Chemotherapy Heals Cancer and the World is Flat 3981050207, 9783981050202

Citation preview

Machine Translated by Google

Lothar Hirneise

Chemotherapy cures cancer and the earth is one disc

scanned by unknown corrected by bw For many years, Lothar Hirneise has been traveling the world in search of the most successful cancer therapies and informing people that there is more than chemotherapy and radiation. Internationally recognized as one of the few experts in this sector, he describes his years of research in this encyclopedia of unconventional cancer therapies. The reader learns in detail why even so-called experts actually know little about cancer. In addition to describing over 100 cancer therapies and substances for treating cancer, the author also explains which cancer therapies are used for which types of cancer in conventional medicine and what you as a patient absolutely need to know before undergoing such therapies.

ISBN: 3-932576-67-5 Publisher: SENSEI Year of publication: 1st edition: July 2002

This e-book is not for sale!!!

Machine Translated by Google

Book “In the future there will only be two groups of cancer patients. Those who have read this book – and those who don’t know.” For many years, Lothar Hirneise has been traveling the whole world in search of the most successful cancer therapies and informing people that there is more than chemotherapy and radiation. Internationally recognized as one of the few experts in this sector, he describes his years of research in this encyclopedia of unconventional cancer therapies. The reader learns in detail why even so-called experts actually know little about cancer. In addition to describing over 100 cancer therapies and substances for treating cancer, the author also explains which cancer therapies are used for which types of cancer in conventional medicine and what you as a patient absolutely need to know before undergoing such therapies. Also described for the first time is the 3E program, which is based on the evaluation of the medical histories of thousands of people who have survived cancer at a very late stage. Find out why so many people die of cancer and others don't. The book not only provides an incredible amount of information, but also helps the cancer patient find their own way to cure cancer through active exercises of the 3E program.

Machine Translated by Google

chemotherapy cures cancer

and the earth is a disk by Lothar Hirneise

Important: Every disease and every patient is unique. This book is intended to serve as a source of information only. Readers are strongly encouraged to work in partnership with a qualified and experienced physician/ therapist before undertaking (or refraining from) any treatments listed on these pages.

Machine Translated by Google

IMPRINT

Chemotherapy cures cancer and the earth is flat Publisher: SENSEI Verlag, Cannstatter Str. 13 71394 Kernen Author: Lothar Hirneise Editing: Carola Schaller 1st edition: July 2002 ISBN 3-932576-67-5

All rights, including those for reprinting extracts, photo-technical reproduction and translation, only after prior written permission from the publisher. Liability of the publisher, the distributor and the authors for personal injury, property damage and financial loss is excluded.

Machine Translated by Google

Contents

What you can and can't expect from this book!...................................... ................14 1. Chapter The medical status quo................................20 Why this book and the 3E program are so urgently needed!...................................... ........................ 21 The creation of the 3E program.................... ............. 25 The Law of Order ................................ .................. 27 Are there any diseases at all? ................................... 31 Modern Oncology or Why Patients and Doctors Know So Little!................. ........................................... 34 common sense and Convenience .......................... 35 Career of a Doctor ....................... ................................ 38

Attention - someone means well for you!................. 44 The Because Although Theory................. ........................... 51

Chapter 2 Cancer – what is it? ..........................................59 What is a conventional doctor actually talking about when he uses the word cancer?.................................. ........... 60 The mutation theory .......................................... ....62

Machine Translated by Google

The mitochondrial theory or why our heart and brain cannot get cancer. .....69 The theory of the 2nd liver................................................. ....72 New medicine according to Dr. Hamer...................................... 77 The frequency theory................................................... ...... 82 The compensation theory....................................... ........... 85 Reich's theory ................................. ................. 88 The trichomonad theory ........................................... 90 Acid-base theory .......................................... ......... 92 Other theories ................................................ ........... 96

3. Chapter Diagnosis Cancer .......................................... ..97 When is cancer actually cancer?................................. 98 The 1% hurdle.... ................................................ .......107 Conventional examinations for the diagnosis of a tumor or blood and lymph cancer ..........................109 Non-conventional examinations for the diagnosis of a tumor or blood and lymph cancer. ................116 Pre-care & aftercare................................. ....................128

4. Chapter Chemotherapy and radiation...................138 Chemotherapy! Curse or last resort? ..............139 The cancer business is a billion-dollar business ............154 Response rate and survival time

Machine Translated by Google

(survival time)................................................. ...........161 Should I do chemotherapy now or not? ................................................ ...................................162 Basic information on the subject of radiation...................163

Chapter 5 Conventional Therapies ..........................172 Conventional therapies................................................173 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia ( ALL) .........................178 Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ................ ...........182 Anal cancer .......................................... ...................................190 Astrocytoma................................................. .................194 Basal cell carcinoma ................................. ..........................................201 Breast cancer in women (breast cancer)...................208 Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)...................216 Colon cancer (colon carcinoma) ................................221 Ependymoma .............. ................................................ 229 Gallbladder cancer................................................ .......233 Cervical cancer (cervical carcinoma)...................238 Uterine cancer (uterine carcinoma)................... ...244 Glioblastoma................................................ ....................249 Bladder carcinoma................................................. ..254 Testicular cancer ................................................ ................261 Corpus carcinoma.................................................. .........266 Laryngeal carcinoma (laryngeal cancer).................................269 (Primary) liver tumor ................................................275

Machine Translated by Google

Small cell lung cancer................................281 Non-small cell lung cancer.......................... ..........287 Stomach cancer.................................. ...........................290 Malignant melanoma................... ...................................297 Hodgkin's disease (lymphogranulomatosis) ......... .....303 Mesothelioma................................................. ....................308 Myelodysplastic syndrome................................313 Multiple myeloma (plasmocytoma) ...... ......................319 Renal cell carcinoma................................ ...........................327 Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma................................................333 Oropharyngeal carcinoma................................................. .343 Ovarian carcinoma (ovarian cancer).......................349 Pancreatic carcinoma (pancreatic cancer).......355 Penile carcinoma ................................................ ...........362 Prostate cancer ................................................ .......368 Thyroid carcinoma ................................................375

Salivary gland cancer................................................... ...384 Esophageal cancer (esophageal carcinoma) ..............390 Soft tissue sarcoma................................ ................................396 Cancer treatments in children.................................405 Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children...................410 Astrocytoma................................................. .................419 Michael Horwin and his findings about brain tumors ........................... ...................................426 Neuroblastoma in children ..........................................431 Medulloblastomas in children................................440 Soft tissue sarcoma................................................. .........444

Machine Translated by Google

Chemotherapy, radiation and 3E ..........................447

6. Chapter The 3E program......................................453 The first E nutrition ................................................ ...454 The oilprotein diet....................................... ..............460 Further successful nutritional therapies..................474 The somapsychological influence of a healthy diet ..483 The second E detoxification .................. ................................487 Excrete toxins .................. ................................490 Avoiding poisons................................................... 507 The Third E Energy .......................................... ........517 3E mental training...................................... .................519 Why do we resist change? .............525 The professor system................................. ..............526 I know what I want!................................. ....................535 The Jefferson Technique .......................... ...................................538 Our beliefs and how we get rid of them .......................................... ..........................................546

The Pasttoda Exercise .......................................... .....547 The sandbox exercise...................................... .......553 The problem with our language .................................558 The balance sheet technique .... ................................................ ..565 The tumor contract ................................................ ........571 The middle ground technique ........................................... ...........576 Visualization .......................................... ...................................585

Machine Translated by Google

The House on the Right Bank................................................590 Stargate Meditation ................................................ .....595 Sexuality and cancer...................................... ...........597 Spiritual Energy................................................ ........601 The healing field or why system jumps are so necessary for cancer patients................................. ....608 The 3E daily exercise....................................... .............616 Surya Namaskar – Sun Prayer ................................ .621

Chapter 7 Non-conventional cancer therapies ..........637 Successful cancer therapies group l ..........................638 oil-protein diet.................. .............................................639 Frequency therapies.................................................. ......640 Aquatilis Therapy...................................... ..................643 PapImi therapy ................................ ..........................645 Cluster Medicine .................... ..........................................647 NutriTherapy.................................................. ..............649 Antineoplaston therapy ................................ ............653 Coley's Toxin ................................... ................................657 Hyperthermia................... ..........................................661 Gerson Kost.................................................. .................665 Dr. Paul Gerhard Seeger's 10 point program......668 Homeopathy................................. ...........................673 IAT (Immuno Augmentative Therapy).................. ........676 Galvano therapy Bioelectrotherapy ....................680

Machine Translated by Google

Govallo's VG 1000 ........................................... ........683 Laetrile ................................................ ..........................687 Transfer factors................................................ .........689 Gonzales Therapy ................................................ .......691 Successful cancer therapies group 2 .......................693 Alloplant ............. ................................................ .......694 Breuss Food....................................... ...........................696 Di Bella Protocol.................................................. .........698 Dries food.................................................. ....................702 Hulda Clark ................................................ ................705 Hoxsey Therapy ................................................ ..........707 Issel's therapy................................. .........................710 Human autologous blood therapy according to Dr. Klehr..............714 Tumosterone.................................................. ................716 Primordial therapy ................................................ ...................721 Livingston Therapy ........................... ...................................723 Macrobiotic diet .......................... ...................726 Moermann Kost................................. ................................729 Naessen's 714X................................................ .............733 (sKMT) Systemic cancer multi-step therapy......735 oxygen and ozone therapies................................. ....737 Revici................................................. ................................740 Rife therapies.................................................. ..............743 Stockholm Therapy ................................. ...................745 Ukraine ................................ .............................................748 Galavit.................................................. .........................750 Urea & Creatine Therapy................................................752

Machine Translated by Google

Bach flowers.................................................. .................755 Mistletoe................................................. ...........................757 Essiac & Indian*Essence................................................ .760 Hackethal's Buserelin ................................................ ...763 Hydrazine sulfate ................................................ ............765 Bio Pro ................................... ...................................769 Yeast cells ................................................ ...................771 Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) ................................773 Cartilage ......... ................................................ .............775 cancer vaccinations ................................ .......................777 Fetal cell therapy....................... ................................780 Xenogeneic peptides ................ ...........................................782 enzymes........ ................................................ ..................784 Carnivora ................................. ...................................785 Non-conventional cancer therapies Group 3 .......787 Cell Specific Cancer Therapy................................ .......788 IHT (insulin-induced hypoglycan therapy) .790 Supportive substances ................................ ........792 Therapists and clinics ..........................................805 Advances in “modern “ Oncology ....................809 Emergency Program ........................... ................................814 The future of oncology .................. ...................................818

Machine Translated by Google

Machine Translated by Google

What you can and can't expect from this book! Almost all people, without exception, perceive the diagnosis of cancer as a kind of punishment and injustice that they are initially powerless to face. However, most of this powerlessness arises from incorrect media reporting and the resulting lack of knowledge among patients. Cancer is by no means a fatal disease that leaves you helpless. How do I come to this opinion, which sounds “pretty presumptuous” given the many cancer deaths every year? Unfortunately, I cannot give you the answer to this in just a few words and that is exactly why this detailed book was created. If you have read it carefully, you will understand why I have come to the firm conclusion that cancer is far from being the dangerous disease it is always portrayed to be, even though so many people die from cancer. In the next few pages I will explain to you how conventional medicine typically treats your type of cancer and why it feels it has to do it this way. This is very important so that you can communicate better with your doctor. I At this point I would like to make it clear from the outset that it is very important to me that you have a satisfactory dialogue with your doctors, alternative practitioners and other professional helpers. I am absolutely in favor of working closely with therapists 14

Machine Translated by Google

(by this I mean all helpers, regardless of whether they are doctors, alternative practitioners, psychologists, etc.) and against “I can handle it on my own”. On the other hand, my experiences show me that it is very difficult to find a therapist with whom you can actually have the necessary dialogue. I would also like to clarify another bias at the beginning of the book. I am neither for nor against conventional medicine and neither for nor against non-conventional medicine. I'm all about the well-being of people and I don't care what helps you get better. If I have become more and more interested in non-conventional medicine in recent years, it has nothing to do with any prejudices or personal interests, but with the fact that I came to this conclusion through my own research that conventional medicine is not nearly as successful in chronic diseases such as cancer as many patients unfortunately still believe. It is very important to me that you understand this, because if you write positively about non-conventional therapies and expose errors in conventional medicine, you are often placed in an “esoteric corner” or even worse, called a “doctor hater”. Believe me, nothing is further from my heart and anyone who knows me personally knows that I am a very logical man and am more likely to move on the diplomatic rather than the revolutionary stage. Depicting myself as an enemy of conventional medicine is of course a tactic used by doctors who are not used to entering into a dialogue with people who think differently and instead dismiss all people with different opinions as crazy. Calling people who think differently as crazy has incredibly big advantages. Firstly, you can always play the role of the person who knows everything better and secondly, you don't have to change because everything has its (pleasant) rightness. We all know from our own experience that nothing in our lives 15

Machine Translated by Google

ben is more difficult than changing yourself. Of course, this also applies, or should I say especially, to doctors. And I can understand that very well. You studied at the university for 5 - 6 years, then spent 2 - 4 years becoming a specialist and perhaps gained experience in a hospital for a few more years and then along comes a Mr Hirneise, who doesn't even have a doctorate, and claims that that this knowledge accumulated over the years is at least partially, if not completely, wrong.

It takes true greatness to continually question your knowledge and thus part of your personality throughout your life, and only very few people are able to do this. I am grateful to God that I was able to meet some of these people, and I am eternally grateful to them for sharing so much of their precious knowledge with me. Without their input, I would never have given so much thought to why people get sick or how they can get well again. In this book I would like to tell you in a nutshell, so to speak, the common thread I have found as to why seriously ill people have become healthy again.

In order for you to learn as much as possible from this book, it is unfortunately necessary to address circumstances that, at first glance, actually have nothing to do with your illness. But only if you understand that political and financial interests can contribute to you being prescribed a medication that may harm you more than help you, can you have an open and possibly life-decisive dialogue with your doctor. ren. This dialogue is almost always crucial to life. You should definitely make this clear and prepare for this conversation. I am always amazed at how little patients know about their illness. Every woman looks through catalogs before she buys a new kitchen and I don't even want to talk about men and cars 16

Machine Translated by Google

talk. But when it comes to purchasing a therapy, almost no patient provides detailed information about their illness, instead relying on a few statements from neighbors or acquaintances or on the statements of a doctor. If you're wondering about my term "purchasing therapy," then perhaps it's just because you've never considered that medicine is just as much a business as any other. Even if payment through the health insurance system is regulated somewhat differently than in normal transactions, in the end it is still about buying and selling. As a patient you have to Be aware of this again and again, because then you will never have to accept an unfriendly “therapy seller” again. This is not a call to haggle for discounts, but a call to talk to doctors from one adult self to another adult self and to impose at least the same minimum requirements on this deal as you would on a car purchase. Would you accept a car salesman who answered your question as to whether the car you wanted was also available in a special paint finish: “Either you take it like that or you just go to another car dealership.” Surely you would get up and so on -go away. However, if a doctor responds insultingly and/or arrogantly to patients' questions, many patients accept this without complaint because they do not realize that they are paying the doctor's salary with their monthly health insurance contributions .

Another point is that patients believe that if they are not nice to their doctor, they will suffer disadvantages in treatment. This can undoubtedly be true, but on the other hand, every patient should ask themselves whether they would even like to be treated by such a therapist. If reading these lines gave you the impression that I don't particularly like doctors, then this is 100% not true, as good friends of mine are doctors. First and foremost, however, I feel like I am a patient. 17

Machine Translated by Google

responsible to others, and in my more than 10 years of clinical experience and especially through my experiences with cancer patients, I have learned that it is the “uncomfortable” patients who get well again. By uncomfortable I don't mean arrogant or loud, but demanding. Demand from your doctor what you deserve namely, to help you as best as possible. Good doctors never feel annoyed by legitimate questions and know how uncertain patients are, especially shortly after the diagnosis. So if your doctor doesn't take the time you need, find a therapist who values you that much. By the way, if I write “a little more” in this book about nonconventional cancer therapies than about conventional medical applications, then there are two reasons. Firstly, people who buy this book usually expect to learn about successful therapies outside of chemotherapy and radiation and secondly, it is simply the case that it is not exactly easy to write about successful conventional cancer therapies. if you want to describe them independently of pharmaceutical money and career thoughts. Another tip. Use this book as a workbook. The book is structured so that at the end you know what is important to you. It is also important that you understand that even in a holistic therapy there are necessary, important and not-soimportant things. I say this because I know that there are many books and reports in which hundreds of therapies are listed, and in the end the patient no longer knows what he has read and how he should start “his” therapy. So be sure to take notes as you read this book and don't leave any questions unanswered. It's about your life and your family's happiness. Don't put yourself under any time pressure just worry about your future now. Everything else is secondary. However, I don't want to hide from you what this book can't do . It won't tell you which therapy you need 18

Machine Translated by Google

You have to start today, it can't relieve you of having to talk to different therapists and, above all, it can't do one thing: change you. I wish you with all my heart that you will begin today to see your future (again) in an extremely positive light and that you will create your future yourself through visualizations and activities. Whatever you have hoped for up until today – it is possible!

Yours, Lothar Hirneise

19

Machine Translated by Google

1st chapter

The medical status quo

20

Machine Translated by Google

Why this book and the 3E program are so urgently needed!

In recent years I have traveled all over the world to find and investigate successful cancer treatments. First I did this for personal reasons, later as research director of the National Foundation for Alternative Medicine in Washington, and to this day I do this as the board of People Against Cancer. Whether in Mexico, Russia or Italy, I quickly realized that medicine is not a science. You or someone you know has probably had the experience of asking three doctors for their opinions and coming home with four different opinions. This has absolutely nothing to do with science and if you ignore surgery or emergency medicine, this “non-science” goes on. through all areas of medicine.

Things didn't fare any better for me on my travels through the oncology literature. Contradictory statements are just as common here, and you get totally confused when you talk to doctors about how the test results of the studies in all the books are to be evaluated. From the same study you can hear sentences like “this is a new breakthrough in medicine” or “you can forget about this study, just look at who funded it”. As a logical person, conventional medicine as it is practiced today is nothing more than a pool of contradictory statements from which everyone can take whatever they want, protected by health insurance companies, governments and many medical associations. 21

Machine Translated by Google

At a time when I had long since admitted to myself that I could spend years listening to different opinions about what cancer is, how cancer occurs and, above all, how cancer should be treated, I began to take a closer look at the material I had collected to evaluate for months. The most important thing in the initial evaluation of my travels at that time was that there were compelling similarities among people who had survived cancer in a so-called “final stage”. This brought me to the point of looking at oncology properly for the first time - namely from the perspective of the patients and not from the perspective of the doctors and scientists. From this perspective, I was finally able to look at oncology from a logical perspective again. For the first time, I was able to put the knowledge I had gathered so far into an understandable system and put all the theories about the development and treatment of cancer exactly where they belong. All the different sentences of conventional and non-conventional therapies did not confuse me even more, but rather helped me find the truth more clearly. Two results became apparent very quickly. First, I found out that cancer patients in the final stages can be treated much more successfully if they do not have to endure massive conventional therapies. Unfortunately, such people are very rare in western countries, as standard medicine and unfortunately also legislation almost only allow or pay for conventional therapies. The second point I discovered was that people with severe cancer were never cured by certain medications, but always by mental or spiritual work alone and/or by combination therapy with detoxification or nutritional measures. And something else stood out in my evaluations. None of the patients had used therapies that had any kind of serious side effects (although this of course happened very often during the first therapy(s)). The Old Law: Primum

22

Machine Translated by Google

non nocere (First of all, do not hurt), which was unfortunately forgotten in medicine in the 19th and 20th centuries, put people on the path to health more directly and easily than today's modern medicine. Now you might be thinking, well, that's nothing new. But why aren't any consequences drawn from this? Why hasn't anyone started putting this knowledge into a system for everyone? Why does everyone believe that they can sell their “puzzle piece” in the big picture of oncology as a whole? Very quickly I found the answer to all these questionsGen. I was simply not “trapped” in any of the systems in which all the people who at least partially also have this knowledge are usually stuck. I didn’t have to earn my living by “selling” therapies or medications. I was not forced to promote my career for political or financial reasons. Never before had I publicly stated anything that I had to take back or that caused me to lose face.

At first glance, this may not seem so important to you. But if you take a closer look at who is saying what these days and why, you will quickly find out that one of these points always plays a significant role. So I was what you could call “independent” in plain English. Of course, my psychoanalytic training and my mathematical-logical way of thinking helped me to later integrate the knowledge I had accumulated into the 3E program. But when I look back over the last few years, it was above all my (financial and intellectual) independence that enabled me to bring my oncological experiences into a system.

