Health 101's Fact or Fiction

HOME ABOUT HEALTHFUL PRODUCTS CLASSES COACHING & COUNSELING

ARTICLES BOOKS VIDEOS LINKS EDU PAGE EVENTS CONTACT

Fact or Fiction?
"Cancer and other degenerative diseases can be managed
successfully only by the medical/pharmaceutical industries."
by Don Bennett, DAS

There are many who would have us believe that degenerative disease can only, and should only, be handled by mainstream medical treatments. Empirical evidence would suggest otherwise.
("empirical evidence" – 1. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine. 2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation)

I have personally witnessed cases where people resolved various degenerative diseases using non-invasive procedures. And by that I mean no surgical operations, no chemotherapy, no radiation therapy, no drug therapy.

Coronary Artery Disease

Let's look at coronary artery disease, and the popular surgical treatment, angioplasty. A balloon-like device is inserted into the artery alongside the blockage, and inflated in order to compress the blockage, allowing improved blood flow. Are patients given any other options? Not usually. It has been shown that a change in ones diet, possibly accompanied by fasting, can eliminate the blockage without surgery. This has the added benefit of preventing blockage recurrence, assuming the patient adopts a healthier diet.

It is interesting to note that with the advent of angioplasty, a new disease has been coined: re-stenosis. This is when a blockage reforms at the site of the compressed blockage. That's why angioplasties can only be performed a few times – the blockage builds to such a point that further compression is impossible. A bypass operation is usually the next step. It is also interesting to note that when the blockage is compressed, it makes it very difficult for the body to remove it, if not impossible (because angioplasty is about as unnatural as things get).

So wouldn't this operation be considered barbaric when a non-invasive way of dealing with the problem exists?

I asked a cardiologist why not give the dietary alternative to patients. He answered, "It's pointless, they wouldn't go for it." Isn't it nice that this decision is made for you. In reality, people do go for it, rather than submit to surgery. They are able to see the wisdom of such a decision.

And the same holds true for coronary bypass surgery. I'm told this procedure has a four percent chance of mild brain damage. Assuming the surgery is successful, in these 4% of cases the patient can still function fine, but realizes something has been "lost"; usually memories. They're not the same person they were before the surgery. Then let's not forget the possibility of the serious complications associated with surgery. Wouldn't it be nice to be informed of a much safer alternative to surgery? Especially one that would dramatically reduce the probability of needing further intervention down the road.

Cancer

This is not as complicated an issue as one might think. Cancerous cells are natural. I'd be willing to bet that everyone, at one time or another, has had cancerous cells in their body. Why do I say it's natural? Our bodies have a defense mechanism to deal with cancerous cells. I doubt this mechanism only developed over the past few centuries; it's probably been with us since we had cells.

So why has such a normal process grown to such devastating and epidemic proportions?

First let's define "cancer". It's when the body has more cancerous cells than it can eliminate. The cancerous cells get a foothold and grow, and eventually disturb body functions. They put one at dis-ease.

What causes cancer? Simple. Cancer is caused by the cumulative effects of the contributing factors.

Cumulative effects are those that build up over time. Easy enough to understand. Now, if we can get a handle on the "contributing factors", we'll have cancer licked.

Let's look at the two most important things that contribute to cancer:

1. Anything that burdens the body, can damage cells, and thus can create cancerous cells.

2. Anything that burdens the body, impairs its ability to eliminate cancerous cells.

So you see, burdens are a Double-Whammy, a "one-two punch". Logic would dictate that if you reduce the burdens, you reduce the chances of building cancer.

"But cancer runs in my family!" Here's a quote that should help put this in perspective.

“Cancer runs in my family. I have an aunt who died of the same kind of bladder cancer I had, my mother had breast cancer, I have many uncles who had colon cancer... but I’m adopted.” – Sandra Steingraber, Author, Activist (Her book)

Cancer "runs" in everyone's family. The autopsies of people who have died from diseases other than cancer, very often show cancer. So, if the heart disease didn't get 'em, the cancer most probably would have. True, the cells of my family's lungs may be inherently weaker than the cells of your family's lungs. Thus lung cancer is more prevalent in my family than colon cancer, which your family seems prone to. But this "genetic predisposition" is a non-issue. We're born with certain cells that are weaker than others. So what? That fact shouldn't change how we protect ourselves from degenerative disease in general, should it? And since degenerative diseases like cancer are diseases of lifestyle, we can do a lot to avoid them.

