1. WA State kills philosophical exemptions. How this can affect you.
Wow. I didn’t think they’d actually do it. Last week the state of WA, in a strong armed flurry of self-righteous paternalism dealt a mortal blow to constitutional rights Americans used to enjoy, when they passed a law to end philosophical exemption to vaccines in their state. Very soon it will be necessary to obtain a medical exemption, which will require an office visit and payment of a fee in order to keep your child’s blood free of experimental neurotoxins and carcinogens.
Despite some very visible last minute opposition, the legislators arrogantly walked out on one of only 2 opportunities for the public to express their views on the subject. Sort of ended any residual illusions of de facto democracy in that state. The bill was actually sponsored by the governor herself, obviously representing the vax makers in godknowswhat kind of back channel quid pro quo.
The worst consequence of this outrageous new law would be if other states see how easy it was to just ride roughshod over the small amount of opposition by means of some cleverly scripted op-ed pieces about protecting the children of the state by forcing everyone to get vaccines, etc., they’ll try it. This seems likely, since the entire show was obviously puppeteered by the drug companies, whose bottomless pockets can dream up all sorts of enticements that seem to be the lifeblood of most state legislators.
For a more detailed look at what is really going on in the Washington Reich, look at Dawn Winkler’s powerful site hapihealth.org/
The WA state fiasco is primarily a constitutional issue — it isn’t even about whether or not vaccines are safe or not. For that Darwinian unfolding, please refer to Vaccination Is Not Immunization. The Survival of the Correctly Informed.
2. Two New Seminars for 2011
The Chiropractic Seminar
Burbank, CA – 2 Apr
Las Vegas, NV – 21 May
Denver, CO – 20 Aug
Each one is getting better. This is fun. I’ve been wanting to do this for years. No more equivocation, OK? What are they trying to do to our profession? Either chiropractic is a real and vital profession or it isn’t. What special skill does the chiropractor have to offer that no other profession can provide? Why do we seem afraid to talk about it?
This nuts and bolts seminar will give the doctor a useful and defensible understanding of chiropractic not readily available to the profession today, with a focus on the communication of these ideas to those who have failed to be cured by other doctors. Looking at the biology of the adjustment, neuroplasticity, and issues of genetics and epigenetics in the replicating organism. Chiropractic at the top of the healing arts. Why the ‘leaders’ don’t know it. The sequence must be knowledge, skill, intention, results.
The Chiropractic Seminar was given for the first time in San Jose CA and then in Long Beach. Nothing like it is offered anywhere. The focus is to take an unflinching look at what is really happening with our profession today, and to underscore the value of chiropractic care, now more than ever before. Why are there some docs with a hobby practice and others with rocking practices both in the same town?
We’ll learn how today’s best science is validating chiropractic’s traditional principles, fundamentals which are being vilified by many voices within the profession. How the adjustment can affect a higher order of biology than just the mechanical.
Learn that there is a story. Learn how to tell the story.
We will also review some related health areas, especially in the field of nutrition.
The Immunization Detox Seminar
San Francisco, CA – 15 April
Akron, OH – 30 April
Pittsburgh, PA – 5 May
Philadelphia, PA – 7 May
Ventura, CA – 9 July
A survey course of the complete full day Vaccine and Nutrition seminars:
– Complete autism chelation protocol
– Vaccine exemption laws
– Immunosuppression and vaccines
– Andrew Wakefield – why they have to shut him up
– 2011 Schedule: 68 vaccines by age 18
– The new flu shot: with H1N1
– Mercury and aluminum in vaccines
– Germ theory of disease
– HPV vaccine for 12 year olds
– Nutrition and chiropractic practice
– The 60 day program
– Learning disability and hydrogenation
– DNA transcription: creating the immune system
– Colon revitalization
– Processed foods and genetic modification
– Collagen: Cell reconstruction
– Detoxification from dental amalgams, thimerosal, aluminum,
hydrogenated oils, vaccines
Today it’s getting harder and harder to cover up the truth about vaccines. Now in its 10th year, this is the only full seminar in the profession that takes a reliable look at vaccine problems.
