In 2006, Anita Moorjani was lying in a hospital bed, losing her battle with cancer.  Her organs were shutting down and her lungs were filling with fluid as she went into a deep coma.  Doctors did not believe she would live through the night.  But Anita did not die.  Instead, she had a profound near-death experience (NDE) where her awareness crossed over to the “other side.”  In that state, she was able to understand everything about her life from a cosmic viewpoint, so-to-speak, including WHY she got cancer in the first place.  After understanding that and more, she came back and detailed her experience in the best-selling book, Dying to Be Me.

In Dying to Be Me, Anita relates how everything became clear while her consciousness was on the other side.  For instance, she realized that the development of her cancer was caused more by her own beliefs and fears than any physical factor.  She also knew that if she decided to come back and live again, her cancer would go away by itself without treatment.  Indeed, it did go away.  Within a few short weeks, Anita’s many tumors were gone and she has remained cancer-free with no treatment ever since!

Anita has now come out with her second book, What if This is Heaven?  In this book, like the first one, she talks about the role  our thoughts and emotions play in the development of disease.  One thing I particularly like about what she learned is that we needn’t worry overly much about each and every thought we have.  (For instance, making sure our thoughts are all positive and there are no negative ones.)  On page 166 of her latest book, Anita writes, “. . . while positive thinking and affirmations are valuable in many ways, there are times when they’re not helpful in the least!  They can act like Band-Aids that simply cover a wound so we can’t see it.”  Her advice is to not fight and especially to not fear our thoughts, but to notice and accept them as a part of us.

To Anita, the most important factor in the mind/body connection is how you feel about yourself.  Personally, I believe there are many aspects of the mind/body connection that can be discussed, but this particular point of hers is truly worth taking in.  In her case, she shares that she did not feel good about herself and had lots of fears throughout her life.  For many, many years, she put judgments and restrictions on her own behavior to please others and feel worthy.  In her near-death experience, she was able to see that the cancer was just her own unexpressed power and energy turned in against herself, since she wasn’t expressing it outward.

If you are interested in more details, I highly recommend both books.  I have found her discussion of the mind/body connection fascinating and convincing.  The main message she has for others is simply to “Love yourself unconditionally and to be yourself fearlessly.”  An excellent message, indeed!

The post Anita Moorjani’s Mind/Body Connection appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYBODY!  At Christmas time, Peace on Earth is an important theme.  Of course, peace is not always just political . . . it can occur in many different ways, such as when dealing with a cancer diagnosis and not wanting the cancer to recur after remission.  In this article, I want to talk about how the use of non-toxic alternative cancer treatments can bring about “peace of mind” and, specifically, what a good choice the Protocel formula can be for this.

In late 2013, 74-year-old Ellen (not her real name) was having issues with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and elevated liver enzymes.  It was unclear as to why her liver enzymes were up, so her doctor referred her to a specialist.  An endoscopy procedure was performed and the specialist had a question about something that showed up, so a CT scan was recommended.  Ellen went to John’s Hopkins for the scan and to consult with a surgeon.  It was now early 2014, and the scan showed what looked like cancer in the pancreas.

Ellen was scheduled for surgery, during which her surgeon found that it was, indeed, pancreatic cancer that she had.  He performed a Whipple procedure, which is where part of the pancreas is removed, and he also saw that the cancer had metastasized to the duodenum, where the stomach joins with the intestines.  So, the surgeon removed Ellen’s duodenum as well and took out 19 lymph nodes which, fortunately, were all clear.

In hindsight, Ellen was very lucky that her cancer was caught as early as it was, because the surgery alone put her into remission.  (Meaning there were no longer any signs of cancer according to diagnostic tests.)  But, even so, her surgeon was not overly optimistic.  In fact, he suggested to Ellen that she “get her affairs in order.”  When Ellen asked about her chances for survival, he led her to believe that with chemo, she might live about 5 more years.   It was clear that in his opinion, there were free-floating cancer cells still in her body, so the cancer would grow back.  He did not believe chemo would be able to cure her.

In fact, Ellen found out that the official statistics after a Whipple procedure when the cancer is caught this early indicate only a 20% chance for recovery in 5 years.  The surgeon told Ellen to “hope for the best, but plan for the worst.”  This statement was devastating to Ellen.  Luckily, her oncologist was somewhat more hopeful than her surgeon was.

Ellen agreed to undergo a heavy chemo protocol post-surgery, where she was given chemotherapy for 3 weeks out of every month over 6 months.  Finally, when this was finished in March of 2015, she was able to relax.  However, by September, a cancer marker blood test called the CA 19-9 was very high.  Since this most likely indicated her cancer was back, Ellen chose to treat it again . . . but this time with Protocel Formula 50.  The way Ellen found out about Protocel was by telling her gynecologist about her cancer.  The GYN suggested she contact another patient who happened to be Julia, the pharmacist in the article dated October 25, 2017 on this blog.  Julia told Ellen about her own cancer recovery from metastasized breast cancer and suggested she read OUTSMART YOUR CANCER.

Once Ellen started taking Protocel, there was an amazing psychological change in her.  As she describes it, Before Protocel, my life was all about the cancer and dying.  I got my affairs in order and constantly badgered my husband about how he should do this or that after I died.  But once I started taking Protocel at 1/2 tsp. every 6 hours, I just stopped worrying.  For the first time, I felt like I  was in control, not the cancer!  This made my husband much happier, too, because I became calm and stopped talking about my death all the time.

Ellen has taken Protocel for 2 years now and, at 78 years old, has no intention of stopping it.  She gets a CT scan every 6 months and continues to be clear of cancer.  She never told her oncologist what she was doing and to be fair, the CA 19-9 test may have been elevated because her liver enzymes were out of whack.  Thus, Ellen cannot claim that Protocel cured her cancer, yet at the same time, it is very possible it has indeed kept the cancer from recurring.  At any rate, the peace of mind that Protocel continues to give Ellen has been priceless!

COMMENT:  Taking Protocel or any other good alternative non-toxic approach is a great idea when someone is in remission.  Rather than simply waiting to see if the cancer is going to come back, the person can take charge and be proactive.  This not only functions to help keep the cancer from growing back but, as with Ellen, it can relieve a person’s fears that are also often accompanied by a terrible sense of helplessness.  This, in turn, can allow the person to enjoy life again.  Protocel is a particularly good choice for this type of “proactive peace of mind” because it is so simple to take that it does not “define” a person as someone fighting cancer the way other approaches involving juicing, coffee enemas, lots of supplements, or intravenous treatments might.   The Protocel user can easily focus on living his or her life as a normal person again!

by Tanya Harter Pierce,  Author of OUTSMART YOUR CANCER

________________________________________________________________________________________

To read more about Protocel, see Chapters 9, 10, 11, and 12 of  Outsmart Your Cancer.