After all these 'revelations', I began to see the whole of oncology from 'my' scientific point of view and to always and exclusively view my knowledge and future experiences from my critical perspective. 23

Machine Translated by Google

Seeing therapies from the perspective of empiricism (the study of experience) does not mean abandoning the scientific path, quite the opposite. I'm more of a scientist today than I used to be, when I still believed in all the unproven medical "facts." believed. Today, when I think about how much vitamin C a person needs or whether our body's “non-vitamin C production” is really a genetic defect, as some “scientists” still believe, then mine helps me “Systemic 3E thinking” can find an answer very quickly. If I manage to introduce you to this systemic thinking with this book and show you why this is so important for your health, then I will have achieved my goal.

24

Machine Translated by Google

The emergence of the 3E program

After evaluating all the data available to me and after countless interviews with patients and therapists in many countries, I began to ask different questions to patients who had survived a final stage of cancer. And lo and behold, for the first time all the answers made sense and could be explained in “my” scheme. From now on there were no more inexplicable “spontaneous remissions” or “miracle cures”, only people who were mostly guided by a feeling (this is also called unconscious) instead of by their reason and thus found the right path found new health. If we want to understand why people become healthy, we must first address the issue of energy. Have you ever thought about the difference between a person who is dead and the same person? people a thousandth of a second before he was dead. Everything would look the same under the microscope or during a CT scan; yes, even the blood count would be the same and yet the difference is greater than it could be otherwise. Some would call it a person with or without a soul.

I call it an energy difference. To help you better understand what I mean when I talk about energy in this book, I would first like to define this word in more detail. For me, energy is an invisible life force that is neither created nor destroyed, but can only flow or not flow. So we can create states in which this energy can flow, such as: B. the generation of new life or we can destroy structures, thereby disrupting the flow of this energy 25

Machine Translated by Google

(what we usually call illness) or disappears completely (death). In between there are millions of intermediate stages (illnesses, love, faith, sympathy...) that determine our daily lives. In addition to the word energy, the word order also plays a major role. The higher the order in a system, the better energy can flow in that system. Let’s look at our aging process as an example. The highest order exists on the day of our birth (assuming we really see this day as the first day of a person's life and not their conception). After that we are constantly moving towards entropy (opposite of order), i.e. chaos. Everything we do until death serves order and works against entropy. For us humans, but also for animals and plants, this means that one of our main tasks is to bring order into our lives on a daily basis. We humans do this mainly through light, food and our thoughts or what religions call spirituality. The older we get, the greater the effort and importance of this becomes. You have probably already had the experience of older people becoming “stubborn” and “more and more compulsive”. They go to lunch or dinner at exactly the same times and need more and more regular daily routines. There is nothing behind this other than a sophisticated system against the permanent increase in entropy with age. Entropy is the attempt to transform ordered structures into disordered structures. We age because the forces of entropy gain the upper hand over our bodies after birth, as homeostasis (equilibrium) is no longer able to defeat these destructive forces.

26

Machine Translated by Google

The law of order If you look with your eyes open at what Americans, but also many Europeans, eat, you will quickly notice that their “plastic food” contains almost no ingredients and that there are also many toxins. But how is it possible for people to eat junk food for decades without becoming seriously ill? The “scientific” answer to this question is usually: it is because of the healthy genes. The truth, however, is that we still cannot read the language of genes and such statements are nothing more than words of desperation from people who cannot admit that they actually have no idea why something is the way it is is. Or just think about all the clever books about nutrition. If it were true what it says about vitamins, enzymes, hormones, etc., then many of my friends and relatives would have long since suffered from scurvy (due to the destruction of vitamin C when smoking) or a chronic illness (since they have almost nothing healthy eat) died. Alcoholics, anorexics and millions of people in India and Africa also prove to these authors how “important” vitamins, enzymes, minerals, etc. really are.

But why do all these “malnourished” people die? People don't actually? Imagine our body as a big barrel that needs to be filled with energy every day, similar to the gas tank in a car. In contrast to a car, however, we have at least 3 main energy sources that we can “tap into” (food, 27

Machine Translated by Google

Light and our thoughts). So if one energy source fails, we can always fall back on the other two. This also explains our previous example of why people who eat junk food and also smoke do not necessarily get sick. As long as people are able to use other energy sources, they can maintain their order of life.

28

Machine Translated by Google

Unfortunately, however, all three energy sources do not produce the same (necessary) life energy for every person. Not everyone is able to let so much energy flow through prayer or meditation that they can eat as little food as an Indian yoga master. Not every person manages to spend so much time in daylight every day that they can afford to eat only overcooked food and hamburgers instead of healthy food, and even the best raw food can't help a person if they don't eat more is able to access the power of other energy sources. Only if we are able to use all three energy sources in our pursuit of order can we be sure that we will not become ill or that a recovery process will begin.

To survive, some people only need 40% of the available energy and others need 70%. As long as you are able to get the energy you need to live your life, you won't get sick. But especially due to the normal aging process and the associated accumulation of toxins and 'consumables', it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain the necessary energy as we get older. The same problem arises when you have an illness that drains your energy. Since almost all illnesses are energy draining, one must generally take responsibility and ensure that one avoids energy drainers such as bad food, negative people and thoughts, etc. You see, you can grow old with bad food, but once you get sick you can no longer afford such things if you want to get well again.

This also explains the 'popular confusion'. You've probably heard a sentence like: 'Yes, but my grandfather still smoked when he was 90 and didn't get lung cancer' or 'My grandma only ever ate butter and fatty sausage and was up to her Healthy end of life. So it can't be that bad.'

29

Machine Translated by Google

Without a doubt, all of these people are right. Many people You can smoke for 60 years and not get lung cancer. Others can eat poorly for decades and still remain healthy. What the others don't know, however, is what these people did RIGHT. They only see the cigarettes, but do not understand that cigarette consumption, which was certainly an energy robber, was balanced out by other sources of energy. But if you have cancer, you already have the modified cells as energy robbers and you can't afford any more. So if you think you might continue to smoke or eat poor quality food as a cancer patient, you should definitely read this chapter again.

30

Machine Translated by Google

Are there any diseases at all?

For thousands of years, doctors have spoken about the importance of the unity of body (food), soul (light) and spirit (thought-belief). However, this unity was increasingly forgotten in medicine in the 20th and 21st centuries. Instead, greed for profit has resulted in so many diseases over the last two centuries that even doctors don't even know all the names. The big question of this century, however, is: Do diseases even exist or are what we call diseases nothing more than a hand-classified grouping of symptoms?

Think about this question briefly before you dismiss it as crazy (away from your world) and simply name any illness and think about whether it even exists? Multiple sclerosis, cancer, rheumatism, high blood pressure or... no matter what you name, in the end they are syndromes (various symptoms) and not diseases. ten. At first glance, you could say that it doesn't matter what you call it, whether it's an illness or a syndrome. At second glance, however, there is a big difference. When a patient comes to the doctor's office with an illness, their illness is treated. When a patient with a syndrome comes to the doctor, the syndrome or individual symptoms are treated, but the doctor cannot avoid researching the cause and treating the patient causally (causally) because it is clear to him that that symptoms always have a cause. However, if I as a doctor assume that cancer, MS, rheumatism, etc.

Illnesses, then I don't even begin to look for the cause 31

Machine Translated by Google

to search. Nowadays, doctors have even gone so far as to view high blood pressure, high cholesterol or migraines as illnesses and treat them with medication. Today, no one thinks about why our body produces high blood pressure, whether pain makes sense or is perhaps part of an important self-healing program. We have completely lost faith in evolution

and instead believe in the idols called genetic engineering and randomized double-blind studies. To this day, we don't know how our memory works or why men give us beards grow. Not to mention the fact that there is a “machine” into which you just throw water and grass and at the end milk and meat come out. Don't you know this machine? It is also colloquially called a cow. To this day, we do not even begin to understand “everyday things” such as hunger, thirst, anger, dreams, joy, sympathy and antipathy (at the same time, however, we believe that we can decipher the language of genes through the genome project). However, all of these things have something to do with energy. We commonly call hunger and thirst feelings, just like anger or love. But what is actually behind the term feeling? We are actually talking about flowing energy here and the central question is: What influence does this flowing energy have on our health? Let me put it this way: This energy is the all-important influence on your health, and just because doctors learn nothing, absolutely nothing, about this during their studies, that of course does not mean that these energies are used in medicine are not important. Just think about how you feel when you have a full bladder. This feeling will sooner or later dominate everything in your life. No matter whether you are currently eating, driving or swimming. The pressure to empty your bladder will take over your life. This energy is even able to influence your dreams. You've probably already had one 32

Machine Translated by Google

Dream had to go pee and then woke up with a full bladder. However, the feeling of a full bladder is just one example. Love, and especially being in love, anger, hatred, hunger, thirst, faith, fear, etc. are at least as important and dominate our daily lives. Isn't it crazy that these important things don't play a role in today's medicine? This is exactly what I experienced for years in my own clinical work. Everything revolved around illness and treatment with medication. I never doubted the correctness of this system, as I was one hundred percent sure that everything was correct. Maybe that's why I can understand doctors so well today. Most of them are very good people, but they work in an inhumane system from which they can only escape at considerable personal and financial cost. Nevertheless, we cannot help but admit that today's treatment of chronic diseases has reached a dead end.

33

Machine Translated by Google

Modern oncology or Why patients and

Doctors know so little!

If you, as a non-oncologist like me, deal with the topic of cancer, you will rarely be taken seriously when you express your opinion. However, sooner or later something amazing happens. You quickly learn that there are a lot of doctors who don't know much about what cancer actually is or how it should be treated. “Right, that’s exactly why my family doctor referred me to an oncologist (cancer doctor), because he specializes in the treatment of cancer,” you might be thinking. But unfortunately oncologists also specialize in something else, namely 3 cancer therapies, more specifically chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. In a few cases there is also hormone therapy and everything else is part of the word study. “But they treat cancer patients every day, they have to know what they’re doing.” If we think about this sentence more closely, we will realize that not so long ago doctors were selling heroin as a cough medicine or touting Contergan and other medications as harmless. You have also been telling us for many years that cancer is curable thanks to chemotherapy, radiation, interleukin, interferon, etc. and that vaccines are effective and safe - not to mention the dilemma of AIDS. We should also be grateful that pharmaceutical companies have developed more than 70,000 medications for our health (and not for their wallets). 34

Machine Translated by Google

common sense and Convenience Most people with cancer are very healthy when they go to the doctor. You rarely have pain and don't feel particularly sick. Only after the doctor says the word cancer does the patient feel bad. The drama escalates when the doctor explains that he first has to make the patient seriously ill with conventional therapy such as chemotherapy, radiation or with a sharp knife so that he can then get well again. At this point at the latest, our common sense should kick in and question the entire procedure. But no, after pharmaceutical companies have spent billions over the last few decades to explain to us that a drug is only as effective as its side effects, we of course take this as a given and believe that that's it has its correctness.

This type of “medical self-image” is just as much a part of our everyday lives today as surfing the Internet. Or just think of amalgam, which consists mainly of a substance that is extremely toxic to humans, namely approximately 52% mercury. The rest is copper, tin, silver and zinc. Maybe you've already broken a thermometer and then had to clean up the mercury that leaked out. Surely you were very careful not to let this substance come into close contact with you. On the other hand, we pack the same substance into our teeth and “hope” that nothing negative will happen and we discuss how much of this toxic substance can escape from the seals and how many milligrams of mercury it can contain 35

Machine Translated by Google

is harmful at all. We are only too happy to hear the statements from the pharmaceutical industry and our dentists that mercury is absolutely safe, because the alternative would be to have all fillings removed and also tell the dentist how to do it when removing them not too much mercury gets into our bodies. Not to mention the high cost. It's much easier to turn off our minds and believe others - isn't it? Do you realize that amalgam would never, ever receive approval from the Federal Ministry for Medicines today?

Please understand me correctly. I don't want to join in the countless discussions about what is healthy for us, but rather use this and the following examples to show you how easily and how quickly we hand over the responsibility for our health into other hands. be it the doctors, the health insurance companies or the media. Not only when we are seriously ill (but then at the latest), but from a young age onwards, we have to learn to use our reason when it comes to our health and our happiness in life. As I write these lines, I hear on the news that the latest English long-term study on the birth control pill has found that these pills are completely harmless to women. Honestly, how stupid do these “scientists” actually think we are? Can it really be that millions of women and their gynecologists believe that chemical intervention in the female hormonal balance has no disadvantages? Does no one actually think anymore about what happens to our groundwater, which has to cope with huge amounts of hormones every day that enter the sewage system through the urine of women who take the pill? Are all the studies that had previously proven that additional intake of estrogen and progesterone significantly increases the risk of cancer and thrombosis suddenly a thing of the past?

Unfortunately the answer is a resounding YES, otherwise it would 36

Machine Translated by Google

Millions of young women would not have prescriptions for birth control pills prescribed, millions of gynecologists would not break their oath, and not so many women would consume urine from pregnant mares because of night sweats during menopause (some estrogens are derived from this). nen). Here too, our convenience strikes again. It is still easier to swallow a pill every day than to use the somewhat more complex natural family planning to prevent pregnancy. Even at the risk of you perceiving this as a general attack on the pharmaceutical industry or on doctors, I will describe to you how it came about that too many doctors still treat cancer with only a few therapies, even though, As this book proves, there are many successful therapies.

37

Machine Translated by Google

Career of a doctor

In order to better understand why doctors are unaware of very successful cancer therapies or dismiss them as quackery, we need to better understand how someone becomes a doctor, who teaches them, who they mainly receive information from after studying, and so on what role politics plays. If you have cancer and now think that it has nothing to do with your illness, then I'm sorry to disappoint you. If you don't know the next few lines, you'll have a hard time understanding why your doctor might be using a therapy on you that he knows is probably going to be of little or no help to you, or even just one treatment at all is the only experiment (also called “studies” in universities) on you.

You are probably aware that it is not only in Germany that you have to study medicine for several years before you can call yourself a doctor. But have you ever thought about what students actually (have to) learn and who is teaching them? Have you ever thought about what a doctor has to say in a clinic or university in order to even get a professorship?

The subject of oncology is covered in just a few hours and in these hours they learn that the disease cancer is the same as the problem of tumors and that you have to defeat the tumor if you want to defeat cancer. This fits in really nicely with Louis Pasteur's statements that microbes are to blame for everything. But if we look around in the 21st century, all universities around the world still see Louis' perspective 38

Machine Translated by Google

Pasteurs taught. So when we go to our family doctor, we would do well to be aware that he will not be treating us, but our tumor. That's why we must not forget that our tumor is a part of us, just as the tumor is only a symptom of our illness and not the illness.

Since the doctor believes he knows my illness exactly, he doesn't need much time to deal with me as a person. This is an important point that is always forgotten. All diseases worldwide follow a standardized scheme listed, and doctors at the university learn what to do with this or that disease according to exactly this pattern. But that's not all. Doctors have to use this scheme if they don't want to get into legal problems or be labeled as outsiders. Let me break it all down to you Explain the example in more detail.

Suppose your doctor diagnoses you with high cholesterol. According to the usual university scheme, he will then recommend that you avoid foods with a high proportion of cholesterol and if he sticks to the scheme even more strictly (despite sometimes knowing better), he will also prescribe you a cholesterol-lowering medication. Since he sees you, of courseIf you don't want to lose yourself as a customer (patient), he will probably not tell you anything about the danger or the proven uselessness of many of these medications (both the danger and the uselessness have been proven in many studies - see e.g B. the book: What Doctors Don't Tell You by the author Lynne McTaggart). But in my opinion this is even the secondary problem. The main problem is that many doctors seem to have “forgotten” that they learned at university how closely cholesterol levels are related to the health of our liver and our fat metabolism. So the problem is not the high cholesterol level, but rather the question: why

39

Machine Translated by Google

Does our body produce so much cholesterol (perhaps to balance the acid-base balance or as a necessary antioxidant - which would then be very intelligent)? You see, when doctors follow the usual let's-fight-the-symptom approach, it can be a step backwards. Apart from antibiotics and Zovirax (anti-virals), there is not one in 70,000! Medication that treats an illness. Everyone else focuses on symptoms.

Patrick Kingsley, an English doctor who mainly treats people with cancer and multiple sclerosis, takes a lot of time for each initial consultation: “How can I treat someone with a diagnosis as serious as cancer or MS without knowing how that patient is feeling? feeds, what he works for, how happy he is, etc. There is a crucial difference whether a woman with breast cancer comes to my practice with her husband and the attitude: “This cancer won't kill me” or whether the same woman is currently in Divorced and works in a flower shop where she comes into daily contact with flowers that are contaminated with pesticides.” Please think for yourself which woman has a better chance of surviving. Logical, of course you will now hopefully think of the first one mentioned. But unfortunately it is not at all logical for doctors to get a complete picture of a person. Why? You know exactly what illness the person has and you also know how to treat this illness (please note, it doesn't say this person). Did you know, for example? B. that the average time a doctor spends with his patient per appointment is approximately 6 minutes. In 99% of cases, an oncologist is more interested in your tumor than in you. He will therefore cut out the tumor or try to destroy the tumor with chemotherapy or radiation. But will it also inform you about what other cancer therapies there are in the world and:

40

Machine Translated by Google

• What does it mean for your body and your mind to receive chemotherapy or radiation? (I don't mean hair loss and vomiting, but serious side or main effects such as heart and kidney problems, nerve damage, billions of new free radicals, intestinal breakdown, impotence, etc.!) Also, did he do a cell culture or an EVA test to determine which chemotherapy drugs actually work for you? Have you been prepared for chemotherapy or what has been done to limit the side effects? You were probably given even more chemicals in the form of so-called antiemetics (against vomiting).

• That the following paradox is also not taken into account: Calculate that while you are taking medication that strongly suppresses the immune system, you go to a place where there are the most viruses and bacteria - to the hospital. Most patients probably don't think this is important because they don't know how many patients die from this type of treatment. As I write this book, I am once again confronted with just such a case. A few days ago, a patient I knew received his first chemotherapy and died shortly afterwards of a so-called “uncontrollable infection” that he caught in the hospital.

• What successes has he personally had with this type of illness with this medication? Do you also get his statistics or just those of his colleagues? Be sure to request these results in writing. Don't be fobbed off with words like: "I've had 20 years of experience with this." Often it is only 1 - 2 years of experience and 18 - 19 years of repetition. Please believe me when a professor with any 41

Machine Translated by Google

If you have had good experiences with a medication or a particular therapy, then you have published about it in at least two specialist journals. • How should you eat? If your doctor tells you to carry on as before, then leave quickly. (If he doesn't know anything about nutrition himself, then he should at least connect you with someone who does know about cancer nutrition.)

• That cancer is curable and what can YOU do to prevent the tumor from coming back? • What you should do to strengthen your immune system? • How important is the psyche in cancer? This has absolutely nothing to do with you being mentally ill or “sick”. Cancer patients do not have a psychological defect, but rather need to be informed about how important meditation, visualization or, generally speaking, “going within themselves” is for recovery and, above all, as a prophylactic against metastases. It's not just my experience that shows that in the hospital there is a lot of talk about how comprehensively you will be treated. However, everyday life looks completely different. There is no holistic approach. The word comprehensive is only used for diagnostics, we are absolute world champions at that. Another x-ray, another blood test, another CT, etc. Quite apart from the enormous costs, people are completely forgotten. The focus is now only on tables, numbers, measurement results and no longer on what actually triggers the disease. And how certain is this diagnosis actually? Can you really tell which lymph node is affected during an operation? What tells us

42

Machine Translated by Google

that little shadow on the x-ray? Under the microscope, are these cells from a benign or a malignant tumor? Many years ago I found myself in the diagnostic grind of a neurology department due to a harmless case of “sciatica”. As a routine procedure, a contrast CT scan was done (which had only been purchased shortly before) and they diagnosed me with a “space-occupying process” in my brain, in German: a brain tumor. And while I was still thinking about what this diagnosis meant for my future life, a few days later the head doctor of the department checked the diagnoses of his senior doctors and explained to me that his colleague's diagnosis was that of a beginner and that my space exploration This process would be nothing other than that one of my brain ventricles was simply larger than the other three from birth. It's hard to imagine what would have happened if the chief physician had just been on vacation.

43

Machine Translated by Google

Attention – someone means well for you!