“A careful collection of irrefutable facts.” Hans Raible Esq.
“You are right about pure blood; that is the key.” Ted H. Spence, DDS
“Annihilated so many myths about nutrition…info I can really use in my practice.” Dr Fred, Seattle
“Had to take 204 CE hours all in one year…your Nutrition Seminar was the best by far.” Dr. MM
“First time I’ve ever been glad the state board required CE.” Dr. AC, Las Vegas
“In 20 years, the best seminar I’ve ever seen…should be mandatory for ALL doctors!” Dr AR
3. CA DCs: Just when you thought you didn’t have to worry about CE changes any more.
Wow again. We thought they gave up. After two years of having all attempts to make unreasonable changes to CA continuing education rejected by a state oversight body, the state board now has still another version of the same changes in the works. I can only think that the pursuit of fame is their prime motivator–some change, any change, just so we can be remembered as the ones who made it. But the proposals are very dangerous in the long run, in my humble opinion, because they beg for future abuses by future boards. The confused authors seem to forget that state regs shouldn’t be changed on a whim, or according to personal taste, because such changes become permanent. Anyway, here’s my objection to the proposals.
You can actually read the proposals themselves on the state board site. Send your thoughts via email to Dixie Van Allen, as below.
God, I hate politics.
Here was my letter:
12 Mar 2011
To: Dixie Van Allen, policy analyst
OAL Review Committee
cc: California Chiropractic Board
cc: Governor Jerry Brown
RE: Proposed changes to AMENDED INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS
Dear all involved parties:
Hopefully this will get in under the wire. I got tricked last time, burying the notices and all. As I’m sure you’re aware, these attempts to change the state codes on chiropractic have been going on for over 2 years now. There have been many meetings, public and private, and a lot of controversy about the way the extreme new proposals have been presented. Dozens of letters of opposition were sent by many doctors. We had several thousand signatures in opposition. So all the past drafts were actually edited by these contributions, which pointed out the rashness and extravagance of the proposed changes.
And they made some edits. But you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. A losing proposition remains a losing proposition, no matter how many times one uses Spellcheck.
Proof of these edits is seen in the format of the current proposal wherein they keep writing “Necessity.” They never did that before, in previous drafts. We taught them – mostly Dr Clum did. Took us 2 years to instruct the authors that necessity was a statutory criterion for change. Perhaps in another 2 years they’ll pick up on Clarity and Consistency.
But we can’t be fooled by this new trick. Writing the word Necessity in front of the same tired copy doesn’t demonstrate the actual necessity for a permanent reg change. Almost every time you see the word Necessity: it will be followed by the most banal and unsupported contentions. They think they have sanctified such undefined personal whims and feelings about change merely by labelling them Necessity.
It almost seems as though these strange and exotic proposals may be the work of a few extremists who have somehow found a voice, albeit one not shared by the majority of those who actually take a look at the issues at hand. So for the sixth time, I’m taking a brief look at the proposals and trying to discern the agenda and future consequences of their becoming law.
With respect to the AMENDED INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS
Adopt Section 360, paragraph 3.
This proposal sets a new standard charging renewal fees to existing CE Providers. There is no paperwork involved to maintain an existing Provider’s status. Providers have gone through a rigid 5 year apprenticeship to acquire that status. No new training is required. No new service is provided for the new fee. Therefore such fees are unreasonable and abusive.
No change necessary in the existing law.
Amend Section 356 and Renumber to Section 361, paragraph 4.
This is in regard to the proposed new “two category system” of CE course content.
I have been CE accredited in at least 20 other states and several countries during the past decade. No other state finds it necessary to dictate subject matter to CE Providers. They follow the time tested logical assumption that if one is a DC and has compiled enough specialized knowledge in chiropractic or a related field, the seminar is approved. The 8 and 4 hour mandatory subject designation was restrictive enough to professional educators, who have years of specialized knowledge and experience. But the new proposals would regulate course content to an unnecessary and unreasonable level of specificity, never seen in any other state.
