctor decides to stop or reduce the doses of the other drugs that counterbalance the hypotensive effect of morphine, there, the patient will not be able to take the initiative to reduce his doses of morphine. And the doctor might even tend to increase them.

Finally, one thing that heroin does not lead to overdose problems so quickly is that apparently (see Wikipedia on heroin) it is cut with products that increase cortisol levels: cocaine, caffeine, or paracetamol. If it were pure, or cut with products that don't have this cortisol-raising effect, there would likely be many more overdose deaths.

So these differences make a huge difference in the likelihood of a fatal overdose occurring.

– Difficulty escaping morphine treatment

The problem is that, often, it will be difficult to escape morphine during cancer.

Already, as cancer treatment (chemo, rays, surgery, etc.) can lead to significant pain, it is pushing for the use of morphine.

But it can also be the case after the treatment. Indeed, the drop in cortisol levels will cause real pain in the joints of the limbs, as well as headaches.

Then, if the patient has already started taking it, stopping the morphine brings the pain back. Moreover, this return will often be attributed to cancer and not to stopping morphine.

And if the person is considered to be in the terminal phase of the disease, it is quite possible that he will be given morphine as a preventive measure to avoid the pain that may occur during the last days of life. This is to be verified, but it is probable.

All of this makes it difficult to escape taking morphine. This is why its use is frequent in cancer.

– What it allows from a theoretical point of view for official cancer doctors

The use of morphine is interesting for Orthodoxy from a theoretical point of view. Indeed, it allows doctors to dissociate the moment of death and the period of chemotherapy, since in a certain number of cases, death occurs a few months after the end of it. It is therefore easy for them to say that death is not caused by the treatments.

It helps validate their theory that people always die of cancer. Without the morphine, that would be the case less often. In fact, if we say that the treatment failed, we therefore stopped it, and that the person is in the terminal phase, most of the time, we mean by that that he will die within a few months. Only, without morphine, this prediction would not always be verified. And if the person doesn't die a few months after a diagnosis of terminal phase, it doesn't matter, that's for sure. It would invalidate the theory that cancer is fatal 100% of the time. So morphine has its importance in maintaining dogma.

All of this also helps silence the few dissenters who say that cancers are very far from fatal 100% of the time, and that it's the drugs that kill the patients, not the cancer (or just the skeptics and the curious who would ask themselves this kind of question). With morphine, doctors can say “yes, I know plenty of people who died long after their last treatment. So it's not the treatment that kills, but the cancer. And almost all of them are dead, so the cancer is therefore quite lethal almost 100% of the time”.

Usually they will emphasize that the person was no longer taking anything. Wooden cross, iron cross, hand on heart. Except that they will tend to forget that the person was taking morphine (or they will present it as an insignificant detail) and possibly some anti-inflammatories and anxiolytics, and therefore, that they were not taking “nothing”.

So of course, there is the possibility that there is a diagnosis of terminal stage and therefore near death, and that the person does not end up dying in the expected time. Morphine or “morphine+chemo” or “morphine+cortisol-increasing drugs” is not going to kill everyone every time. Only, doctors must have a good sense of these things and must know well if the person is going to die soon. So when they go to diagnose an end stage, they're rarely going to get it wrong. The person will really be in a very weakened state. A state in which any mild treatment will kill her. And then, if the person does not die in the expected time and recovers a little, insofar as it is considered to be in the terminal stage, therefore with a very advanced cancer, we're going to have him go back to chemo plus possibly radiation (and maybe even surgery). And if that doesn't work and she doesn't die, just do it again. And at this rate, she will end up dying all the same relatively quickly. So, once the diagnosis of terminal phase is made, the person has very little chance of surviving.

– Other advantages of morphine from a more practical point of view for Orthodoxy

Moreover, as they no longer feel pain, patients accept treatments that completely ruin their bodies and therefore kill them little by little. Without morphine, such a thing would be difficult to obtain. Patients might rebel against the treatment, or simply abandon it because it would be so painful. In fact, it's even better than that. As it completely stupefies, the patients accept the idea of ??dying. And even often, they almost end up wanting death. So it's an essential element in order to kill the patients without them rebelling.

It's a bit the same problem as for drugs taken orally. Most taste absolutely awful (since they are poisonous, see Shelton's herbal medicine article). And doctors have to trick or break through the taste barrier by coating them in super-sweetened products, or now, putting them in dissolvable capsules through the digestive system. Otherwise, people would never agree to take them.

Concerning the relatives of the deceased, they will have a positive image of morphine. Like the doctors, they will think that it was the cancer that made the person suffer, and that it is a chance that there was morphine to relieve the pains of their relative or friend. This positive image will make the idea that morphine could be the cause of his death unimaginable. Not that there is much risk that they will ever have that idea. But hey, it's a small side of the thing.

Moreover, still for relatives, the agony is less horrible, much better accepted. Everything will be cooler with morphine. Often, relatives will say that he died without suffering, that he seemed at peace with himself. At peace with himself, you speak, completely high on morphine yes (plus various anxiolytics possibly). Without her, the cool and super calm side of the last days would be "slightly" different. Suddenly, for loved ones, death will seem to be something sweet, serene, almost a beautiful mystical experience (to listen to some).

In addition, relatives believe that the person is in the terminal phase, since with morphine, she is amorphous, without reaction, apparently very weakened. It allows orthodoxy to better make parents accept death. This prevents them from coming to ask for accounts afterwards. Even if, there again, there is little risk that they will come up with this idea.

And then, it is obviously much more pleasant also for the nursing staff. There, patients don't scream in pain days or weeks before they die. It sure is infinitely more comfortable.

It is therefore not surprising that it was the nurses who pushed for the extension of the use of morphine (this is what can be found on Wikipedia: “From the 1970s, the use of morphine increased because of the nurses, who were the most attentive to the pain of their patients, demanding better management of pain”. Of course, they had to consider above all the improvement of the comfort of life for the patient. But, it was also in their interest.

The doctors, themselves, should actually be less concerned, since they are still less in contact with the sick than the nurses. Even if one can think that they were finally happy to benefit from a much better peace of mind for the patients.

Of course, morphine was already massively used before this period. We simply extended its use to less terminal situations than before. Before, we had to reserve the use of morphine at the very end of life (the last or the last two months). And since the 1970s, we had to extend the use of morphine to situations considered less critical. Moreover, on the Wikipedia article, it does say that the use of morphine has increased, not that it has been introduced.