The post Protocel, Pancreatic Cancer, and Peace of Mind appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.

Not every cancer situation lends itself to a biopsy.  But when it does, and your doctor suggests one, you may have a decision to make.  Is it in your best interest?  Are there risks?  For instance, can biopsies spread cancer?  This is important to know since many cancer patients opt for biopsies whether they are using conventional or alternative cancer treatments.

What is a Biopsy?

A biopsy is the removal of a small amount of tissue from a tumor or other area for examination under a microscope.  There are many different types of biopsy procedures, including needle biopsy, fine needle aspiration, core biopsy, endoscopic biopsy, sentinel lymph node biopsy, and punch biopsy.  The two main reasons your doctor might suggest a biopsy are:  (1) To get a tissue sample  of your cancer for better diagnosis in order to help pick the most effective drug therapy, or  (2) To prove you have cancer before undertaking a risky treatment such as surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation.

Are There Risks?

This is the critical question and yes, there can be risks involved with any biopsy procedure.  Unfortunately, one of the riskiest is the biopsy procedure for prostate cancer, which of course is one of the most common cancers.    For prostate biopsies, an instrument goes up through the rectum and then needle sticks are punched through the colon wall into the prostate gland.  Up to 30 needle sticks may be required and this can cause a potentially lethal blood infection due to the transmission of e-coli or other bacteria.  Though rare, I personally spoke to a man who said he almost died from a routine needle biopsy into the prostate that caused just such an infection.

But even more worrisome, is the risk that any biopsy procedure could potentially spread the cancer.  This is a somewhat controversial issue and most oncologists will probably say there is little risk of spreading, or “seeding” the cancer.   However, one author by the name of Karl Loren, supposedly documented 73 cases of seeding from biopsies that caused metastases.  Apparently, this risk is more well-known than it would seem, since more than half a million American cancer patients are reported to seek medical treatment outside the U.S. simply to avoid having to get a biopsy.  Many of these Americans flee to the Hope4Cancer Institute in Mexico run by Dr. Antonio Jimenez.

I did not know what to think of this issue myself until I attended a cancer treatment conference years ago.  During one talk, I was surprised to hear the lecturer, an oncologist, talk about how needle biopsies can spread cancer.  To illustrate this, he projected a slide showing the scanned image of a woman’s breast.  A cancer mass was apparent inside the breast and a thin line was apparent going directly from the mass to the surface of the breast.  He explained that the thin line was a line of cancer cells that had leaked out as the biopsy needle was pulled back out of the breast.  His opinion as a cancer doctor was that biopsies can DEFINITELY spread cancer.

I have also now personally spoken with about half a dozen men over the years who underwent radical prostatectomies (surgical removal of the entire prostate gland) for prostate cancer caught early, were pronounced cancer-free, then 4 to 6 years later were surprised to be diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer in their lymph system and bones.  At this point, they were pronounced incurable by conventional medicine.  Was it that the prostatectomies did not get all the cancer?  Or was it the needle biopsy required before the surgery that spread the cancer into the blood stream and lymph system?  Could it be that for these men and others like them that their cancer was localized to the prostate gland and that they would have been cured by surgical removal of the gland had they not had that biopsy procedure done?

Another thing to keep in mind is that biopsies have varying degrees of accuracy in assessing cancer.  In particular, for prostate cancer, there are many areas of the prostate gland that the needle punches cannot get to.  As a result, according to Dr. Mercola, a whopping “one-third of the men with initial ‘negative’ results for prostate cancer actually DO have prostate cancer that was missed by the biopsy.”

The bottom line is that, if you are facing a recommended biopsy procedure, you should probably carefully consider the importance of what your doctor can learn from that for treating you versus the risks of possible infection and possible seeding of the cancer.  Talk to your doctor about whether a biopsy is really needed and do more homework on the Internet.  It may be a difficult decision, but at least it would be an informed decision!

by Tanya Harter Pierce,  Author of OUTSMART YOUR CANCER

________________________________________________________________________________________

The post Can Biopsies Spread Cancer? appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.

According to my own observations over the years, any strong impact to the body is something you should probably try to avoid if you have cancer.  Other than being high speed sports involving wheels, both mountain biking and skateboarding represent activities that run the risk of significant impact to the body.  (Through falling, ramming into a tree, or some other type of accident.)  I am going out on a limb here because this is NOT something I have heard or read about from any medical source,  but I feel compelled to say that impacts to the body or any other cause of damaged tissue should be avoided.  It is something I have concluded after personally speaking with many cancer patients over the years.  There are four cases in particular that I would like to mention here.

The first case was a man with pancreatic cancer who was taking Protocel as well as some rounds of chemo.  Happily, his cancer was regressing.  Though it had not yet completely gone away , this man was feeling so good that he decided to take a kick-boxing class for exercise.  He enjoyed the class for a while until he got kicked really hard in the abdomen.  Unfortunately, he was kicked right where his cancer was located.  Suddenly, this man’s cancer took off and grew so fast he was no longer able to control the growth.  He ended up dying as a result.

The second case was a woman with advanced, metastasized ovarian cancer.  Her ovaries had been removed through surgery and she’s been getting chemotherapy for 3 metastasized masses in her liver and and other cancerous lesions throughout her abdomen.  But the chemo was not considered a curative approach, so she decided to stop it and try Protocel.  The Protocel appeared to be working really well.  After not too many months, two of the three tumors in her liver had disappeared and the lesions in her abdominal cavity appeared to be reducing as well.  At this point, she decided to have the chemotherapy port that had been implanted next to her belly button removed so that she could shower and do other things more easily.  Unfortunately, after the port was surgically removed, the area became infected and would not heal.  The infected, damaged tissue was right above some of the cancer in her abdominal cavity.  Suddenly, this woman’s cancer took off, too.  She never got control of it again.

A third case was an elderly woman about ninety years old who was starting to look into alternative medicine for her Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.  The lymphoma was clustered mainly at her jawline on one side of her face.  She told me that just before the cancerous lumps appeared, she had taken a bad fall and hit her face on something very hard.  Her impact was in the very same place the cancer appeared later.

The fourth case was another woman looking into alternative cancer treatments.  She had just been diagnosed with breast cancer and mentioned to me that she’d been in a car accident where she had been lunged forward and badly bruised on one side of her chest by the seat belt holding her back.  Without me even asking her, she said that the breast cancer then developed in the same spot she had been severely bruised.