It's not just doctors who are wrong. As soon as “the world” finds out that you have cancer, many people will try to help you with advice and support. First of all, this is something positive and it is very good for many cancer sufferers to receive so much care. But be careful, as soon as someone says the sentence: “This doctor (this therapy) is the best for you” then you have to be very careful. I have probably heard the sentence hundreds of times: “Dr. XY is an absolute authority in his field." I usually leave the sentence like that because of my precious life time, but actually every time I hear this sentence I should immediately ask the following questions: "How do you know that? Have you personally verified this statement? By what criteria is he the best doctor in his field? Do his employees also claim this? What do his opponents say about it, etc.” Some days my hair stands on end because of what people tell me about “experts”. When I take the time, I sometimes say: “Did you know that the best experts from the five largest publishing houses in England rejected the book Harry Potter ?” Again, I have to avoid misunderstandings get it out of the way in advance. Of course there are bad, good and very good doctors. Unfortunately, there is no evaluation scheme like in sports or on the stock market. There are a lot of doctors in Germany. Estimate for yourself what percentage of a profession is really good and, given your own estimate, how big a chance you have of encountering a “not so good” doctor. Or what actually makes a good oncologist? Set it yourself 44

Machine Translated by Google

a few criteria. Empathy or scientists? Great knowledge or skilled craftsmanship? Small or large practice? University clinic or city hospital? Family doctor or specialist? From these questions you can quickly see that it is actually almost impossible to find out which doctor is good or “not so good”. Do you really want to rely on the advice of your neighbor, a friend, or your doctor when it comes to something as important as your life? On the other hand, they “have” to rely on someone. Make yourself aware – there can only be one person and that person is you. Of course, you can also play poker and rely on someone you don't know very well, but if you do this, you should be honest with yourself and your loved ones and do it consciously. However, it would be better if you learned as much as possible about what cancer is or could be, what it means for your life and what changes and therapies are necessary so that you can live the way you want (again). wish. Reading this book is certainly part of this journey and will help you find your way. In order for you to feel safe on your path over time, it is very important that you do not constantly let other people distract you from your path. However, this sounds much easier than it actually is. Especially when it comes to cancer, many helpers believe that they know your path better than you do. If you discuss this book with conventional doctors, you will find that there are usually 4 different reactions to it. It is important that you know these reactions before you discuss this book with a doctor, alternative practitioner or other therapist, so that you can notice who is sitting across from you during the dialogue and can better classify the answers. Of course, I realize that it is not entirely “fair” to divide doctors into just 4 categories, as each of them is unique 45

Machine Translated by Google

and I consciously take the risk that many doctors “don’t particularly like me” simply because of this classification. On the other hand, I think it is very important to inform you about this, as I experience again and again that almost everything is believed about professional helpers if they have a title or can appear convincingly. This is about YOUR life and I only feel responsible towards people with cancer (by the way, a few good friends of mine are doctors). For the sake of simplicity, I have given the four groups the following names:

Bessis Bessis are people who basically know everything better. They tell you directly that if you do not do the therapy suggested by Bessi, you will suffer great damage; In the case of cancer, words like: “Then I can no longer take responsibility for you.” Have you ever thought about the responsibility a doctor actually takes on when he gives you 30 - 40 radiation treatments? If you survive, he attributes it to “his therapy” and if you die, then “the cancer was stronger.” At Bessis, you can easily get thrown out of their room if you ask “uncomfortable” questions.

Unfortunately, from my daily practice, I have to tell you that there are a lot of bessis among oncologists and that this is part of everyday oncology. The advantage of Bessis is that they take a clear line and as a patient you know exactly where you stand. Although good dialogues rarely take place, Bessis express themselves very clearly and it is easy to check the arguments and make decisions. Bessis will of course not discuss a book like this with you and will dismiss almost everything as alternative nonsense, quackery and non-science.

46

Machine Translated by Google

Gallis Gallis are generally very popular with patients, journalists and organizations because they have great empathy and have an, albeit usually short, dialogue with the patient. They listen to the patient's fears and the patient feels accepted by the doctor. When it comes to concrete suggestions for therapy, however, they only represent the same conventional therapies as the Bes-sis.

The difference, however, is that they face the patient act very understandingly and are happy to give “advice” such as: “Eat a healthy diet”, “avoid too much stress” or “if you think that mistletoe therapy is good for you” or “I don’t believe in it, but I don’t mind it as long as you do chemotherapy and/or radiation” . For me and for you, Gallis are the most difficult helpers to assess and contribute the most to keeping things moving throughout oncology. Outwardly they appear as promoters of complementary medicine, but in reality they fight advances in oncology much more, because they are more diplomatic, than Bes-sis. Gallis describe this book as “quite interesting, but not really scientific”, “not even written by a doctor”

or “if it would help, we would have been using these therapies in our clinic for a long time” and not discuss detailed questions with you.

Kappis Käppis are doctors who, in plain English, don't care about your well-being. They will briefly explain to you what conventional treatments are available for your illness and that you absolutely have to hurry. In their daily work, they are better lawyers than doctors because they only do what is “in” at the moment, career-oriented. 47

Machine Translated by Google

is supportive or most comfortable so that you don't have to deal with your own life story. By the way, this is an important point. Many patients don't understand that doctors are just people with their daily psychological fluctuations and that behind the white coat there are often people who have more problems than you do. So "not dealing with the patient" often has nothing to do with an un -professional professional attitude, but rather serves the personal protection of the medical psyche. Of course, I realize that this is not exactly what a patient expects from a doctor. However, this knowledge will help you so that you don't have to get so upset with your doctor if he hides behind the next appointment or only addresses your important questions superficially. Unfortunately, Käppis appear very competent in conversation, use a lot of foreign words and constantly talk about the latest research, so that patients are usually very impressed. Käppis will dismiss this book as “not up-to-date” and will explain to you in Latin why everything can't be right. Alternatively, of course, they become one Suggest conventional cancer therapy and sometimes even explain in detail why non-conventional therapies (even though they don't know them) can't work.

Dokkis Dokkis are doctors who, firstly, take time for their patients and secondly, understand that cancer therapy means more than just destroying a tumor. They discuss all areas of cancer therapy with you and never act as a know-it-all. It is not easy to find Dokkis, because unfortunately the necessary time with patients is not paid enough by health insurance companies and doctors also have to earn money. So if you know such a doctor or alternative practitioner, then you are certainly one of them 48

Machine Translated by Google

to the happier patients. This book will also help you find such therapists. Dokkis will take this book seriously and explain to you what they believe, what is wrong with the book and what is right. They will explain both to you in understandable terms. Above all, you will love it Recognize that they don't react offended or overly sensitive if you have a different opinion, but instead talk to you briefly about it. The main problem facing Dokkis is the lack of payment and the misunderstanding of patients who expect “real” therapies and not “just” conversations. But it is precisely these conversations where a good oncologist finds out how he can help you. Only those who believe that they know in advance from a pathology report which “disease” they need to treat do not need to have a detailed conversation with their patient. This, in my opinion, catastrophic direction in medicine has now reached such proportions that health insurance companies are prepared to spend over 100,000 euros on chemotherapy, but at the same time refuse to cover holistically oriented therapies that only cover a fraction of this cost. Unfortunately, the chance that this picture will change in the next few years is zero. Of course, you are free to sue your health insurance company and thank God there are now positive verdicts. However, my job is to explain to you how to gain energy, not how to lose it. However, this is exactly what will happen if you mess with health insurance companies or the establishment as long as you have tumors in your body. Of course, this doesn't mean that you have to put up with everything, but from my experience I can't recommend that you mess with your health insurance company while you are seriously ill. The sometimes contemptuous correspondence with health insurance clerks or their lawyers will certainly block a lot of energy and that's why you should

49

Machine Translated by Google

save this for later, whenever that may be. I have had to experience very often, especially in Germany, that even people who can very well afford it are not prepared to spend money on their health or their happiness in life. I haven't heard sentences like "Why have I been paying money into my health insurance for years" or "I'm not dipping into my hard savings"? There is no doubt that these people are right in what they say. But unfortunately, if you have a tumor in your body, it's not about right or wrong, but about getting well again as quickly as possible, and this isn't possible if you're constantly fighting. Please take these words to heart. I have met far too many people who took these words lightly and were no longer able to concentrate on the essential things of cancer treatment.

50

Machine Translated by Google

The because-even though theory

This book is not only intended to inform you about the successful cancer treatments available, but I also very much hope that it will encourage you to think about your life so far. This applies to you if you read this book because you are affected yourself, just as it does if you read this book as a layperson or as a professional helper. Dealing with cancer, whether as a patient or as a helper, always means dealing with death and the meaning of life

to set. There is good reason why many authors rightly call cancer a turning point in life. The question, however, is a turn to where. I am firmly convinced that it is not so important which path we choose, but that it is much more important to make a decision and live that decision as best as possible. This also means never looking back and loving the present.

To make this possible, we have to create our future every day and this also includes thinking about our world, our fellow human beings and their thought systems. Don't worry, I don't want to give you a philosophical lecture now, I would simply like to tell you that I noticed that people who have survived a final stage of cancer have also generally thought about philosophical aspects of our lives.

Many people believe that it is very stressful to have to deal with terminally ill people over and over again. I never felt that way, quite the opposite. Conversing with people who are free from material interests is unlikely to be educational. 51

Machine Translated by Google

Rich, funny (yes, usually very funny) and you receive a lot of positive waves from the other person. Haven't you always wanted to talk to the Dalai Lama or the Pope? These two people have or had freed themselves from material interests and have been dealing with religious and philosophical aspects of life for decades - just like terminally ill people - only a little longer. I have always considered it a privilege to be able to talk to people like that, and if I can say today that I am an extremely happy person, then all of these people have played their part. Experiencing new things, feeling them, thinking about them and making decisions based on them, isn't that what we call "life"? Without such a process, I would never have sat down and put in all the effort to write this book to help you. Instead, I would run a company again – and a lot more

Make more money than today.

But it's only when you have cancer or come to other turning points in your life that you understand how important money really is. For each of us, money probably has a different value - from unimportant to selling your grandma for it. We always forget that the really big things in our lives are usually independent of money. The love for our children and partners, sex, friendship, the smell of a flower or meadow, the joy of food and much, much more. That's not to say that buying a new house, a car, or a first class ticket on a plane can't bring joy, but all of that is nothing compared to the feeling of looking at your child sleeping in bed. On the next few pages I would like to share with you an idea, a theory: the becausealthough theory.

This idea is intended to encourage you to think about your illness and your recovery in a way that you probably haven't done before. it works 52

Machine Translated by Google

What I'm reading is not so much about whether I'm right about this idea or not, but about knowing that you can do much more for your healing than you realize. Theory

Suppose 10 people injure their backs because they lifted a weight that was too heavy. Each of them treats this “disease” in different ways over the next 3 weeks. One goes for acupuncture, another is prescribed Voltaren (an anti-inflammatory drug), another is prescribed 20 massages and another is prescribed homeopathic drops. After 3 weeks, all 10 patients are pain-free again. If you were to ask each of the patients what therapy they would do the next time they sustained a back injury, you would get a different answer from each patient. But not only this, every single person would also recommend their therapist to others.

Let us further assume that of the 10 patients, 1 patient was still in pain after 20 days and would communicate with the other 9 patients. You can be sure that he will no longer recommend his doctor to others and will immediately start with one of the therapies that the other patients have had. Let us now also assume that 1 patient of the 9 patients who are pain-free today threw his medication in the trash can instead of taking it. Which doctor would he actually recommend and which type of therapy would he represent at a medical congress? You probably already understand what I'm trying to get at and why this chapter is called the Because-Although Theory - because apparently, apart from a very few people, no one dares to ask the following question anymore: 53

Machine Translated by Google

“Is the patient now healthy BECAUSE he did this therapy or EVEN THOUGH he did this therapy?” I first encountered this question over 20 years ago while working in a hospital and later again and again in books and medical discussions. But each time I discussed this question briefly and then put it aside again. I thanked Dr. for giving more thought to this important question. Thanks to Budwig. In a conversation with her, I said that chemotherapy also had successes, e.g. B. in testicular cancer or Hodgkin's disease. She asked me how I knew this, and I answered her that, firstly, I personally knew patients who had recovered from these types of cancer “thanks” to chemotherapy and, moreover, you could read about this in many books. She then answered me: “I also know patients who received chemotherapy and then no longer had a tumor. However, I believe it is unscientific and premature to claim that these patients survived because of chemotherapy.”

I have to admit that I discussed this with Dr. Budwig didn't delve into it in more detail, but something in me no longer forgot this sentence and it found its way into my cerebral cortex more and more often. Today, almost not a day goes by in my work when this phrase does not play a role, as most patients still believe that they have been cured by medication. Many patients swear that this or that medication, this or that therapy helped them. At the same time, the same therapy, the same medication, did not help other patients. Almost no one today would think of claiming that a child died because of chemotherapy. But let us look at this point in a “neutral” way.

Please take a look at the information described in the package insert 54

Machine Translated by Google

“Side effects” of most chemotherapy drugs given to children with cancer. And now I ask you: “How long could you give this medicine to your child until he dies?” You read that right: How long – until it dies. It's 100% true that every child will die from any chemotherapy - you just have to give it long enough. So the question is not whether people (can) die because of chemotherapy, but the question is: “How long can a person endure chemotherapy without having to die from it?” Doctors always assume that everyone Children, all people who receive chemotherapy or radiation respond equally to these therapies. We all know that some people are allergic to pollen and some aren't, some people can drink milk and some can't, some... I could continue a rarely long list here. Should all people react the same way only to the strongest poisons in medicine? If it weren't so serious, you'd have to laugh at so much nonsense. Now let's look at the second part of the theory. The first part was about how we should never blame chemotherapy for people dying. The second part is about the fact that we basically hold chemotherapy responsible for people getting better again. But no one here asks the question: “Did the patient get better even though he received chemotherapy or radiation?” We now know that with the flu it is better to rest, eat little and after a few days we are usually healthy again. But now there are people who “don’t have time” to be sick, and instead of resting, they work sweating in the office and go to a smoky restaurant with customers in the evening. Even if it takes a little longer, most of them get well again with this “office/restaurant therapy”. But no one would think that office work and sitting around in smoky restaurants would be optimal treatment for the flu.

55

Machine Translated by Google

So these people got better even though they did the office/ restaurant therapy. Everything that is not part of conventional medicine today is called alternative therapy. What is forgotten is that conventional medicine is actually the alternative; an alternative to a medicine that has been developed and proven over thousands of years. This alternative has managed to displace all other therapies in less than half a century. We forget that it wasn't that long ago that doctors offered their services on the streets for little money. But then medicine's great opportunity came when more and more doctors understood how to earn more and more money with their medicine. 100 years later, the medical/medicine manufacturer conglomerate has replaced everything that was tried and tested. Of course, this phenomenon does not only apply to medicine, but generally to various areas of our lives. I don't want to write a political treatise about today's medicine, but if we don't understand how it came to be that all the unscientific facts of today's oncology, which is what they are, are suddenly presented as scientific facts, then we can also not making free decisions. I would also prefer it if medicine were a little more “uncomplicated”, but it does us no good if we close our eyes to the facts and pretend that things are different just because we don’t like.

Does this mean that all medications are of no use at all and that it is only our self-healing powers that make us healthy again? And if so, why do they fail so often in cancer? Instead of giving you a direct answer, I would like to describe what I noticed in my research.

Most non-conventional therapies differ from conventional ones in that they adhere to the first principle of “old medicine”: Primum non nocere (First, do no harm). This means that these therapies are in contrast 56

Machine Translated by Google

Chemotherapy could give a healthy person for years without them dying from it - which cannot exactly be said about radiation or chemotherapy. So if the lowest common denominator in all successful non-conventional cancer therapies that I know of is: Primum non nocere (First of all, don't hurt), it wouldn't be possible that only, and only this, is the reason why people get well again?

It can not be what may not be! I didn't have to hear this sentence just once, I had to experience it several times. But today I am an independent man and allow myself to think freely. You should start doing this too, and I invite you to join me in looking at what it would mean if I were right. Doctors would do their job by mainly talking to their patients and no longer pulling out the prescription pad. We would all have to rethink and think about what we could do to get or stay healthy. Most importantly, the influence of pharmaceutical companies on our politics and our entire social system would disappear. I don't want to go into detail about the tremendous impact this would have on the entire globe and instead invite you to think about it for yourself, because only then can you really understand why what shouldn't be can't be. Another question for cancer sufferers also arises. Not harming someone is one thing, but aren't there other ways to help a cancer patient get better? Homeopathy, orgone, psychology, healing hands, frequency devices, magnetic fields, spiritual companions, etc. have already helped cancer sufferers, according to thousands of therapists around the world. But did you heal them or did you at least contribute a part to the healing? If the last question can be answered with yes,

57

Machine Translated by Google

then of course the next question would be what if you combined five of these therapies. Could they then heal together? Questions upon questions that I have been struggling with for years and the more I talk about them with free thinkers around the world, the closer I come to logical answers. These answers could easily fill 2-3 books. However, in countless conversations, I have come to the conclusion that it would be of no use to write down all of these answers because People only act when they are convinced of something, and you can't convince people by just letting them read books, but rather by encouraging them to think. True to the motto: How do you get people on an island to build a boat? With blueprints for boats? No, tell them stories of seafaring and make them dream of distant worlds. I also hope that my sentences will encourage you to dream of your “today’s still distant world of health” and that you will have the courage to build your boat as quickly as possible.

58

Machine Translated by Google

2nd chapter

Cancer – what is it?

59

Machine Translated by Google

What is a conventional doctor actually talking about when he uses the word cancer?

Before we talk about different theories about what is and isn't cancer, I would like to tell you something about the importance of these theories. You will notice on the next few pages that there are two major camps when it comes to answering “what exactly is cancer?” One camp is the school doctors, who of course (have to) stick to the mutation theory and the other camp is all other theories. I can't tell you 100% who is right and who is wrong, even though according to my research everything speaks against the mutation theory 99.9% of the time. However, as a cancer patient, it is probably vital that you make a decision. I can't spare you from this, and there's one main reason for that: My research has clearly shown that in many cases non-conventional cancer therapies can only help if the body has not been severely damaged by aggressive therapies - by therapies, not through cancer. However, most cancer patients only start with nonconventional therapies when conventional therapies have failed, i.e. in the style of: “Now let's do 3 cycles of chemotherapy and 30 radiation treatments and if the tumor comes back, we can still do it do an alternative therapy.”

This book is intended to help you make an informed decision and you will not be able to avoid making one. The Beckenbauer tactic: “Let’s see” doesn’t work with cancer because chemotherapy, and especially radiation, 60

Machine Translated by Google

Leave behind damage that cannot be repaired. Even if many doctors still claim the opposite, everyday oncology tells a clearly different story. It is very important that you form your own opinion and research these theories before deciding on therapy. You also have to know that doctors in hospitals always support the mutation theory because, from a purely legal perspective, they have no other choice.

61

Machine Translated by Google

The mutation theory

First of all, it has to be said that there is no real agreement in conventional medicine about how cancer occurs. There are reports of cancer caused by viral infections, e.g. b. Burkitt's lymphomas caused by the Eppstein-Barr virus, hepatocellular cancer caused by hepatitis B and T-cell leukemias caused by a retrovirus called HTLV-1. However, cancer-causing substances, so-called noxae, in the form of radiation and chemicals are usually reported. These noxae then ensure that certain genes that are normally supposed to repair these genetic defects are inactivated and a malignant tumor can develop. Since our cells are repeatedly exposed to these attacks as we age, the likelihood of developing cancer naturally increases at the same time. In summary, we can say that cancer occurs because mutations arise in our cell nucleus, the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and over the years this results in a tumor. This is therefore called the mutation theory.

Assuming that the mutation theory is correct, then you should be able to remove the nucleus of a cancer cell, transfer it to a healthy cell and this cell would then have to be a cancer cell. Of course, this also applies the other way around. If you were to transfer a healthy cell nucleus into a cancer cell, then this cell would have to be healthy again. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as McKinney published in 1969 and B. Mintz and Illmensee in 1975. McKinney swapped e.g. B. the cell nucleus of a leopard frog egg cell against the malignant cell nucleus of a cancer cell. But after fertilization, completely healthy frogs were born. Please think about this again. 62

Machine Translated by Google

You transplant the part of a cell that, according to the prevailing school of thought, is responsible for whether someone gets a tumor or not, and what happens - nothing, just nothing at all. Seeger's research, which shows that tumor cells that are freed of their mitochondria and then vaccinated do not cause cancer, also clearly speaks against the mutation theory.

Why doesn't our heart get cancer?