More generally, it also makes people believe that cancer treatments are less unpleasant than before. Indeed, with morphine, many patients will come to say that they lived very well their chemo or the rays. Only, they will forget to specify that it is thanks to the morphine, and that without it, the treatment would certainly remain very painful.

As a result, everyone is anesthetized by this artificial serenity, and the accumulation of the patient's health problems passes more easily.

So of course, it wouldn't be embarrassing in the context of a real illness. It's good to reduce the suffering of patients. But in a scam like cancer, it takes a whole different perspective. It's part of the scam. It helps to get the killers taken; whereas otherwise, in many cases, people would more or less quickly refuse to do so. And relatives seeing their suffering would perhaps support them in their decision.


Tags: cancer, danger, danger of morphine, morphine, death
Posted in cancer, drugs, Uncategorized | 30 Comments >>


The PSA level, a bogus indicator of prostate cancer
Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

A quick note on the subject following the questioning of michel341.

The PSA level is far from being a marker of prostate cancer. Why ? Because it's a simple antibody test. However, as we have seen here, all these antibody tests are completely non-specific. They are actually indicators of the amount of particles in the blood. And that's what the PSA test is: a simple indicator of the amount of particles in the blood.

It will therefore be positive because the patient's blood contains more particles than usual. And this will usually happen because the patient has taken cell disrupting drugs like antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Or, because the patient's body suddenly releases a lot of cellular waste (which can happen with a sudden change in cortisol levels).

This test therefore does not say anything about the presence of a malignant tumor of the prostate.

Moreover, for several years, it has been decried in certain official studies. It is accused of generating a lot of false positives and false negatives and therefore of not being significant for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. That's why I haven't paid much attention to it so far. A part of Orthodoxy takes care of this itself (see here for example).

On the other hand, even the critical studies say that the PSA level is significant (of the virulence of the cancer) once the presence of prostate cancer has been confirmed. Until then, since I hadn't really thought about it, I didn't really understand what it was all about. Thanks to my article on how doctors make metastases look real, and michel341 making me think again about this PSA thing, I think I got it.

I believe that this assertion of orthodoxy must be related to the supposed metastases. The doctors had to establish that there was a correlation between a high PSA level and the discovery of metastases in various parts of the body. Therefore, the higher the PSA level, the greater the risk of metastases.

My take on what is actually happening is as follows.

As said above, the PSA level is actually an indicator of the level of particles in the blood. And as we have seen in this article, when this rate is high, it is either because there has been disintegration of the particles circulating in the blood (where there was 1 particle, there are for example 10), or because there is a sudden release of the debris contained in the cells (the stock of debris that had remained stored in the cells comes out and ends up in the blood in droves). So, when there is no reason for there to be a sudden release of cellular debris, it is because it is a problem of particle disintegration. Under these conditions, the PSA level is also an indicator of the rate of disintegration of the particles found in the blood in addition to being an indicator of the level of particles in the blood. It means that the person is taking or has recently taken a product that breaks up the particles of their blood into small pieces.

And furthermore, as we saw in the article on how orthodoxy makes metastases look real, chemotherapy will wreck certain parts of the body, in particular the liver, the digestive system, possibly the lungs, the brain. When we go to analyze certain organs with a puncture or a biopsy, we will indeed find damaged tissues that we will diagnose as being metastases.

Therefore, chemotherapy leads to: increase in the level of PSA + lesions of certain organs which will be diagnosed as metastases. Hence the fact that once the diagnosis of cancer is confirmed, doctors consider that the PSA level becomes reliable concerning the evolution of the cancer.

So, when prostate cancer is discovered through the PSA level, it's usually because the person took antibiotics or other cell-breaking drugs. But as it has little influence on the prostate, inevitably, it will be quite badly correlated with a tumor in that place. Hence the problem of reliability of the PSA test concerning the presence of a tumor in the prostate. On the other hand, once the malignant tumor of the prostate has been diagnosed, and with a more or less long intake of chemotherapy, there, as the liver and other organs are analyzed, the PSA test will be better correlated with the so-called metastases.

Only, as we see here, correlation does not mean causation. There is no causal effect between the elevated PSA level and the detection of metastases, since it is chemotherapy that is at the origin of the increase in the PSA level and the discovery of metastases (which are actually simple lesions caused by chemotherapy). It has nothing to do with a tumor that would be particularly active and therefore generate so-called metastases.


Tags: prostate cancer, metastases, psa, psa rate
Posted in cancer, Uncategorized | 3 Comments >>


How doctors make (fictitious) metastases look real
Friday, April 2nd, 2010

As we saw in the article on cancer, metastases do not exist. And so, logically, cancers do not exist. There are only tumors. Tumors that never sprout.

However, there are three things that seem to have some reality in what doctors discover during their tests or what the patient feels:

– lymph nodes may be swollen

– the person may suffer from leg joints

– the tissues of certain organs appear abnormal during a biopsy (this is an operation to remove supposedly cancerous tissue)

All these elements will be interpreted as being proof of the presence of metastases.

Of course, these are absolutely not metastases. So what are these elements in reality?

1) Swollen glands

As we have seen elsewhere on the blog, the lymphatic system is actually like a sewer system for the body. And the lymph nodes are where the cellular debris sticks to the white blood cells, which therefore act a bit like fly paper. The lymph nodes are like filters in the collection of waste. The waste will then be disposed of or recycled.

The swelling of the lymph nodes is most of the time due to an engorgement of the lymphatic system. Either there is too much waste or there is a blockage preventing it from flowing normally. Waste accumulates in the lymph nodes, causing them to swell and eventually become inflamed.

In my opinion, the tumor phenomenon is often linked to this problem of clogging of the lymphatic system. The tumor is there because the waste can no longer be evacuated. The cells therefore switch to a bacterial-like mode of development, and grow ad infinitum.

In this case, the tumor and the swollen glands have the same cause. An engorged lymphatic system.

So, since it has the same origin, we can say that if there are swollen glands, there is a risk that there is development of a tumour. Sure, but it's going to represent one case in a thousand. The presence of swollen glands is therefore not proof that the tumor is spreading.

