posted February 16, 2010 05:54 AM            

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS_sfpPvHIQ&feature=related

A well known Professor in Portugal - Serge Jurasunas, who has a successful natural health clinic, has used Zell Oxygen for over twenty years to treat chronically ill patients with much success; these include Cancer....
http://www.regenerativenutrition.com/zell-oxygen-therapy-live-cell-...
http://www.regenerativenutrition.com/

Zell / Live Cell Oxygen Immunocomplex is helpful in the reduction of Candida type symptoms, due to the action of the special live yeast cells. This may surprise some of you, as we tend to associate Candida with excess yeast. However, Zell / Live Cell Oxygen Immunocomplex is live saccharomyces cerevisaie yeast that is aerobic, as opposed to Candida that is oxygen ‘hating’. The zell yeast will take over the terrain where Candida is resident, forcing this more primitive life form out of existence, and at the same time the improved cellular respiration and immune system will complete the work in re-balancing the inner terrain.

posted February 16, 2010 06:48 AM            

Cancer cells cannot grow in an alkaline environment. Biology 101.
More info here: www.cancertutor.org

Cancer cannot occur in individuals who let go of the feelings of bitterness and resentment. Metaphysics 101

posted March 11, 2010 02:58 AM            

1. 3/4 cup of red mill aluminum free baking soda.
2. 1/4 cup of organic 100% maple syrup
3. Mix the two ingredients in a sauce pan for 10 minutes on low heat not to exceed 120 degrees.
4. Store in the mixture into a glass container ( no plastic)
5. Take 1 teaspoon three times per day on an empty stomach. Morning, Afternoon and Night.
6. Drink plenty of water that has an pH of between 8 and 9.5 on the ph scale.

posted March 11, 2010 10:26 AM            

you KNOW someone who used this successfully?

i have to say that my professionally holistic, healer boss spent two years trying to rid herself of cancer a little while ago. nothing worked and eventually she gave in and went to UCSF, where they are very open to alternative therapies, and TOOK THE CHEMO.

it's true it took a lot out of her, not least pride! but she is better now with what the hospital considered MINIMIAL intervention...

posted April 25, 2010 05:46 AM            

A positive mental attitude and a diet without dairy nor red meat ensures a non-cancer related death.

posted April 25, 2010 06:10 PM            

plenty of vegans have nasty attitude problems!! just because you don't contribute to the death of animals doesn't make one a saint.

but have to say also that plenty of people who eat meat do NOT get cancer.

personally i believe too much testing can get you locked into the "healing" loop, ie pumped full of chemicals, radiated and cut to pieces (as my sister put it "turned upside down and back to front" from all the surgeries related to her breast cancer). cancer comes and goes all the time. MOST of the time the body's normal processes take care of it before you know you have it. but get a mammogram or pap smear at the wrong stage and you will be put through the mill...

posted April 26, 2010 02:05 AM            

Here's some stuff FYI:

"The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure. "

"Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or "false negatives." Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms. "

"Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation.... In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.

According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.

Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.

Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.

posted April 26, 2010 02:07 AM            

Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23

"The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537

No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23

The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291

A number of "cancer societies" argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each - - are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21

Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540

Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104

Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132

The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI's continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI's failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544

High Rate of False Positives—mammography's high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these "callbacks" result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

"Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure," continued the panel. "Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women."
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, "We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%."
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467

Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of "missed tumors," resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42

Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305

Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123

As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject's chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled "About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic" (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld's Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47

In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12

One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57

One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233

Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman's Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53

Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn't as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there's not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234 For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient's body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587

SOURCE:

Article: Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)

posted April 26, 2010 02:15 AM            

CANCER IS A FUNGUS ...

... AND IT IS CURABLE

By David Icke

The figures are fantastic. Some eight million people die every year from cancer worldwide, more than half a million in the United States alone. The global number is predicted to rise to twelve million by 2030.

Cancer is the biggest cause of death for people under 85 and in the US one in four people die from cancer - one in four.

We have our freedoms removed by the day to 'protect the public from terrorism' when all these people are suffering and dying every year from a disease that the bloodline families and their pharmaceutical cartel systematically refuse to cure.

