COLECTIV INSANITY

PS. This text has 13 pages of text and 13 pages of links. You dont have to check all the links, of course, but if 13 pages are still too much for you, you can have a quick look at this statistics compairing conventional with alternative medicine: http://www.zedorock.net/comparacion-en.pdf.

***

This text about cancer is written in the House Stile (HS) of the SSS (Simplified Spelling Society), which is now calld TESS (The English Spelling Society).The House Stile is a collective spelling system, in which every member was able to make suggestions and vote on them. It has four rules. It is in progressive mode, which means that we start with traditional english and the more we advance in the text, the more HS we have.

In the middle thare will be a excursion into RITE (Redusing Iregularitys in Tradicional English), which is also a collective system, voted on in a smaller group. It is more comprehensive than the HS, it "corrects" almost all spelling problems, but in a way that it is still readable. Then we'll gradually go back to HS.

You might ask why i write about a subject like cancer in reformed spelling. It is simple, i think we should always write in reformed spelling, i write my books and texts in it, whatever the language.

The beginning

Lets say that thare is a disease X we all have a bit everyday, but we have very diligent little doctors in our body that eliminate it without difficulty and we dont even notice it. But sometimes this disease grows, and thare arent enough little doctors to cope with it. Now suppose this is your case, you go to a doctor and he designs a masterplan for you: he'll cut you, he'll poison your body as if with detergent. And then he wants to send you to a spa in Fukushima. These 3 procedures will kill the enemy in you. The only problem is that all the three of them kill the friend too, that is your boddy and your little doctors - you cant have it all. And the three of them produce often the next disease X, in two, three or five years.

You ask the doctor what ar your survival chances, and maybe he tells you that the chance to be ded in 5 yeers is around 98%. Maybe you tell him that you'll look for a method that promises mor than 2% chances to be alive in 5 yeers, and the doctor tells you that this idea is very dangerous! Not like his method, which is so safe...

Usually evry person with a helthy good sense would ask herself who she should call - the police or the men in white? Unfortunatly this doesnt happen, at leest not in the case of cancer: normally peeple do exactly what this doctor tells them to do. They do it for a simple reeson: evrybody does it, or at leest neerly evrybody. Man is a herd animal, and to walk at the same pace and in the same direction as the herd, he has to act and think like the herd.

A few yeers ago a friend sent me an e-mail from Brazil with an article which praised the anti-cancer properties of the amazonian fruit graviola. I didnt spend too many thaughts on it - you heer all the time about new miracculous cancer cures, and i didnt hav anything to do with the subject. But then a friend of mine was diagnosed with a glioblastoma in the brain, and just the name doesnt sound especially promising. Then i red that 5 yeers after the diagnosis only 2% to 3% survived - and eeven thees few survivors ar mostly in an extreemly miserable condition. So it seems mor likely that the country Andorra wins the Soccer World Cup than that anyone survives his glioblastoma in a helthy condition. And then i rememberd the article i had red about graviola. I'm usually not intrested in alternativ medicine, when i hav a helth problem i go to the doctor and take the pills he givs me, but if conventional medicin has so little to offer in this case, i thaught i should take a look at alternativ substances and methods, so i started reserching about graviola. First i discoverd that the fruit grows in northern Brazil and in the naboring countries. And it is often mentiond together with its cousin paw paw, a fruit that groes in the eest of the USA and acording to some sources also in the Caribeen. I came across a studdy that was financed by the american National Cancer Institute and realized by the Perdue University in Indiana. It was conducted by Dr. Jerry McLaughlin and the conclusion was that bullatacine, the anti-cancer substance in the paw paw fruit, is much mor efectiv than adriomycine, which is used in chemotherapy, without having the devastating side effects of this treetment.

The first reaction peeple usually hav is skepticism: if something was that good, they would be using it alreddy for a long time, and evry doctor would know about it. Well, doctors hav acumulated a lot of knowlage, but only few risk a glance outside the closed circle built up by the holy trinity of big farma, the helth organizations and the doctors. And few doctors risk to recommend alternativ methods. It might not be too dangerous to recommend something parallely, but to recommend something alternativ insted of cheemo, thats dangerous. Maybe not for the patient, but for the doctor. He can lose his license and could land in prison. It is not forbidden to treet peeple with alternativ medicine, but "you hav to carry the consequences if something goes wrong" - if this rule applied for oncologists, i guess evryone of them would hav to be behind bars.

Sevral studdies wer conducted at the Perdue University in Indiana, and sevral studdies worldwide - a total of 8 studdies - confirmd the efectivity of the plant. Dr. Jerry McLaughlin and his teem found out that bullatacine lowers the voltage of the ATP cells. Thees cells ar so to say the batteries of the boddy. The helthy cells can liv with a reduction of energy, but cancer cells need 17 times mor energy than normal cells, so they starv. Another advantage of bullatacin is that it also attaks MDR cells (multiple-drug resistent). They ar the cells that ar resistent to chemotherapy. Offen some of them survive a cheemo, after the cheemo they'r not visible anymor, and they ar the ones that multiply themselvs like rabbits, after a cheemo, and well, game over. How do you want to combat something whose main caracteristic is to be resistent to the drug you'r treeting the patient with? Still they do it - they dont hav better ideas and big farma wil love that doctor. And after the seccond or third treetment, the doctor tells you to go home and try to enjoy whats left of your life.