On the side of official medicine, the theory is that a tumor has a risk of spreading. This phenomenon will generally occur via the lymphatic system. The presence of swollen glands is a clue that such a thing is happening. Of course, doctors are aware that lymph nodes can be swollen for reasons other than cancer. So for the clue to turn into evidence, doctors have to find cancer cells in the lymph nodes or the lymph node itself has to be considered tumorous. For that, they make a puncture on one or more lymph nodes, or they take a lymph node to analyze it. If they find abnormal cells, or if the node itself is considered abnormal, they will conclude that metastases have formed.

The problem with this official hypothesis is that it is almost certain that it has never been verified. We never had to do tests to find these cells in ordinary people, and see what happens next if we don't give them treatment. As is common with modern medicine, we had to come to this idea of ??metastases little by little. And when we began to have the means to analyze the lymph nodes, we had already chosen the official theory. So, when we were able to do the tests in question, it became out of the question to do them, because it would not have been ethical to leave these patients without treatment.

What allows us to think that is that if the phenomenon of metastasis were a reality, in this case, there would be tumors that would be created everywhere. And there would be plenty of people who looked like big blobs. Insofar as we have almost never seen this, it is clear that the concept of metastasis is bogus and that the particles found in the lymph nodes are not.

So, no experiment has ever been done to verify that there are indeed metastases that lead to multiple tumours. Of course, I am not talking about experiments based on the indices that we will deal with in sections 2 and 3. Indeed, with this kind of "evidence", the doctors would have a good chance of saying that "yes, yes", they did the experiments in question, and even, that they check every day in their clinic that multiple tumors develop in people who are supposed to have metastases. I'm talking about experiences where people would have been expected to have clearly visible tumors, tumors the size of chicken eggs all over the place.

It is possible that they analyzed the behavior of these particles in vitro, and saw that they developed in a tumoral way. However, since the outbreak of AIDS, we know thanks to dissident virologists that the products used in vitro tend to make the cells analyzed tumorous. So these experiments, if they had actually been carried out, would not prove anything.

As for the fact that the node itself is tumoral, if the person tends to have inflamed nodes in this area there, it is possible that after several times, there is a small fibrosis in this place. Fibrosis which will be considered tumoral.

So what one might think is that if the lymphatic system is congested, the particles thought to be metastases in the lymph nodes are just cellular waste products. As a result, we absolutely cannot use the presence of these particles in the lymph nodes to say that a tumor is present somewhere, and that it is metastasizing; that there is no tumor (there, it is downright obvious), or that there is one.

So, since the lymphatic system is the body's sewage system, it is obvious that elements from tumor cells can end up in the lymphatic system. But if they ended up in the lymphatic system, a priori, it is because they are waste products of tumor cells, not the cells themselves. Which means that these particles are inactive.

And even if, rarely, these were complete tumor cells, the question would be: "is this going to lead to the formation of a new tumor somewhere else?" ". And the reflection made above leads to a clearly negative answer.

What we can think is that, first, the lymphatic system leading to recycling and elimination of waste, normally, the cells in question will be eliminated. Therefore, the problem of dissemination will not arise.

Secondly, according to my theory, since a tumor is linked to particular local conditions, a tumor cell cannot grow if the conditions of the place where it arrived are normal. If this is the case, the tumor character of the cell will be deactivated and it will return to a normal state. So even if there really was dissemination, there would be almost no chance of it leading to a second tumor somewhere. For there to be a second tumour, there must be conditions leading to the formation of a tumour. And in this case, the problem of metastases no longer has any importance.

Moreover, what should be noted is that, for orthodoxy, there is absolutely no need for there to be any tumor near the lymph nodes. For them, the presence of swollen lymph nodes + cells estimated to be cancerous in the lymph nodes is sufficient to conclude that cancer is present.

Indeed, what doctors consider, and which is logical, is that the phenomenon of swarming may be too recent for tumors to be detectable (or even for there to be a tumor in these places). So, we are satisfied with the presence of swollen lymph nodes + the presence of supposedly cancerous cells in the lymph nodes to say that there is cancer. So doctors don't even have to look for tumors near the nodes in question. They can do it, but they don't have to. In any case, if they do so but they find no tumor nearby, that does not remove the diagnosis of cancer.

In the case where there was no initial tumor found, we can therefore find ourselves in situations where there is in fact no tumor found anywhere, but where the doctors declare that the person is in terminal stage of cancer. There is nothing anywhere, but the doctors tell the person that they only have a few months left to live. Of course, this case will be rather rare, but it can happen.

But in this case, often, the nodes will be used to invent a tumor elsewhere. I have been told the case of a person who suddenly had a swollen leg. The doctors concluded that there were metastases in the lymph nodes of the leg. But he had no apparent tumor nearby. Suddenly, the diagnosis concerning the nodes was used to invent a tumor at the level of a mole that the person had under the foot. You should know that for Orthodoxy, a mole with poorly defined contours can be suspected of being tumoral. Therefore, it is quite possible for them to extrapolate on the tumor side of a mole from its shape and from an unfavorable result of relatively close nodes. By the way in the case in question, the person is dead (killed by the treatments of course).

In other cases, what means that there is no need for any tumor near the nodes to say that there is cancer, is the fact that doctors consider that the nodes in question are already new tumors in themselves. This is what they call lymphomas. By the way, we can think that it allows to invent much larger tumors than in the case of other cancers. Indeed, if several lymph nodes are considered cancerous, as they are distant from each other by a few centimeters, inevitably, the supposed tumor zone will be quite large.

Since the pair of swollen lymph nodes + supposedly tumorous particles in the lymph nodes is a situation that can be found in many completely normal people, the conditions to meet the criteria for cancer are very easy to obtain. So, inevitably, there are tons of people who are going to be considered to have cancer.

Moreover, in the case of lymphomas, it makes it easy to invent multiple tumors, since it will be easy to find tumor nodes in several different places.

Through these considerations, we see that the equation swollen lymph nodes + supposed tumor cells = cancer is completely fallacious.

But for someone who doesn't know that, the argument will convince him that he has metastases, therefore, that he has cancer; and that he must take the proposed treatment if he does not want to die quickly.

2) Pain in the joints of the legs

This is a situation that can be found before cancer treatment. But in general, it will happen rather later.