This connection between impact (or damaged tissues) and cancer growth may be something that all doctors know about, but I have never heard anyone talk about it.  It just seems like cancer is somewhat of an opportunistic disease that likes to grow in damaged tissue.  For this reason, I would stay away from any activities that risked impact if I were working on getting my cancer to go away.  This might even include avoiding something as seemingly benign as touch football on the lawn with the kids.  I do not want to be an alarmist, and everyone can decide for themselves, but this might just be one of those times where being forewarned could make a BIG difference in a person’s recovery!

by Tanya Harter Pierce,  Author of OUTSMART YOUR CANCER

________________________________________________________________________________________

The post Why Avoid Mountain Biking and Skateboarding? appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.

Did you know that sexual orgasm can skew a man’s PSA test results? For men concerned about prostate cancer, abstaining from sex for two days before testing is an important precaution in order to get an accurate reading.

You don’t have to search for long on the Internet to find numerous medical sources recommending that men abstain from any type of sex for 1-2 days before taking a PSA test.  (48 hours being common.)  Otherwise, your test results may be skewed and indicate you have a higher PSA count than you normally do.  Yet, even though this caution is listed in conventional medical resources, I have yet to come across a single man whose doctor told him this!  Once again, we must visit the alternative cancer treatment world to find out this type of information.

Moreover, there are a number of other activities besides sex that should be avoided for 1 to 2 days for test results to be accurate.  For instance, many medical sources recommend that, besides sex, men should also avoid any activity that jostles or puts extra pressure on the prostate gland up to 48 hours before PSA testing.  This includes activities such as bike riding, motorcycling, horse riding, or riding an ATV or tractor.  These types of activities seem to cause higher PSA counts due to the extra pressure put on the gland.  But men rarely hear about any of these precautions, either!

It may seem like a lot to ask, but you really don’t want to have an artificially elevated PSA score.  That can lead to all kinds of trouble, including, in some cases, a painful needle biopsy procedure to rule out cancer.

Understanding Your PSA Count

Prostate cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed type of cancer in men, with lung cancer being the first. So, it’s no wonder that many men routinely get their PSA level checked in their annual medical exam or if there appears to be a problem.

The PSA blood test looks for something called “Prostate Specific Antigen,” which is a type of protein primarily produced in the prostate gland.  (Specifically, it can be produced by each prostate cell.)  Though this test can be a valuable tool in the diagnostic process, it is not nearly as accurate at measuring cancer as many doctors lead patients to believe.  For example, about two-thirds of all men who have what is considered an elevated PSA do NOT have prostate cancer.  And, on the other side of the coin, about 20% of all men who are KNOWN to have prostate cancer have a normal PSA count!

The problem is that even though the PSA test has its failings, it is often treated as a perfect indicator of cancer.  Be very careful to NOT fall prey to this widespread misunderstanding.  The truth is that PSA levels are only an indirect measure of something happening in the prostate gland.  Not a direct measure of cancer.  And there is no “normal” or “abnormal” PSA level that applies to every man.  This is because there are many factors that can affect the PSA count, cancer being just one of them.

Keep in mind that a man’s PSA level goes up in response to enlargement of the prostate gland or because of pressure in or on the prostate gland.  Since many men experience a gradual enlargement of their prostate as they get older (a condition called “Benign Prostate Hypertrophy” or BPH), every man’s age must always be considered when evaluating their PSA score.  Another benign, non-cancer factor that can chronically elevate the PSA is when calcium deposits are in the prostate gland.  This is not uncommon and it is not dangerous.  It has a similar counterpart in women, which is benign calcium deposits in the breasts.  Calcium deposits in the prostate can cause inflammation, which can cause pressure in the gland, and this results in a detectable rise in PSA.

PSA Myths and Misconceptions

As always, I am a big proponent of understanding what we’re working with, and my research indicates that there are some major misunderstandings about the PSA in conventional medicine.  In fact, according to Dr. John R. Lee, one of the world’s foremost experts on hormone-related cancers for both men and women, there are some very important yet common misunderstandings about the PSA, prostate cancer, and the effect of testosterone on cancer.  These are not misunderstandings just among the general public, either, but have propagated through mainstream medicine after being erroneously set in place decades ago.

According to Dr. Lee, oncologists have been duped with the wrong information and men have been suffering from this for many ears.  Fallacies such as the idea that testosterone feeds cancer.  In Chapter 20 of my book, I go into detail explaining Dr. Lee’s ideas on how testosterone is actually anti-cancer, and the PSA compound itself is also anti-cancer because it has anti-angiogenic properties.  This means that it stops new blood vessels from being formed to feed a tumor that is growing fast.  According to Dr. Lee, the last things you should do when you have prostate cancer is block your testosterone production or try to get your PSA count to go down. Also according to Dr. Lee, the PSA count can never be trusted as an accurate indicator of cancer when a man is taking a testosterone-blocking drug.

But even though a man’s PSA count is not a perfect indicator of cancer, and there are myths and misunderstandings about the PSA, testosterone, and hormone-blocking drugs, it can still be a worthwhile tool when used along with other tests.   So if you’re going to get a PSA test, at least do yourself a favor and avoid sex and the other activities mentioned for 48 hours beforehand to avoid any unwanted cancer scare or further invasive testing.  Or, if you are not able to abstain from the aforementioned activities and your PSA test shows an overly high score, you can always request that another PSA test be done right away!

by Tanya Harter Pierce,  Author of OUTSMART YOUR CANCER

______________________________________________________________________________

More details on how to understand the PSA, Prostate Cancer, and Hormone-Blocking drugs for men are presented in Chapter 20 of Outsmart Your Cancer.

The post No Sex for 48 Hours Before Your PSA Test! appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.

DCIS  (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)  is a common breast cancer diagnosis.  In fact, according to some sources, it may comprise as much as 30% of all breast cancer diagnoses in the United States.  But is it really cancer?

DCIS is officially listed as “Breast Cancer, Stage 0” and alternative cancer sources say that stage zero is a pre-cancerous state. Be sure you know what you’re dealing with before you agree to major surgery or chemotherapy.  There are doctors and researchers on both sides of this question.

DCIS Definition

How is DCIS defined?  According to the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University in Georgia, DCIS is “a non-invasive or pre-invasive breast condition in which abnormal cells are found in the lining of breast milk ducts.  These abnormal cells have not spread or invaded beyond the walls of the ducts into surrounding breast tissue.  DCIS is not cancer.  It is referred to as ‘pre-invasive’ because some cases will progress into cancers, while others will not.  Currently, there is no effective way to determine this.”