The canadian Lorene Benoit made a trial with 18 paliativ patients, who had been given up by conventional medicin, and 13 of them wer still alive after 2 yeers - usually they'r all ded by this time. A studdy of the Perdue University was conducted with 94 patients, and 50% wer cured. And come to think of it, the grate majority of them didnt want to do without conventional medicine, wich meens that they had a conventional treetment plus the pawpaw treetment paralelly. One could argue that that was thare luk, but wen we considder that pawpaw has a hier recovering rate than conventional medicin, we can suppose that conventional medicin was a hindrance for the efectivness of pawpaw and not the opposit. Thare seem to be for sure substances that can offen cure cancer, but i dont know if thare ar substances that can cure the damaged left by a cheemo plus radiation.

Jerry McLaughlin was arranging a big clinical studdy with the Oxford University, but they jumpd out. Judging by wat he ses on youtube (you just hav to enter his name + paw paw), the FDA folloes him and pays a lot of attention to wat he ses – they can eesily send the poleece after him. So maybe they manage to blok any cooperation in this area. Another sientist wanted to produce the promising medicament Cancell in the lab, but this would be a prodduct thousand times cheeper than cheemo – in this case the expression ‘thousand times’ is not an exageration. Suddenly the lab that had alreddy agreed to produce it didnt hav the time, and then the mateerial was missing... And it was the same with other labs. I ask myself wy the labs didnt want the money anymor. Did somebody pay them mor for thare inactivity?

You can get a pawpaw extract from Nature’s Sunshine, an american online shop of natural prodducts, with a branch office in the UK. For europeans it is worth wile buying it in England, it costs 23 euro, shipping included, wile buying it from the USA costs almost 100 dollars: http://www.naturessunshine.eu/.

At leest 2 studdies found out that paw paw consumers get Alzheimer mor offen than the avrage of the population (eeven if they confirm the efectivness agenst cancer), wich is wy annonacin, the substance that seems to cause Alzheimer, is removed from the paw paw extract.

The other plant

Thare ar so menny alternativ cancer treetments, prodducts, diets, clinics, methods, how can we know wich of them ar good and wich of them ar crab? In my database i hav alreddy over 150 of them, and probbably thare ar hundreds. Statistics for the success of alternativ treetments ar on the other hand rare. In some cases thare advocats giv some numbers, but they dont sound very precise. Stil, we can at leest do some reserch to find out if thare ar studdies saying something else, criticisms, and testimonies. You find out quikly that menny alternativs seem to be a ded end - you hardly find ennything about them relating to cancer, and nothing positiv.

But not all alternativs ar ded ends. Another efectiv alternativ seems to be cannabis, a plant that has been used as medicine for at leest 5000 yeers, the old egyptians and the chinese new it. I new it is good agenst the side efects of cheemo, and i new that it is efectiv agenst multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, but now i found out that it is also efectiv agenst cancer. At the end of this text i put a list with 144 studdies - including one of the Harvard University - that show that cannabis is efectiv agenst cancer - thare ar studdies for neerly enny tipe of cancer.

Cannabis has cannabinoids, our boddy produces them too. We hav cannabinoid receptors, wich meen that our boddy doesnt see cannabinoids as a foren boddy. Wat they do is a self-regulation of the boddy: normal cels di, to make room for new cels, and this fenommenon is calld apoptosis. Cancer cels on the other hand refuse to di, and cannabinoids convince them to comit suicide all the same. If our cels dont want to di, we di. And that is just one aspect of the efectivness: cannabis works in 3 other ways agenst cancer, but i forgot them.

This sounds like the choclat studdy: sientists found out that choclat has the same efects on human memry as marihuana. They found out that thare ar 2 other common caracteristics, but cant remember wat they wer.

On youtube, judging by the first 50 sites on the subject, thare ar around 1000 testimonies of peeple who wer cured by marihuana - most of them wer having a realy hard time with conventional medicine, until they decided to leev it and try something else. Of course the cheeftanes of the medical establishment say that thees peeple certanly didnt hav cancer - it cant be. The peeple on youtube tel about thare medical reccords, sometimes in menny deetails, so if this is not tru, they'r delibratly lying. But wy should so menny peeple li, independently of eech other? Wat would be the advantage for them? I cant think of a reeson. But i certanly can think of a reeson for the medical establishment to say that all those peeple ar lying, without having a single look at thare medical reccords.

Menny helth oficials and doctors mite be directly involvd with big farma, but eeven doctors who despise big farma ar a part of the sistem, wen they try to defend it. Imagin that yu'r an oncologist, and somebody proves that wat yu'v been doing your whole life was wrong, or worse than that, dedly. Independently of wether it is tru or not, nobody wants to heer that he's been killing hundreds of peeple insted of heeling them.