Together we can, yes, but not if the drug companies are involved. Immense amounts of money are raised through charities every year to fund the search for a 'cure' that the establishment has no intention of finding.

I highlighted in a newsletter on August 9th how a man called Dr Richard Day, the head of the Rockefeller-controlled eugenics organisation, Planned Parenthood, had addressed a meeting of doctors in Pittsburgh in 1969 about the coming transformation of global society.

He asked the doctors to turn off recording equipment and not to take notes before he detailed a long list of changes that were planned. One doctor did take notes, however, and later talked publicly about what was said.

Now, 40 years later, we can see how extraordinarily accurate Day was and you can read that August newsletter in the archive on the website. The reason I mention him again here is that he told those doctors in 1969:

'We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released.'

Day said that letting people die of cancer would slow down population growth - 'You may as well die of cancer as something else'. These people no soul and that's why they do what they do.

Big Pharma has no desire to cure cancer when it is making vast fortunes from treating the symptoms with devastating drugs and cell-killing, people-killing poisons like chemotherapy. But it is not primarily even about money. The bloodline families want people to suffer and die earlier than necessary as a way of culling the population.

This is why when anyone outside the Big Pharma cabal discovers an effective way of treating cancer they are immediately targeted by the medical establishment and government agencies.

One such case is the Italian doctor, Tullio Simoncini, a brilliant and courageous man who has refused to bow to the enormous pressure he has faced, and continues to face, after he realised what cancer is and how it can be dealt with.

Simoncini's 'crime' has been to discover that cancer is a fungus caused by Candida, a yeast-like organism that lives in the body in small amounts even in healthy people. The immune system keeps it under control normally, but when the Candida morphs into a powerful fungus some serious health problems can follow - including cancer.

My friend, Mike Lambert, at the Shen Clinic near my home on the Isle of Wight, says of Candida:

'Fungus, and Candida in particular, thrive by eating the body of its host (yours) by dissolving it. It also needs your body to breed, as it can't do this on its own. No wonder in Chronic Fatigue conditions, which can in many cases be attributed to Candida colonisation, the sufferer feels so bad both physically and psychologically.'

Tullio Simoncini says that cancer is this Candida fungal infection and that the conventional medical explanation of cancer as a cellular malfunction is plain wrong.

posted April 26, 2010 02:18 AM            

Candida

Simoncini is a specialist in oncology (treatment of tumors), diabetes and metabolic disorders, but he is more than that. He is a real doctor who seeks to uncover the truth for the benefit of his patients and refuses to parrot the official version of what doctors should do and think.

He challenges the dogma of 'intellectual conformity' with all its unproven assumptions, lies, manipulation and falsehoods and he has been extremely critical of the medical establishment as it continues to pursue 'treatments' that are useless in curing the global epidemic of cancer.

From the time he entered medicine he realised that something was seriously wrong with the way cancer was treated:

'I see terrible sufferings. I was in a paediatric oncological ward - all the children died. I was suffering when I was looking at the poor, poor children dying with chemo, with radiation.'

His frustration and sorrow at what he was seeing led him to go in search of new ways to understand, and therefore treat, this devastating disease. He began his journey with an open mind and a blank sheet of paper unsullied by any rigid assumptions pedalled and indoctrinated by mainstream 'medicine' and 'science'.

How many more have to suffer before people stop seeing doctors as all-knowing 'gods' and realise the stupendous scale of ignorance involved?

Simoncini realised that all cancers acted the same way no matter where they were in the body or what form they took. There had to be a common denominator. He also observed that the cancer 'lumps' were always white.

What else is white? Candida.

Simoncini realised that what mainstream medicine believed to be cell growth going wild - 'cancerous growth' - is actually the immune system producing cells to defend the body from Candida attack. He says the sequence goes like this:

* Candida is normally kept under control by the immune system, but when that becomes undermined and weakened the Candida can expand and build a 'colony'.
* The Candida eventually penetrates an organ and the immune system has to respond to the threat in another way.
* This 'way' is to build a defensive barrier with its own cells and this growth is what we call cancer.