So, this cancer institute clearly states that DCIS is NOT cancer.  But if anyone does a quick search on DCIS online, they will find that there appears to be some confusion in this regard.  Some sources refer to DCIS as an “early form of breast cancer.”  (Which would indicate that it is cancer.)  Others refer to it as a “pre-cancerous state” that might turn into cancer at some point.  (Which would indicate that it is not yet cancer.)  Well, which is it?  Cancer or something that might turn into cancer?

I understand the need to take this condition and the risk of possible future invasive cancer seriously, so I am not suggesting anyone ignore a DCIS diagnosis or take it lightly.  However, you don’t have to search very hard to find sources that will state uncategorically that DCIS is not life-threatening and only turns into a life-threatening cancerous condition in some cases.  How many cases?  That, I think, is the million dollar question.  No one really knows.

One conventional mainstream treatment center claims that 40-50% of all DCIS cases “may” turn into malignant breast cancer.  But that word “may” leaves a lot of wiggle room in the statistics and makes me wonder why they added the numbers 40 to 50 at all.   Some doctors believe there is more likely only a 10-20% chance that DCIS will turn into malignant cancer in any given case.  Obviously, the likelihood is difficult to accurately assess, and that must be taken into consideration.  But the reality is that DCIS is not a normal malignant cancer condition by any stretch of the imagination.

So, if you’ve been diagnosed with DCIS, you may want to say, “Whoa, not so fast with the breast cancer diagnosis!  I need to look into this a little more.”

Dr. John R. Lee was one of the world’s leading experts on breast cancer.  (He passed away in  2003 and is greatly missed.)  In his last book, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer, Dr. Lee described DCIS as “abnormal cells,” not cancer.  He explained that these cells are generally scattered within the duct of the breast, not clustered into a tumor, and they are contained within the duct.  (Not infiltrated into deeper layers of the breast.)  Dr. Lee also claimed that DCIS is essentially known to be a benign condition and that only a very small fraction of cases go on to become malignant cancer.

Yet countless women are being given a diagnosis of DCIS and told they have breast cancer.  Moreover, they are often scared into extreme treatment procedures that include mastectomy, radiation, and hormone-blocking treatment.  How is a woman supposed to figure out the truth of her situation?  Each woman facing this diagnosis needs to do her own research and find out more for herself, but here’s a tip to start with:

DCIS is referred to as Breast Cancer, Stage O

How can any type of health condition be graded “Stage Zero”?  That’s like saying, “Stage Nothing.”  Are we looking at the emperor’s new clothes here?  If you’ve been diagnosed with DCIS, look carefully at your official diagnosis in your medical reports and see if it says “Stage 0.”  If it does, ask your oncologist to explain the logic of that.

Conventional Treatment for DCIS

Surgery followed by radiation and possibly hormone-blocking drug treatment is considered normal protocol for treating DCIS in mainstream medicine.  Surgery can either be a relatively minor procedure, such as lumpectomy, or a major procedure, such as mastectomy (removal of entire breast).  Radiation is well-known to be carcinogenic and can potentially cause a secondary cancer down the line.  It can also in some cases damage blood vessels to the heart and predispose the woman to a heart attack.  Hormone-blocking drugs can cause unpleasant and sometimes life-threatening side effects, so they should be carefully evaluated as well.  Overall, it is extremely important that women with a DCIS diagnosis carefully weigh the risk factors of conventional treatment side effects versus the risk of their benign condition turning into a life-threatening cancer some day.

Rather than simply treat every DCIS case the same way, I like Dr. John R. Lee’s recommendation that treatment for each DCIS case should be evaluated individually.  On page 55 of his book, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer, Dr. Lee explains this concept:

“Ultimately, how you choose to treat DCIS should be based on a thorough analysis of its severity, which can be done with a biopsy.  DCIS that is low grade, small celled, and without necrosis (dead and dying tissue) is less likely to become invasive, especially if you correct the underlying imbalance that caused the problem in the first place.  On the other hand, the more aggressive types of DCIS, which are high nuclear grade, large-celled, and with comedo-type necrosis, have more potential to become invasive, and you should have them removed.  These types of analyses can only be done in partnership with a trusted physician or oncologist, and preferably with a second opinion.”

Alternative Treatment for DCIS

In all my years of investigating alternative treatments for cancer, I have not yet come across a reliable treatment for DCIS.  In my opinion, this is not necessarily a bad thing for women who receive this diagnosis, because it may just be an indication that DCIS is not true cancer and not malignant.  I say this because it is common for alternative non-toxic methods to work only on malignant cancer and to not work at all on benign masses.  For instance, while researching my book, I came across case after case after case of cancer patients responding to the Protocel formula.  But one little girl with a massive slow-growing brain tumor did not respond at all to the Protocel her mother gave her for many months.  Finally, she was taken to a specialist in pediatric brain tumors who believed the girl’s tumor was a benign mass and not cancer at all.  He was able to surgically remove it and the pathology report then proved that it was, in fact, benign.

Dr. John Lee considered DCIS to be the result of metabolic dysfunction that involves progesterone deficiency and estrogen dominance and that if the underlying cause is not corrected, the condition could develop in the other breast as well or recur in the same breast after treatment.  So, his recommendation on p. 56 of the aforementioned book is to follow an overall hormone-balancing lifestyle.  (Presumably to see if the DCIS goes away.)  I highly recommend all of his books which are still widely available and still some of the best sources of information about hormonal changes in women and breast cancer treatments.

I hate to say it, but an argument can be made that DCIS is intentionally treated as regular breast cancer in mainstream medicine and included in regular breast cancer cure rate statistics because by adding in this mostly benign condition, the average life expectancy of women treated conventionally for breast cancer goes WAY up.  Whether improving conventional breast cancer cure rate statistics this way is intentional or not is hard to say.

My only goal here is to ask women to tread carefully when they make a decision about treating their DCIS.  Do you really want to cut your breast off or radiate yourself for a “stage nothing” cancer diagnosis that may turn into cancer at some point?  Or, would it be sufficient to simply undergo a less extreme lumpectomy and make some nutritional and lifestyle changes?  Definitely take the diagnosis seriously, because some cases could eventually turn into cancer.  At least, do your homework first and don’t let anyone railroad you into treatment right away.  You may have MUCH more time to decide what to do than your oncologist is leading you to believe.

Most importantly, don’t fall prey to the terror that a cancer diagnosis can cause if all you have is a “Stage 0” condition that many doctors believe should not even be called cancer!

by Tanya Harter Pierce,  Author of OUTSMART YOUR CANCER

______________________________________________________________________________

To read about breast cancer causes and treatments in general, see Chapter 19 of Outsmart Your Cancer.

The post DCIS – Is It Really Breast Cancer? appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.