Unfortunatly i cant take those testimonials into my database, since it would distort the results: peeple ar much willing to tel the world that they hav been cured than to tel that it didnt work. Offen peeple di ennyway and arnt able to tel - frends or rellativs could do it, but most peeple dont beleev it ennyway, so it wouldnt be a surprise for them. By the way, i saw one guy who told that cannabis didnt work for him, but thats no wonder, after all no medicament works for evrybody.

The war profiteers

I found 20 studdies (the anti-smoking organizations speek of 30, and we can speek of 30 too, by me) that proved with statistical significance that passiv smoking causes lung cancer. And i found 119 studdies that couldnt prove it with statistical significance, some of them eeven proving the opposit, including one financed by the WHO, the worlds central of the anti-tobacco campane. Stil those 20 or 30 studdies (with 119 studdies not confirming it) wer enuf for the WHO and the medical establishment to establish a new trueth, wich is nowadays taut in scools as if it wer the trueth that the Erth is round: that passiv smoking causes cancer. In the case of cannabis it is the opposit: at leest 135 studdies (including one from Harvard University) proved that cannabis is efectiv agenst cancer, wile at leest 2 proved the opposit - all i did was googling 'cancer', 'cannabis' and a few words found in studdy publications - and in this case the medical establishment is rather inclined to beleev that it causes cancer - not to mention loss of memry, schizofreenia, stupidity.

Wy dus the medical establishment declares in the former case sumthing with such a week evidence to a universal trueth, and ignors in the latter case such a strong evidence? It dusnt hav ennything to do with logic and sience, so wat can be the reeson? I can think only of an economic logic: the positions in both cases ar turnd agenst compettitors of big farma.

To be cleer: i'm talking about PASSIV smoking, not activ smoking. Acording to my statistics, most smokers di of hart and coronary diseeses as non smokers, and the majority of smokers who get cancer dont get lung cancer, as the majority of non smokers. The difrence is in the mortality: 6% of non smoking cancer patients get lung cancer, wile 23% of smoking cancer patients get lung cancer, and lung cancer is quite efectiv in killing peeple quikly.

The german guvverment gets its helth information from the 'Statistische Bundesamt', the Federal Statistics Department. This department gets the information about cancer from the DKFZ, the German Cancer Reserch Center in Heidelberg. The DKFZ on the uther hand is a colaboration center of the WHO, wich in the old times was financed exclusivly by the UN states and now is financed manely - 80% - by donations. Now guess ware thees donations cum from. If yu dont want to guess, yu can look at the pages of Johnson & Johnson, Glaxco, Pfizer, etc - of corse they do it just becaus they luv humanity. Thees cumpanies can invest in varius WHO departments, and, coincidence or not, they invest ware mor munny is to be made, for example in the fite agenst tobacco. They also invest a lot of munny in campanes agenst alcohol and cannabis. By chance thees prodducts happen to be compettitors - big farma sels lots of nicotine (for instance in tranquilizers, smoking cessation pils, etc). Peeple ar not suposed to smoke tobacco or weed or drink alcohol, they'r suposed to take pils! First yu should take smoking cessation pils (offen with nicotine), then antidepressants, and becaus peeple get so limp, they hav to take mood enhancers, and becaus all that is too much for the stummac, some pils for your stummac. Ennyway, it is intresting that the german guvverment (as probbably all or most uthers) get the information that big farma wants them to get. And big farma dusnt sel necessarily trueth, it sels pils.

We can see that the WHO dus wat big farma "recomends" in the case of swine flu: they rased a big alarm as the flu broke out, becaus sumthing like 1000 peeple had died of it - maybe it sounds a lot to u, but 60 million peeple di evry yeer, from diseeses or becaus they'r tired, and since u started reeding this text, around 2000 peeple hav died. The WHO convinced menny guvverments to by the vaccine, menny peeple preferd not to take it and stil, it eventualy disapeerd from the map and from the meedia, after the vaccines wer sold. The cuntries in the world got 18 billion dollars poorer, big farma 18 billions richer from tax munny. The Brussels Report about the subject warnd the guvverments to be careful about the influence of privat cumpanies in the helth organizations and departments.

Dr. Jerry McLaughin was in negotiations with the Oxford University to make a large clinical studdy, and suddenly Oxford declined. And it goes on and forth forever. It seems sum groops always mannage to leed such efforts to a ded end.

(Heer we start with RITE)

Anuther prommising prodduct seems to be Cancell, altho probbably not as good as paw paw. A sientist wanted to produce it in a lab, but this would be agen a prodduct wich is thousand times cheeper (and probbably i'm not eeven exaggerating) than the cheemo prodducts. And the lab - a chemical lab, not a farma cumpany lab - that had alreddy sed yes, suddenly didnt hav the time and the raw mateerial to make it. He tryed uther labs, and thay couldnt make it either. And that didnt change as time went by.

The german author Wolfgang Schorle ses in his farma thriller with the title 'Die letzte Flucht' ('The last escape') that big farma stopd doing seerius reserch deccades ago. Of corse, the cancer industry is an ingeenius invention: thay get 50 000 or 100 000 dollars per patient, and then wile thay treet the patient, thay inject the seed for the next cancer, so that thay can dubble the revvenu. Besides, cheemotherapy causes so much dammage in the boddy, peeple hav to by lodes of extra medicaments to fite the side efects. And thay do it with millions of patients evryday. This is very helpful for the survival - of big farma.