As we have seen with the articles on the problem of cortisol, a low cortisol level leads to an accumulation of water in the tissues of the legs and also to a vasodilation of the blood vessels. As a result, this dilation will put pressure on the nerves of the joints. And it will cause joint pain. Nothing to do with cancer, again.

Only, it will be interpreted as a tumor of the bones.

You can have these kinds of symptoms and come across a doctor who will diagnose bone cancer. It can happen out of the blue, or because the person takes a treatment and is regularly followed by a doctor.

But, we can think that, more generally, it will happen after a first cancer treatment. This is because the person is already considered at very high risk.

As cancer treatment leads to an increase in cortisol levels, the sudden stop will lead to a collapse of this level, and therefore swelling of the legs and joint pain. Not always, because apparently we often give anti-hypertensive treatment which, depending on its composition, will partially cancel out the effect of cortisol. And besides, a lot of people are very thin, and therefore dehydrated, after cancer treatment. So there is less water to transfer.

But, it can happen. And as the person is followed very closely by his doctor, such a reaction has every chance of being interpreted as the fact that the initial cancer has metastasized and that bone cancer has developed.

And since the person is really in pain, he will obviously trust the doctor and take a new treatment (usually fatal).

In addition, often the previous cancer treatment will have partially damaged the bones. Because of that, the person will have osteoporosis. Therefore, the analysis of the bones will give an appearance of reality to the cancer in question (which is generally characterized by a suppression of material. Whereas for the other cancers, it is an accumulation. Do not try to understand...). And of course, if it's an elderly person, they may have osteoporosis as well.

3) Abnormal tissues during a biopsy

Last thing that seems to give reality to the concept of metastasis: abnormal tissues during a biopsy.

The fact that the tissues are abnormal seems to show that there is a tumour. And so, since it's in different places from the original tumour, it's good that there is metastasis. This is probably the most important element to “prove” that the concept of metastasis is right. We do not see why these tissues would be abnormal otherwise.

But, again, this interpretation is wrong. When we analyze this problem, what we come to understand is that, in fact, these tissues are abnormal for two reasons: 1) It is in fact the cancer treatment that causes the abnormality of the tissues; 2) they are abnormal tissues because the person is old or has taken medical treatments that have damaged these parts of the body.

In fact, most of the time, it is one of these three organs that is damaged (or 2 or all of them at the same time): the liver, the brain, or the lungs.

Take the first case. The person will take cancer treatment for a first diagnosed cancer. Only, this treatment will seriously damage the liver and the brain. The liver, in particular, because it is the first organ encountered by drugs taken through the digestive tract. And the brain because these are cell-disintegrating drugs that will cause cerebral hemorrhages. The lungs can also be attacked because they contain many small blood vessels that are easily attacked by cell-disintegrating drugs. The attack on these organs will lead to an anarchic reconstruction of the tissues in certain places, something like fibrosis.

Suddenly, after a few months of treatment, if the doctor has a biopsy of these organs done, there is a good chance of actually finding abnormal tissue and concluding that secondary tumors have been caused by metastases.

And yes, the tissues are abnormal. So, we are faced with something tangible. And with the photos of the tissues, the patient can only believe in the diagnosis.

Another cause for the presence of these abnormal tissues is also old age. An 80-year-old diagnosed with liver metastases may actually have had abnormal liver tissue for years from aging. But when the doctor discovers them, he risks concluding that there have been metastases.

And long-term treatment may have damaged the tissues of certain organs during a person's lifetime. For example, taking anti-inflammatories will damage the liver. Therefore, there is a risk that abnormal tissues will be created. And if a doctor diagnoses a primary tumor elsewhere and then looks for the liver, he will make a diagnosis of liver metastases. Of course, the older the person, the more likely they are to have taken such treatments.

I spoke here of the liver, the brain or the lungs, but of course, all the other organs located in the center of the body can be impacted by treatments or be degraded by aging.

4) blood samples

The case of blood samples is the least impressive for the layman. As much, for the three preceding cases (lymph nodes with metastases, articular pains in the legs, puncture or biopsy which showed tissues of the cancerous type) it is impressive, it is convincing when with the reality of cancer; however, when you take out a simple blood test, it's already less impressive and therefore convincing.

That's why I wouldn't dwell on this problem so much. It is the three other appearances of reality of cancer that are most important to challenge.

What you need to know is that blood tests done to prove the reality of cancer work the same way as antibody tests.

So it's the same problem that I highlighted with the antibody tests. It's definitely reacting to whatever's in the blood sample. These are in fact tests that measure the amount of particles in the blood, without specificity for this or that particle.

From there, what makes these tests react is the fact that a person has a lot of small particles suspended in the blood. It is generally the taking of cell disaggregating products that will cause this phenomenon: antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, chemotherapy, etc.

So, it is enough that a person has recently taken an antibiotic for it to be likely to react positive to this kind of test. So, of course, these tests mean nothing.




Tags: cancer, lymph nodes, metastases
Posted in cancer, Uncategorized | 17 Comments >>


An example of death by drugs in the case of cancer
Wednesday, December 10th, 2008

I very recently witnessed a case of death by drugs in the case of cancer. About a year and a half ago, a guy I know had a relapse with throat cancer (he had had it a long time ago, something like 20 years ago).

From the start, I knew it was going to end badly. Especially since he was no longer very young, since he was in his 70s. Then, as the months progressed, it became more and more certain.

I knew that the process in the event of death was going to be something like this: chemotherapy + possibly radiation, significant weight loss, then either death directly from chemotherapy or discovery of some microbial disease, administration of antibiotics, and finally, dead.

This is exactly what happened. It might not have happened. But because of a particular element, it happened like that.

The guy in question actually lost weight gradually during and after the treatment. The problem of weight loss could have improved after the treatment. But since the rays had strongly attacked the region of the throat, he had a lot of trouble swallowing and therefore eating even after the end of the treatment (that's the particular element in question). He should have been taken care of to have a probe put in to feed him. But he let things drag on. Suddenly, after some time, very thin, he had to be hospitalized to have the probe in question placed.

At that time, given his state of thinness, I knew he had every chance of dying within 2 months.

And indeed, shortly after, the doctors discovered pneumonia (diagnosis which, as we have already seen on this blog, is strongly linked to thinness). They processed it. Then there was a relapse of the pneumonia. And there, the antibiotic treatment killed him, as it must have already killed tens of millions of people in this case.