The answer to this question provides another argument as to why cancer in its early stages usually has nothing to do with our DNA. I emphasize the word development stage here because we now know that once degenerated cells cause DNA changes through various mechanisms of action, which I do not want to go into in detail now. If cancer is a problem in our cell nucleus, then it is logical that every cell nucleus can degenerate, including the billions of cells in our heart. The fact is, however, that certain cells or almost the entire heart do not get cancer, even though there are billions of cells with DNA there. Unfortunately, this cannot be explained with the mutation theory, but it can be explained with the mitochondrial theory, which I will go into in more detail later. This is just an important objection as to why the mutation theory cannot be correct, not to mention the facts that have been confirmed for decades that cancer cells produce increased H2 O2, there is increased peroxilipid production , and there is a charge reversal with potassium influx into the modified cells What happens in the cell is that there is a shift in the hydrogen ion concentration towards alkalosis, an accumulation of cholesterol esters in the cancer cells occurs, as well as various types of membrane damage, depolarization (shift in electrical potentials) and so on and so forth. I could come up with a list of more than just from research from the 50s and 60s 63

Machine Translated by Google

List 100 changes that cannot be reconciled with the mutation theory. The central question for many holistic doctors is no longer whether the mutation theory is correct or not, but rather: Why is this knowledge not finally being put into practice and probably well over 90% of all cancer patients worldwide are getting better Knowledge according to the totally outdated theory the mutation theory, which is: destroy the tumor and the cancer is gone. Millions of cancer deaths every year prove that cancer is not just a tumor that can be cut away.

And then metastases! If tumors come back within a very short time, then it means that the tumor has metastasized, i.e. so-called daughter ulcers have appeared. In conventional medical terms, metastases are tumor cells that have moved away from the original tumor and settled somewhere else in the body. But before you take this theory for granted, I would like to point out a few contradictions within this theory. 1. If metastases were really daughter cells of the primary tumor, then they would also have to have the properties of the “parents”. However, metastases often consist of several different cell types. If they are all descendants of one degenerated cell, how can they suddenly consist of different types of cells?

2. According to conventional wisdom, we constantly develop cancer cells, but our immune system destroys them every day. Wouldn't it be logical to do everything we can after an operation to strengthen or rebuild our immune system so that it destroys the remaining tumor cells 64

Machine Translated by Google

can. Instead, we destroy our immune system with toxins or radiation. 3. If it were true that radiation only poses a problem for metastases and not for our healthy cells - as is repeatedly claimed by all radiologists around the world - then it would be logical that people who undergo short treatment several times a year irradiated, supported their immune system because this would destroy the existing cancer cells. With this radiation, cancer could be prevented - assuming, of course, that the statements of these radiologists were even a little bit true. Have you ever wondered why not a single oncologist receives preventive radiation? 4. Why are we not able to detect these metastases in the blood despite the most modern laboratory technology ? 5. How do we know that the circulating tumor cells that appear to be found in the blood come from the tumor and are not “normal cancer cells” like the ones the body apparently produces every day anyway? 6. Suppose a patient with a primary liver tumor develops a brain metastasis. Since these cells are supposedly daughter cells of the liver tumor, do these patients then have a “small liver” in the brain? 7. A tumor the size of 1 cm3 contains approximately 1,073,741,824 cells (over a trillion). Tumors can usually only be discovered when they are approximately 6 – 8 mm in size. However, with a size of just one cubic millimeter, a tumor already consists of over a million cells. Do you really believe that a tumor that “only” has a billion cells in it? 65

Machine Translated by Google

has long since formed metastases. This would indicate that every tumor has basically metastasized long before it could be diagnosed.

8. Most cancer patients have tumors reappear after initial treatment or have additional tumors when the primary tumor is first diagnosed. Conventional doctors then say that the primary tumor has unfortunately already formed metastases. This is also logical, since the smallest tumor that can be detected using today's diagnostic methods is already billions of cells in size. However, it is illogical why the blood of blood donors is not examined for micrometastases.

Wouldn't it be urgent to test blood for cancer cells? If it is true (which I personally do not believe) that these cancer cells are responsible for a new tumor, then every doctor runs the risk of transmitting cancer with every blood transfusion. Since blood transfusions are now being given from other countries, every logical person naturally asks what role the German government plays in this. Of course, the succinct answers such as: “The blood is cleaned or processed beforehand” cannot satisfy you from a microbiological point of view.

9. If it is true that metastases travel through the body and settle elsewhere, why does this almost always only happen in the liver, lungs, head and bones? Isn't it surprising that these cells never actually settle in the pancreas, spleen, kidneys or left ring finger?

I am aware that there is some sarcasm in this sentence, but no one today discusses why, for example. B. so often metastases 66

Machine Translated by Google

in the liver. Everyone knows that our liver is the most important detoxification organ (along with our lungs, which many people don't know) and every thoughtful doctor also knows that detoxification therapies play an important role in every chronic illness. And although this connection is presented on a golden platter, so to speak, conventional doctors still deny a connection. The reason for this is very simple. If doctors finally admitted that there is a connection, they would no longer be able to maintain the outdated metastasis theory. At the same time, not a single textbook contains even a hint of a theory as to why cancer cells only ever settle in a few places. Either I'm the only one who thinks about it, or there are very good reasons why this is never discussed.

Summary: Even though there are very different views on metastases, we cannot avoid one fact: the whole thing with micrometastases is and remains a theory to this day, and as long as this theory is not proven, all therapists, but also patients, should not act as if micrometastases fundamentally exist. Of course, one has to consider what would happen to today's oncology if the metastasis theory were shelved. 90% of oncologists would then only be surgeons, since there is no chemotherapy or radiation treatment Metastases would leave little work for the rest. It always amazes me that oncologists, who deal with the topic of cancer every day, know so little about these scientific facts. The answers to Unfortunately, the why would fill an entire book and cannot be examined in more detail here. You are probably familiar with direct answers that have something to do with money, ego gratification and power building. 67

Machine Translated by Google

But we shouldn't make it so easy for ourselves and place all the blame on the doctors, as we are the ones who still believe that the doctor will make us healthy. So as long as we don't all work on ourselves and finally understand that only we can heal ourselves, there will be doctors who satisfy a market in which healing is sought through third parties or through medication.

Therapy approach of the mutation theory: Destruction of the tumor and metastases. As a patient of a conventional doctor, you must be aware of how he thinks, namely: tumor = cancer and tumor gone = cancer gone.

68

Machine Translated by Google

The mitochondrial theory or why our heart and brain cannot get cancer.

Even in the “non-conventional scene” there is no agreement about what cancer is. However, the most widespread theory is certainly the mitochondrial theory. This means that our cells switch their metabolism to fermentation. Let me explain it to you in a little more detail. As we still know from biology lessons, e.g. B. Sugar (C6 H12 O6 ) is broken down in our mitochondria via several intermediate stages to water and carbon dioxide. The intermediate stages are so important because otherwise we would generate so much heat during the degradation process that we would burn. So, on the one hand, our cells are energy producers to keep our body at 37° C, and on the other hand, each of us has the most sophisticated cooling system imaginable. Individual theorists are still arguing about why our cells no longer produce water and carbon dioxide at the end of this breakdown. At most, there is still agreement that cytochromoxidases (enzymes) and/or excessive consumption of glutathione play an important role, e.g. B. Dr. Heinrich Kremer in his book: The silent revolution in cancer and AIDS medicine. describes in detail. In summary, this means that our cells only produce 192 joules of energy instead of 2814 joules and we therefore have a real energy problem in our bodies 69

Machine Translated by Google

the most diverse effects on our organism such as: B. Tumors. The most important single effect, however, is a reduced tension in our cell membrane. This reduced cell voltage plays a crucial role because the cell membrane decides what goes into and out of a cell. Due to this changed voltage, it can happen that oxygen no longer gets into the cell. Now the cell only has two options. Either she decides to die or she begins to live without oxygen by consuming more energy than she produces herself. A by-product of this “decision” is the immortality of the cell. Tumors do not arise because your cells divide too quickly, but because the old ones no longer die.

Critics always claim that such programs do not exist in our cells. But of course that's not true, because we naturally have the program "without oxygen", i.e. to be able to generate the necessary energy from fermentation, in all of our cells, otherwise we wouldn't be in our womb for the first few days after conception Mother could have survived. There are 2 places in our body whose “electricity” we can measure with simple means, more precisely the ECG and EEG our heart and our brain. That's exactly where it is... possible that tumors are developing, or do you know someone with heart cancer. Not with heart cancer, but with a brain tumor, you might be thinking. But in reality there are no such things as “brain tumors”. As is well known, our brain is made up of nerve cells, and since nerve cells cannot divide, there can be no brain tumor. What there are are tumors of the neuroglia, a supporting tissue of the brain whose cells can divide throughout life. This supporting tissue of mesoderm origin makes up by far the largest part of our brain and consists of cells such as glial cells, astrocytes or oligodendrocytes, from which the names of “brain tumors” such as glioblastoma, astrocytoma, etc. derive. 70

Machine Translated by Google

come. Since nerve cells can no longer divide, there are of course no “brain tumors”. The situation is different with our heart, whose cells are constantly dividing. Our cell membranes have a voltage of -70 mV to -90 mV and as long as this voltage is maintained, a cell is not able to ferment, so it cannot become a cancer cell. Since our heart is known to be a little more “energized” than other cell structures, it is not possible for the cells in our hearts to degenerate into cancer cells. This fact alone suggests that the mitochondrial theory is much more suitable as an explanation for cancer than the mutation theory. Unfortunately, this has been simply “passed over” for many years and acted as if such “strange phenomena” did not exist, such as the fact that our heart does not develop tumors and that metastases occur mainly in the liver and lungs. men.

Therapy approach of the mitochondrial theory: Nutritional therapies, 3E program and orthomolecular medicine. As an umbrella term one could also write protection or health of the mitochondria. For supporters of the mitochondrial theory, genes only play a limited role.

71

Machine Translated by Google

The theory of the 2nd liver

If you ignore conventional doctors, for whom cancer is simply a genetic predisposition that nothing can be done about anyway, many researchers in the world are wondering whether there isn't a reason why our body produces a tumor. Psychological theories in particular often see the tumor as a meaningful product. Dr. Hamer has described this in detail or there is a theory in which the tumor is seen as a new intellectual challenge; in the sense of: Now I have to change something. This would also increase the incidence of cancer

explain problems in older people. However, there are also very interesting theses that are mainly based on physical processes. I would like to introduce one of these theses to you because it impressed me very much and I have since been able to explain a lot of things that were previously unclear to me. But before I explain the thesis to you, I would like to ask you something. Just imagine three groups of mice. The first group is the healthy comparison group. The second group is mice that are in a pre-cancerous stage and the third group of mice has already developed tumors. And now come the two cardinal questions:

1. Which comparison group has the best immune system? 2. Which group of mice can be injected with the most poison before they die?

I would like to go into both questions in a little more detail, more specifically how most conventional medicine is asking them these days.

72

Machine Translated by Google

would be answered and only then give you the correct answer, which may surprise you.

1. Which comparison group has the best immune system? 1a = the group of mice in the preliminary stage This question can be answered in both directions. One could say that our body's immune system/defense system is more active/stronger because it has to defend itself against the poison or cancer. But you could also say that the immune system is weaker because it is already fighting against the cancer cells. There are different opinions here, even among conventional doctors. gene.

1b = the group of mice with tumors This question is clearly answered in conventional medicine, but also by non-conventional doctors. Mice with tumors have a poorer immune system. All doctors actually agree on this. Can't we read in many books that cancer is a problem of the immune system and that cancer patients have to do everything they can to stabilize or improve their immune system?

2. Which group of mice can be injected with the most poison before they die? 2a = Depending on la, some would say that the pre-cancerous mice tolerate more or less poison. 2b = Everyone agrees on the group of mice with tumors. This group logically tolerates less poison because the immune system is already weakened by the tumors. 73

Machine Translated by Google

But what would actually happen if a tumor developed in our body because our “old” detoxification systems such as liver, kidneys, lungs and skin either no longer function properly or because far too many toxins have accumulated? Then the mice with the tumors would have to tolerate many more toxins than healthy mice!

And that's exactly how the nutritionist Dr. Catherine Cousmine published decades ago. In her work, she showed that mice in the pre-cancerous stage can only be administered 34% of the lethal amount of poison that healthy mice can tolerate. In contrast, mice that have already developed tumors can tolerate 200% of the amount of poison of healthy mice. Even mice with transplanted tumors tolerated higher amounts of poison. Not as good as with tumors that the mice themselves developed, but still significantly more than with healthy mice. If you cut out the tumors, the tumor mass is even able to neutralize fifteen times (!) the amount of poison. With previous vaccinations, Dr. Cousmine was even able to increase this number up to ninety times (!). Otherwise, only the liver cells in the body have comparable abilities to neutralize toxins. From this point of view, a tumor acts as a second liver in our body. It can neutralize toxins in a similar way to the liver and may even be able to neutralize certain substances more productively than the liver. But if we accept these irrefutable facts, then we must also draw the following conclusions:

1. No surgery on the tumor, in any case not before intensive detoxification therapy has been completed. Removing the tumor would mean depriving the body of some of the necessary detoxification options. In this way, we force the body to produce a new tumor. 74

Machine Translated by Google

By the way, this would also be the answer to the question: “Why do most people always have metastases in the liver?” the lungs?" The body builds an additional detoxification organ exactly in the places where it is needed most - in our liver and our lungs. By the way, many people don't realize that our lungs, along with the liver, do the most detoxification work.

2. People with cancer do not need an immune boost. The fact is that most cancer patients do not have any objective deficits in their immune system in their blood when they are diagnosed. And even if this can be proven over the course of the disease, the question still arises as to whether external intervention with mistletoe, thymus, etc. would make sense. 3. The unlikely detoxification abilities of tumors explain why conventional medicine often fails to destroy enough cancer cells, even with poisons as strong as carboplatin. Of course, there is also the intelligence of the cancer cells. If our body is able to produce such intelligent cells as tumor cells, whose job is to neutralize toxins, then it is, firstly, crazy to attack these cells with toxins and, secondly, one has to assume that the cells develop a defense mechanism (resistance) - if they don't already have it.

4. Holistic physicians have often experienced the “miracles” intensive detoxification measures can bring about. These facts have not only been known since Pastor Kneipp, but have long been reflected in the history of medicine. Dr. With her experiments, however, Cousmine provides a theoretical and, above all, easy-to-understand basis for this.

75

Machine Translated by Google

Personal conclusion: When I read the work of Dr. When I read Cousmine for the first time, I was delighted. Your work fits exactly into my picture of cancer and explains a lot of what I and many other therapists have experienced. For example, patients who did not undergo surgery and were cured. Therapists who, based on their years of experience with cancer patients, were mostly against surgery (which I used to think was bad myself). Studies that show that more metastases occur after operations. Studies that prove that tumors grow faster after the first chemotherapy treatments (because of course more cells are needed for detoxification) and much, much more.

But also the life and work of Dr. Cousmine made it very clear to me that her theory was correct because she helped many seriously ill people and detoxification and nutrition were her main therapies. Until the works and their entire theoretical approach to tumors are refuted, we cannot ignore their research. If she is right, then the current therapies can no longer be maintained. Why is no one doing research in this direction? Shouldn’t we all completely rethink things, including “alternative” doctors?

Therapy approach according to Dr. Cousmine Nutritional therapies and detoxification.

76

Machine Translated by Google

New medicine according to Dr. Hamer

Anyone today about Dr. Hamer writes, runs the risk of being lumped in with “the biggest quack in oncology.” Without me in front of Dr. If I want to ask Hamer, I have to say that to date I have only met a few people who have really dealt intensively with the theory of New Medicine (that's what Dr. Hamer calls his therapy). Most of the time it says, Dr. Hamer would be a weirdo, dreamer and cheater, me However, never hear sentences like: “His 3rd criterion of the Iron Rule is wrong because…”. When I Dr. When Ryke visited Geerd Hamer in his exile in Spain, I was certainly not sitting across from a weirdo, but rather a man who had dealt intensively with medicine and in particular with oncology. But what impressed me most was that I met people who told me that thanks to Dr. Hamer are still alive. Also impressive is that Dr. Hamer is prepared to prove his theory at any time under university conditions. This would only require a few professors, a university and a few patients to be interviewed. If the whole thing were to be made public, then you could Dr. Hamer could easily be convicted of being a quack. Although Dr. Hamer had already offered this several times, in recent years the “more convenient route” has always been taken through the judiciary. What is it that all doctors are so afraid of? Let me Dr. Explain Hamer's theory in a few words, and then you will be able to answer the question yourself.

According to Dr. According to Hamer, cancer, as well as other disorders, arise from a biological conflict. The word biological 77

Machine Translated by Google

A severe conflict represents a severe, acute conflict experience shock for which one was not prepared. The problem is that what may be a conflict for you means nothing to me and vice versa. This conflict then has effects on the three levels of psyche, brain and organ. Depending on how a person experiences the conflict, this conflict (energy) manifests itself in the brain in the form of socalled Hamer herds, which, according to Dr. Hamer can be seen in the CT image. And now comes the problem. From this moment on, the organism switches to permanent sympathicotonia, in German: permanent stress. Dr. Hamer divides cancer types into groups that belong to the different germ layers: ectoderm (outer), mesoderm (middle) and endoderm (inner). Depending on which germ layer an organ belongs to, e.g. B. Stomach and intestine to the entoderm, the conflicts cause different tumors or different growth. There is also a big difference in which phase of the disease the tumor is discovered. According to Dr. Hamer, approximately 40% of all tumors are found in an encapsulated form and should above all be left alone. Another difference is whether the patient is before or after conflict resolution. Anyone who would like to deal with the theory of new medicine in detail te, I recommend the book: Legacy of New Medicine, Volumes 1 and 2. Volume 1 is particularly important for cancer patients. You can also read the theory in detail on the websites www.pilhar.com or www.Neue-Medizin.de. By the way, it's not the first time that I've been massively attacked just because I was Dr. Hamer even mention. However, the data he presented still speaks for him and not against him. Several universities (Vienna, Trnava, Düsseldorf...) have confirmed his work, and the question still arises as to why no one has Dr. Publicly embarrassing Hamer when it's so easy. Since June 2002 it has been Dr. Incidentally, Hamer is allowed to work as a doctor again

78

Machine Translated by Google

to work in Spain (while he is wanted by arrest warrant in Germany and other countries). Isn't it interesting what different opinions two countries in the EC can have?

Psyche and body – an invention of Dr. Hamers? Of course not, and Dr. Hamer never claimed this either. At the same time, more and more people understand the influence of the psyche on our bodies. As early as 1701, the English doctor Gendron published “Inquiries into nature, knowledge, and cure of cancer”, connections between the psyche and cancer. This was followed in 1846 by Dr. Walshe in his “The Nature and Treatment of Cancer” and at the latest as Dr. Snow treated 250 women with cancer at the London Cancer Hospital in 1893 and described in his book “Cancer and the Cancer Process” that over 200 of these women had noticeable psychological distress, more research should have been done in this direction. The work of Prof. Dr. Grossarth-Maticek from Heidelberg in relation to cancer and psyche clearly show such a connection. It becomes really disappointing for me when you consider that the century of psychoanalysis began in Europe at the turn of the 20th century. Today there are hundreds of thousands of psychologists and psychoanalysts who, building on the work of Freud, Jung, Adler, Berne... should actually better understand the connections between cancer and the psyche. But where are all of these therapists? Why did Americans like Le Shan, Siegel, Simonton, etc. have to come and tell us Europeans how important the psyche is in cancer? In this book you can read a lot about energy and psyche. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized and from this point of view I agree 100% with Dr. Hamer. If you pay attention to the paragraph about the because-even though theory

have read, then you will also understand why Dr. Hamers 79

Machine Translated by Google

New medicine simply has to help in many cases . Two points are striking here. Firstly, he does not injure patients with his therapy and thus of course supports the self-healing powers. The second and at least equally important point, especially for cancer patients, is that Dr. Hamer takes the fear away from his patients. As you will learn in this book, fear or the diagnosis of cancer is often more destructive than the tumor itself. Dr. However, Hamer explains to his patients their illnesses, how they will get well again and what symptoms they will have during the self-healing process. When these occur, even if they are new tumors or ascites (water in the stomach), his patients gain more and more self-confidence in their self-healing processes and thus become healthier. However, there are also points on which I agree with Dr. Hamer disagreed. One is certainly diet. Without a doubt, the self-healing processes are the most important, but if we have a tumor in the body, then at the same time we have purely physical problems such as: B. increased lactic acid production and a cancer patient has to deal with that. If Dr. Hamer here says that it doesn't matter at all what a cancer patient eats, then I understand this very well within his own explanatory model of the New Medicine. However, this can be very dangerous for cancer sufferers and nutritional therapy will at least support the self-healing process, if not even initiate it. Another is the possible explanations of new medicine. For example, Dr. Hamer that lung cancer has nothing to do with cigarettes. Although I certainly understand his explanation here, the whole thing contains a very dangerous component in the sense of: “If everything is psychological, then from now on I can smoke, drink alcohol and only eat fast food.” This is certainly true an extreme and most people won't react that way. However, it is a fact 80

Machine Translated by Google

that Dr. Hamer does not address this point sufficiently in his writings, and this can lead to very dangerous misunderstandings. ren. What I also can't understand is why there aren't any studies by the countless Dr. Hamer supporters and Dr. Hamer patients exist. I have absolutely no doubt that Dr. Hamer has enough cases to show and with only 10 cases of cured pancreatic head carcinoma, his supporters could take the wind out of the sails of all doubters. Furthermore, I only know a few therapists who would be able to diagnose cancer based on a CT image. Because Dr. Since Hamer and his students can do this according to their own statements, it would be easy to demonstrate this publicly. This is certainly legally possible and no one can hide here by saying: “Then I will be arrested”. I would definitely like to see some progress in this area and would like to join Dr. Hamer's own words say that he will withdraw from all theories of New Medicine if even one person succeeds in refuting him.