The cancer statistical departments and organizations doant want to explane me how they make thare statistics, so i hav to make my own stats. I ask frends, aquaintances and in sevral cancer forums for data from cancer patients, like yeer of diagnosis, tipe of treetment, 5-yeer survival rate. In sum forums thay blokd me after a few ours, in sum of them after a few minnuts. Without explanations. After i red Schorlau's thriller, who's dun a lot of reserch on it, it became cleer wy thay blok me: menny of thees forums ar founded and modrated by big farma. Thay doant wish enny sort of reflection or discussion about alternativ medicine - thare isnt such a thing ennyway.

Alternativ doctors and critics of conventional medicine say that 1/3 of cancer patients survive at leest 5 yeers. This isnt in acordance with the oficial statistics, wich say that mor or less 60% survive. Once i calld the Tumor Center in Munich and i had sevral questions on how thees statistics ar made. The vice-director told me that she dusnt no ennything about statistics and i should ask the german Robert-Koch-Institut or the american Nacional Cancer Institute. Normaly u'd expect her, if she dusnt no much about statistics, to conect me with an expert in the house - thare should be sum statisticians in a Statistical Center, shouldnt it? But it seems thay doant like curius peeple around...

One cause for the difrence is that the oficial statistics ar rellativ, wich meens that the mortality in cancer cases is compared with the mortality in the population at large. But since the chance of serviving the next 5 yeers is very hi in the total population - mor than 95%, if u'r less than 70 yeers old - it can explane 2% or 3% of the difrence, but not 20%. I guess that moast of the difrence between my statistics and thare statistics has sumthing to do with the fact that with the cancer prevention sum rather harmless cists and uther iregularitys wich can - rarely enuf - devellop to a tumor ar treeted and go into the statistics as cases of successful cancer treetment.

And then peeple who get cured by enny alternativ treetment (or with no treetment at all) ar counted as cured by conventional medicine, since the medical establishment dusnt reccognize the existence of an alternativ medicine - thare is nuthing out thare exept quackery, and if sumbody is cured independently of the conventional treetment, it is a "spontaneus recuvry".

Thare ar certanly lots of swindlers and quackers around, but the fact that menny methods and clinics doant hav enny real efect (or eeven a harmful one) dusnt meen that thay all ar inefectiv. Imagin that sumbody livs in a quiet street in a quiet district without bars and nevver left his house. One day this person decides to go around the corner, sees that the uther street dusnt hav bars either and concludes: Bars doant exist. It is certanly a stupid logic, but peeple do it daily, and for an obvius reeson: evrybody dus it. Or neerly evrybody. Alternativ medicine is quackery and leeds to deth. But the herd wisdom, the manestreem wisdom is no garanty for trueth. The manestreem wisdom in the 30s and erly 40s in Germany was that jews hav a loer IQ than the "arians", and at the same time this little foke of iddiots mannages to exploit the big german foke, with thare intelligent arians. It is an absurd logic, but if millions follo it, it cant be rong. As it wasnt rong to invest in prommisory notes of Lehman Bruthers - millions did it, it was manestreem nollege that it was good. And it is the same wen we get il: we go tu the doctor and do wat he ses.

Bak to cannabis: the fact is that thare hav been population studdys, in-vitro studdys, and experiments with annimals, but the cancer industry is a market of hundreds of billions of dollars, thats mor than the gross national prodduct of most cuntrys in the werld. To try to take it away from them is like trying to take a jucy bone from a bulldog, the most jucy bone the dog evver had.

The Oxford Jurnal of Medicine wunderd how cum eeven with such an abundanse of proofs the FDA stil ses that "thare ar no conclusiv studdys".

Wen u tel doctors about the studdys, thay say thay'r all "week" and "flawd" studdys, altho thay cant say ennything about enny of them - thay red it sumware. And then, thare ar no clinical studdys! But now thare is one, made in England in 2015: http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.2046. And stil, no doctor noes about it, and no doctor wants to no about it - or lets say very few. The patients had brane tumors and a long story of conventional treetment. The controle group (treeted with cheemo oanly) livd 1 yeer in avrage, the group treeted with cheemo and cannabis a minnimum of 1,5 yeers (i guess thay say 'a minnimum of' becaus sum patients must be stil alive). Dus it meen that u just liv a bit longer with cannabis? Wel, as i sed, cannabis can cure cancer in menny cases, but not the poisoning left by the conventional treetment. Besides, the dosage of cannabis, 0,62 g per day, was quite lo.

Thare are farma companys that sel cannabis derivats, but not the big multinationals. Eeven wen thay bring it as a pil into the market and sel it for a price much hier than the ileegal mafia - actualy it shouldnt cost mor than parsly, but the ileegal mafia sels it for a lot of munny becaus of the risk, but i dont no wy the farma companys sel it for mor than the ileegal mafia - it's not werth it. U can make hundreds of dollars with it, but not thousands like with the chemotherapy substances. And then evrybody could just gro the plant on thare balcony - hemp groes neerly evryware except in the North Pole. Now u cant do it, in most places, but if it is fully reccognized as a medicinal plant, it wil be hard to keep the ban. And in most cases, as far as i no, wen it came to a process the judges giv the suers the rite to gro the plant. It seems the farma lobby forgot to treet the judges.