So we find the mechanism that is put in place most of the time in the case of anti-cancer treatments. The person loses weight more and more because of the chemotherapy, then, one finds him a microbial disease which one treats with antibiotics with high dose (often a pneumonia), and there, the antibiotic treatment kills the patient.

By the way, his cancer treatment had clearly damaged his brain. Two conversations with him a few months after his treatment had shown me that he no longer thought clearly and that even if we corrected something stupid he had just said, he would say it again a minute or two later. So even if he had survived, there was a good chance that he would then have progressed to increasingly severe Alzheimer's. Maybe he would have recovered too. We never know. But in any case, the treatment had really messed him up on that side.

Otherwise, it was clearly not the cancer that killed him, since his treating doctor had told his family that three quarters of the tumor in his throat had disappeared.

Obviously, I couldn't do anything, since if I had said what I thought, people wouldn't have believed me and they would have taken me for a madman. So I was forced to say nothing and watch this man's slow agony as a spectator knowing what was most likely going to happen. But anyway, as a dissident of medicine, I was prepared for this. It's not the first time it's happened to me, and certainly not the last either.



Tags: cancer, death by drugs, pneumonia
Posted in cancer, drugs, Uncategorized | 1 Comment >>


Leukemia is caused by antibiotics and anti-inflammatories. And the nature of leukemia has nothing to do with that of the official version
Thursday, February 14th, 2008

Among the effects of cell-disintegrating drugs (antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, anti-malarials, etc.), there is that of causing leukemia. We will also see on the occasion of this article that the nature of leukemia has nothing to do with what official medicine says about it, and that far from a diagnosis of more or less imminent death, c It's a diagnosis of something completely innocuous.

1) Diagnosis and symptoms of leukemia

According to the official version, leukemia is a form of bone marrow cancer. The bone marrow would begin to produce incredible quantities of lymphocytes, which is supposed to lead more or less quickly to death. A blood test would be enough to detect the problem. The white blood cells produced would be immature white blood cells. In a number of cases, the multiplication of white blood cells would be to the detriment of that of red blood cells and platelets.

All this would cause the following symptoms: asthenia, pallor, dyspnea (i.e. respiratory distress, related to anemia), hemorrhagic syndrome [related to thrombocytopenia or DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulation)], specific or bacterial fever, hematomas, bone pain, neurological damage, skin damage. This is for AML (acute myeloid leukemia).

The diagnosis is therefore based on the presence of clinical symptoms and then on the analysis of the blood. But, now, the diagnosis is ultimately based on an examination of the bone marrow. And it is only if this is abnormal that we say that there is leukemia.

The reality is this. In fact, the theory is wrong, the tests are wrong, and the diagnosis is wrong. Leukemia does not come at all from cancerization of the bone marrow.

In my opinion, there are two possibilities. I now lean more for the first (which is also chronologically the last I imagined).

2) First possibility

There are several things that will lead to a diagnosis of leukemia.

2.a) Non-specific tests

Already, the tests don't measure the amount of lymphocytes at all, but the amount of lymphocyte-sized particles. The test is absolutely not specific for lymphocytes (something that I did not understand at the time of my first analysis). Any clump of particles the size of lymphocytes will be considered a lymphocyte by the test, even if it is not. So the test will count the lymphocytes, plus lots of other particles. Particles that happen to be the same size as lymphocytes. So the diagnosis actually relies on a test that measures an artifact.

2.b) Taking cell disrupting drugs

Then, almost all the time, the person will have taken a cell disrupting drug. A person will for one reason or another take antibiotics, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or an anti-malarial, etc., any drug that breaks down cells and debris. Suddenly, the particles in the blood will be disaggregated. From there, there will be several problems.

First, as we have already seen in the article on antibiotics, these drugs will disintegrate the walls of small blood vessels. It's not going to have any repercussions in the places where there are muscles, because the damage is not serious enough to be embarrassing. The muscles are too strong to be impacted. But in the more fragile places or which cannot be repaired, we will realize the problem. The lungs will be more easily attacked, as well as the brain. The eyes will sometimes bleed too. These medications can also create skin rashes, as well as joint pain. So, we find the symptoms of leukemia described above: respiratory distress, hemorrhages, hematomas, neurological damage (in fact, in general strokes),

Then these drugs will break down the red blood cells and platelets. As a result, the decrease in the number of red blood cells and platelets will cause anemia (and therefore pallor).

Then, regarding the multiplication of white blood cells (leukocytes), what happens is the following.

First, since the drugs in question break down cellular debris and cells, there is going to be an explosion of small particles in the blood. It is these particles that will ultimately be counted as white blood cells; but not immediately, since they are too small to be detected as white blood cells.

It could be eliminated or recycled by the liver. But it is quite possible that the liver recycles particles less well below a certain size. Indeed, he is faced with a dilemma. It must eliminate cellular waste. But it should not remove protein-like nutrients. So how? Well, the waste goes through the lymphatic system, which is actually like a sewer system for the body. It is a venous system different from the blood venous system. So, a priori, in the lymphatic system. the waste is stuck to larger particles, and moreover, they must agglomerate together to form larger particles. And suddenly, what must happen is that in the liver, the large particles are eliminated, while the small ones (normally the proteins), are not.

But suddenly, when a person takes drugs that break down cells and debris in the blood, they break down into particles that are probably too small to be eliminated by the liver. So they continue to circulate in the blood, without being eliminated, or being eliminated in lesser quantities than usual. Another effect of these drugs (officially recognized this one) is to damage the liver. Suddenly, there too, we will have less elimination of cellular waste than usual.

As a result, small particles accumulate in the blood. And they remain in this form of small particles because of the action of disaggregating drugs.

White blood cell count tests should estimate particle size. So normally it is not possible for small particles to pass for a white blood cell. But here's what's going to happen.

The day the person stops taking the drugs in question, as there is no longer any substance to disintegrate the particles, they will start to aggregate again. And they will do it all the more as they are numerous in the blood. So there's going to be an explosion in the amount of “large” particles, and therefore, lymphocyte-sized particles.

So, if we do a blood test to see the number of lymphocytes, we will have the impression that the number of lymphocytes has exploded. So the doctor is going to have a high probability of starting to think of a leukemia diagnosis.