It is said that the spreading of cancer to other parts of the body is caused by 'malignant' cells escaping from their origin. Simoncini, however, says this is not the case at all. The spread of cancer is triggered by the real cause of cancer, the Candia fungus, escaping from the original source.

What allows cancer to manifest, as I have been saying in my books for years, is a weakened immune system. When that is working efficiently it deals with the problem before it gets out of hand. In this case, it keeps the Candida under control.

But look at what has been happening as cancer numbers worldwide have soared and soared. There has been a calculated war on the human immune system that has got more vociferous with every decade.

The immune system is weakened and attacked by food and drink additives, chemical farming, vaccinations, electromagnetic and microwave technology and frequencies, pharmaceutical drugs, the stress of modern 'life', and so much more.

What defences are today's children going to have when they are given 25 vaccinations and combinations of them, before the age of two - while their immune system is still forming for goodness sake?

This is how the Illuminati families are seeking to instigate a mass cull of the population. By dismantling the body's natural defence to disease.

Now, here's the real shocker. What destroys the immune system quicker than anything else?

CHEMOTHERAPY

posted April 26, 2010 02:20 AM            

he 'cutting-edge' of mainstream cancer 'treatment' is to poison the victim and hope that you kill the cancer cells before you have killed enough healthy cells to kill the patient.

But wait. This chemotherapy poison also kills the cells of the immune system and leaves it shot to pieces. And the Candida is still there.

This devastated immune system cannot respond effectively to the Candida and it takes over other parts of the body to start the process again, so causing the cancer to spread. Even those who appear to have recovered after surgery and chemotherapy and been given 'the all-clear' are just a ticking clock.

Their immune system is now shattered and it is only a matter of time before the Candida triggers a relapse. In other words:

Chemotherapy is killing the people it is supposed to be curing.

Of course, it can never 'cure' anyone of anything, except life. It is a poison destroying the very system that we need to be healthy and strong if we are to be cured.

When Simoncini realised that cancer is a fungal infection, or infestation, he went in search of something that would kill the fungus and so remove the cancer. He realised that anti-fungal drugs don't work because the fungus quickly mutates to defend itself and then even starts to feed off the drugs that are prescribed to kill it.

Instead, Simoncini found something much, much simpler - sodium bicarbonate. Yes, the main ingredient in good old baking soda (but I stress not the same as baking soda, which has other ingredients).

He used this because it is a powerful destroyer of fungus and, unlike the drugs, the Candida cannot 'adapt' to it. The patient is given sodium bicarbonate orally and through internal means like an endoscope, a long thin tube that doctors use to see inside the body without surgery. This allows the sodium bicarbonate to be placed directly on the cancer - the fungus.

The ancient Egyptians knew about the healing properties of anti-fungal substances and Indian books going back a thousand years actually recommend 'alkaline of strong potency' for treating cancer.

In 1983, Simoncini treated an Italian man, Gennaro Sangermano, who had been given months to live with lung cancer. A few months later he wasn't dead, he was back to health and the cancer was gone.

More success followed and Simoncini presented his findings to the Italian Department of Health in the hope that they would begin scientifically-approved trials to show that it worked. But he was to learn the true scale of medical manipulation and deceit.

The authorities not only ignored his documentation, he was disbarred from the Italian Medical Order for prescribing cures that had not been approved. Yep, I really said that - for prescribing cures that had not been approved.

He was subjected to a vicious campaign of ridicule and condemnation by the pathetic media and then jailed for three years for causing 'wrongful death' to patients he had treated. From all angles the word was out - get Simoncini.

The medical establishment said that his claims about sodium bicarbonate were 'crazy' and 'dangerous'. One 'leading doctor' even ludicrously referred to sodium bicarbonate as a 'drug'.

All the time millions of people were dying from cancers that could have been treated effectively. These people don't give a **** .

posted April 26, 2010 02:22 AM            

Tullio Simoncini is, thankfully, no quitter and he has continued to circulate his work on the Internet and in public talks. I heard of him through Mike Lambert at the Shen Clinic and Simoncini spoke there while I was away in the United States.