Notice how they have invented the word “non-mandatory” as though CE course matter needs to be dictated by a group with no special credentials in any field of study other than the DC degree, let alone education. This is the real fraudulence masquerading behind a concern for public safety, etc. There always seems to be an underlying agenda here – a quid pro quo – in this sudden and unprecedented fascination and targeting of CE course content, a fetish not subscribed to by one other state board. Very odd. Very suspicious indeed. Would we could all be flies on the wall at the private meetings that spawned these new proposals.
Here’s a quote:
The proposed CE requirements will benefit licensees by offering them a wider selection of courses, including those outside of the scope of chiropractic, to broaden their education, improve communication and encourage referrals with other physicians which will result in safer practice by chiropractors and enhanced consumer protection. There is a considerable level of risk to the public as health care advances, and it’s important that chiropractors, as diagnosticians, are educated on when it is appropriate to refer patients.
These are just words – a failed exercise in creative writing. A transparent attempt to legislate opinion into law. Why is it necessary to pass a law to offer a wider selection of courses? See the trick here? There is no wider selection. These courses are already available right now. The new proposals don’t broaden anything. See the bait and switch? The difference is they want to make certain of their favorites mandatory.
What the proponents can’t understand, and hope no one else notices, is that there is no demonstrated necessity for mandating those specific courses that a few of them either are vested in or have feelings about. This is hardly a basis to propose a permanent change in a state law that has served perfectly well for the past 80 years.
Their limp attempt to provide necessity states:
Necessity: The Board has evidence of violations … (page 5)
What evidence? Their proposal to make a fundamental change in course content is predicated upon not facts, not injuries, not deaths, not crimes, not violations, but allegations. The only material point in such a reg change would be an exact number of verified convictions for allegations, not allegations themselves. That might be the beginning of necessity. But what we’re looking at here are policy changes, state law changes based on something as insubstantial as an anonymous complaint, or at worst, the unverified complaint. We must read this paragraph very closely because in it we can see the overarching Inquisitorial attitude evident in the entire document, at the root of this entire 2 year waste of time.
Now to make all these proposed ‘mandatory’ subjects optional would be a reasonable suggestion. But that would have no place here in a proposed amendment to state law. It should be instead a creative essay in a chiropractic journal, perhaps.
Again, the shocking thing with this unprecedented and unrelenting effort to control course content is that they’re proposing that the control would go to those who have no credentials whatsoever in the specialized areas they want to designate and control.
This would be bad enough with the present crew on board, with their vague agenda. But what about the future? In changing a state law in this cavalier self-serving way, just think about the opportunities for future abuses by members of future boards whom we would be setting up. This formula for disaster once in place would be virtually impossible to undo.
This so-called “two category system” is ill-conceived, ill-presented, and utterly unnecessary. A careful reading of the paragraphs themselves reveals it as the epitome of the unclear proposal. Why do they continue to waste our time? It should be rejected out of hand. If they didn’t take it seriously enough to spell it out, how can the OAL seriously consider passing it?
One small change that is reasonable is of course to allow attendance at state board meetings to count as CE credit. Perhaps if that happened outrageous suggestions such as these would never see the light of day.
The section titled Amend Section 356 and Renumber to Section 36i
is really too long to be un-divided without separate numbers. Counting down to the 6th paragraph beginning with Necessity – [page 7]
Necessity: The expansion of providers outside of those approved by the Board is necessary for the safety of chiropractic patients.
Again this is a very odd suggestion – difficult to see the angle – why it’s so important to change a state law to allow courses from other professions. Very suspicious.
We have no objection to broadening the number of courses which may be acceptable for CE credit. But they can’t have it both ways. On the one hand they want to blindly open the doors to any other health profession’s course without even glancing at the syllabus. And those courses can teach anything they want during the 12 hours – none of the rigid new proposed mandatory subject restrictions would apply to them. Any other health profession – as long as it’s not chiropractic! But DCs we’re going to regulate to the bone. Is anybody reading this?
In the past decade my courses have also been accredited by boards of nursing, acupuncture, dentistry, massage, and naturopathy. But I had to go through the same process of approval as our board requires. Why would we want to roll over with this inferiority complex and say oh yes, anything’s fine, as long as it’s not chiropractic. We don’t have to see the syllabus – it’ll be just fine.