One picture is worth a thousand words

The photo above is of four genes from two sets of identical twins. The top two genes are the same gene superimposed over each other and are from six-year old identical twins, the bottom two superimposed genes are from 70 year old identical twins. The bright yellow areas are where the two genes are identical. At birth, the genes of identical twins are exactly the same, but as you can plainly see, as identical twins age, their gene expression can become different from each other, and this is caused by differing lifestyle practices. Cancer is a disease of lifestyle.

When cancer and other degenerative disease are resolved naturally, it doesn't get much press. It's not hard to understand why. The treatment of degenerative disease is BIG business. Now, I'm all for contributing to economic prosperity, but not when it's at the expense of my health! I sort of expect to get ripped off at the auto mechanic, and I deal with it the best I can. But bottom line, it's only money. But my health is the most valuable commodity I have, so I investigate alternatives to conventional ways of dealing with health problems like cancer.

"When a patient is found to have a tumor, the only thing the doctor discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the tumor. If a patient with a tumor is receiving radiation or chemotherapy, the only question that is asked is, "How is the tumor doing?" No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical training, I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or chemotherapy. The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear, "Isn't that marvelous! The tumor is gone!" Yes, it was, but so was the patient. How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat these scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing?

In primary cancer, with only a few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. I am going to repeat that statement. In primary cancer, with few exceptions, the tumor is neither health-endangering nor life-threatening. What is health-endangering and life-threatening is the spread of that disease throughout the rest of the body.

There is nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of cancer. There is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of the disease. There is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent the spread of the disease. How do we know? Just look at the statistics! There is a statistic known as "survival time." Survival time is defined as that interval of time between when the diagnosis of cancer is first made in a given patient and when that patient dies from his disease.

In the past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the early diagnosis of cancer. In that period of time, tremendous progress had been made in the surgical ability to remove tumors. Tremendous progress has been made in the use of radiation and chemotherapy in their ability to shrink or destroy tumors. But, the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago. What does this mean? It obviously means that we are treating the wrong thing!" – Philip Binzel, M.D., Alive and Well.

My criteria for treatment? One that gets the most effective results. If you want to believe that traditional medical/pharmaceutical treatment is the most effective way to deal with degenerative disease, that's fine. There was a time in human civilization where the vast majority of the people believed that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. This prevalent belief didn't make it so. This belief had nothing to do with reality – which is where our bodies exist. I've seen with my own two eyes, how people can heal themselves from serious maladies by simply respecting nature's most important law, as it pertains to health.

"Give the Body What it Wants, and Don't Give it What it Doesn't Want"

Simple enough in principle, but if you've been born into and have come of age in a society that doesn't teach this, your belief of what the body wants and doesn't want is not going to have anything to do with reality. You've been given a distorted view of health. If you care about this, your most important commodity, you'll deprogram the mis- and dis-information, and then acquaint yourself with the truth. Whether you do this or not depends on where health is on your internal, subconscious list of priorities. Health is high on my list, because I can't enjoy life without it, so I've sought out the truth... it's out there, it's just not very visible, and it's certainly not common knowledge. You can find a lot of it here and at the other websites listed under "Links".

"In summoning even the wisest of physicians to our aid, it is probable that he is relying upon a scientific 'truth', the error of which will become obvious in just a few years' time." – Marcel Proust

Consider the following statement from cancer specialist, Professor Charles Mathe, who declared: "If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance."

Walter Last, writing in The Ecologist, reported recently: "After analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades, Dr. Hardin Jones, Professor at the University of California, concluded '...patients are as well, or better off untreated.' Jones' disturbing assessment has never been refuted."

"Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure." – Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p901 "Medical Oncology in the 90s"

"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors." – Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer

"Despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years." – Thomas Dao, MD NEJM Mar 1975 292 p 707