New medicine therapeutic approach: Resolution of the conflict and clarification of the course of the disease.

81

Machine Translated by Google

The frequency theory

How do the trillions of cells in our body actually communicate? How does a cell even know what kind of cell it is? There is a lot of debate today about our genes, but one thing is certain: we usually have the same genes in all cells, regardless of whether these cells are in our knee or in our eye. So it is absolutely impossible that all this information is stored in our genes. While morphogenetic fields are studied in Russia and knowledge of meridians (energy pathways) has been part of the traditional training of all doctors for thousands of years in China, in the modern West these “things” still belong in the “esoteric corner”, just like cell communication via photons (Light). Even if we have not yet found reliable answers to these important questions in the 21st century, we can already say that light and waves play an important role. What Dr. Rife began in 1930, the physicist Schrödinger first put his concept of internal order into words and what continues in modern photon and frequency research is already being described in many places as the future of medicine. We now know that there is a so-called potassium-sodium pump in the cell membrane of almost all of our cells, which generates energy - the energy we need for our lives. For energy medicine experts, which include frequency scientists, there are no diseases in the medical sense, but only two states in which cells can be: energetically normal or energetically abnormal. According to American, Russian and German researchers, abnormally functioning 82

Machine Translated by Google

Cells (e.g. cancer cells) provide the body with up to 60 times more energy without generating energy themselves. This is also the reason why a small tumor of a few hundred cubic centimeters can cause so much trouble for an adult. It is not the tumor alone that is to blame for an illness, but rather the abnormal withdrawal of energy from healthy cells. This is exactly where frequency therapy comes in, the task of which is to bring this depolarization (change in cell voltage) back into order. The cell membrane, consisting of a double layer of phospholipids (fats and phosphates) that is approximately ten nanometers thick, forms the skin of the cell. Membrane proteins are integrated into this membrane. These “antennas” (see also Dr. Budwig oil-protein diet) or receptors transmit sensory inputs to the cell, that is, through them the cell makes contact with the “outside world” and determines what goes into or out of the cell. goes out of it. Consequently, cell behavior is controlled by stimuli from the cell's environment and not just by the genes in the cell.

Each receptor is calibrated to receive and respond to only one type of signal from the environment. Through this physical filter, a cell is able to explore its surroundings and absorb the necessary substances. The fatprotected membrane acts as an electrical insulator, allowing the cytoplasm (cell contents) to assume a negative charge state in contrast to the layer surrounding it. men. The cell acts like a battery with negative and positive poles. For the cell, the change in its energy state is an electrical signal, e.g. B. can activate or inhibit specific genetic programs. The cells detect the environment by converting energies in the electromagnetic spectrum into biologically useful information. Different receptor proteins convert light, sounds, X-rays, radio vibrations, microwaves and extremely low frequencies (ELF) into cell connections

83

Machine Translated by Google

by activating effector proteins, which in turn can cause depolarization of the membrane, activation of the cytoplasmic enzyme system or regulation of genetic processes. In this way, the energetic environment regulates or controls the behavior and well-being of cells and tissue. This energetic regulation always has priority over the regulation of cell activities through chemical influences.

Frequency theory therapy approach: According to frequency therapists, every illness arises from a reduction in energy production by the sodium-potassium pump. In practice, this means that if we manage to supply the body with the right frequencies/waves, we can basically cure any disease. What still sounds like a utopia today can very quickly change the entire field of medicine. Of course, it is also interesting to note that the mitochondrial theory, the theory of new medicine, the compensation theory and the frequency theory are not mutually exclusive - quite the opposite. There is nothing to say against the fact that the disturbances in the sodium-potassium pump only arise from disturbances such as those explained in the other theories. The therapeutic approach alone is different, as frequency therapists believe that it is enough to transmit the right frequencies to the body for it to heal. I personally agree with this opinion. But unfortunately we are not yet ready to understand which frequencies or through which transmission options healing can occur. If all research money didn't go into more chemotherapy protocols, then we would definitely be very close to finding truly effective solutions.

84

Machine Translated by Google

The compensation theory

This theory states that a tumor arises because certain cells can no longer fulfill the tasks intended for them and therefore try to compensate by overproducing (this is also explained by Dr. Hamer, among others, in slightly different words). ).

The trigger is always a stressful situation, which can be physical (poor food, radiation exposure, toxins, etc.) and/or psychological in nature. This stressful situation prevents a cell from organizing itself as usual (e.g. cell membrane tension, mitochondrial activity, etc.). This reduces the vi85

Machine Translated by Google

tal functions of the cell and it looks “on its own” for a way out of this situation. Unfortunately, this “search” leads to stress again and the cycle of cancer can no longer be stopped. We know this phenomenon with fatty liver disease. In the case of liver disorders, such as: B. due to excessive alcohol consumption, the liver cells are under constant stress, which no longer allows the liver to organize itself. As a result, the liver can no longer carry out its detoxification functions and produces more cells in the hope that these new cells can “help”. So, to be on the safe side, our liver does something very intelligent and produces far more cells than before, thereby enlarging itself significantly. This exact process could also occur in cancer cells. Since the function of certain cells is disturbed, the body still tries to fulfill the tasks intended for these cells and, so to speak, produces more and more cells of the same type like crazy. Unfortunately, this overproduction leads to cells that are not 100% identical to the original cells and therefore cause great damage to neighboring cell structures. You can easily test this theory yourself. Enter yours

Plants without water for a short period of time and they will sprout faster than the “well-fed” ones. If you think that you can't tell people from plants, then you're wrong. Do you know how to create clones in the laboratory in today's genetic engineering? Not by placing them in a sufficient nutrient solution, but exactly the opposite is the case. If you want to make human cells divide faster, you let them “starve”. This is probably exactly what happens with a tumor. The cells are “starving” because they are not getting enough of what they need. This theory also makes it easy to see why nutrition and detoxification play such an important role in cancer.

86

Machine Translated by Google

Therapy approach of the compensation theory: The most important thing is to exclude all stress factors. Of course, this includes physical factors such as teeth, intestines, skin, mesenchymal tissue, scars... and psychological factors. If you consider that conventional medicine treats cancer with toxins, and then you consider the psychological stress caused by the diagnosis and the lack of sensitivity of many doctors, from the point of view of the compensation theory you can only say that everything , what you can do wrong is also done wrong in conventional medicine.

87

Machine Translated by Google

Reich's theory

The famous doctor Wilhelm Reich, who opposed his teacher Sigmund Freud and wrote many works on the liberation of natural sexuality, was one of the first to view cancer as an energy deficit. He describes in detail how cancer cells have lost connection to the whole (body) and their energetic charge is no longer sufficient to do the work intended for them.

As a psychoanalyst, it was of course clear to him that such cell disorders were the result of a major emotional blockage. What Reich only described theoretically, Prof. Dr. Albert Popp demonstrated in the laboratory a few years ago - namely the altered emission of biophotons in cancer cells. Kirlian photography (photos taken in the dark room in a radio frequency field) is also uncovering more and more evidence for this theory. We also have a lot to thank for the fact that we now know that our immune system not only produces antibodies and white blood cells eat up antigens, but that there is also a bioenergetic immune defense. What this means is that it is very important how energetically charged a cell is. His work with blood cells clearly showed that they are able to: B. to withdraw energy from pathogens and thus kill them. If the blood cell is too weak, the energy flow towards the blood cell does not occur and the pathogen can spread further. Interestingly, this applies both to external pathogens and to internal pathogens following structural breakdown.

process. Reich was able to determine in the blood of cancer patients that 88

Machine Translated by Google

There are an immense number of T bacilli (definition according to Reich) and the few red blood cells break apart quickly. Since these T bacilli logically extract a lot of energy, a cancer patient becomes increasingly cachectic (weaker) and dies from this loss of energy (see also frequency theory). Every oncologist knows this problem, as most cancer patients die not from the size of the tumor, but from this process. With Reich's theory, many extraordinary successes (also called spontaneous healings or miracles by conventional medicine) of cancer therapists can be explained “scientifically”. I can only confirm this theory, as I have personally shaken the hands of many people who have become healthy through “energy work”.

Therapy approach of Reich's theory: Detoxification, nutrition, energy work with the orgone accumulator (a specially built box that you can sit in).

89

Machine Translated by Google

The trichomonad theory

Russian scientist Tamara Lebedeva has claimed for many years that what pathologists decipher as cancer cells under the microscope are actually trichomonads. What at first glance looks like absolute scientific nonsense is no longer so crazy at second glance, especially if you know all the research by Ms. Lebedeva and her Russian colleagues. The fact that parasites are responsible for the development of cancer is not all that new. Karlmichel described this almost 200 years ago and in 1893 Pfeiffer described that cancer was caused by the parasite amoeba sporidium. In the last century, it was Prof. Koch in Germany, Newjadomskij in Russia and Clark in America who repeatedly came back to a parasite theory. Trichomonads are small flagellates that can exist in three different stages: the flagellated stage, as a type of amoeba and in the cyst form. Since this parasite reproduces asexually, an extremely different organism is created each time. With the help of hyaluronidase (an enzyme), these parasites can move throughout the body. Due to their diverse appearance, they of course also have different antigenic properties. What is phenomenal is that they secrete antigens on their surface that are absolutely identical to antigens of human origin. This of course irritates the immune system and would explain why our immune system is so powerless against tumors. According to Lebedewa's theory, a tumor cell is an unflagellated type of parasitic protozoan (flagellate). So a tumor is nothing 90

Machine Translated by Google

other than a collection of unflagellated trichomonads and their daughter cells that do not detach. But why do trichomonads suddenly form large groups? There are theories for this too. Firstly, it can happen that daughter cells do not separate, secondly, there can be a fight for survival with the host (human), which is why as many new cells as possible have to be formed and thirdly, it of course makes sense that a group survives better than individual fighters -fer.

Therapy approach of the trichomonad theory: Detoxification, nutrition, anti-trichomoniasis remedies.

91

Machine Translated by Google

Acid-base theory

Much has been written in recent years about the importance of acid-base balance, including in relation to cancer. But when it comes to having to explain why the pH value of the blood increases in cancer patients while it drops in the interstitial tissue, the first logical explanation is missing (by the way, the pH increase in the blood is due to the fact that... the chlorine of NaCl is bound intracellularly to proteins and the basic sodium forms alkali salts). I would like to introduce you to the work of Erich Rouka, who treated people with cancer for many years and who thought a lot about the development of cancer. As early as 1970, Rouka described how the increasing glycolysis (breakdown of sugar into lactic acid) in cells that are exposed to stress, via an inflammatory stimulus, contributes to normal cells becoming cancer cells. He was able to show that it is precisely this large amount of acid production that keeps cancer cells alive and at the same time damages healthy cells. In contrast to “healthy inflammation”, in which pus forms, the protein fragments only break down into larger proteins such as albumoses, peptones or peptides, which then serve as components for new cancer cells. Innervation (stimulation of nerve cells) of the adjacent tissue also creates new inflammatory stimuli and, of course, pain. Rouka bases his hypotheses on the work of Borst and Warburg, who established at the beginning of the last century that embryonic cells have a large anaerobic phase and that the surface of the cells has a similar acidification to cancer cells. Only by growing into the blood

92

Machine Translated by Google

spaces of the uterine wall, this situation changes. However, the infiltrative type of growth (growing into other tissues) was only possible by acidifying the cell surface. Of course, this knowledge also confirms the statements of many researchers who repeatedly point out that all of our cells have anaerobic survival systems stored in their genes. The issue of cell division rate plays a permanent role in cancer. We now know that the pH value in serum increases over the course of the aging process and, at the same time, the rate of cell division decreases. In many researches it has been found that with increased cell division there is also increased glycolysis and a falling pH value. Researchers only need to place cells in cultures below a pH value of 7.4 and these cells will divide vigorously. It can be concluded that the increased glycolysis and the falling pH value are a consequence and not the cause. What is also revealing here is the fact that cancer cells do not increase in size in a normal environment. However, if you add a piece of muscle tissue to the cells, the rate of division increases enormously and the cells infiltrate into the muscle tissue, just like in the human body, because the muscle tissue provides you with the building materials you need. Incidentally, growth here runs parallel to lactic acid production. In his descriptions, however, Rouka also brings the current mutation theory into harmony with the facts described previously. First of all, he describes the fact that cells can adapt amazingly to changing situations (see also Cousmine's theory). This is important because doctors today speak of undifferentiated cells and pathologists describe these cells under the microscope as cancer. According to Rouka, however, these are nothing other than cells that have adapted to the changed environment due to certain conditions (toxins, radiation, parasites, pathogens, aging processes, etc.). It is known that our DNA (deoxyribonucleic acids) cooperates with the messenger RNA (ribonucleic acids), the 93

Machine Translated by Google

Feedback RNA and the ribosomes determine the type of cell, so to speak. But DNA is by no means a rigid, unchangeable structure, but rather constantly receives information via feedback mechanisms from the RNA. Adapted genetic substances are created via enzymatic processes or, to put it another way, the genetic material has adopted the increased acidification as a new property of the cell. This in turn means that this mutation of the cell naturally also creates a new messenger RNA. Initially, a new generation of cells is created with ever-increasing acidification (e.g. as in leukemia cells), at the end of which there is a cell with very high acidification capacity = the cancer cell. Of course, a vicious cycle takes place here, as the cancer cells not only stimulate an increased rate of division, but also cause the connective tissue to become increasingly dense, so that even fewer oxygen molecules and vital substances penetrate. In addition, the body brings white blood cells to the scene, which unfortunately also consume additional oxygen when there is already too little. From this point of view, an increase in immune cells, regardless of the preparation, is of course very questionable. Today we have to assume (as you can see under the microscope) that adaptation processes have also taken place in the genes of cancer cells, because this is the only way to explain that cancer cells can even withstand the extreme acidification. This is also supported by studies by the researcher Werth, who used malachyte green to inhibit the formation of cytochrome oxidase-c (an enzyme that is important for oxygen utilization and to which Dr. Budwig and Dr. Seeger repeatedly referred in all their work). They were able to prove that when experimental animals were given mala-chyte green over several generations, the genetic material took on reduced production of cytochrome oxidase-c as a new trait. The researcher Strong was also able to contribute a lot to this topic. 94

Machine Translated by Google

carry. He injected animals with 1 mg of methylcholanthrene for 60 days for 21 generations. Afterwards, a group of offspring was separated and no longer received methylcholanthrene. Of 797 animals, 528 developed spontaneous tumors (there were 3 animals in the control group). The reduced utilization of oxygen led to the many tumors and Strong was able to prove which mutations lead to cancer and that such mutations are adaptations to changed situations, such as a toxin in this case. I find Rouka's statements and his conclusions (nutrition and detoxification) very coherent. His theories come true, especially in his daily work with cancer patients and explain a lot of things that initially seem so incomprehensible to laypeople. What is also impressive is the combination of the mitochondrial and mutation theories, which, according to Rouka, are not entirely mutually exclusive.

Erich Rouka's therapeutic approach: Detoxification, extreme deacidification, nutrition.

95

Machine Translated by Google

More theories

Of course, there are many other theories, such as the anthroposophical theory according to Rudolf Steiner, in which the etheric body can no longer penetrate the physical body. Pischinger and Heine also have a plausible theory with their description of morphogenetic inducers and the disruption of the matrix. I don't want to go into all the theories of traditional Chinese medicine or Ayurveda in more detail in this book because I think that would otherwise take up too much of a scope. It is important to me that you understand that the mutation theory that is accepted as “scientific fact” by almost all doctors is not nearly as scientific as it is portrayed and that there are other theories that are far more plausible.

As Erich Rouka describes very well and as we all know today, there are of course changes in the cell nuclei. But to simply go along now and act as if all the other changes were just a “consequence” of this DNA change can only be described as ignorance and arrogance given our current knowledge. Where does the denial of “real” Unfortunately, we have to experience it every day. So the next time you hear something from an “evil” or “degenerate” cell that is blamed for cancer, then you at least know that these sentences at most reflect the level of knowledge of the person saying them and nothing more.

96

Machine Translated by Google

3rd chapter

Cancer diagnosis

97

Machine Translated by Google

When is cancer actually cancer?

For many years we have been told that thanks to new preventive examinations we can get the “problem of cancer” better under control. But the only thing that has been brought under control is the considerable additional income of the industry that produces X-ray machines, PAP tests, etc. Another advantage for the industry is that the statistics look better. Since the introduction of mammograms, women with breast cancer have been surviving much longer. The truth, however, is that the numbers only look better because the tumor is discovered earlier and therefore there are logically more women who are still alive 5 years after the tumor was discovered. In reality, despite millions of taxpayers' money, not a single woman's life is saved. Quite the opposite. The high rate of incorrect diagnoses contributes to women in particular being unnecessarily mutilated. In British Columbia, Canada, a state where all women have a Pap smear test, the death rate from cervical cancer is just as high as in the other federal states. As early as 1988, another study showed that within 2 years almost 50% of all abnormal smears regressed to normal. In the British Journal of Cancer, the authors of a study stated that up to 60%! the results were wrong. Things got really embarrassing in 1987 when 45,000 smears were reanalyzed in England and they found at 911 that the diagnosis was wrong. Please keep in mind that as a result of such a test, serious measures, including total operations and chemotherapy, will be initiated, which will then cause cancer where previously there were healthy cells. Things aren't much better with the Mammog 98

Machine Translated by Google

raphy. Even the National Cancer Institute in the USA withdrew its previous recommendation in 1994 that women under 50 should have a mammogram. The truth is that it had to do this even though its industry backers were certainly not happy about it because various studies showed the negative effects. If you don't think this is very convincing, you should read Susan Ott's article in the British Medical Journal in 1994, in which she reports how Swedish researchers observed over 350 women whose mammograms led to a misdiagnosis. She listed that these women had 1,112 doctor visits, 397 biopsies! and endured 187 more mammograms only to be told they were never sick.

Things get really unpleasant when you know that in 1994, when the Canadian government examined 50,000 women aged 40 - 49 years, it found that 33% more women died in the group who had a mammogram than in the comparison group. Although more tumors were discovered in the mammography group, this did not turn out to be particularly positive for the women affected, as the result clearly shows. I would just like to say in passing that this result has now been confirmed by further studies in Sweden and the USA. Doesn't everyone know that X-rays cause cancer? Isn't it logical that when delicate tissue, such as that of the female breast, is pressed with great pressure between two plates, minimal injury can result? Isn't every doctor now aware that mammography pushes any cancer cells that may be present into other parts of the tissue and causes exactly what you want to prevent? JP van Netten from the Royal Jubilee Hospital in London clearly demonstrated this fact in a study in 1994 when he was able to prove that so-called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ, in German: breast cancer at a very early stage 99

Machine Translated by Google

Stage in the milk duct) increased by 200% due to the mammograms. Many women still believe that preventative care appointments are important. Quite apart from the fact that they are not, through this pre-worry they also create fears which, as we now know, can cause cancer. Let me show the benefits of preventive care in more detail using mammography as an example. First of all, there is the question of when and how often. This is assessed very differently and even if you look at the best statistics, you can't see any advantage for women under 50 and over 70. When evaluating the data, it is often “forgotten” that women who take part in early detection measures usually come from higher social classes and therefore have a longer life expectancy. Furthermore, women are not told that slow-growing tumors are easier to detect than fast-growing tumors because they naturally remain in a stage where they can be discovered for longer. Of course, these tumors have a better prognosis even without early detection. The advantage of mammography is often supported by studies that show that women appear to have lived longer if they were constantly examined. Let's take a closer look at this. One of these “positive” studies is that of Dr. Nystrom. In this study, over a 10year period, 4 out of 1,000 women who were not screened died. In the group of women who had mammography, 3 women out of 1,000 died. Put slightly differently, 996 women are exposed to radioactive radiation in order for one woman to survive. However, to a mammography machine marketing manager, these numbers mean something entirely different. He will write: “Mammography causes 25% fewer women to die” (3 instead of 4). So much for reading statistics. If you look at the total numbers of the study, you will notice that out of 100,000 women who were not examined, 89,550 were 100

Machine Translated by Google

survived and 89,020 of those examined. If you look at it badly, you could say that 520 more women died in the group examined. To be fair, however, it must be said that these numbers are not statistically significant and one can assume that the same number of women die in both groups, regardless of whether they go for a preliminary examination or not. What your doctor probably won't tell you about is another study of 26,057 women (Kerlikowske). A total of 25,858 women did not have breast cancer, but only 24,187 had negative mammograms. i.e. that 1,671! Women were told that they probably had cancer and even if some people weren't told, I'm sure almost everyone thought it or at least had to endure strong fears. Interestingly, mammography was also negative for 20 of 199 women, even though they had breast cancer. If you add the 179 women who were only later found out that they had breast cancer, you get exactly 1,850 women with a tumor diagnosis. In total, however, only 199 women had breast cancer or, to put it another way, only one in 10 women with a pathological finding actually had breast cancer. The number of false findings is particularly frightening for women under 50. jerking up.