There’s some dark side to this proposal I’m not seeing, but at the very least it’s a bad idea to allow unregulated material to be blue-skyed into the pool of CE. Anybody see the contradiction between unreasonable overregulation of course content by experienced Providers on one hand and total lack of regulation by unknowns on the other?
And this is “necessary for the safety of chiropractic patients….public safety issues” ?? Please.
Courses from other professions should have to pass the same requirements as DCs. At least.
Amend Section 356.5 and Renumber to Section 362
This is the section that has survived all the revisions of the past 2 years. It takes them 4 pages to propose a radical new system for the removal of Providers? For what possible reason? What does this betoken? The paranoid details of this section boggle the imagination.
This section describes an absurdly detailed process for which there is no demonstrated need – the removal of a Provider. Four pages of proposed law changes for a problem that doesn’t exist. I am not aware of any Provider in recent years who had to be removed due to any reason. The market sorts them out. It is actually a credit to the rigid 5-year apprenticeship program that spells out so clearly the responsibilities of a Provider by the time that status is attained. There is no rash of flagrant violations in evidence. So what are they talking about?
That’s the first red flag.
Now comes the formula. This way this section reads, this so-called “Executive Officer” of the board may unilaterally suspend any Provider at any time, for no clearly defined reason, completely on a whim. Arbitrary. Subjective.
In the first place, who is this EO? What are their credentials? Experience? Educational requirements? None are cited. The way this proposal reads, any human who is appointed by the board may hold this office. Doesn’t even have to be a citizen, or a high school graduate. Once in office, this EO has unlimited powers to remove any and all Providers for no particular reason, with no liability accruing back onto the EO. At that point it is up the suspended Provider to try and figure out why the suspension took place, and then to try and put together some defense, which may not be heard for an entire year! They say that amount of time is necessary to allow the parties “sufficient time to select and schedule a hearing date and location that is convenient and most fitting to the provider/applicant…? Yeah, right. That make sense to anybody? Any Provider out of business for a year is going to be gone, which is obviously the objective here. Guilty until proven innocent.
One cause for removal clearly supported by the proposal is hearsay. Hearsay alone can suspend a Provider. The proposal states that attendees of any seminar may be contacted at any time in the future to comment on a Provider’s seminar. Irrespective of the inherent KGB nature of such a set-up, consider that perhaps the attendee was asleep during the seminar, or didn’t understand the material, or simply didn’t like the Provider’s approach. Any of these would be sufficient to give a negative feedback and cause the omnipotent EO to suspend the Provider. The point is, auditing of a seminar requires some degree of competence in the requirements of Providership at least, if not in auditing itself. But more than this, it would certainly require that someone knows they are to be auditing a seminar before they actually walk into the room, wouldn’t you say? How can you rely on the memory of someone’s audit of a seminar that they were not informed they were supposed to be auditing?
Is this reasonable? Let alone necessary?
Now this is a worst case scenario, but in the proposal’s present version, all this is eminently possible. Since they are to be permanent, changes in law must consider all interpretations, especially bad interpretations. Hence the criterion of clarity.
What is the real intent of this endlessly complicated appeals procedure? Doesn’t really take a genius here to see an agenda is afoot with a proposal that is so unprecedented, unnecessary and to which they have devoted so much time and effort. Is it about controlling the marketplace of CE in this state? Is that what we’re talking about here? That would certainly go hand in hand with the over-regulated “two-category” content proposal.
Talk about lack of necessity, clarity and consistency.
Delete this entire section from the proposal. It is the formula to end academic freedom in this profession forever. There is no necessity for a new program that has never been needed in the past. The current system of Providership and the reasons for termination – all this has been working extremely well for decades. These proposals could unleash a rash of lawsuits whose legal costs alone for the Board would be a very expensive lesson. Even if they won.
On p 9 of the AMENDED INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS
we find this odd sentence:
The proposed provider application requirements provide clarity to the Board and providers and are necessary to assert the Board’s right to refuse applications which are incomplete or are submitted with incorrect application fees.