We are going to have all the more white blood cells since official medicine considers that during leukemia, there are, in addition to normal white blood cells, many abnormal white blood cells which are like precursors of white blood cells, baby blood cells whites. So, a priori, they are white blood cells of a size smaller than that of normal white blood cells. And the process that I described previously means that we will count a lot of them, because the aggregation of small particles will produce more small cells than large ones, at least initially. Especially since we will certainly also count normal white blood cells.

So, with the symptoms that there were a few weeks before, when taking the antibiotic, if we do a test to measure the amount of leukocytes at that time, the doctor may be moving towards a diagnosis of leukemia.

In summary, there are two stages: 1) a stage of taking cell-disaggregating drugs, with the symptoms associated with these drugs; 2) a recovery stage after stopping the drugs. Stage which, at the level of the clinical symptoms, is accompanied above all by a return of the fever, since it is necessary to eliminate the particles in suspension in the blood and the lymphatic system. And at the level of biological markers this step is therefore accompanied by an explosion of what the tests assume to be white blood cells.

As can be seen, the symptoms present themselves at different times. However, symptoms of period 1 are found with symptoms of period 2 in the diagnosis of leukemia.

In fact, at that time, the person will probably no longer experience the symptoms experienced while taking the antibiotic. But the doctor will not consider only the symptoms present at the time of the examination. He will also take into account the symptoms that will have appeared 3 weeks before, when taking the antibiotic. So, in the diagnosis made by the doctor, we will indeed have all the symptoms of leukemia present: explosion in the number of white blood cells, anemia, pallor, possibly rash, possibly a drop in the quantity of red blood cells and platelets, etc. In fact, official medicine cheerfully mixes the symptoms of the two periods. As she does not understand what is happening,

Fortunately, as the final diagnosis is based on the analysis of the bone marrow, we will have few cases of leukemia. It will be necessary to find a bone marrow which will be considered cancerous (which will depend, there too, on diagnoses which must be based most of the time on artefacts). And since that doesn't happen often, it limits the number of cases of leukemia. Otherwise, if we only relied on blood diagnoses, we would easily have 20 times more diagnoses per year.

In general, things are not going to happen all at once. There will be a succession of cycles of this kind: episode of illness, accompanied by taking antibiotics or anti-inflammatories, remission of symptoms following the taking of antibiotics (which will mainly bring down the fever, but also limit certain other symptoms such as a runny nose), then resumption of the disease when the antibiotic is stopped, which is accompanied again by taking antibiotics, etc. After 3 or 4 cycles of this like, parents can freak out and go see a doctor who, if he's the excited type, will eventually get a pre-diagnosis of leukemia. And with a lot of bad luck, the biological examinations will find a cancerous bone marrow.

That's why there are a lot of children who are affected (leukemia represents 1/3 of childhood cancers. It is the most common childhood cancer). This is because at this age, there are often ENT problems which are treated with antibiotics and therefore recur, and which are treated again with antibiotics, etc. This, in general, by parents who think they are getting a maximum security by giving antibiotics to their child or by doctors who give antibiotics for a yes or a no. It will happen less in adults, because they will let the storm pass without using drugs. And besides, the doctor will not think of leukemia when faced with such a problem. He will make a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis, or another recurrent but more or less benign problem.

3) Second possibility

The antibiotic or other cell disrupting drugs would attack the bone marrow. Suddenly, there would be like a catch-up phenomenon when stopping the antibiotic. The bone marrow, having been attacked, would begin to produce many more white blood cells. So the test would measure this explosion in the amount of white blood cells, and the doctor would then diagnose leukemia. So, here too, we would be faced with a non-dangerous phenomenon that should quickly regress.

Only, there are two or three things that make me lean towards the first possibility.

In my opinion, the bone marrow cannot be reached by the antibiotic because it will have reacted with something else before reaching the bone marrow. So there would be no reason for it to overreact. Believing that the bone marrow will be partly destroyed is like believing in chemotherapy for cancer. It would be necessary that an identical part, even superior of the body is destroyed so that the bone marrow has such a percentage of destroyed. So, it seems unlikely that it destroys the bone marrow, and therefore, that there is like a catch-up phenomenon. A priori, it is more the first possibility that seems the most credible. Moreover, the success of the treatments makes the first solution much more favored than the second (see section 6).

4) A non-hazardous natural phenomenon

So, in reality, we are dealing with a natural phenomenon that is not at all dangerous for health. And obviously, with the elimination taking place again normally, the quantity of leukocytes estimated by the test (in reality the quantity of particles having the size of leukocytes), will gradually decrease as time progresses. Let's say a month later, the quantity will have already diminished considerably, and three months later, it will no longer appear.

Only, in general, doctors do not wait a month later, or three months later. No, since leukemia, in any case, acute leukemia (but chronic myeloid leukemia is supposed to lead automatically to acute myeloid leukemia. And it leads to immediate treatment) is considered fatal in a relatively short time, they are going to trigger the Orsec plan immediately, and give the person the nasty treatment. So, it's impossible to see that the situation would have evolved in the right direction quickly enough (without new cell disaggregator medication of course. Because in this case, the situation would remain the same, or even deteriorate).

Of course, this leukemia treatment is going to kill a number of people. And since leukemia is not fatal at all, all deaths will therefore be due to drugs. But doctors will mostly consider leukemia to be the culprit. Well, that will be the base doctor's opinion. Of course, some higher-level doctors will accept the idea that drugs cause a certain number of deaths, since medicine generally applies the principle that if the disease is dangerous, powerful drugs are needed. But, as they lay down the principle that leukemia is fatal 100% of the time, they will put forward the “benefit/risk” principle, ie the benefit of the drug exceeds its risk. That is to say that from the moment the drug heals, if only a few % of the patients, even if it kills say 50% of them, the benefit remains positive, since otherwise there would be 100% deaths. With this type of thinking, the slightest benefit of the drug validates its use.

So whether the doctor's opinion is first or second doesn't make a big difference to the patient. The doctor is convinced of the merits of the treatment. Note that even for those who have a slightly more evolved opinion on the subject (the second therefore), in general, in practice, they will consider that death is due to leukemia, and not look for signs that the death is due to drugs. It will only be if they have a conversation on the merits of the treatment, therefore generally disconnected from a specific case, that they will suddenly remember the problem.