Have you ever read in a newspaper about the enormous damage not only to women caused by these examinations? Or how many times have you read about what women had to go through because of an incorrect mammogram report? How many women would die with (and not because of) their tumor without ever having any major problems (similar to prostate cancer) and who actually discusses the question that it is a big problem for many women, the last ones Having to live for years of your life knowing you have cancer and all the physical and psychological problems that go with it? DCIS is another term that plays a big role in breast cancer. Because that's what is very often discovered during mammograms 101

Machine Translated by Google

becomes. Even conventional doctors (see also Silverstein, Brit. Med. J. 317: 1998, 734 - 739) now estimate that half of DCIS only develop into invasive breast cancer after 10 - 20 years. Even a layman can now understand why the 5Annual breast cancer statistics look so good. Another problem with mammography is often kept secret: the radiation exposure caused by the examination. There is talk of state-of-the-art equipment and lower radiation exposure than on a holiday in the mountains. However, no one says that Dr. Mettler published in 1996 that one death per 10,000 women had to be expected due to radiation exposure. According to estimates by Jung (1998), the additional risk of developing breast cancer due to regular mammograms is 0.015% to 0.045% - “converted” this means 1.5 - 4.5 women per 10,000. In other words, this means for you: If you belong to the 0.015%, then your risk of getting cancer from a mammogram is exactly 100%! The following is also not something people like to talk about: Although my wife will never go for a mammogram, I and she help pay for this expensive examination every month with my contributions. In 1995, the renowned Rand Corporation calculated that between 332,000 DM and 2,960,000 DM would have to be spent to get one! the only breast cancer to be discovered. Honestly, how long are we all supposed to keep paying for this nonsense?

And men? Men are also not protected from unjustified attacks. A 1994 study published in the British Medical Journal proved that the ever-popular PSA (prostate specific antigen) test is not nearly as accurate as is widely claimed. In this study, 366 men developed prostate cancer with a normal PSA level, while only 47% of men who 102

Machine Translated by Google

who already had prostate cancer had a higher value in the first place. Hand on heart, how do you feel when you find out that almost every second PSA test in this study was wrong. Something else should also be considered when it comes to prostate cancer.

In 1995, the American Cancer Society described in its Prostate Cancer Information that 15% of all men had cancer cells found in their prostates. This number increases to 40% for 70-year-olds and to around 50% for 80-year-olds. So you first have to consider how active these cancer cells really are, and the PSA test certainly doesn't show that. PJ Scerret impressively describes in his “Screening for Prostate Cancer” that only 1% of these cancer cells develop into a cancer tumor and just 0.3% of these prostate tumors cause the death of the person affected. And if this is still not enough for you, you should definitely read the books by Prof. Julius Hackethal, who has confirmed all of these data in his research.

The earlier you detect a tumor, the better? We are always told that the earlier you detect a tumor, the better. The truth, however, is that these studies show that the earlier a tumor was discovered, the sooner women died. Of course, this was and is not due to early discovery – This is always an advantage - but because the earlier a tumor is discovered in women (and men), the greater the chance that a therapy will be suggested to you that will cause you to die sooner. To be fair, however, it must also be said that it may not be the therapy at all, but perhaps the knowledge about the disease. You've probably already had the floor “self-fulfilling prophecy” is heard. There is nothing behind this other than the famous placebo effect, meaning that what we firmly believe in always happens. True to the motto: “Our faith moves mountains.” 103

Machine Translated by Google

Just ask patients what words they associate with the word cancer. Surely you will hear words like: death, pain, God, meaning of life, why...! Unfortunately, these words lead most people into a maelstrom that leads to illness rather than health. Doctors in particular should know what placebo effects can trigger, but when it comes to cancer, the diagnosis is handled so carelessly that sometimes one has to assume that the words oncology and psychology should never be mentioned together in the same room . Also the statements of Dr. Hamer (see under New Medicine) and many other therapists naturally fit into this category.

When do I have cancer? Today, the diagnosis of cancer is primarily made by pathologists. Now you probably assume that there is a foolproof formula for determining when someone has cancer and when they don't. Unfortunately, I have to disappoint you on this point too. In 1992, for example, For example, a study in England found that in some areas 20% of all cervical and breast cancer tests were positive and in other areas only 3%. In 1987, 45,000 tests were re-analyzed in Liverpool and 911 were found to be incorrectly diagnosed. In Manchester in 1988 there were 60 false tests out of 3,000. At Yale University, 150 good quality mammograms were given to 10 experienced radiographers to view. In a whopping 50 cases the doctors disagreed. You have to imagine it. Every third mammogram was not seen consistently by the experienced radiologist. I certainly don't need to explain to you in detail what this means. These studies show once again how little science there is in medicine. Another point is that pathologists don't like to commit themselves. The reports then say: “is most compatible with clinical picture XY” or “truly104

Machine Translated by Google

Apparently it is a..., in terms of differential diagnosis it could also be a...". Once you've read hundreds of pathology reports, you could write a book on "likely, most likely, perhaps, uncertain, etc." Strangely enough, in almost all cases the “probabilities” are assumed 100% by the doctors, because there is no other explanation for the fact that what sounds a bit uncertain in the pathology report is always confirmed to be 100% certain in the discharge report. is written. The standards of pathology textbooks are now judged to be safe, without anyone questioning the entire procedure. An example. Certain cells are 100% certain by pathologists to be cancer cells. But now there are people with this diagnosis who have neither died nor the tumor has continued to grow, even without treatment. Another example is the Foundation for the Bone Tumor Reference Center in Basel, where over 9,000 bone tumor cases have been diagnosed. Of these, over 5,500 cases were sent for a second assessment. And now please read carefully: Of the approximately 5,500 cases, the diagnosis had to be changed in 2,289 cases. To put it a little differently - almost every second diagnosis was wrong with regard to the type of cancer and in 492 cases the diagnosis was 100% wrong (i.e. the patients did not have cancer at all). All previous diagnoses were sent by “authorities in their field”, by professors, by heads of pathological institutes, etc. In this example, one must not forget that these are very serious diagnoses. Particularly in the case of bone tumors, the decision is often made to “remove” entire limbs. Need to become. Incidentally, this was the case in 236 cases, meaning that in 236 people, often young people, pathologists had diagnosed cancer where there was none. Statistically speaking, this means that catastrophic therapy would have been initiated in at least one in 20 patients if some doctor or the patient had not 105

Machine Translated by Google

insisted that the existing pathology report be checked again. If you assume that this only happens in very few cases, then you can imagine what is happening these days. And please don't forget: Before the second examination, every pathologist had claimed that his diagnosis was correct. Since I am well aware of the “sensitivity” of this topic, I would like to make it clear that pathologists are probably “right” in many cases when you look at cancer from their point of view. But unfortunately there are different ways to get to Rome and let's be honest, Mr. Pathologist, would you immediately recommend a mastectomy (removal of the breast) for your own wife after she was diagnosed with breast cancer? I do not want to go into the pathologist problem in more detail in this book. For you as a patient, it simply means nothing more, but also nothing less, than that you should definitely have the diagnosis confirmed by further examinations before making any major decisions.

106

Machine Translated by Google

The 1% hurdle

Doctors like to argue that tests are wrong in at most one percent of all cases. At first glance, that sounds pretty good. Unfortunately, many people understand very little about mathematics, otherwise they would know that a test that is 1% wrong is actually 99% wrong when used on millions of people. Let me show you the whole thing using a calculation example. Suppose a laboratory uses a test that is 99% accurate. Suppose further that we take a disease that only occurs in 1 in 10,000 people, such as a certain type of skin cancer. Now calculate the result yourself if a million people are tested with this test.

1. 100 people were rightly diagnosed with cancer (1,000,000: 10,000 = 100), as one in 10,000. has this disease.

2. 9,999 were wrongly diagnosed with cancer (one in 100 patients) Now please add up how many people have been diagnosed with cancer and you will get the number 10,999 (9,999 plus 100 = 10,099). However, of the 10,099 people with cancer, only 100 are actually sick, meaning that this test was wrong in 99% of all cases diagnosed with cancer . You see, it's very easy to deal with numbers if you 107

Machine Translated by Google

presents it the way you would like it to. However, the truth is often very different and we have to question every number. Patients tell me over and over again that their doctor told them that if they did this or that therapy, they would have a better chance of doing this or that. I can only recommend that you have these numbers confirmed in writing or ask your doctor to write down in which book or study you can read this. Why do I say that? Quite simply: I have had to experience in recent years that therapists are unfortunately not mathematicians and therefore apparently deal with numbers in a way that would get my son a straight six at school. So be careful if your doctor tells you that your chances of survival will increase by ?? percent improved. Question such numbers fundamentally and if your doctor reacts offended, which unfortunately happens very often, then I would like to ask you: “Do you really want to be treated by a doctor who simply makes up numbers as he needs them at the moment?” This is about your life and your family's happiness, not about receiving a prize for being the most pleasant patient. Good doctors don't have problems with questions like these - so why should you?

108

Machine Translated by Google

Conventional examinations to diagnose a tumor or Blood and lymph cancer

1. Blood tests In addition to the “normal” blood count, it is primarily the so-called tumor markers that are intended to provide information about whether “cancer” is taking place in the body. Tumor markers are “tumor-associated signaling substances” whose appearance in human blood is thought to be linked to the development and growth of malignant tumors. Doctors mainly distinguish between 2 groups: la Non-specific substances that accompany tumor growth, such as: B. Plasma protein changes (BSG, acute phase proteins), iron distribution disorders (ferritin, transferin), enzyme and isoenzyme increases (LDH, AP). lb Specific substances produced by the tumor itself, such as: B. the onco-fetal antigens (AFP, CEA), the onco-lacental antigens (ß-HCG, HPLAP), the membrane antigens/hybridoma-defined tumor antigens (CA 19-9, CA 15-3, CA 125, SCC ), as well as substances/hormones such as (ACTH, PTH, STH, VIP (polypeptides). With the exception of thyroglobulin (thyroid) and PSA (prostate), all tumor markers are not organ-specific. The CEA value can be increased in colon, pancreatic, breast and bronchial cancer. Tests are often combined, such as CEA and CA 15-3 for breast cancer or AFP and HCG for germ cell tumors. 109

Machine Translated by Google

List of tumor markers and associated ones Tumors

CEA

gastric, colorectal, breast, Bronchial carcinomas

AFP

Germ cell tumors, hepatocellular carcinoma

CA 19-9

pancreatic, gastric, bile duct, Ovarian cancer

CA 12-5

Epithelial ovarian carcinoma

CA 15-3

Breast, ovarian, uterine cancer nom

PPE

Prostate cancer

NSE

Small cell lung cancer, seminoma, APUdoma, neurobladder tom

SCC

Squamous cell carcinoma (cervix, esophagus, ENT)

CT

Thyroid carcinoma (medullary, C cell)

TG

Thyroid carcinoma (diffuse, pa-pillary)

TPA

Surface activity marker, more universal companion marker

ß2-microglobulin ENT

Lymphomas, plasmacytoma SCC, CEA, TPA

Thyroid carcinoma

TG, TPA

(diffuse, papillary) Thyroid carcinoma

Calcitonin, NSE

(C cell) Bronchial carcinoma

CYFRA

- Squamous

SCC, CEA

epithelium - small cell

NSE, CEA

110

Machine Translated by Google

- Adenocarcinoma CEA Breast cancer

CA 15-3, MCA, CEA

Pancreatic carcinoma

CA 19-9, TPA

CA 19-9, CEA Gastric carcinoma Colorectal carcinoma CEA, CA 19-9 Liver carcinoma - hepatocellular AFP - cholangiocellular CA19-9 - metastatic CEA Ovarian cancer - epithelial mucinous

CA 12-5, TPA CA 19-9

Testicular tumors - seminoma,

HCG, SCC

- non-seminomatous AFP, HCG Prostate cancer PSA RIA Bladder carcinoma

CEA, TPA

Plasmacytoma

ß2-microglobulin

Lymphomas

TPA (ferritin)

I am unable to judge how exactly tumor markers indicate cancer and, above all, what an increase or decrease in values actually means, since there are at least as many different statements about this as tumor markers themselves. I know many patients whose tumor markers sometimes increased dramatically and were healthy again shortly afterwards and other patients who died afterwards. I have also documented many cases in which patients with completely normal tumor markers died and others whose tumor markers have been elevated for many years without the patients showing any symptoms. Interestingly, tumor markers also often increase before tumors become smaller. And it is precisely at this moment that patients often come to the doctor and...

111

Machine Translated by Google

1.c. Immune status In principle, it must of course be mentioned in all blood tests that when it comes to cancer, what is most important is what is happening in the cell and less what is found in the blood. This applies in particular to what doctors call an immune status. A blood test is used to examine specific cell groups in more detail. The following cell types are primarily examined:

Cell types

Standard values

Leukocytes

4000 - 8000

Lymphocytes

20 - 50

T lymphocytes 60 - 75 B lymphocytes 5 - 20 T4 helper cells 30 - 50 T8 suppressor 20 - 30 T8 cytotoxic 3 - 16 NK cells

10 - 14

These cell types can be divided even further, e.g. B. in LAK cells etc., but the question quickly arises as to why. On the one hand, these examinations, which are unfortunately very expensive, allow in many cases an assessment of the progression of the cancer. On the other hand, I experience again and again that patients and oncologists are totally dependent on these values in the sense of: “How are you, Ms. Müller?” “Thank you, doctor, my killer cells have increased by 2.3% again.” Here too, patients die even if the population of killer cells doubles. We know far too little about their importance. Everything that is sold as “scientific” in this area today reminds me more of Wall Street than of a medical practice.

So be sure to free yourself from blood tests. Please don't misunderstand. I'm not against these tests, I'm just against going to your doctor in fear every time because you don't 112

Machine Translated by Google

know what blood values you have. And once you start listening, you won't need most blood tests anymore anyway.

2. Imaging techniques These include X-rays, sonography, CT, magnetic resonance imaging, PET, etc. Please note that there is no such thing as a “low” dose of X-rays. So be very careful and always keep copies of your recordings at home to avoid unnecessary examinations.

3. Biopsies When it comes to diagnosis, no effort can be too great. As already explained using the example of mammography, apparently no costs or efforts are too high for “us” in the Western world when it comes to diagnosing an illness. It doesn't matter whether these diagnoses are harmful to health or not. This certainly applies to all types of biopsies. A biopsy is a removal of tissue for examination under a microscope. There are various procedures such as fine needle puncture, punch biopsy, stereotactic biopsy procedures such as Mammatome or ABBI, etc. However, what they all have in common is that they are very dangerous. Before you have one of these examinations carried out, you should read the following arguments against it carefully: 1. 1.With every biopsy, millions of cancer cells enter the bloodstream and, in some procedures, even more other tissue, as doctors sometimes prick multiple times with the same needle. Thousands of professors at countless universities around the world teach the theory of 113

Machine Translated by Google

Micrometastasis and at the same time it is precisely these doctors who distribute cancer cells throughout the body through biopsies. 2. Especially with fine needle puncture, the pathologist receives little cell material and this little cell material is also torn. For the pathologist, this of course means that this material is much more difficult to assess.

3. In some biopsies, bacteria or viruses get into a place where they don't belong - e.g. B. During a prostate puncture, hundreds of thousands of coliform bacteria can get into the prostate.

4. Every biopsy leaves a scar, and every scar is a field of interference. The last thing I want, however, is an interference field that is very close to the tumor. 5. Almost all surgeons still believe that every pathologist is able to judge in a few seconds/minutes whether the tissue that the pathologist sees under the microscope is cancer or not. You should know that these diagnoses often have to be made quickly while patients are lying on the operating table under anesthesia. I'm not sure whether I want to let a pathologist, who has just separated from his wife and has been suing for paternity since yesterday, decide in a few seconds whether my tissue now contains cancer cells or not.

6. We now know that there are encapsulated tumors that are not very aggressive and with which patients may be able to live until their natural death without having any problems caused by the tumor. What we don't know is what it means if we stick a needle into this tumor and destroy the encapsulation.

114

Machine Translated by Google

7. The Essen pathologist Professor Kemnitz apparently systematically made incorrect diagnoses for years. Over 170 women sued the pathologist, who evaded his responsibility by committing suicide. To this day it is still unclear why Prof. Kemnitz did this. Was he a bad pathologist, was he angry with women or...? We won't be able to find out since he's dead. What we also don't know is how many Prof. Kemnitz there are in Germany. Anyone who claims that this was a one-off case does not seem to know how Prof. Kemnitz was actually found out. It wasn't the surgeons in the hospital or the treating oncologists who discovered the scandal, but a family doctor who noticed that so many of his patients suddenly had breast cancer and were all diagnosed by Prof. Kemnitz. The case, known as the Essen scandal, still raises many questions that have still not been answered. Instead of questioning the entire system, Prof. Kemnitz is made responsible for everything - because this is the only way everything can stay the same. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has been done by surgeons, hospitals, politicians or health insurance companies to ensure that such a scandal cannot happen again. For me that is the real scandal. Isn't that sad and doesn't it also show how much patients are at the mercy of a health system - or should I say: a sick system? In any case, the Kem-nitz case has shown how uncertain doctors can be when making the diagnosis of cancer, how dependent patients are on the statements of individual pathologists and how quickly surgeons are to cut off parts of them that are perfectly healthy are. So please don't make the mistake of thinking that there won't be another Prof. Kemnitz in Germany.

115

Machine Translated by Google

Non-conventional Examinations to diagnose a tumor or blood and Lymph cancer

Introduction: What applies to conventional diagnostics is of course also valid for non-conventional diagnostics. As long as we don't know what cancer is, we can't have a 100% reliable diagnosis. In contrast to the usual blood tests, there are three serious differences:

1. All subsequent examinations are not paid for by any health insurance company because they are not scientifically recognized. We now know what this really means. 2. The reputation of these examinations is much worse than that of normal examinations, although there are many practitioners who have often proven with these examinations that they can diagnose much more accurately. 3. The principle of many investigations is different. The aim is to detect cancer or tumors before they develop. Since conventional oncologists can only diagnose cancer at a very, very late stage (when a tumor is already larger than 6 mm), they naturally claim that all these examinations are nonsense. 116

Machine Translated by Google

I always find it very interesting that it is usually therapists who give an opinion about a diagnostic procedure who have never worked intensively with this procedure. At the same time, however, they use procedures that, in my opinion, have proven a thousand times how wrong they can be. Please don't misunderstand me. This is not intended to be an advertisement for non-conventional diagnostic procedures, but it simply annoys me when I hear from “experts” for the hundredth time that darkfield or thermography diagnoses are equivalent to a lottery procedure, but at the same time the same therapists are 100% committed to the statement any pathologist or laboratory. I wonder who the bigger player is here.

Darkfield microscopy Dark field illumination uses special optics in which the incoming light rays pass the lens. Only when a specimen is brought into the beam path does the light diffracted by it reach the objective and contribute to the image. The structures appear glowing against a dark background. In this diagnostic procedure, the blood is examined using a drop of blood from the ear under a dark field microscope. In addition to assessing the acidity, the examination Base household is primarily about the detection and differentiation formation of symbionts. Symbionts are microorganisms that enter the blood through nutrition and are found in all body fluids. According to Prof. Enderlein, these symbionts can develop pathologically and are an indication of how healthy someone is. Good diagnosticians believe that they can use this microscope to determine the quality of blood platelets (thrombocytes) and white blood cells (leukocytes). Furthermore, the consistency and degree of slagging of the blood, allergic and inflammatory reactions, secondary oxygen deficiency, etc.