This paragraph is astounding in that it ignores the fact that the current regs have always provided for the rejection of incomplete applications. No new proposals are necessary to ensure that. Unbelievable, that we should even be talking about something this obvious.
Changing the Provider’s requirement to provide a roster within 30 days instead of 60. Why? The board never looks at these lists anyway to verify the CE requirement. In an audit the DC is required to furnish the certificate of attendance. Another useless proposal.
Why are we talking about an appeal process for a rejected course? Why would this be necessary? Either the application meets the general requirements or it doesn’t. End of story. Again, no regulation is needed in this instance, where the market will sort out a poorly presented seminar.
Amend Section 360 to 366- Providers who present inaccurate verification shall lose their providers status for up to 10 years at the discretion of the executive officer.
Who on earth dreamed up this 10 year period for something that has never happened? If a Provider has been fraudulent does that mean he’ll be welcomed back to do more fraud after 10 years? That’s exactly what they’re guaranteeing the way this is written. On the other hand if it’s a minor clerical error – where a Provider copied an attendee’s license number incorrectly or got his phone number wrong — any detail whatsoever is sufficient for suspension the way this is written. This obsessive compulsive madness for detail is totally unnecessary. Fraud is clearly defined in the existing regulations. Clerical errors are simply corrected, as in all businesses since the beginning of time, even the IRS!
This section should be deleted for its patent superfluous nature, as well as for the vague and undefined way it is put forth.
Hereinabove have been my primary objections to the ineptly titled Amended Initial Statements of Reason. I think there’s a special place in heaven for any of you OAL people whose responsibility it has been to actually read these ill-contrived proposals as well as our objections to them. If you think they are badly conceived now, you should have seen the previous 5 versions! In addition, I would like to apologize on behalf of my profession that your precious time has been wasted by these frivolous ‘Statements of Reason’ and to assure you that the majority of my profession has a bit more common sense than what you see here before you.
When I became licensed 25 years ago, DCs were seeing 10% of the population.
Today we’re seeing 2%. Chiropractic is not in need of stricter oversight, especially not of the frivolous type we see here proposed. This is the safest of any health care profession on earth, by its very nature. The few cases of fraud and abuse are quickly identified and dealt with very effectively by the present regs.
I was among those who helped compile the list of several thousand signatures of DCs who were dead set against the previous versions of these CE changes during the past 2 years. This present version is not substantively much different. It’s a fair certainty that the majority of DCs see these proposals as an embarrassment.
For the above reasons then, common sense would dictate that this entire document be rejected out of hand, and also that the Board realize that there is simply no need for changes this extreme, at this time, or ever. Change for its own sake is never a judicious path. Furthermore, the board should be instructed to give up the attempt and stop wasting the time of everyone involved to do something that never needed to be done. Their unremitting attempts at making some change any change at any cost reminds me of that old movie Fame. Remember that? I wanna live forever… hope you remember my name….
So if being on the board is as far as fame is ever going to go, why not be remembered as the guardians of a code of regulations that was effective, clear, and necessary, and provided the people of this state with the highest quality and safest possible quality of chiropractic health care?
4. My Patient’s Friend – Death at 35
A long standing patient came in yesterday and told me a story I’m hearing way too often in recent years. I imagine you hear the same tale– about apparently healthy people dying. Not overweight, not on drugs, no meds, not diagnosed, not under medical care. Healthy one day, dead the next.
Her friend, a father of 3 with another on the way, 35 years old, an athlete and swimmer just drops dead, right in the middle of the day. Autopsy — negative for any degenerative or cancerous condition. No atherosclerosis. Tox report – negative. Cause of death – heart stopped.
Now I never met the man, so I don’t know all the details. Obviously he wasn’t really healthy, even though he looked it, because something killed him. Apoptosis of cardiac muscle doesn’t set in at 35. But something killed him, something the geniuses have missed.
The 3 most likely possibilities:
Poisons in the air, food, or water
As we see in the new text Vaccination Is Not Immunization, the neurotoxic ingredients in vaccines prevent normal myelination of brain neurons. Consequences can be latent for years. The longer the time period, the more difficult it is to verify the connection. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen – all the time. Especially since in the 1980s kids were getting 20 vaccines, and today they’re getting 68.