Protocel is a liquid formula that has produced simply AMAZING results for many people using alternative cancer treatments over the years.  Jim Sheridan took cancer treatment in a new direction when he developed this special non-toxic formula that uses an unusual mechanism of action on the cellular level to make cancer cells literally fall apart!

In this article, I’d like to talk about Protocel’s unusual mechanism of action because it is a good example of how varied cancer treatments can be, as well as how fully understanding an approach can be critical to achieving optimum results with it.

Protocel’s Unusual Mechanism of Action

When the American chemist, Jim Sheridan, developed this formula, he took cancer treatment in a different direction than others had done.  Instead of introducing a poison to kill the cancer cells, and instead of boosting the body’s immune system to fortify a person’s own ability to overcome their cancer, he followed the concept that cancer cells were already operating on reduced energy and more primitive in their functioning than normal healthy cells.  His goal was to reduce their energy even more and force them down the ‘oxidation-reduction’ ladder to become even more primitive.  The formula he came up with does this is by interfering with the production of ATP in anaerobic cells.

Since all cancer cells are primarily anaerobic,  they eventually fall apart when a person uses Protocel because they get to a point where they no longer have enough energy to hold their membranes together.  In biochemistry, this process of cell membranes bursting is called ‘lysing.’  Healthy cells are NOT primarily anaerobic, and they are not negatively impacted.  (For a much more detailed explanation of Protocel’s history and how it works, see Chapter 9 of Outsmart Your Cancer.)

Wet Wicked Witches

Years ago, I came up with an analogy between Protocel and the classic movie, ‘The Wizard of Oz’ and found it helpful in explaining to people how Protocel works.  In the Wizard of Oz, as you may remember, the wicked witch was seemingly immune to being killed.  None of the normal ways of killing someone, such as stabbing, strangling, poisoning, or shooting with a gun would work on her.  But, like all evil villains, she had a secret weakness.  This was revealed at the end of the movie, when it was discovered that the only way to kill the wicked witch was to pour water on her.  When the characters in the movie finally got her wet, she immediately melted down into a lifeless puddle of goo.  There was no whole dead witch on the ground . . . just harmless wicked witch parts.

This is very similar to what Protocel does to cancer cells, though not through the use of water!

Every cancer cell that lyses and falls apart due to Protocel could be said to be like a tiny little wet wicked witch.  A tiny little ‘pile of goo’ so-to-speak, which is mainly just made up of the harmless protein parts of the cell.  But keep in mind that the most common methods of killing cancer cells, such as with toxic chemotherapy drugs, DON’T cause cancer cells to fall apart into little piles of goo.  They just poison them and cause them to die as a whole dead cancer cells.

Over time, through the use of chemo, a person’s body may have to process out millions of dead cancer cells.  But they are whole dead cancer cells.  On the other hand, when a person uses Protocel and causes cancer cells to lyse over time, their body may have to process out the same millions of cancer cells, but as millions of little piles of goo!

My understanding is that our bodies can process out dead cancer either way.  In other words, either as whole dead cells, or as broken down cells that are now piles of goo.  But there are different ways these two methods of killing cancer can impact a person’s recovery process.  Thus,

How Cancer Cells are Killed  MATTERS!

Our bodies are used to processing out dead cells all the time.  It is simply a normal part of life and there are mechanisms and pathways for accommodating this perfectly natural process.  When cancer treatments kill off a lot of cells at once, there may be more dead cells for the body to process out than normal, but that’s generally no problem because it is what the body is used to doing.  Getting back to the Wizard of Oz movie, putting a dead witch onto a stretcher to carry her away after she’d been strangled, shot or stabbed would be a relative straight-forward maneuver.  However, it could be quite a bit more tricky and require some creative thinking to remove a dead wicked witch after she’d been splashed with water and turned into a pile of goo.  Think of how sticky and messy cleaning up a pile of goo would be?

Maybe I am overusing this analogy.  But the fact is that it explains a lot of what people go through when they take this easy-to-use liquid formula.  For instance, it explains why it is so important for people taking Protocel to drink a lot of water in-between their doses.  This is because lysed egg-white-like material can clog up small lymph vessels or other areas as its being processed out.  Drinking lots of water keeps the lysed cancer cell debris moving out of the body more efficiently.

Seeing the Broken Down Cancer Come Out

What if you were told you could drink less than a teaspoonful of liquid every 6 hours and you would then see evidence of your cancer coming out of your body?  Well, this often happens for people using Protocel.  Though not every cancer patient will see lysed material (broken-down cancer cells) coming out, many do.  It most often takes the form of an egg-white-like mucousy substance showing up in the bowel movements, coming out in the urine or sweat, or as an intermittent runny nose.  Once in a while, lysed cancer cell debris will even come out of the body as very white material.  I have actually seen more than one dog with cancer vomit up such white material after being given Protocel that it looked like the dog had eaten a pile of chalk!

We don’t usually see any evidence of cancer cells coming out of the body when a person is taking chemo, because they are microscopically small, individual whole dead cells that are efficiently processed out through normal pathways.  On the other hand, our bodies are not used to processing out countless little piles of goo, so it tends to build up a little before it comes out.  This can also cause some extra swelling in the cancer area that needs to be interpreted correctly.  For instance, if a woman’s malignant breast cancer tumor gets bigger and more firm over time, this is usually an indication of the cancer growing.  But if a woman’s breast tumor feels somewhat softer after taking Protocel for a while and the whole breast has swollen, that could be an indication that the tumor is lysing and the woman needs to drink more water and possibly jump on a mini-trampoline to move the lymph fluid and get that lysed material to process out of the breast.

As I mentioned in my last article, seeing the lysed cancer cell debris coming out of the body in various ways can be very encouraging to a person with cancer and can also be used as a sign to the person that the way they are using the formula is working.  (Though you DO still have to make sure it is working fast enough to get ahead of the cancer growth and will normally want to use as many diagnostic tools as you can to be sure of your progress.)

I should point out briefly that there ARE some other cancer-killing treatments besides Protocel that may cause the lysing process to occur as well.  For instance, some people have reported that radiation treatments (which also can reduce cell energy) may cause some signs of lysing, and the few chemo drugs that are classified as ‘anti-metabolite’ drugs may cause some cancer cells to lyse.  Even a few natural compounds, such as Paw Paw, are known to reduce the energy production of cancer cells and may therefore cause lysing, too.  But I don’t believe any of these other approaches cause the lysing process to occur quite as much as, or as dramatically as Protocel does.

Lysing and Cancer Marker Blood Tests

Compared to other alternative cancer treatments, Protocel is one of the easiest to use.  But the way it causes cancer cells to fall apart can cause confusion when a person does not totally understand it.  Unfortunately, one of these areas of confusion can involve cancer marker blood tests.