117

Machine Translated by Google

Many doctors like to relegate darkfield microscopy to the realm of charlatanry, and I have to say rightly so. Not because it isn't meaningful enough, but because many amateur diagnosticians who have taken a one-day course in darkfield microscopy believe they can make the most accurate diagnoses from it. I have encountered this phenomenon several times and also resist this type of diagnosis. At the same time, I got to know several practitioners who have been using the dark field microscope every day for many years and are very capable of drawing precise conclusions from it.

HLB blood test (Heitan-LaGarde-Bradford) The Heitan-LaGarde-Bradford blood test, the theory of which originated in the United States, was called HLB. Blood test known. The test was further developed and improved by the German doctor Dr. Heitan, who worked in Paris and died in 1977. Dr. LaGarde is a student of Heitan. In collaboration with several European doctors, Heitan and Detect and image LaGarde cancer. Dr. Bradford

from Bradford Research Institute is an American engineer who was the first to explain the biological reasons for the structural changes in coagulated blood during the test. The two most important processes in this context are the various clot formation processes and the pathological production of various bile salts, which together break down the structure of the red blood cells, cause color changes and destroy the fibrin network. The simple test can be carried out by a doctor or therapist in just a few minutes. The test distinguishes between cancer and other benign or pathological conditions. The test is intended to detect the early stages of the cancer at its earliest

Form cannot be determined, which is why there is a mix-up Interpretations with other pathological circumstances possible 118

Machine Translated by Google

is. The test involves examining coagulated drops of the patient's blood under a phase-contrast microscope. The microscope shows several aspects of the blood drop: the fibrin network, the characteristic transparent parts and the color changes. The blood of cancer patients differs from normal blood in the following ways: 1. The fibrin network is partially or completely destroyed.

2. The cell membrane is eroded and looks jagged. 3. Glue-like masses appear in the center of the blood drops, surrounded by transparent parts or “holes” of various sizes. Within these parts, smaller bodies with different shapes can be seen. Hormone stimulants and coagulants alter the test results to an unknown but always detrimental extent. Any physical trauma, such as surgery, fractures, or excessive bleeding, will also alter test results. The test is also age related. In younger people the manifestations are less clear than in older people. In the blood of a cancer patient, the open areas are colored yellow or greenishyellow, especially along the edges of the transparent masses.

Erythrocyte examination according to Sklenar Dr. Sklenar was a contemporary of the well-known researcher and cancer specialist Professor Dr. Dr. Scheller and studied his method of detecting cancer in the blood. He worked according to the Scheller method for twelve years and gained a lot of experience with this way of working. After a long, intensive search, Sklenar managed to put together the right dyes for his blood test method. He applied his method practically for almost thirty years. A light microscope is used during the examination 119

Machine Translated by Google

kop with a 1200 - 1500x magnification. The erythrocytes are stained with a special, modified methylene blue solution. This method is based on the principle that healthy cells do not allow dye to pass through. Only damaged cells are permeable, allowing the larger dye molecules to pass through the membrane and stain abnormal structures.

The following stages of cancer can be distinguished:

1. the pre-cancer stage, which, according to Professor Chiurco of the University of Rome, is a sine qua non (without any further condition) in cancer 2. the general cancer disease, with the beginning of lactic acid fermentation in the cells, but still without visible tumor formation

3. the cancerous tumor 4. the seeding or metastasis of the tumor During the pre-cancer stage, the erythrocytes change and granules form in the erythrocytes. At the beginning of lactic acid fermentation in the cells and in the cancerous tumor, smaller and larger bubbles form, which Scheller called lysomes. In healthy blood, the stained blood smear shows no changes in the erythrocytes because the macromolecules of the dye cannot penetrate the fine pores of the healthy cell membrane. nen. Only a diseased cell membrane with enlarged pores allows the large color molecules to pass through so that the structures within the cell become visible.

120

Machine Translated by Google

Chemotherapy sensitivity testing In recent years, more and more tests have come onto the market that are intended to predict how successful a particular chemotherapy treatment will be for a patient. However, they all have the same problems: • The question is no longer whether chemotherapy makes sense, but rather which one. Of course, all pharmaceutical manufacturers are happy about this and you have to take the (alleged) Fundamentally question the success of these tests. • Various methods are used, such as gene control, ATP measurements, etc. But the real question is of course: How meaningful is the result anyway?

• Can laboratory conditions actually be transferred to humans?

The different statements within conventional medicine are also confusing. Hundreds of scientists write - which oncologists repeatedly refer to in their statements that chemotherapy has no value if p53 levels are low, at the same time most therapies are administered without measuring a p53 gene level. The possibility of a p53 or sensitivity test has been available for many years. However, most doctors do not use them. Why not? Do you yourself not believe in their significance? Are the costs too high or do the health insurance companies not want to pay them because they are “not scientifically recognized”? If you want to undergo chemotherapy, especially for epithelial tumors, be sure to undergo a sensitivity test. What do you have to lose? 121

Machine Translated by Google

EVA (Ex Vivo Apoptotic Assay) Eva is the name given to the American oncologist Dr. Nagourney developed a laboratory test called “Ex Vivo Apoptotic Assay”. Apoptotic means “programmed cell death”. Dr. In his research, Nagourney tests the ability of a substance to cause the death of a cancer cell. The goal is to determine exactly which form of chemotherapy can be used effectively for a particular cancer patient, i.e. what sensitivity or resistance is associated with different chemotherapy treatments. pie medication consists. With his test the probable effectiveness is around 70 Chemotherapy drugs (administered either individually or in combination) and other substances such as: b. Mistletoe can be determined. Further information on this can be found online at: www.rational-t.com.

ATP-TCA test In the ATP (adenosine triphosphate) test, fresh tumor material is removed after surgery, applied to test plates and then mixed with chemotherapy drugs in various doses. These cultures are then grown for 7 days and then the ATP content of the cells is measured with a luminometer and so we believe we know how badly a cancer cell can be damaged by which toxin.

AMAS (Anti Malignin Antibody) The Amas test is a test for malignin, a polypeptide found in most cancer cells. According to Oncolab USA, malignant is present in the very early stages of cancer, but is present in the very late stages of cancer.

122

Machine Translated by Google

disease no longer detectable. In a study of over 8,000 patients, the test read correctly in more than 95%. The cost is approximately U$ 150 plus transport of the blood to America. More information at: www.amascancertest.com.

CCR test The carcinochrome reaction according to Gutschmidt (CCR) is a photometric measurement of the reaction after the addition of a carcinochrome reagent red dye formed in the urine for the early detection of cancer. The test method assumes that the polypeptides produced in excess by a cancer cell can be measured in the urine. Some doctors use the CCR test primarily for the early detection of tumors.

Hydroxylamine test according to Prof. Neunhoffer Prof. Neunhoffer (d. 1998) was one of Germany's greatest cancer researchers and biochemists. His work on the detection of N-hydroxypeptide groups in cancer cell proteins was impressive to many, and he developed a test that is able to detect the hydroxylamine secreted in excess by cancer cells in the urine. For the test to be meaningful, you have to know that tumors do not constantly produce a lot of hydroxylamine and that the test can therefore be falsely negative. However, if the test is positive, this strongly suggests a malignant event. The test can be done in Germany for around 80 euros.

Scheidl platelet test In June 1966, the magazine FOLIA CLINICA INTERNATIONALIS in Barcelona reported on a cancer test that was... 123

Machine Translated by Google

is the only one that meets the requirements of the World Health Authority (WHO) for diagnostic reliability of 90% to 96% of an ideal cancer test with 95% reliability. The test is intended to enable the detection of tumor tendencies such as sarcoma, carcinoma and leukemia diseases at an early stage of development - or even earlier - i.e. at a point in time when no symptoms can be detected during normal preventive examinations. The Scheidl test examines the thrombocytes (blood platelets) in the blood. In the early detection test, the platelets are isolated, adjusted to a specific pH value and incubated for 4 days. The specimen is then examined in a darkfield microscope based on certain criteria. A trained doctor can analyze and assess the risk or existence of a benign or malignant tumor based on the various growths, shapes and colors. The most important thing is to determine whether a tumor tendency is present or not. However, the location of the tumor cannot be predicted. But it can be recognized whether it is a carcinoma, sarcoma or lymphoma. Myeloid or lymphatic leukemia should also be detectable. In addition, a tumor that is already clinically present should be a pure tumor tendency must be clearly distinguished.

Regulation thermography Sponge/rust regulation thermography involves measuring heat on the patient's body surface (head, teeth and chest) using an electronic thermometer. The temperatures are recorded electronically at a total of 136 precisely defined measuring points on the body at rest and after a standardized cold stimulus. After the initial measurement, the patient undresses and remains seated at room temperature for 10 minutes (thermal stimulation). The organism cools down. The second measurement is then carried out in the same way, 124

Machine Translated by Google

and the thermogram is created. An inherently healthy body will demonstrate well-defined normal regulation; Even with a small regulation deviation, this is visible as a disorder on the evaluation sheet. In addition, this method is very suitable for monitoring therapy and monitoring the progress of an illness. Regulation thermography is also often used to answer the question of what is happening in the hearth.

Thermography For decades, thermography was a good method for detecting tumors. However, after the invention of mammography, the procedure was forced out of the market. Of course, economic aspects played a major role here. In my opinion, this was wrong, because the old formula still applies: Where there is a tumor, there is more blood and where there is more blood, there is more heat. And it is precisely this warmth that can be made visible. In addition, Dr. Gautherie, former director of the Institute for Biomedical Thermology at the Louis Pasteur University in Strasbourg: “Research into thermobiology revealed a clear relationship between the specific heat generation of the cancerous tissue and the doubling time of the tumor volume.” In other words, the faster the tumor grows, the more heat it produces. Philipp Strax, MD at the Guttman Breast Institute in New York, conducted 2 breast cancer diagnosis tests using a liquid crystal bra. 109 women between the ages of 16 and 70 took part in his first study. In 71% of cases the diagnosis was excellent, in 19% good and in only 10% of cases he was not satisfied with the test results. Prof. Tricoire from the Bobigny Clinic in Paris also diagnosed breast cancer 1,046 times in 30 months using thermography selftests with only 1% false-negative and 4% false-positive results. These are better numbers than with one 125

Machine Translated by Google

Mammography and here at the latest it becomes clear once again how money determines medicine. Or why else would so many Women exposed to cancer-causing radiation from mammography? With the so-called Mammo-Vision, the manufacturer Inframedic (www.inframedic.de) has developed a special thermography device that may be able to detect tumors earlier than mammography.

Radiothermometry

This procedure measures the weak emission of electromagnetic radiation from the human body in order to provide information about the temperatures inside the body. The energy emitted can be calculated using the Raleigh-Jeans equation. With the help of this technique it is possible to measure temperature differences of less than 1° without exposing patients to radiation.

Blood crystallization test

The principle of the copper chloride blood crystallization test is that blood is mixed with copper chloride solution and crystallized in a chamber at a constant temperature and humidity. This process usually takes around 24 hours. This creates characteristic images that can be evaluated by experienced diagnosticians. There are two experienced diagnosticians in Germany who have been doing this for many years. Decoder dermography

Decoder dermography is used to record the body's own electrical signals, which are recorded from predetermined skin areas and with imperceptible electrical stimulation pulse sequences 126

Machine Translated by Google

can be combined in the 10 Hz range. With this bioelectronic functional analysis, similar to regulatory thermography, disorders can be identified, which are very useful as a basis for further diagnostic clarification. During electrical skin measurement, three pairs of electrodes are connected to the forehead, hand and foot.

EAV EAV stands for electroacupuncture according to Voll and was developed over 40 years ago by Dr. med. Fully developed. Today, EAV is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. It deals with biological as well as control and regulation processes in the human body and their disorders. The EAV is therefore used to determine the causes of acute and, above all, chronic illnesses. The EAV is mainly intended to detect disruptive factors, toxins, important ones such as residual infections, environmental stove/interference field pollution, etc. But also to check for intolerances to dental materials such as: E.g. amalgam or for testing food intolerances, the EAV has proven itself. During the test, electrophysical measurements are carried out at anatomically defined and electrically significant (acupuncture) points on the skin.

127

Machine Translated by Google

Before care & after care

The topic of diagnosis also includes the terms prevention and aftercare. Do you realize that both terms contain the word “worry”? That's exactly what this is about, because a lot of people make a lot of money by worrying about you. As is well known, the word prevention and, above all, preventive examinations are intended to help detect cancer early. But the word early detection certainly doesn't deserve this name, because before a tumor is discovered, it usually has to divide thirty times. If one assumes that breast cancer has a division period of 130 days, then the tumor is already around 10 years old when it is discovered through scanning or imaging procedures. If you were to talk about early detection of any other illness, you would immediately be laughed at. Not so with cancer. Under the pretext that breast cancer could be treated better with conventional medicine if it were discovered earlier, women are still prescribed mammograms, even though we have known since Chernobyl that exactly such radiation causes cancer . Yes, produce it – according to conventional medical opinion. Isn't it explained to medical students all over the world that DNA changes are responsible for the development of cancer and isn't it a physical fact that mammography machines produce exactly these DNA changes? Doctors still talk about “low doses” and “safe radiation,” but they only do this because they never see Dr. Have read Golfman's book: Preventing Breast Cancer or have further education in physics and biochemistry. Otherwise they would know that there is no safe radiation when it comes to destroying DNA 128

Machine Translated by Google

individual cells, and certainly not a small dose, since even the smallest amounts can cause very serious damage.

Aftercare Many patients want to know from their doctors what examinations they should do after a tumor has been destroyed or removed in order to know whether the tumor has come back. At first glance, this is an understandable question given the fact that almost all tumors come back sooner or later. Of course, behind this is the belief that your doctor knows better how you are doing than you do. Let's take a closer look at why this is the case.

1. Belief in the blood count In most cases, your doctor will check your blood count and try to use so-called tumor markers or lymphocyte values to assess whether a tumor has come back or what shape your immune system is in. What would you say if I told you that there are cancer patients who have had elevated tumor markers for decades and that in most cancer patients the immune system is not particularly bad. Just ask a cancer patient shortly after their diagnosis what their liver values are or their immune status. In almost all cases he will tell you that his doctor couldn't find anything. Apart from the tumor or increased antibody antigen reactions (increased tumor markers), there are no “symptoms”. In March 2000, I met Prof. Fudin and Prof. Glazachev at the Russian Institute for Basic Research (IISP) and we talked about the work of what is probably Moscow's most famous academy 129

Machine Translated by Google

Greats like Tolstoy, Bekhterev and Pavlov emerged. By the way, Pavlov's grandson, Prof. Sudakov, is the current head of the university. Among the many studies, one in particular is worth mentioning, namely that on the Nentsi people. These Russians live in the northernmost Part of the Union and have been observed and studied by the Academy for many years because Nentsis do not know any cancer or other chronic diseases (with the exception of lung diseases) and almost without exception live very old. What seemed most important to me for my work was that the immune system of the Nentsis is so “bad” that a Western doctor would immediately use immune-enhancing drugs. Please consider this point once. Although (or because) the Nentsis have a terrible immune system, they remain healthy and live very old. While oncologists around the world are just learning the basics of immune stimulation, in Russia there is debate about whether the immune system should be increased in the case of cancer in a way that is now absolutely common in oncology clinics (Mistletoe, thymus, oxygen, ozone, cell therapies…).

If we assume that nature or evolution is always right, then we must also assume that there is an extremely important reason why our body changes the production of certain cells in chronic illnesses, up or down . Could it be that it is easier for our bone marrow to produce 3,000 healthy leukocytes instead of 6,000 leukocytes, all of which do not function well with each other? Is it perhaps important that energy is withdrawn from the bone marrow because it is needed more urgently somewhere else or...? Questions upon questions to which we still don't have an answer today.

But anyone who is familiar with cancer therapies will quickly have similar thoughts, e.g. B. with Dr. Hamer or Dr. Budwig, who have always consistently advocated that we should not disrupt our self-healing systems and that tumors are nothing other than a part of this process. Also my experiences 130

Machine Translated by Google

in people against cancer e. V. confirm these thoughts in the form that we have met many patients who recovered primarily because they did not undergo the torture of conventional (and sometimes alternative) therapies.

So that there are no misunderstandings. I am absolutely not fundamentally against tumor markers or blood count controls, as long as these are also used as part of the diagnosis if the patient requires it. But unfortunately, many patients still come to their doctor and the doctor then says: “Dear Ms. Müller, I am sorry, but I unfortunately have to tell you that your tumor marker XY has increased from 12.3 to 14.5.” What the heck Unfortunately, what the doctor doesn't say is that this increase can be positive, as tumor markers often increase before a tumor gets smaller. If you understand this antibody-antigen reaction from a chemical perspective, then it is logical and should first of all be viewed as a good reaction of the immune system. Furthermore, the values are sometimes subject to greater fluctuations and unfortunately people forget that it can happen that the devices in the laboratories do not always measure the same or that human errors can occur.

But at such a moment all the patient hears is, “Oh God, I’m having a relapse. No, not all of that.” The body's entire energy flow is disrupted and the immune system is suppressed to such an extent that it no longer matters whether the doctor's words are true or not. It doesn't help when the doctor says that we shouldn't overestimate this and that we (why us) now have to wait and see whether the values get worse or not. Yes, doctor, what do you think will happen if your careless words have messed up your patient's immune system for days, if not months. Of course the values will get worse.

At this point I would like to once again remind you of a much more cautious environment.

131

Machine Translated by Google

appeal with diagnoses because not only I, but many doctors all over the world have to experience again and again that patients get very bad unusually quickly after a diagnosis. Another point should also be taken into account by doctors. What doctors say and what patients hear are not always the same. A small example:

Doctor: “Well, Ms. Müller, overall I’m quite satisfied with your blood work.”

However, the patient thinks: “On the whole. I’m sure he just doesn’t want to tell me the whole truth.” Doctor: “So that we can be absolutely sure, we should take another CT scan.” However, the patient thinks: “Why do another CT scan? They probably can’t help me anymore anyway.” Doctor: “We don’t need to do anything else at the moment except wait and see.” However, the patient thinks: “He doesn't even offer me therapy anymore. Doing nothing but waiting are just nicer words for: Go home and have another one few nice days. Such nonsense. How can you have a few more beautiful days when you only have a few weeks left to live.”

Of course, the misunderstanding is not always as extreme as in this one.

This example and many doctors also have a very good feeling for their patients. But unfortunately, even the most sensitive doctor cannot guess what the patient is making of his words, and the big question here is whether this misunderstanding is the only chance 132

Machine Translated by Google

It's not easy to avoid this type of aftercare.

2. Belief in the importance of tumor size As a patient, try to assess the following situation. You have completed the third cycle of chemotherapy and it is your senior doctor's visit. The head physician enters your room together with other doctors and says to you: “Dear Ms. Schmidt. I have good news for you. Yesterday's CT scan showed that your tumor has become slightly smaller, meaning that the chemotherapy is responding very well to you." In my experience, most patients take this news as a sign that they will live longer as a result become. However, the truth is that in most cases shrinking the tumor does not equate to extending life, as countless studies have shown. I would like to thank Dr. Blumenschein, author of several books about cancer and a walking lexicon when it comes to nonconventional cancer therapies, quote: “If doctors would finally understand that the tumor is not that important in cancer and would finally start treating cancer and not tumors ", then we could save the lives of thousands of cancer patients - and I would no longer have to treat almost exclusively patients whose bone marrow has been destroyed by therapies and unfortunately makes meaningful therapy almost impossible." My own experiences with doctors on all continents confirm Dr. Blumenschein's view. The size of the tumor is of secondary, if not even third, importance in cancer therapy. This does not mean that the goal of cancer therapy does not include the disappearance of the tumor(s), but we should all, doctors and patients, finally understand that this should not be the primary goal of cancer therapy. If you have not yet dealt intensively with cancer 133

Machine Translated by Google

If you have discussed this, then these words may sound a bit strange to you at first, as many people have probably told you that with any cancer therapy you first have to destroy the tumor if you want to survive. Unfortunately, this view is still based on the completely outdated view that cancer is a local disease and that once the tumor is gone, the cancer would also be defeated. That this is not the case is proven by the thousands of cancer patients who die every day even though their first tumor disappeared after treatment.