Second likely cause: toxins in the air, food, and water. This is the subject of the Nutrition Detox Seminar as well as chapters such as The Last Resort on the site. Over 60,000 chemicals have been invented and released unregulated into the air, food and water in the last 50 years. Many are undetectable. When apparently healthy people die for no reason, these toxins are often the culprit.
Third most likely cause is undiagnosed subluxation. A displaced vertebra given constant incorrect information to the brain, which then has an incorrect impression of the periphery. Neurologically then, virtually any organ can suffer. And unless the patient was checked for subluxation the first symptom really could be death. Happens all the time. 40% of first heart attacks are fatal, many with no history of heart disease.
Same paradigm possible for any other organic failure. This is the subject of the new Chiropractic Seminar – see above.
Excerpts from the vaccine text
Vaccination Is Not Immunization 2010
– Tim O’Shea
From the Epilogue:
This is not an anti-vaccine textbook. This book is in favor of any vaccines that have been independently tested and found to be absolutely effective, with no chance of harm to the recipient.
It’s not that vaccines don’t work, or that vaccines don’t do anything. Vaccines certainly do have an effect on the immune system. And they might temporarily delay the onset of some diseases. But why would we want to delay traditional, mild childhood diseases that have always been part of human immune development?
As for vaccine effects, these occur in a random, unpredictable, haphazard, inconsistent fashion. Vaccines simply do not do what they are said to do. Experimental as they are, loaded with toxic adjuvants and attenuated pathogens, the primary effect of vaccines on the immune system must be described as immunomodulatory or immuno-suppressive. This has little to do with conferring immunity or improving the child’s overall health.
Jim Turner said it best: to force vaccines on an entire population of children when it is it known that some of them will be killed and some of them will be injured by doing so, but insisting that it’s still good for the whole group is a bad moral policy.
Yes, we human beings have a Higher self, a divine spark, the part of human nature that is generous and spiritual and altruistic and sympathetic to human suffering – the angel half of the strange species homo sapiens. Unfortunately, the demonic half of human nature is just as real and just as powerful. And historically, benevolent leadership and humanitarian regimes have been the rare exception. Brute force, domination of the weak, intimidation, and the science of lying – these are what runs the powerful nations, and what fashions a people’s value system –never more so than today. Turning away from identifying malevolence in the world just because it’s unpleasant ultimately assures its triumph.
… What we seem to have forgotten today is that we don’t need anyone’s permission to live our lives, or instructions on how to live it. We still have the ability to do our own research and reach our own decisions, irrespective of mass media conditioning. This challenge is truly the final frontier. What lies in the balance could hardly be of greater import: the uninterrupted evolution of a child’s immune system.
Going out on a limb a little here. Some readers may have noticed the look of the pure child during that first couple weeks of life, when the infant looks at you with that “What are you?” – those big eyes. The parents are the first representatives of a species never before witnessed. The child so new, so innocent – is now suddenly cast into this strange place with these strange beings. With an utter purity of spirit, so recently differentiated pool: this is the unmodified natural child.
Conversely, parents of vaccinated children rarely understand the above, because they never got to observe it. In their child, that universal connection was rudely and abruptly severed by the full rush of the neurotoxic assault of vaccines.
Ultimately the defense of a child’s bloodstream resides with the parent – protecting the child from the cold realities of the world, for a little while at least. Knowing what the reader now knows about the way in which decisions are made about how a vaccine gets mandated in children’s bloodstreams – what can we reasonably expect from a body of legislators controlled by the biggest of the special interest lobbies? Do we rely on them for sound judgment about what is to be injected into that most delicate and sensitive medium in the universe – the formative human circulatory system? Confronted with the above evidence about payoffs, deals, conflicts of interest rife within the regulatory agencies, do we really want to grant access to the bloodstream to such as these? Real protection has to begin with information – sound information, not propaganda. And the information must come not only from those making their living selling vaccines.
Human health does not come from a drug or a vaccine or an insurance company. A healthy baby needs no outside assistance, no tampering with the blood. The mysteries of health lie within the body, not within the medical texts, or the writs of law.