5) Result

That's why we see individuals who yo-yo "illness - taking antibiotics - reduction of certain symptoms (fever for example) - stopping antibiotics - re-illness - taking antibiotics - reduction of certain symptoms - stopping antibiotics – re-disease-etc..., with after 2 or 3 months a diagnosis of leukemia. During my early research on leukemia, 3 or 4 years ago, I came across two or three cases of children who had followed exactly this route. For 3 or 4 months they had supposedly had bronchitis, or repeated colds (within the three or four cycles as described above), each time treated with antibiotics, with at the end the diagnosis of leukemia.

The problem is that antibiotics are going to have a big tendency to cause this kind of cycle. Indeed, in addition to breaking up cells and debris, it will reduce the fever. So the person feeling better will have the impression that his illness is over, when in fact the particles are still in suspension and will re-trigger a fever as soon as the antibiotic is stopped. It is rather antibiotics that will lead to this kind of yo-yo, because they are used, wrongly, to fight against colds, flus, and other ENT problems of this kind (bronchitis, etc.). Steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs will a priori be less affected by this kind of cycle. They also bring down the fever, but a priori without the phenomenon of disintegration of cells and debris. Nevertheless, one can wonder whether they do not prevent the aggregation of debris already formed. On the other hand, concerning non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, it is very possible that they too lead to a disintegration of cells and debris and are as harmful as antibiotics. But it must depend on the dosage. Low-dose aspirin should have the same effects as cortisone. And as these are relatively low dosages that are generally used in these cases, one can think that anti-inflammatories are relatively little involved in this kind of cycle. Maybe the anti-malarials could trigger this kind of cycle. But in countries where malaria is supposed to be endemic, we will very rarely make a diagnosis of leukemia, for lack of means of detection. Lucky for them.

So, with this cycle system, we generally start with something trivial and end up with something serious. This is a phenomenon that often occurs with official medicine.

Something else. If you are dealing with anxious parents who are the type to panic when this sort of thing happens, the likelihood of such a diagnosis of leukemia increases. Because they're going to trigger the Orsec plan and then run the risk of running into an overexcited doctor. Especially since they will tend to pay more attention to this type of doctor than to a doctor who wants to be reassuring. From time to time, we see people like that on TV, who say that the first doctor they consulted found nothing serious, and that fortunately they found the doctor who made the diagnosis of leukemia, otherwise, their son or daughter would go there. Moreover, in the case of a child, the kind of yo-yo course described above already indicates a certain stress on the part of the parents, since giving antibiotics each time for a simple cold, or bronchitis or other benign ENT problem already indicates a certain propensity for medicalization to ensure maximum safety for your child. Such a way of doing things is of course not systematically indicative of behavior of the panic type. But it goes quite often with it.

Other possible situations are individuals undergoing surgery who are taking anti-inflammatories, and when they stop them, have a fever, etc., and are diagnosed with leukemia. That said, often it won't be as direct. The person who took anti-inflammatories after the operation, when they have their episode of fever, will probably take antibiotics. And it is only after taking antibiotics, or even after a second cycle of “stopping antibiotics-fever-taking antibiotics”, that he will be diagnosed with leukemia. It may also go through the discovery of a so-called nosocomial infection (genus staphylococcus aureus), which will involve taking antibiotics to treat it. In general, it will be enough to come across a doctor who is a little overexcited about leukemia, and presto, the diagnosis will fall. So there is also a big part of bad luck in this leukemia story. Because a lot of doctors will take it relatively cool, and avoid throwing out an apocalyptic diagnosis like leukemia.

The diagnosis of leukemia must also come to the head of the client, as very often in medicine. If you are a child or an old man, you will have a much better chance of being diagnosed with leukemia (even if it is very far from always happening in the situations I have described. Fortunately, otherwise, between 10 and 20% of the population would be diagnosed with leukemia one day or another, see maybe more) than if you are a young adult. This is the principle of risk categories.

Anyway, leukemia is really the total scam. As much, for other cancers, there is a possible danger that the tumor becomes too big in or near a vital organ and causes the dysfunction of this organ, as much there, it is pure rubbish.

6) An apparent inconsistency and why leukemia treatments are “successful”

I will be told that precisely, often, we take antibiotics during a treatment against leukemia. And chemotherapy is based on drugs that have the same effects as antibiotics (they are cell disaggregators). So, we should end up with the same yoyo phenomenon. And the leukemia should come back at the end of the treatment.

In short, there should be a relapse in the short term. However, this is generally not the case. Why ? It's because we're giving the horse treatment. One of the effects of this massive treatment is that we have much less desire to eat and therefore, we lose weight. Suddenly, at the end of the treatment, since we eat very little and therefore, we have lost weight, the body has had time to eliminate the particles present in the blood, and we are left with very few of these particles. in the blood. So, of course, there are a lot fewer leukocyte-sized particles as well. And since it's the leukocyte-sized particles, not just the leukocytes themselves, that the tests measure, doctors will say the treatment was successful. Then, the leukocyte level will go up, but since it started from a low level and there is now no more reason (no more taking antibiotics or other cell-disintegrating drugs) for the small particles to accumulate, it will return to a rate normal. In fact, the treatment for leukemia is successful because it is forced fasting.

Furthermore, in the hypothesis of possibility two, so if the bone marrow can really be attacked by such a treatment, it would then be possible for the treatment to attack the bone marrow, which would mean that with such a powerful treatment, we would end up really having an attack on the leukocyte-producing system.

This is why the first hypothesis analyzed seems to me the fairest. Because if the bone marrow was attacked and there was a catch-up phenomenon on its part, we would also have this catch-up phenomenon at the end of the chemotherapy. The fact that it doesn't is consistent with the first possibility.

That said, the recurrence rate of acute leukemia, not immediately, but after several months or years, seems quite high (at least for acute myeloid leukemia whose recurrence rate is between 60 and 90%). But, it is quite possible that as the person is under close medical supervision, and that the anxiety must be high concerning his state of health, the slightest cold or other minor ailment will be treated more seriously than a problem in a person without history of leukaemia. So there will be a tendency to give antibiotics more often, which will restart the cycle described above, and will put the person at risk of being diagnosed with leukemia again.