The fact is that the leegal drug mafia dusnt want the legalization bi enny meens, and the same aplies for the ileegal drug mafia, that would lose the market if it was sold in groceries for the price of parsly or spinnach. Bi the way, the ileegal drug mafia ask hi prices becaus of the risk of getting caut. The little farma cumpanys that sel cannabis sel it for a price much hier than the price in the ileegal market, altho thay doant hav enny risks. Either thay do it just becaus thay can ask watevver thay want, or becaus thare is precion from the medical establishment - so thare ar not only bureaucratic obstacles but also financial ones.

If u google for 'cancer', 'cannabis' and 'study', u'l find mor articles about the very few studdys that say it causes cancer than about the menny studdys that say it is efectiv agenst cancer. In Germany the mane medical jurnal 'Deutsches Ärzteblatt' (German Medical Jurnal) has a single article about the matter, and of corse it is about a neggativ studdy, made in the University of South Carolina. Intrestingly enuf, that university made studdys befor, shoing the beneficial side of cannabis, and in thare conclusion in the neggativ studdy thay say that cannabis seems to be a dubble ejd sord, it can cure and at the same time it can cause cancer. The german maggazine preferd not to mention the beneficial side of it. Bi the way, the new studdy, the neggativ one, was financed bi NIDA, the american anti-drug department, so one can imajin wat thay wer expecting from it. One cant realy say that all this has to do with lojic and sience. But it certanly has to do with the fact that its hole publicity is about medicaments. And thay seem to no wat farma cumpanys like and wat makes them angry.

The UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, had the task to make a big population studdy, to prove once for all that smoking cannabis causes lung cancer. The studdy was made and in the conclusion thay rote that "cannabis seems to hav rather a protectiv efect". A few days later the sentence had disapeerd from the studdy publication, eeven if wen u reed "inside" the studdy it is wat u find. The Washington Post became curius and askd wi the sentence had been removed. In the University thay sed that the only person who givs ansers about that is Mr. X, but Mr. X didnt anser e-males, and wen the newspaper peeple calld, he wasnt thare yet, or had just left...

All this dusnt hav ennything to do with conspiracy theorys, thare arnt 5 ticoons in a dark room planning how to fool and exploit the rest of humanity. It is simply the turbo-cappitalism of the last 2 or 3 deccades, a sistem in wich the cappital has mor and mor and politics less and less to say. This cappital isnt intrested in democracy or helth in thare hoast cuntrys, the cappital is like a tumor: it wants to gro and gro, get bigger and bigger for the sake of getting bigger and bigger. If the rules becum undemocratic but help them to multiply thare cappital, thay doant hav enny problems with it. Of corse thay woant say it is undemocratic, thay wil say it is to protect the cittizens. The same as dictatorships say. The big german cappital like Krupp or the farma cumpanys didnt hav problems to suport the nazi regeem, as long as thay wer making munny, and the nazi regeem invaded Poland and kild millions of jews "to protect the arians", the "real germans"... Nobody is atacking ennybody, evrybody is just protecting the population.

If a doctor complanes on TV about the daylite robbery of the charlatans (sumthing very difrent of wat happens at big farma, that just thinks of the wel-being of the werld), it dusnt meen necessarily that he's being payd bi big farma to say it. Doctors lern wat universitys teech them: that the cure cums from the pil. The pil ses, i'm the way, the trueth and the life, no one cums unto the cure, but bi me. Doctors usualy get thare updates from the specialized press, and thay belong to the medical establishment. And of corse thay doant want to heer that all thay hav lernd (at leest the oncologists) has been rong, and that thay kild hundreds or eeven thousands of peeple. Who wil look for such a discuvry? And who wil like to hav such a sort of frend who tels him that? It is much eesier to say "This guy is a wacko!"

One common criticism on cannabis is that it makes forgetful, unconcentrated and stupid. Peeple get unconcentrated and forgetful indeed - wile thay'r stoned, at leest. Wether the efect persists after the hi, dusnt seem to be cleer. In a ferst serch in the ferst 50 google pajes i found of corse (agen) menny mor articles saying it reduces the branes capacity, but leeving all the repeticions out, i found 8 studdys saying it is bad for the brane and 10 saying that this is not the case, 4 of them eeven saying it is good for the brane.

The uther argument of the establishment is the little nollege about the plant: i heer offen doctors saying, the plant has hundreds of substances, and thay'r not all exammined! That aplies for bananas too, so shud we forbid bananas? And all the rest? We havnt chekd if the thousands of substances of the thousands of foods caus one of the thousands of diseeses, but we hav enuf nollege to no that thay all doo sum harm, in certan quantitys and in certan situations. And stil we cant stop eeting and drinking. Shugar causes diabeetes, it can favor cancer, salt is bad for peeple with hi pressure, milk (at leest the hole milk) causes lung canser, chilli and pepper kil lots of ennemy bacteeria but also frendly ones, meet is bad for the hart and coronary diseeses. Bananas ar good for peeple with lo pressure, but bad for peeple with hi pressure. U can kil a baby if u giv him too much spinach, or a cup of salt - a muther in Germany forced her child to eet it as a punicion, she seemingly didnt no that salt kils, wich was very unfortunat for the kid. But the medical establishment dusnt make campanes to make peeple stop eeting: ferst, becaus food is no compettitor for big farma, and seccond, becaus if all thare clients starv, thay woant make enny munny at all.