I know that he is having remarkable success in dramatically reducing and removing altogether even some real late stage cancers using sodium bicarbonate. This can take months in some cases, but in others, like breast cancer where the tumour is easily accessible, it can be days before it is no more.

People are also curing themselves under Simoncini's guidance and at the end of this article I have linked to some videos in which you can hear people talk about their experiences and cures.

I wrote a newsletter last April about the fact that cancer is a fungus in an article about the findings of two British scientists and researchers, Professor Gerry Potter of the Cancer Drug Discovery Group and Professor Dan Burke. Their combined findings reveal the following ...

Cancer cells have a unique 'biomarker' that normal cells do not, an enzyme called CYP1B1 (pronounced sip-one-bee-one). Enzymes are proteins that 'catalyse' (increase the rate of) chemical reactions.

The CYP1B1 alters the chemical structure of something called salvestrols that are found naturally in many fruit and vegetables. This chemical change turns the salvestrols into an agent that kills cancer cells, but does no harm to healthy cells.

The synchronicity is perfect. The CYP1B1 enzyme appears only in cancer cells and it reacts with salvestrols in fruit and vegetables to create a chemical substance that kills only cancer cells.

But here's the point with regard to cancer being a fungus. Salvestrols are the natural defence system in fruit and vegetables against fungal attacks and that's why you only find them in those species subject to fungus damage, like strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, grapes, blackcurrants, redcurrants, blackberries, cranberries, apples, pears, green vegetables (especially broccoli and the cabbage family), artichokes, red and yellow peppers, avocados, watercress, asparagus and aubergines.

What's more, the Big Pharma/Big Biotech cartels know all this and they have done two major things to undermine this natural defence from the fungal attack that is cancer.

1. The chemical fungicide sprays used in modern farming kill fungus artificially and this means the plants and crops do not have to trigger their own defence - salvestrols. You only find them in any amount today in organically grown food.
2. The most widely-used fungicides are very powerful blockers of CYP1B1 and so if you eat enough chemically-produced food it wouldn't matter how many salvestrols you consumed they would not be activated into the cancer-destroying agent they are designed to be.

This is not by accident, but by calculated design, as were, and are, the attempts by the establishment to destroy Tullio Simoncini. The families want people to die of cancer, not be cured of it. They are mentally and emotionally as sick as you can imagine and see humans as sheep and cattle.

They don't care how much distress, suffering and death their manipulation and suppression will cause - the more the better from their insane perspective. And that is what these people are ... insane.

But Simoncini refuses to buckle and continues to campaign for what has seen is an effective treatment for cancer, while, in the 'real' world, the number of cancer deaths goes on rising incessantly because of treatments that don't work based on assumptions that aren't true.

It is indeed a crazy, crazy society, but then, from the perspective of the bloodline families, it's meant to be. Thank goodness for courageous and committed people like Tullio Simoncini. We need more like him - and quick.

What a stark contrast he is to those who serve the medical establishment. When Simoncini spoke at the Shen Clinic a few weeks ago some local doctors dismissed him before he arrived and ridiculed his views.

They were invited along to his talk, which would have been of enormous potential benefit to their patients. Chairs were reserved for them to hear what Simoncini was saying first hand and give them the chance to ask any questions.

What happened?

They never came.

posted April 26, 2010 02:28 AM            

quote:

---

The Candida indicator: do it yourself test.

Take a glass of water to bed and leave it on the bedside cabinet.
When you awaken, spit into the water.
Do NOT try to gather spit from the inside of your mouth, just spit whatever you have, however little, into the water.
Allow to stand for 15 minutes, then gently swill the contents round in the glass.

Hold glass up to the light.
If the spit remains on top of the water, or dissolves, you are OK.
If it turns the water cloudy, you have a Positive Indicator.

"Hold glass up to the light. If water turns cloudy, or legs appear descending down through the water you may have a Candida imbalance.
In such cases you might like to consider contacting us for advice or alternatively you might like to consider going to www.naturopharma.com. for product suggestions."
(Always be responsible regarding your health and seek advice from a medical practitioner where you have any health concerns.)

- The Shen Clinic

---