Pure, uncontaminated human blood is indeed a sacred commodity. We will arrive at a position of profound gratitude when we finally come to appreciate the identity, the oneness, the nobility of an inviolate bloodstream.
More info on text: http://www.immunitionltd.com/books-and-cds.html
Excerpts from newly re-written chapter
To The Cancer Patient: Natural Cures Vs. Traditional
This chapter has been on the site for some 9 years now. I just revised it and brought it up to date. Amazing how the basic physical facts of biopsy, chemo, and radiation have not changed essentially in the past decade. They still don’t usually work, and for the same reasons. But the marketing has improved and people continue to die every year, most not of cancer, but of cancer treatment. In the US today you have a one in 3 chance of getting cancer and close to 100% chance of it affecting your family at some point. So this chapter is certainly worth a look. Here are some excerpts:
To the Cancer Patient: Natural Cures vs. Traditional
When singer Warren Zevon was diagnosed with lung cancer, doctors gave him three months to live. He refused chemotherapy because it would have interfered with working on his last album. He said in an interview, “I didn’t want any drastic alterations in my health – other than dying.”
Warren lasted a year. And he kept right on smoking, till the end. Not exactly a holistic approach, but he quadrupled their estimate without treatment. Using their logic, I guess someone could actually make a case from this that cigarettes are four times as effective as chemotherapy for terminal lung cancer.
Perhaps you too have finally said – No more – whatever happens will happen. You’ve refused further standard cancer treatment because you’ve found out either through research or through personal experience, that for the vast majority of cancer cases, it just doesn’t work. People’s last months are made miserable with no upside.
So there you are, without a net. Guess what? There never was one. So forget the politics of hospitals and insurance. You may feel that they ran their game on you and the required funds were transferred from one account to another in some data base somewhere, and here you are sitting at home looking out the window.
A good warrior must always assess his present position, evaluate his losses and assets, and move forward. So what have you got? Well, you’re alive. Maybe they predicted that you wouldn’t make it this long or else you’ve got X amount of time to live. Who cares? What do they know? You’re no longer on their agenda, so now your calendar’s wide open. You refuse to die on schedule.
What else have you got? Well, you still have some kind of immune system left, or else you’d be dead.
WHAT IS CANCER?
Everybody talks about the immune system, but few can tell you what it is. Your immune system is a complicated system of cells and biological reactions which the body employs to ward off invaders and to prevent its own cells from deteriorating or mutating. The immune system is responsible for recognizing foreign proteins and cells and for triggering an attack against them. The immune system is a never-ending second-by-second check of all your cells to see if they still look like the rest of you. If they don’t, they’re immediately attacked: the inflammatory response.
Most legitimate researchers, including Nobel prize winner Sir MacFarlane Burnet,  know that in the normal body hundreds of potential cancer cells appear every day. These defective mutated cells are usually destroyed by the normal immune system and never cause a problem. Cancer only gets started when a failing immune system begins to allow abnormal cells to slip by without triggering an attack on them. Other cancer cells do not trigger the immune response at all because the DNA is not that different from normal cells. Then they begin to proliferate, having lost the ability to specialize. That’s what cancer is. Runaway tissue.
So looking at it this way, a tumor is a symptom, not a problem. A symptom of a failing immune system. (Moss, )
Here’s another headline: Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That’s because they never caused any noticeable symptoms. Examples abound: 30 – 40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than ever presented to the doctor. According to a study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93, early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show prostate cancer but only 1% die from it.
After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2% die from it. This means that the immune system can hold many problems in check, as long as it is not compromised by powerful procedures. The body has a powerful ability to encapsulate altered tissue areas, indefinitely.
… DYING ON SCHEDULE
An astounding feature of the standard high pressure sales job for cancer treatment is when the doctor in his godlike fashion delivers that Wagnerian pronouncement that the patient has X years to live. Very sorry to have to tell you this but you probably have less than a year… Hard to understand why most people would still want to follow any advice from someone who has just told them that. Because what the doctor is saying here is that according to our best estimates, using our best available technology, drugs and procedures, our experience with patients who have what you have puts your life expectancy at …
Defies belief that most people just roll over and comply without any objections whatsoever. Social Darwinism at work again.