Not especialy helthy

Wen i was travling thru Brazil to rite mi book about the cuntry, i intervewd a german cupple who had left thare old life in Köln (Cologne). The woman had been farmacist in a hospital, and she was releefd to hav left her old profecion: sumtimes a glass with keemo drugs falls on the flor and that poisonus stuf splashes on the skin of thare hands and feet! At the moment the german helth authoritys ar discussing how thay can cater for mor security at werk for farmacists werking with keemo prodducts. And cum to think of it, thees ar the prodducts thay adminnister massivly on the lungs, branes and stummacs of seeriusly il peeple! Shure, poison isnt necessarily bad: for snake seerum u need snake poison. But the difrence is that the seerum werks, and peeple servive.

I told all this to sho that no matter if thare ar better methods than conventional medicine or not: the medical establishment has a panic that thare gold mine mite seep away sumtime, and thay no how to avoid it - if necesary with brute force: sum alternativ doctors ar persecuted bi the poleece.

As i sed, i make mi own statistics. I hav over 220 cases in mi database so far. Heer ar the 5-yeer servival rates:

patients treeted conventionaly: 158 cases - 39% servived

patients treeted conventionaly + alternativly: 26 cases - 57% servived

patients who abandond conventional treetment: 8 cases - 100% servived

patients who refused enny conventional treetment: 4 cases - 75% servived

Thare is also a grupe of 4% the doctors gave up from the beginning, 80% of them died indeed, shortly after. And patients over 75 yeers old wer counted sepratly, sinse moast of them di ennyway, eeven a flu can kil them.

Unfortunatly oanly the ferst grupe has sum statistical significanse, the uthers ar stil not enuf, altho thay all sho in the same direction: the further away u stay from conventional medisine, the better the servival chanses. Thay'r not proofs, but clues.

The 5-yeer servival rate of 40% wud be much loer if thare wernt the canser tipes that apeer oanly in one sex, like brest canser or prostate. Thay'r quite common and thare servival rates ar jenraly hi. For vital organs like brane, lung, stummac, colon the rate is much loer, between 30% and 2%.

Wun shud also hav in mind that in the 10-yeer servival rate the situation for conventional medisine is werse, comparing with alternativ medisine, sinse the chanses for a relaps ar hier - thay treet peeple with carsinojenic substances, besides the imune sistem is ruind for yeers. Also the chanses tu di of an infarct ar 20% hier. So i shud keep miself bisy with the 10-yeer servival rate, but thats much mor dificult tu follo - u dont find menny patients ennymor, either becaus they moovd house or becaus they'r ded.

Quite a fu peeple no the case of a rellativ or frend hoo was treeted with alternativ medisine and died, but u hav tu considder that the grate majority go tu alternativ medisine after thare boddys wer ruind bi the keemo and radiation. Thare mite be quite a fu things that ar efectiv agenst canser, but i dont no if thare ar things that ar efectiv agenst the poisoning causd bi keemo and radiation.

I doant want tu say that the millions of peeple hoo werk for big farma ar bad peeple. The millions of peeple hoo werk for the tobacco industry or for the car industry (they also kil millions of peeple, either by axidents or by poluting the are (air)) or for the furniture industry (that produces chares, that produce millions of collon canser patients) ar fully normal peeple like u and me, and thay tri tu doo thare job as wel as thay can. Big farma dus good things too, i proffited grately from it 2 yeers ago, wen i had malaria. But thay doo it tu make munny, as enny uther branch. A big farma mannajer hoo tels his share holders that the cumpany made big losses but helpd humanity woant keep his job for long. And after all it is not oanly big farma that makes munny in this cancer industry, also the industry for medical apliances dus it. And stil i wudnt say that evry Siemens werker is a bad gi and werks for the devvil. It is the sistem, and if sumwun refuses tu doo a sertan job, sumbody else wil. And such a sistem always fynds a way that peeple hoo werk for it go home with a cleen conciense.

Thare ar mity holdings and mity branches, but of corse, no wun of them is allmity. So thare is mor and mor rezistanse. Normaly the branch consentrates its lobby werk in the sentral guvverments of the big cuntrys - tu make lobby werk in evry state and evry sitty of the werld, thay'd need millions of peeple. So it happend that aprox. 20 states in the USA passd laws alowing medical marihuana, wile it is ileegal acording tu fedral laws, ware big farma has its hoald. U go tu a farmacy and bi marihuana, and theoreticly an FBI ajent can arest u. It just gets problematic wen he wants tu send u tu prizzon, sinse the state authoritys wil say thay cant arest u becauz u didnt doo ennything rong.