Blood marker tests always measure some type of substance that cancer cells put out into the blood.  Usually, it is a protein of some type.  Normally, as tumors grow and spread, there is more and more of this substance to be found in the blood.  And when cancer cells die off as whole dead cells (again, such as with chemotherapy), there will be less and less of the marker to be found in the blood.  This is because whole dead cancer cells hold onto any marker substances they have not yet released.  They go to their grave with their markers, so-to-speak.

But a person using Protocel will have a different experience with blood marker tests.  Because Protocel causes cells to burst, this process RELEASES cancer markers into the bloodstream at a rate that would normally indicate the cancer is growing.  Thus, we have a situation where cancer marker blood test results may increase dramatically as the cancer is breaking down.  Oncologists and others who do not understand Protocel will naturally assume that the person’s cancer is growing when they see the cancer markers go up.  Obviously, this can be problematic and it is up to the patient, or Protocel user, to logically ascertain what is really happening and what their status is by also looking at scans and evaluating any changes in their symptoms.  Unfortunately, some people have stopped using Protocel when their cancer markers rose because they thought their cancer was growing and spreading, when it may have actually been reducing and going away.

Cell Energy, Schedule of Use, and Other Supplements 

Jim Sheridan designed his formula to reduce the cancer cells’ energy in the body until they fall apart.  But they don’t do this overnight or ever all at once.  One normally takes Protocel every 5 or 6 hours and keeps a steady amount of it in their bloodstream around the clock every day.  This steady approach is akin to gradually running down the battery of a car until it finally ‘dies.’  If the person using Protocel goes too long in-between doses or skips doses, then they will not have the same success making their cancer cells fall apart as they would if they kept a steady amount of it in their bloodstream at all times.  They will also not have the best success if they insist on eating sugar or taking supplements that promote ATP production while using Protocel.  Once a person really understands how Protocel causes cancer cells to fall apart, then they know why the constant schedule of dosing and avoiding certain energy-promoting supplements is so important.

Though Protocel is quite easy and straightforward to use, issues may arise that are indeed counter to how we are used to thinking.  I hope this article and the analogy of Wet Wicked Witches helps!

by Tanya Harter Pierce,  Author of OUTSMART YOUR CANCER

______________________________________________________________________________

For more details on the history and mechanism of action of the Protocel formula, plus impressive testimonials and how to use it for optimum results, see Chapters 9, 10, 11, and 12 of Outsmart Your Cancer.

The post Protocel and Wet Wicked Witches appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.

At this point, some of you reading this blog may be confused by my references to conventional medicine’s dismal track record at curing cancer.You may feel compelled to say, But I heard that most cancers, if caught early, are curable.  This is a very common advertising statement from cancer treatment centers and mainstream medicine in general.  But is it true?  Unfortunately, no.

Anyone diagnosed with cancer is at a big disadvantage right from the start  . . .  but not because they have a challenging health condition.  The disadvantage is that there are not only two very separate worlds of cancer treatment to look into, but there is also a sinister hidden deception that can sway a person’s treatment decisions in a very dangerous way.  This deception has no face and hardly anyone knows about it.  But if you have cancer, you MUST know about it!

The words, “cure” and “cured” are common terms of health, and we all know what they mean.  They mean, in general, that a health problem has been overcome and the individual returned to his or her previous state of health.  When we want to know the “cure rate” of any particular treatment, we assume that the statistics are going by the common definition of those words.  But, wait, there has been a bait and switch.  A terrible deception that goes like this:

In the conventional cancer treatment world, the word “cured” has been redefined as “alive 5 years after diagnosis.”   And this is the definition that is used for recording official cure rate statistics!

This didn’t just happen yesterday, either.  This unusual definition of has been in use and behind the statistics quoted to you by your doctor for decades!

Alive 5 Years After Diagnosis

Okay, I’m going to back up and describe this another way, just to make sure it’s clear.  Let’s say a woman is diagnosed with an aggressive breast cancer.  She submits to whatever her oncologist recommends, which involves cutting off her breast, then undergoing chemo, which makes her ache and puke.  She’s miserable and her hair falls out.  She experiences strange sores and sees her fingernails burn black.  The rounds of chemo knock back the cancer for a few months, but don’t get rid of it completely, so she is given more chemo and also some radiation treatments that burn her skin and probably damage the blood vessels to her heart.  If she does ever recover from her cancer at this point, she will have a higher likelihood of early death from a heart attack.  Unfortunately, five years and two weeks after she was diagnosed, she does die . . . full of cancer . . .  because the toxic treatments were never able to fully get rid of her disease  Unbelievably, this woman is then recorded as  CURED in the official cure rate statistics because she lived more than 5 years after she was diagnosed.  It doesn’t matter that she was still full of cancer because this is how a “cure” has been defined in conventional cancer treatment statistics!

The only reason mainstream medicine can make the statement, “Most cancers, if caught early, are curable,” is because the earlier any cancer is caught, the more likely the person will still be alive 5 years later!  (Even though they may be mutilated, poisoned, and still full of cancer.)

Folks, this re-defining of a term of health for statistics without telling the public is heinous and has not been done in any other field of medicine.   In other words, you are NOT listed as cured of heart disease or diabetes just because you are still alive five years after you were diagnosed!  You are NOT listed as cured of multiple sclerosis or lupus just because you are still alive five years after you were diagnosed!   It’s only in the field of conventional cancer treatment.

I’m not sure, but I believe that this way of recording may have started in a well-meaning fashion where, if a person’s cancer was in remission (no signs of disease) for five years, they were considered cured on the books.  Then, at some point, the method of recording was broadened from those in remission five years to those simply alive for five years.  This change may have initially come with the words “survival rate” attached to it.  But eventually, survival rate began to be used as an indication of cure rate, such as in the statement, “Most cancers, if caught early, are curable.”   As a way to make conventional cancer treatment methods look good, it was a brilliant move.  As a way to deceive cancer patients as to what their chances for recovery really are, it was deadly.

Please be aware and be cautious if your oncologist tells you that a particular protocol has, for instance, a 60% cure-rate.  What this means at best is that 60% of the patients given this protocol were alive 5 years after they were diagnosed.  And I say, “at best” because there are other ways conventional cure rate statistics are fudged as well.  (See Chapter 1 of Outsmart Your Cancer for an in-depth description of a total of 6 ways that cancer treatment statistics are officially fudged.)

What I worry about is that many doctors, themselves, may not even know that this term has been redefined for the purposes of reporting cure-rate statistics.  I doubt that it is something doctors are made aware of in their training and one has to do some searching to find all this out.  Thus, many of them may also be misled to think that the official cure-rate statistics really mean “cured.”  It is probably the main way that false hope may be promoted by your oncologist.