7) Other possible objection

Of course, as in fine, the diagnosis is based on the analysis of the bone marrow, one could say that somewhere, the hypothesis of a tumor is just as plausible as mine. The bone marrow could actually be tumoral in nature. There could actually be overproduction of leukocytes and underproduction of red blood cells and platelets. And so, the first symptoms of recurrent colds or bronchitis, and risk of bleeding, would also be logical in this regard.

Only, what goes against this idea is that the treatments work. But they shouldn't work. As I said before, believing that we can destroy all the bone marrow through treatments is like believing the same thing for cancers. If they destroy the bone marrow, they should have destroyed the body long before.

So it works when it shouldn't. So it's good that success comes from another reason. And the reason is the one mentioned in the previous section, namely that the treatment decreases the appetite and therefore, makes the person lose weight, which causes the quantity of particles of the size of leukocytes to collapse and not to rise again. not once the treatment has been stopped.

Moreover, normally, it could not be all the bone marrow that should be cancerized, but only a part. It should be located. So we should see a localized increase in white blood cells. We should be able to trace where the tumor is. And suddenly, there should be thrombosis in the places in question, because of the local accumulation of white blood cells. In fact, in many cases, the influx of white blood cells should not be able to get out of the area. So we shouldn't be able to measure it from a blood sample taken from the arm. The lymph nodes should be completely swollen close to where the cancer is, as with other cancers. But this is not the case.

Moreover, insofar as it should be a local phenomenon, it is difficult to see, since only a small part of the bone marrow would be cancerized, how an uncontrolled multiplication of a small part of the whole bone marrow should lead to a quantity of white blood cells involving the vital prognosis of the individual. A priori, someone who swallows 2 steaks, several yogurts, bread, etc., in a day, will have more particles in suspension in the blood than what can be produced by a cancerous bone marrow in one place of the body. Especially since there is the problem of the depletion of the local stock of raw material allowing the manufacture of leukocytes which arises. Given the rate at which leukocytes multiply, isn't the raw material for manufacturing them going to run out quickly enough?

Finally, since the phenomenon should only be local, there should not be a very noticeable drop in the quantity of platelets and red blood cells. Since bone marrow in other bones is not affected by the problem, it should continue to produce platelets and red blood cells. And since this healthy bone marrow should make up the majority of the bone marrow, the amount of platelets and red blood cells should remain about normal. But it's going down. So there is another reason for the drop in the amount of platelets and red blood cells.



Tags: anti-inflammatories, antibiotics, leukemia
Posted in cancer, Disease inventions, drugs, Uncategorized | 25 Comments >>


The myth of oncogenic viruses: an alternative explanation
Monday, October 8th, 2007

A month ago, the company VeriChip, to defend itself against the accusation that its subcutaneous chips caused tumors in 250 mice and rats, revealed the following interesting information. In fact, laboratory mice would tend to develop a tumor at the point of injection of a syringe, regardless of the product injected. Very interesting that.

Suddenly, we understand why we found a lot of oncogenic viruses in mice. It is certain that if any product tends to cause the formation of a tumor, any test for "oncogenic virus" will cause a positive response. Any attempt to find one in such animals is going to be successful.

And from another perspective, any attempt to find a pathogenic microbe in mice will be directed towards an oncogenic influence. Since from the start, we used a lot of mice and other small animals with a high reproduction rate, it was therefore normal with the hysteria of the time on pathogenic microbes, that we quickly turned to the oncogenic virus hypothesis.

Why do mice and rats develop tumors at the injection site, regardless of the product used?

I think I found an explanation for this. It could evolve. But that doesn't seem too bad to me.

In my opinion, we are still in the problem of small vessels. However, given their size, mice do not have very large blood vessels.

It is possible that contrary to what I thought for the tobacco mosaic virus, it is in fact the low solids concentration of the injected liquid which could cause these tumors.

I saw an interesting report in health magazine two days ago. A woman had been butchered during a cosmetic surgery operation to remove the fat from her thighs. The principle of the operation was to inject water into the regions containing fat. The injected water being less rich in mineral salts than the fat cells, these burst, and the fat is then evacuated. Only, the surgeon present in the program, bawled out (a posteriori of course) his colleague by saying that he had put too much water and that, as a result, the fat and the blood were in far too large quantities to be able to be quickly evacuated by the lymphatic system. Suddenly, the fat, and the stagnant blood in the thigh, a mechanism of necrosis was taking place in the thigh of the woman in question. He said it was the kind of experiment you do to cause necrosis in mice, for example. The skin on the woman's thigh was very red. The doctor said that it was necessary to drain the liquid present in the thigh. That's what he did. And a red liquid began to flow in large waves, proof that there was strong pressure.

So perhaps a similar mechanism is at work in the case of injection into the bodies of mice. Maybe the injected liquid bursts cells and blood vessels. Suddenly, as on their side, the veins of the lymphatic system of mice are not wide enough to evacuate dead cells quickly enough, necrosis, and therefore edema occur and it is declared that it is a tumor. Or, from this decomposing juice, a tumor is created. It would be a way for the body to locally solve the problem of pulpits in a state of beginning of necrosis (see what I say on the origin of cancer here). In fact for the problem of the concentration of the liquid, it can work in both cases. You must not have a liquid that is too pure, nor a liquid that is too loaded with mineral salts and proteins. It has to be homeostasis. It explains that regardless of the product injected, mice tend to develop tumors at the injection site.

There may also be the problem that the product injected is often oxidizing. It shouldn't help.

But what happens to mice for simple anatomical reasons cannot happen to humans, for the same kind of reasons. Since human beings have larger lymphatic veins, the liquid can easily drain away, and therefore no necrosis or tumors are created. You can inject all the "oncogenic viruses" you want into large animals, it doesn't work. And so, as human beings and large animals in general do not develop tumours, the hypothesis of oncogenic viruses has remained confined to mice, rats and chickens.

This is how the myth of oncogenic viruses was born. And that's why we persisted with the idea that cancer was caused by viruses until the end of the 1970s (at least, assuming that was not the original theory). more influential, it had a good influence for a number of years). This is how we locked ourselves in a dead end for years, believing in oncogenic viruses which in reality did not exist.

Posted in cancer, Uncategorized, Questioning viruses | No Comments >>
HTML, editing, research etc ©Rae West.   First upload 8 March 2022.