(And now we go sloly bak tu HS)

Meenwile thare hav been sevral plebbisits, so that Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska hav alowd recreational marijuana, and thare wil be plebbisits in uther states soon. In menny cuntrys the plebbisits wud deside agenst a legalization, it is a devvils stuf for menny peeple. Deccades of campane did thare werk...

In the old times, Bayer, Böhringer and uther farmaceutical multinacionals sold opium for babys, cocaine drops, Pope Leo XXIII always had a cocaine wine in his pocket. Of corse cannabis was also sold tu treet migrane and uther alements. Peeple hoo took all thees drugs as children at the beginning of the 20th sentury ar neerly all ded, so u see how danjerus thees drugs ar! Wen the USA prohibbited the natural drugs in the 30s - thare is the explanation that Dunlop with his rubber and Hearst with his paper didnt want competition from hemp - thay forsed neerly all uther cuntrys tu doo the same - it was a time ware mor than haf of the werlds econnomy was consentrated in the US. But for the north koreans for instance it dusnt matter, sinse thay ar boicoted all the same. Thay no quite a fu bans, but not this wun. U can smoke tobacco in restaurants and u can smoke marijuana in restaurants. And anuther cuntry, Uruguay, desided tu leegalize it. In Israel quite a fu clinics giv cannabis tu thare patients, if thay wish so (and menny wish so). Thare is a butiful film bi the israeli film maker Zach Klein: http://cannabisclinicians.org/prescribed-grass/. U can see in it an intervu with Raphael Mechoulam, the discuvrer of THC. But in both films thay talk about the soothing efect of the plant for sevral alements and keemo, eeven if the canser fiting proppertys of cannabis ar mentiond. I talkd tu cheef oncologists thare, hoo admitted - inoficialy - that quite a fu peeple take the grass off the joints thay get and make an oil of it, tu treet thare cancer.

Getting it and dosing it

In Germany u can get it in the farmacy, but u need a prescription, and the doctor has tu send an aplication tu the helth ministry and pruve that u hav tried evrything else without success. And offen wat u get is a THC-pil - nattural or sinthetic - wich is not the same as cannabis, since thare ar sevral components in the plant that ar efectiv agenst cancer.

Tu smoke a bit helps a bit, but acording tu Rick Simpson, the "cannabis guru", the rite treetment afords cannabis oil, wich he calls phoenix teers. U can make it at home. Acording tu him, 75% of the cancer patients ar cured. U can find a recipy at http://phoenixtears.ca/video-library/, thare is a veedeo and a ritten recipy.

The dosage is simple: the mor, the better. But since the stuf is strong and u dont want tu be stoned the hole day, the beginner shud start with as little as possible, and graddualy augment the dosage - the mor u take it, the mor u get tollerant, i.e. the less hi u get. Cannabis sooths panes, causes peeple tu hav good mood, but not evrybody likes being hi, and those hoo dont like it can take it befor going tu sleep. And u can sleep very wel with it.

If u dont liv in an area ware it is alowd (wich is the case for almost evryware in the werld), u hav tu fynd a deeler or order it from a place ware it is leegal or at leest tollerated (like the Netherlands). Of corse u hav the risk that the customs control it. But fu judges send cancer patients tu prizzon for trying tu treet thare cancer in an inoficial way, especialy if u giv him the list with 144 studdys that sho it is efectiv...

I hav aprox. 160 substances, methods, diets and clinics in mi database, of wich peeple say they help agenst cancer. I lookd for testimonials on youtube - and sometimes in cancer forums: in most cases i didnt fynd enny testimonial, but heer is a "survival table" with the number of testimonials:

burzinsky - 11

gerson - 12

hoxsey - 15

laetril (vitamin B17) - 35

mistleto - 40

macrobiotics - 56

cannabis - ca. 1000

The ferst 3, ie Burzinsky, Gerson and Hoxsey, ar clinics, Gerson and Hoxsey ar in Mexico. And if i had tu doo macrobiotics, i dont no if it wud be werth wile serviving... With cannabis thare wer so menny testimonials that i had to extrapolate. Of corse this dusnt say much about the eficacy of the methods, since we dont no how menny tried them, ie we dont no how the proportion of servivors tu the ded ar. Bi the way, i just chekd studdys about paw paw and cannabis, i stil hav tu chek the uthers.

Conclusion

Menny alternativ doctors or heelers or sientists seem tu agree that a tumor isnt such a terrible thing that has tu be kild as quikly as possible by enny meens. Sum of them, like Dr. Hamer with his Germanic New Medicin (menny of his folloers prefer tu call it just New Medicin, for obvius reesons), eeven think that a tumor is not a dizeez, it is just the helthy reaction of the boddy tu a trauma, as wen u hav an infection and your skin devellops pus tu fite it - the pus is not the dizeez, it is the boddys response tu the dizeez. But it is hard tu no how successful this method is, since most peeple hoo uze this method cum tu him wen thare boddys hav been alreddy ruind bi conventional medicine. On the uther hand, in mi database i just hav wun case of a patient with a brane tumor, a glioblastoma, that survived it and is helthy, and he is a folloer of the GNM. He has had the tumor for 9 yeers now, the tumor has been shrinking graddualy, and he's got no problems with it. But of corse: a single case is not a proof. But i hav quite a few "single cases" like that.