False hope can be offered in even more personal ways by your doctor, too.  For instance, oncologists often know they cannot cure you and sometimes they will be up front with you about this.  But a lot of times they won’t.  Your doctor may be a very caring person who wants to keep your spirits up.  But since he or she probably doesn’t think you have any other treatment options, they may not want you to know that the treatment they are prescribing for you is merely meant to prolong your life a little.  it is important to pin them down on this and not allow your doctor to beat around the bush.  I have heard about people asking their oncologist if a treatment can cure them or not, to which the doctor puts his arm around the patient in a protective, caring manner and says, “We’re going to give it all we’ve got.  We’ll do everything we can.”

This is not an answer.  That doctor most likely knew he could not cure the patient long-term, but just wanted to make the patient feel better and have hope.  Yet, this is a form of false hope that can keep patients from looking into alternative options that might, in fact, be able to cure them!

Another example of false hope was told to me by a woman whose father-in-law was being treated for late stage prostate cancer metastasized to his bones.  Radiation treatments were recommended to the elderly man and this savvy woman, who was herself a doctor, asked the oncologist how long her father-in-law could be expected to live if given the radiation treatments.  The answer she received was something like, “Eighteen months.”  Then, she asked the doctor how long he would live if NOT given the radiation or any treatment at all, and the answer she got shocked her.  She was told once again, “Eighteen months.”

Radiation burns the tissues and can cause pain on the surface as well as inside the body.  How often are doctors prescribing treatments to cancer patients that they know won’t work and that they know will cause great discomfort, simply because they think it will help the patient have hope?

Even though I am an advocate of alternative non-toxic methods, I have never been one to say, “Do this alternative treatment and you will get well,” because I know there are never any guarantees when it comes to cancer and no single treatment cures everyone who uses it.  My position has simply been that alternative non-toxic cancer treatments, when done right and are well-chosen, can offer a better chance for long-term cure – especially when the cancer has metastasized – than conventional toxic treatments.  I’ve seen it happen many times.

False hope can be offered in the world of alternative medicine at times, too.  So this is something to be cautious of as well.  However, what I have learned over my many years of investigation is that nothing even comes close to the amount of false hope put out by our conventional system for cancer treatment.  I am sad to say that in conventional cancer medicine, false hope has become “institutionalized.”

You can protect yourself by asking your doctor the right questions and by doing a little homework to look into the truth of things. Luckily, much of what you will need to know will be covered right here on this blog!

by Tanya Harter Pierce,  Author of OUTSMART YOUR CANCER    

___________________________________________________________________________________________

For more details on the re-definition of “cured” and other ways official cancer treatment statistics are fudged, please see Chapter 1 of Outsmart Your Cancer  and the references to work done by Lorraine Day, M.D. and Ralph Moss, Ph.D.

The post False Hope and Re-Defining “Cured” appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.

We all know about the mom, dad, grandparent or aunt who gets a clean scan following a period of treatment and is declared “all clear” by their oncologist.  Understandably, they are thrilled!  Their doctor may have even said something like, “It looks like we got it all!”  But then they find a few months later that the cancer is back.  Sort of like they got it all, but now it’s here again.  (Which sort of doesn’t make sense.)   What really happened was they never got it all in the first place.  A clear scan doesn’t mean no cancer.  It just means there are no groupings of cancer cells big enough for the unaided human eye to see by looking at a scan.

Remember, all cells of the body are microscopic in size and that includes cancer cells.  I was told by a biochemist that about 9 million cancer cells can actually fit on the head of a pin.  (The old-fashioned type of sewing pin.)   A tiny dot that size, which could represent millions of cancer cells, or even many tiny dots that size could easily be missed visually on a PET or CT scan.  Thus, the first clear scan after treatment for cancer should never be taken to mean the cancer is all gone.

One would think, “Well, then treatment should be continued a little longer.”  But when using highly toxic conventional treatments, the treatment HAS to be stopped as soon as the scans or other tests can’t “see” any cancer.  This is because continuing treatment runs too high a risk of killing the patient!   For this reason, and because there also had to be breaks in the treatment in order to not kill the patient, it is almost always the case that there are still active cancer cells in the patient’s body when they get their first clear scan.  The doctor’s know this, even though they may allow you to believe you are free of cancer.  That’s why the phrase “You are in remission” is used so often, not “You are cured,” when you get a clear scan.

The bottom line is that most of the time, the doctors have left some bugs under the floors and in the walls because they were using canons and didn’t want to completely destroy the house.  They had to stop the treatment as soon as no more bugs showed up on scans or other tests, but the bugs were never all gone.  They were just reduced in numbers enough to become too hard to see.

This is the roller-coaster of remission-recurrence-remission-recurrence . . . often until the patient dies. I refer to it as “deadly” because each round of toxic treatment not only kills some cancer, but it also weakens the patient’s vital organs and immune system.  Thus, every time the cancer grows back again, the person is most likely in an even weaker state.  It is a travesty that oncologists don’t take responsibility for the shortcomings of the treatment when this happens because the patient often ends up feeling that he or she has failed somehow when their cancer recurs.  In reality, they did not fail.  It was the type of treatment they were given that failed.  Could it be different with an alternative cancer cure?

Alternative Cancer Treatments Allow for Continual Use

Here, readers may be exasperated and want to say once more, “Yes, but don’t cancer treatments HAVE to be toxic?  How else can the cancer be killed?”  The answer is to go with a non-toxic, smart approach that allows for “continual use.”

“Continual use” is an extremely important concept and the main reason why non-toxic approaches are better at bringing about long-term cures than toxic ones.  Because alternative approaches are non-toxic and don’t harm healthy cells, a cancer patient can use them on a constant basis – without significant breaks in treatment − for as many months or years as it takes to get rid of the cancer.

Avoiding the Deadly Roller Coaster With an Alternative Cancer Cure

A good example of how powerful the continual use of a non-toxic treatment can be comes from an Australian woman named Tricia.  (You can listen to Tricia tell her story in her own words on the Audio CD bound into every paperback book.)

Tricia did not know she had cancer until she was suddenly diagnosed in 2006 with such a late stage of breast cancer that it had already spread to most of her bones.  The cancer was estrogen receptor positive, and besides being in one breast, it was also heavily metastasized to her shoulders, ribs, pelvis, hips, legs, spine and skull.  Her doctors did not even try to cure her because they knew that was hopeless.  They simply went in surgically to put titanium rods into her hips and upper leg bones.