What a more logical, thoughtful individual might perceive from such a death sentence is that hey, this guy is telling me what will likely happen if I stick around and do what he says. Time to roll. Time for me to start looking around for a second opinion and see if I can’t find out about some other solutions to my situation that have a little sunnier outlook. Like a cure for example. Or survival. Somebody somewhere must have some better information than this for my little problem – it’s a big world out there.
And this is the type of initiative that leads people to investigate natural cures, programs that don’t include words like terminal and palliative and side effects and expiration date and cell death.
Alternative: the standard sheeplike compliance usually ends up as a self-fulfilling prophecy – they die on schedule.
…CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
How can that be true of the #1 cancer treatment in the U.S. for the past 50 years? The plain fact is, no legitimate scientific studies or clinical trials independent of the companies selling chemo drugs have ever proven chemotherapy’s effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy simply doesn’t work.
If one is going to even begin to look at the legitimate research regarding the failure of mainstream cancer therapies, all that initial research was done by Ralph Moss, and elaborated very clearly in his two books The Cancer Industry and Questioning Chemotherapy. Even though they were written in the 90s, the fundamental objections to the philosophy behind chemotherapy are timeless. Cancer therapy has simply not advanced in the past 20 years enough to make Moss’ work anything but essential reading for learning about the ongoing problems with mainstream cancer treatment. Moss didn’t really continue his research at that level after that initial effort, but these two books remain as landmarks in the field.
When he was researching his first book, Dr Moss uncovered the shocking research of a German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, named Dr. Ulrich Abel. This Dr Abel did a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took Abel two years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was “appalling” because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can “extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers.”
Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as “a scientific wasteland” and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the “emperor’s new clothes” – neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! – Lancet 10 Aug 91 
No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.
…. LAST CHANCE
You just found out you got cancer and want to go holistic? Fine. You’ve got one chance. Go for it 100% – diet, detox, supplements, major cardio exercise, eliminate all negative input. Starting this minute.
You can’t have one foot in each world. It’s either holistic or mainstream – no middle ground.
Conventional therapies are so damaging and powerful that to pretend like their monstrous side effects can be easily repaired by holistic methods — that’s idiotic. The body is not a car. So if you want to go holistic do it. But if you want to go mainstream, which is what usually happens, then just do it, but don’t pretend everything is going to be fine when you come out of surgery or chemo or radiation if you just take a few MegaHydrate, etc. This is big business, big money for them — they’re not going to let a couple hundred thousand dollars just waltz out the door. So stop wasting energy thinking you have to learn enough to convince these geniuses that they may be wrong, and there may be another way. It’s not in their professional DNA to even consider an alternative, and definitely they have spent zero time researching alternative treatment. People who choose the holistic path seriously inform themselves, make up their minds, then they unplug their phones and just do it. That’s the real choice here.
Too much work to learn all this? Fine. Forget the whole thing – just write your will and party out, like ol’ Warren. Because if you got cancer in the first place, it’s likely you’ve been overdrawn in the self indulgence department for a long time. Your only chance is to sprint from morning to night, doing every single thing possible to detox your blood, bring more oxygen to the cells, boost your immune system, and generally try and make up for all those years of abuse. Don’t have the energy? No problema – my regards to Elvis.
In his master work, Quantum Healing, Deepak Chopra  says that remissions of cancer in “terminal” patients have one thing in common: a major shift in attitude or consciousness.
The internet is overwhelming with promises of holistic cures for cancer. Trying to do all of them together would probably be enough to kill a horse, even though they’re natural approaches. Choose the program that make the most sense to you, that you have access to, and whose representatives give you a feeling of confidence and trust. Then really try the method – do it the exact way the experts tell you, with consistency, focus, and follow-through. Since you’re a patient, be patient.
Don’t just give it your best shot; do whatever it takes – 150%. And daily visualize wholeness and completeness of your entire body. Do the deed.
The time is going to go by anyway.
see entire chapter at