If i had cancer, i gess i'd tri tu werk with the 3 most prommising plants. So eeven if the chances that wun of them werks is just around 50%, if u take too of them the chances that both dont werk wud be 25%, and if u hav 3 of them, the chance that it dusnt werk gets down tu 12,5%. If evry wun of the 3 substances produce a 75% chance, the chances that the 3 of them dont werk wud be of 6%. A 94% servival chance is cleerly better than the 40% chances conventional medicine has to offer.

And of corse i'd tri tu change mi life, get informd about diets that can strengthen mi imune sistem, and change the situation of mi life, since the caus for mi cancer cud be sicological - cancer is not an ennemy from outside, we ourselvs produce it.

The best of it is that u probbably servive, and can keep LIVVING, wile wen u servive cancer with conventional medicine u'r not able tu LIV ennymor, u'r just able tu SERVIVE. That mite be good for the medical statistics, but not necesarily for u. And the werst in this story: wen sumbody servives with alternativ treetments, the statistics count it as a success of conventional medicine, since "thare ar no treetments for cancer outside of conventional medicine."

Mi frend with the glioblastoma, who braut me tu all this reserch, started with cheemo and radiation, and then tried paralely sevral alternativ treetments. They considderd mi paw paw suggestion intresting, they askd thare oncologist hoo sed it is the best thing he can doo - he wuldnt say it if not askd. They didnt considder taking cannabis - his girlfrend is farmacist, and didnt want ennything tu doo with sumthing ware thare is no oficial dosages. The tumor started shrinking sloly, nobody noes if becaus of the cheemo, the radiation, the paw paw or all together. But that was too slo for him, so he started dooing ayurveda with a famus ayurveda heeler in Munich. The tumor started shrinking quikly, and it seemd he culd liv a normal life agen, he eeven started werking agen. But then a new tumor apeerd, and he went bak tu cheemo and radiation. A few munths ago he saw a TV report about the israeli hospitals adminnistring cannabis and he askd me if i new sumthing about it. I didnt no ennything bi the time, but i did sum reserch, and we wer preparing the papers (translating his medical reports into english for the admission in an israeli clinic). But then his state wersend so much, nobody culd think of him leeving his famly and frends tu go tu Israel. Then we thaut we culd treet him with cannabis oil in Germany, his girlfrend was rather convinced that it was a good idea bi then, but mi frend was agenst - he culdnt giv reezons, he culdnt remember his decision ennymor, his memry was like a swiss chees, he lost the feeling for time, he was hardly able tu walk, and then he lost his speech. He died a few munths ago, he lookd as if he had found his peece agen.

I feer that menny cancer patients wil stil di becaus of the treetment. I no, if u di becauz u did wat the doctors told u, your famly and frends wil say, "poor guy!" If u choos not tu doo wat the doctors say and di, evrybody wil say "it was his own falt!". I can just hope that this carnage has an end, sumtime in the future.

If u hav enny questions, i'm at your disposition warever i can:

tel. 0049-711-129 00 657, e-mail ze@zedorock.net.

ze end

And heer the studdys about cancer and cannabis.

Italic - neutral studdys that didnt find enny harm

bold - (the rare) neggativ studdys that found out it can cauz cancer

The links arnt activ (it would be a lot of work, with this quantity), so u hav to coppy it and put it in the adress line. A few of them arnt online (they wer made in times ware the internet didnt exist), i just added them, so u hav an idea of the number of studdys.

clinical studdy:

http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.2046

carchman ra

res commun chem pathol pharmacol 1977 aug;17(4):703-14

kargl j, medizinische uni graz, austria

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/2050-6511-13-S1-A23.pdf

hinz b, friedrich alexander uni erlangen-nürnberg, deutshland

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15361550

grotenhermen f, nova-institut, hürth, deutshland

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12648025

held-feindt j, universitätsklinikum schleswig-holstein, kiel, deutshland

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16893424

hart s, max-planck-institute of biochemistry, martinsried, deutshland

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328

eichele k, uni rostock, deutshland.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19015962

freimuth h, uni rostock, deutshland

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19889794

ramer r, uni rostock, deutshland

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/1/59.abstract

ramer r, uni rostock, deutshland

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=abstract

aguado t, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17202146

blasquez c, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17675107

blasquez c, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17065222

blasquez c, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339876

blasquez c, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108

blasquez c, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899

caffarel mm, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18454173

caffarel mm, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818634

caffarel mm, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196

caffarel mm, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776349

carracedo a, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16616335

carracedo a, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650

casanova ml, centro de investigaciones energéticas, medioambientales y tecnológicas, madrid, spain

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587

de jesus ml, uni del pais basco, leioa, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20307616

diaz laviada i, uni alcala, madrid, espania

http://www.nature.com/bjc/press_releases/p_r_aug09_6605248.html

galve-roperh, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10700234

galve-roperh, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16787257

gomez de pulgar, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11903061

gomez de pulgar, uni complutense, madrid, espania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12133838