Tricia already knew about Protocel, so she decided to make that non-toxic formula her primary approach.  To give Protocel time to get rid of her cancer, she also agreed in the beginning to  5 doses of radiation and 4 doses of chemo along with 5 months of the estrogen-blocking drug Tamoxifen.   Tricia was also very aggressive in her use of Protocel and took it every 4 hours around the clock, including overnight, every single day.

Tricia’s recovery was laboriously slow.  She could only lie in bed at first.  Then she was able to use a wheel chair to get around.  As she got better, she was able to walk with a walker.  Then, finally she could use a cane until she no longer even needed the cane and was truly cancer free.  It took over two years, but she continued to take the Protocel for a long time after she achieved clear scans to make sure that she got it all.  Happily, Tricia enjoyed her new chance at life and helped many other cancer patients in Australia to recover as well.  Unfortunately, she died suddently of a blood infection years after she had recovered from cancer.  Her daughter emailed me and told me that an autopsy had been performed and Tricia had still been completely cancer-free!

Tricia’s recovery was truly phenomenal, given how late stage her cancer was, and not everyone at this late stage of disease will have complete success.  But the truth is that there are many case stories presented in my book of people with metastasized cancer who were told by their oncologist that there was no cure for them, who then went on to cure themselves through the use of a non-toxic approach such as Protocel, Cesium High pH Therapy, Laetrile, Flaxseed Oil and Cottage Cheese, Dr. Burzynski’s Antineoplastons, or one of the other “alternative” cancer cures!  Though there are never any guarantees, Tricia’s story and others like hers tell us that these types of recoveries CAN happen in the world of non-toxic cancer treatments.  And it’s all because the deadly roller-coaster of “remission, recurrence, remission, recurrence until one dies” can be avoided!

by Tanya Harter Pierce,  Author of OUTSMART YOUR CANCER

The post A Deadly Roller Coaster of Remission and Recurrence appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.

Just about everyone has known someone battling cancer, often within their close family sphere. And, if asked how they feel about cancer, just about everyone will give the same answer. They’re TERRIFIED of it! They’re terrified because, in most cases, they’ve either observed a loved one or heard about someone suffering and fighting the disease valiantly for months, maybe even years . . . then dying. Why don’t toxic conventional treatments work better?

Most people would say, “Well, it’s because cancer is such an awful disease!” And, in truth, we have been led to believe that cancer is some sort of terrible affliction that no one really understands, and that’s why so many people lose their battle with it. This is just NOT true. While cancer may be a formidable foe, it is actually very WELL understood .  But only in the field of alternative cancer treatment. In fact, studying alternative cancer treatments is the best way to learn how cancer cells function and how to interfere with that functioning to make cancer go away.

What if the REAL reason that so many cancer patients die of their disease is simply because they were given a type of treatment that was never going to be able to cure them and has shown almost zero effectiveness at bringing about real cures for decades.

Toxic Treatments

The whole history of using highly toxic treatments to treat cancer has had inherent problems from the get-go, and more and more doctors are recognizing this. But, first of all, let’s be clear about our terms. When I talk about “toxic treatments,” I am referring to any treatment that is indiscriminately damaging to living cells, whether they are cancer cells or healthy cells. Chemotherapy and radiation are not only toxic, they are highly toxic and indiscriminately toxic.  Even the “targeted” protocols are toxic, though they may cause less damage to healthy cells than the regular methods.

Surgery is NOT considered a toxic treatment and is actually the best tool modern oncology has in its toolbox for treating cancer.  But the cancer must be caught very early, confined to just one area, and in a location that can be operated on safely for surgery to have a chance at being curative.  Most of the time, surgery is used at first to reduce the cancer load, but patients are expected to rely on chemo or radiation for their long-term cure.  So, most cancer patients in the conventional medical system end up relying on a toxic treatment or combination of toxic treatments to get well again.

You may be thinking, “Well of course they do! Don’t cancer patients HAVE to have toxic treatments to get rid of their cancer?”

No. Not that kind of toxic. In fact, when a treatment is indiscriminately toxic to all cells, that’s when they are LESS likely to bring about a long term cure!

Non-toxic treatments, on the other hand, may be deadly to your cancer cells, but they are not harmful to your healthy cells. They are referred to as “non-toxic” because they don’t harm the healthy parts of your body. This is not actually so difficult to achieve as you might think because all cancer cells have certain characteristics that are different from normal healthy cells. When you use an alternative non-toxic approach, you simply target those characteristics in a smart way that leaves the rest of your body completely unharmed. It is the main premise of my book and why I chose the title, Outsmart Your Cancer.

Killing Cockroaches With Canons

Now we are finally getting to the reason why conventional medicine’s cure rate is so bad. The problem is with how toxic treatments have to be administered. When a treatment is toxic not only to your cancer cells but to your healthy cells as well, then there have to be breaks in the treatment in order for the patient to recover. (From the treatment, not the cancer.) In other words, if a person were given either chemotherapy or radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for weeks or months, there is no doubt that the patient would die from the treatment.

So what is the result? The result is that significantly long breaks in treatment are built into every chemotherapy regime or radiation treatment plan so that the cancer patient can recover from the toxic treatment before being given another round. But here is the nugget of truth they DON’T tell you. While your body is trying to recover in-between chemo or radiation treatments, the cancer is recovering, too! And the thing about cancer cells is that they are like cockroaches.  Any that are left alive are very quick to multiply!

It’s similar to having a cockroach infestation in your house and deciding to get rid of it by firing off a canon at your home. Yes, you might get rid of the cockroaches at some point. But in order to be sure that you’d killed every last cockroach, you’d have to keep firing the canon over and over so as to not let any of the bug population grow back and multiply again. Thus, it’s a good bet you would destroy the house in the process! If you’re using “targeted” canon fire, you may do better and only destroy all the cockroaches in just one room, but what are the chances there are still some scurrying around under the floors and in hidden places in other rooms? Pretty high.

Killing cancer cells with toxic treatments is like trying to kill cockroaches with canons.
You may kill a lot of bugs short-term, but to kill them all, you’d destroy your house in the process!

Yes, there are times when chemotherapy or radiation is warranted, so I’m not saying that toxic treatments should never be used. But the benefits of highly toxic treatments are limited to a small percentage of cases and often only for short-term results, such as when a mass is so big that it needs to be reduced quickly to rescue the patient.

At this point, you may be wondering, “What about chemo-induced remissions, like my uncle had? How can toxic treatments be so bad when they are sometimes able to bring people into complete remission with clear scans?” Well, stay tuned. I’ll be writing more about this issue in my next blog article!

by Tanya Harter Pierce,  Author of OUTSMART YOUR CANCER 

The post Toxic Cancer Treatments – Why They Don’t Work appeared first on Outsmart Your Cancer.