3. The belief that a tumor will come back As is well known, the purpose of aftercare is to check whether the tumor or cell changes have returned. Of course, this assumes that we also believe that the tumor can come back. However, what if we are sure that the tumor will 100% not come back? Doesn’t the Bible teach us that our faith can move mountains? Don't clergy of all religions around the world teach that we must create our own future through prayer, meditation and our thoughts in general? Don't the best motivational trainers and psychotherapists prove to us every day that our visualization and affirmation skills make the difference between personal happiness and unhappiness? Don't spiritual teachers on every continent teach that we can only reap what we previously thought?

Of course, we can now assume that all the scholars in the world are wrong and only doctors know how to prevent a relapse. However, you should only do this if you are completely sure that your psyche or soul has nothing to do with your health or illness. You should too You should only believe in the slightest that your psyche or soul might have something to do with your status quo 134

Machine Translated by Google

Start today to think intensively about how you can create your own future. Programs such as b. MindStore (www.mindstore.de) can help you systematically shape your future. In recent years I have shaken the hands of many people who survived their cancer despite a dire (incurable) prognosis. Words such as visualization, meaning of life or God were not foreign words to any of these patients. Each one of them told me in their own way about their life changes or system jumps (more about this in the chapter: Mental Energy). Even if you think this is nonsense or an exaggeration, you can't avoid the fact that I know many cured cancer patients who told me that they were or are 100% sure that their tumors will not come back. This also includes the story of Karl, a young man who was sent home to spend his last days with his family. While everything spoke for his imminent death, he signed a contract with his tumor (see also tumor contract) and although the tumors continued to grow, he reassured his treating doctor by telling him: “Don't worry. I know that my tumors will stick to the contract and I am now healthy. I'm 100% sure about that." At dinner together, he told me that he was absolutely sure that he would get and stay healthy.

My question to you: Do you think it would be good for Karl if he had a follow-up checkup every 6 months? (Info: Karl has been healthy since 1994 and has skipped all followup appointments).

4. The belief that my doctor knows how I am - in fact, he knows better than me! Frank Wiewel, President of People against Cancer in the USA and certainly the man in the USA when it comes to non-conventional 135

Machine Translated by Google

When it comes to cancer treatments, he sometimes tells the story of an old lady he visited in an American cancer clinic. Right at the beginning he asked her how she was feeling and she replied: "My doctor is very happy with me, he says I'm fine." However, you have to know that the lady was sitting hunched over in a wheelchair, a yellow one /white face and barely had the strength to speak because she had already had several chemotherapy treatments. I have also received similar answers many times. When I ask how someone is doing, I get answers like: “My blood work looks better”, “the tumor is growing again” der” or “I should be discharged home soon.” All answers have one thing in common. They are tied to answers from third parties, as if we can no longer answer the question of our well-being ourselves. But if we If we want to know how we are doing, we have two powerful “tools” that are no longer used by most doctors and patients. The first is the mirror and the second is “going within”. A mirror not only shows us the condition of our skin and our body in terms of shape, but it also reflects our state of being. All you have to do is look at yourself in the mirror for a few minutes and then write down on a piece of paper what's going through your head. If you have never done this exercise before, now is the time to do it.

Another exercise is to look yourself in the eyes for 5 - 10 minutes. If you have never done this exercise before, you will be amazed at what will happen if you practice this regularly. What used to be completely normal, namely looking at the patient, looking at them closely and making a diagnosis, is now almost no longer practiced by doctors. Unfortunately, we have forgotten how to go inward just as much as we have forgotten how to look in the mirror. Many people in our country have

136

Machine Translated by Google

In a hectic world, they have lost their sense of their own wellbeing. Klaus Pertl, MindStore motivational trainer, asks his clients in his seminars what they do when they are hungry and the answer is of course “eat something”. But what do these same people do when they are stressed? Have they learned to relax and go within to figure out why they are stressed while simultaneously relieving the stress? Typically the answer is no. The same goes for cancer patients. They have also forgotten or forgotten how to listen to themselves to find out how they are feeling, why they are tense, what their goals are, what makes them happy today, etc. So why do so many people believe that doctors know how they are doing better than they should? What does an Hb value (hemoglobin) of less than 10 really mean for my life? Who says being sick is fundamentally bad? We haven't just known since yesterday that illness can be a useful self-healing process? Buddhism also teaches its followers that there is Yin and Yang, i.e. good and bad, and that the whole is a unity. You can see from these questions that we are the only ones who can answer the question about our well-being. So don't leave the answer to third parties in the future.

137

Machine Translated by Google

4th chapter

chemotherapy and Radiation

138

Machine Translated by Google

Chemotherapy! Curse or last resort?

Addressing the topic of chemotherapy without getting into a mostly emotional discussion is probably no longer possible in the 21st century and the answer to why is relatively simple. Nobody really knows for which people chemotherapy will help destroy a tumor or whether it would be better not to have it. To date, there is no medical measuring tool that shows us whether chemotherapy will help this or that person. I emphasize the word people here, because we know even less whether chemotherapy helps with these or those types of cancer. If you haven't yet dealt intensively with the topic of chemotherapy, then you might be thinking: "But the doctors need to know whether chemotherapy can help me before they prescribe it." But unfortunately I have to disappoint you . If you deal with the topic scientifically and intensively, you will quickly realize that we are actually only at the beginning or already at the end of understanding what chemotherapy actually does. What is certain, as the doctor Peter Alexander described in 1944, is that the bone marrow is severely damaged and people die sooner or later from “exhaustion of the white blood count”. By the way, this fact was already in 1919! described in a magazine. Dr. Alexander examined the sailors who came into contact with Yellow Cross (mustard gas) as a result of the accident in the Italian port of Bari in December 1943. After that, the triumph of this preparation, which was actually intended to kill enemy soldiers, could no longer be stopped, and today this poison with all its features 139

Machine Translated by Google

It is no longer possible to imagine “modern” oncology without their descendants. Now one could assume that we have certainly made enormous progress in the new millennium and that today's chemotherapy can no longer be compared with the mustard gas in the Second World War. But let's take a closer look at the status quo. As you probably remember from biology lessons at school, with a few exceptions, our cells are constantly dividing. Several million cells renew themselves in our body every second. Cell division takes place in fixed phases. Biologists call these prophase, metaphase, anaphase and telophase. Many new cells still have to mature. The entire process of cell division and cell maturation is called the cell cycle and this complete cycle is divided into G0 phase (resting phase), G1 phase (RNA and protein synthesis), S phase (DNA doubling), G2 phase (DNA repair phase) and finally the M phase, the actual cell division. This is only important for cancer patients so that they can better understand how chemotherapy works, since different preparations have an influence on different phases of cancer. During cell division, cells are more vulnerable to attack. Cytostatics are now trying to exploit this defense weakness of the cells by disrupting very specific metabolic processes in the cell. The desired result is cell death. I would like to emphasize this again, the desired effect is cell death and not the transformation of the cell into a healthy cell. Since some tumor cells divide very quickly, they are of course even more sensitive to such poisons and are increasingly destroyed. If you have read the last few sentences carefully, then you will certainly have already recognized the problem of these cell toxins. If tumor cells don't divide faster than other cells in the body, then what? And how do these poisons actually recognize tumor cells? You can certainly answer the first question yourself and that You know at least part of the answer to the second question. 140

Machine Translated by Google

Cytostatic drugs do not recognize tumor cells at all. They simply destroy everything that grows faster (and much more). Hence the well-known side effects of all body systems whose cells generally divide a little faster:

• our epithelial cells e.g. B. in the mouth, stomach or intestines. • our lymphatic system, e.g. B. Destruction of the lymphocytes. • our gonads, hence the temporary or often permanent sterility after chemotherapy. • our bone marrow, e.g. B. Destruction of leukocytes, erythrocytes and thrombocytes. • Skin, hair and also nails. If you know these main effects, and not side effects as they always say, then you will easily understand why everyone should think three times whether they should have chemotherapy or not. Above all, the influences on the bone marrow and the lymphatic system are so devastating that many people rightly ask themselves whether this is actually the opposite of what they need when there are tumors in the body. We all know that we urgently need our immune system when we have a tumor in our body and yet we believe that we can destroy this very thing for many months if we have cancer.

This is exactly where the dilemma with chemotherapy preparations lies. Their entire goal is to destroy cells and not to tell cell structures how to divide properly. Another problem is resistance to these preparations. Not only do they contain cells that have long

141

Machine Translated by Google

sam share or just don't share, don't even recognize it, no, it gets even worse and in the form of resistance. ManSome tumor cells ignore certain substances from the outset. That's why "cocktails" with various substances are usually given in the hope that someone will help. However, I don't need to mention that several substances also have major side effects. You may also be interested to know that in several surveys (Makil-lop/Hansen/Moore/Tannock…) oncologists were asked whether they would do chemotherapy themselves and said no (what world do we actually live in? , in which doctors prescribe therapies that they would never use on themselves).

But these cocktails definitely have an advantage. An enormous amount of costs can be incurred per patient, which every manufacturer is happy about. Maybe this sentence now seems exaggerated, ironic or even outrageous to you. But none of this changes this fact, which is often forgotten. If you are not resistant to certain substances, your chance of becoming resistant to that substance very soon increases from infusion to infusion and much faster than you would, for example. B. are used to antibiotics. This is because our bodies have amazingly intelligent abilities to defend themselves against toxins, such as: B. to change the permeability of the cell wall. Furthermore, the chance of metastasis increases, as various studies have shown. Research also suggests that the larger the tumor mass, the greater the number of resistant cells. It has also been found that tumor cells learn over time to defend themselves against any type of cytostatic drug. This also explains why switching to a different combination of cytostatics so often fails. It is also often forgotten that cells become more malignant (more aggressive) after chemotherapy, as not only Wenzel-Seifert and Lentzen discovered many years ago. Such cells also have an increased “metastatic potential” 142

Machine Translated by Google

cial”, which means nothing other than that chemotherapy can cause the dreaded metastases to develop. The more toxic a substance is, the more your body will do to prevent the substance from doing so much harm next time. Resistance to drugs is nothing more than part of an ingenious defense system called humans, which brings us back to the topic: evolution is right. Below is a short list of the most common chemotherapy treatments Preparations and their areas of application:

Alkylating agents:

This is a group that, at least theoretically, reacts with the DNA at several points and networks it (crosslink). Put more simply, this means that alkylating agents change our genetic code, which can no longer be read. An old term for this is radiomimetics. A nice word for something quite diabolical, namely the fact that the cells divide as if they were exposed to strong radioactive radiation. The consequences of this are probably known to everyone. This group also includes Lost, the substance that was called mustard gas during the First World War and killed many thousands of soldiers. Today's mustard is a nitrogen mustard, but not much less effective. It still destroys the bone marrow and other tissue structures. Other well-known preparations are chlorambucil (Leukeran) and melphalan (Alkeran). A subgroup of nitrogen mustard are the representatives of the oxaza-phosphorines such as cyclophosphamide, the most famous representative of which is probably Endoxan. However, ifosfamide (Holoxan) and trofosfamide (Ixoten) are also used not much less. “Relatives” of nitrogen mustard are also used for brain tumors because, in theory, they overcome the blood-brain barrier. The main ones here are Nimustine (ACNU), Fotemustine (Muphoran), Car143

Machine Translated by Google

mustin (BCNU), bendamustine (ribomustine) and lomustine (CCNU) in use. Another group of “cross-linkers” are the so-called platinum compounds such as cisplatin (Platinex) or carboplatin (Carboplat), which are feared by patients because of their strong side effects. As you slowly realize, the possibilities of subgroupings and further derivatives will probably never run out. But I don't want to bore you any longer with other subgroups such as hydrazine derivatives or mitomycins. Instead, let's look at the next group of cell killers:

Antimetabolites The theory of how this group works is based on the fact that if certain compounds that are similar to DNA bases are introduced into the cell's metabolism, these incorrect bases are then incorporated into the DNA strand and this leads to strand breaks or death Cell comes. This form of therapy becomes really “Frankenstein-like” when you go one step further and use socalled folic acid reantagonists to completely prevent certain bases from being built up. So that the patient does not die very quickly from this treatment, a high dose of an agent such as 5FU is given and shortly afterwards folinic acid (e.g. Leucovorin). I noticed something very interesting here. This combination has established itself as the standard treatment for advanced colon cancer in Germany, although Germany's highest authority for the approval of drugs, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, has never approved this combination (see letter dated March 26, 1999 - figure next Page) because it was shown that this combination was responsible for “therapy-related deaths”. The German government also knows about this, as the letter dated August 30, 1999 proves (see the next page). 144

Machine Translated by Google

145

Machine Translated by Google

146

Machine Translated by Google

Most German doctors also know what was published in issue 31/32 on August 8, 1994 in the German Medical Journal. I quote verbatim: “The Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices points out to the specialist circles that the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the combination of 5-FU and CF (calcium folinate like Leukovorin, the author) has not been approved, but that it represents an experimental therapy. Since it is already widely used, the serious risks of the combination treatment are highlighted.” In other words: For whatever baser reasons - in Germany every year thousands of people suffering from colon cancer are treated with a chemotherapy cocktail that, firstly, is not approved and, secondly, has been proven in studies that when used, the chance of "the- Raperelated death” is given. The sentence: “Since it has already been widely used” also shows that it is very well known that this combination has been used mostly illegally for years (outside of studies). There are still a lot of words that come to mind, but I am sure that you also know the right questions and answers to this scandal, which is unknown to most patients. At this point, however, you can see how dangerous cytostatics are. And something else also becomes very clear. Theoretical constructions are much further removed from practice than they appear on paper or in the laboratory. Other representatives of this group are: cladribine (Leustatin), pentostatin (Nipent), fludaribine phosphate (Fludara), cytarabine (Alexan), fluorouracil, 5FU (Efudix) and Ge-mcitabine (Gemzar). Gemzar is also an interesting preparation, as it has “secretly” established itself as the standard preparation for pancreatic cancer in recent years. If you disregard pleural mesothelioma (pleural/lung cancer, usually caused by asbestos), then statistically speaking, pancreatic 147

Machine Translated by Google

cancer has the worst prognosis of all types of cancer. This year around 12,000 people will die from this disease in Germany alone. In recent years, conventional medicine has either resigned itself to this diagnosis or used the chemotherapy drug Gemzar (gemcitabine). Gemzar is an agent that disrupts DNA synthesis, more specifically, affects cytosine.

Even in our own intensive research, we were only able to find very few cures or long-term survivors of pancreatic head cancer (which, by the way, were almost exclusively possible through intensive nutritional therapies such as Budwig's oil-protein diet, Nutri-Therapy, Gerson's diet or Dr. Gonzales therapy). The literature mainly contains studies that compare Ge-mzar with 5FU. So once again studies in which two or more chemotherapy drugs are compared with each other so that in the end at least one preparation can be evaluated positively. In what is probably the most mentioned study with 126 patients, half of the patients received Gemzar and the other half received 5FU. Pharmaceutical companies and doctors cite this study over and over again and tell their patients that the patients who received Gemzar lived significantly longer.

But what does “significantly longer” actually mean for people who are used to saying every tenth word in Latin? In this study, patients who received 5FU lived an average of 4.2 months. Patients who received Gemzar lived 5.7 months. This difference is still called a “minor breakthrough in the treatment of pancreatic cancer”. Once again, a group was “forgotten” to include in the study that either did nothing at all or did biological therapies ten. As a patient, would you really undergo Gemzar therapy if your doctor did not tell you that you would live “significantly longer” with Gemzar, but rather: “Dear Mr. Müller, statistically speaking, you will live a maximum of 6 months. I don't know any the148

Machine Translated by Google

rapy that can heal you. What I could offer you, however, would be chemotherapy with all its side effects. However, this will increase your survival time by perhaps 6 weeks compared to other chemotherapy, which I can of course also offer you. I can't tell you whether this will make you live longer or shorter than if you did nothing at all, as there are no studies on it." And now I ask you: "Would you still have chemotherapy with Gemzar? “What would you do if your doctor told you the truth in these words?”

Gemzar is a prime example of how drugs can become a gold standard without the prescriber having a single shred of evidence that it will help their patient live a day longer. If this were a homeopathic medication without side effects, you could still say: “Whatever.” However, Gemzar is a chemotherapy drug that is given to people in the last weeks of their lives and thereby significantly reduces their quality of life. I don't even want to talk about the costs for the general public. Doctors in particular should be much more open with their patients when diagnosing pancreatic cancer and if they are not familiar with therapies like Ge-rson or Kelley, who have proven to treat long-term surviving pancreatic cancer patients, then they should perhaps think about it in a little more detail, like a human being wants to spend the last weeks of his life.

Intercalants The first actinomycins were obtained during the Second World War. This substance obtained from bacteria belongs to the group of intercalants. An intercalation is nothing more than a molecule being sandwiched between two base pairs. However, the more important intercalants are the anthracyclines, or to put it another way: antibiotics - obtained from streptomyces. These cell 149

Machine Translated by Google

killers work primarily in the S phase of cell division and are therefore used in leukemias and lymphomas. Although this can not only permanently damage the heart muscle, there are a whole range of these preparations such as Adriamycin, Doxorubicin (Adriblastine) and the well-known Epirubicin (Farmorubicin). Taxanes

A group that was only approved in the 1990s are the taxanes, which are produced from the bark of the yew tree. Paclitaxel (Taxol) and docetaxel (Taxotere) are the best known. Although the sales figures for both drugs are now at dizzying heights, hard facts are still missing. For breast cancer, the best study showed an increase in survival time from 14 to 15 months. This is a purely statistical possibility of deviation and has absolutely nothing to do with the medication. However, 87% of all patients had additional symptoms (J Clin. Oncol. 1996; 14:58 - 65). The use in lung cancer (non-small cell) is also suggested by the manufacturers in glossy brochures because of the “significant advantages”. But where are they really? In a study by the MD Anderson Clinic, the largest cancer clinic in the world, there was no difference between the placebo group and the other two groups that received high and low doses of Taxotere (J Clin. Oncol . 2000; 18:2354 - 62). Once again just a numbers game at the expense of patients?

And now?

If you are reading a book about cytostatics and their effects on cells or cell division for the first time, then it is usually not possible without 2 - 3 additional dictionaries. Really impressive 150

Machine Translated by Google

However, the whole thing becomes jarring when you read how much scientists know about cell division, DNA and genes in general. What you can read here about hybridized and cohybridized cells, plasmids, nucleotide sequences and primary clones is really fantastic. But at some point, two words come to mind over and over again for a global-thinking person: What now? What use is all this knowledge to me? And above all, if these scientists know so much, and always assuming that what I've read is true, then why don't all of these substances work the way they claim to on paper? Could it possibly be that there is no other “scientific” field like oncology, in which theory and practice are so far apart? The more I delve into the theory of cancer and the more people with cancer I get to know, the further I get from finding a satisfactory answer to all of these questions. It is a fact that chemotherapy, as it is used today, is at a complete dead end. The wall that stands at the end of the street consists of large, heavy stones on which are written unsatisfactory or incorrect answers to frequently asked questions. You have probably already read how successful chemotherapy is for cancer. These cancers are mainly testicular cancer, leukemia and lymphatic cancer. If you take a closer look at the history of medicine, you will notice that types of cancer such as leukemia have been described by many doctors for centuries, but it is precisely these “types of cancer” that have been described. have only been included in the large “cancer” group for a few decades. When it was discovered that mustard gas destroys the bone marrow, which in turn is responsible for the production of the cells that increase in these types of cancer, people believed that they had found the magic cure for these “cancers”. However, few doctors seem to worry about whether leukemia has anything in common with a tumor 151

Machine Translated by Google

Pancreas. Is a “cancer” of the lymphatic system really the same as lung cancer? More importantly, is a disruption in the production of blood cells (leukemia) in a growing child really the same as prostate cancer in an adult? Certainly not, you might say. At the same time, however, you accept that both diseases should be treatable with the same medication. We cannot close our eyes to the history of chemotherapy, and it shows us that there have been “successes” in treating bone marrow disorders and that they have therefore been able to convince governments and regulatory bodies around the world to use these preparations for the treatment of “other types of cancer”. Evil tongues still call this a move that brought in billions. In my daily conversations with cancer patients and oncologists, all I experience (with the exception of certain leukemia and testicular cancers in young people) is that chemotherapy (and, to a much worse extent, radiation) can sometimes stop tumors from growing, but... can never cure cancer. The few critical statistics that have managed to see the light of day come to the same conclusion. The public is even less aware of how many people die as a result of these treatments. I remember very well a member of People Against Cancer who died after the first dose of chemotherapy, even though he was very healthy except for a very small tumor. Or the case of a 35-year-old mother of two small children who died in a southern German clinic because she was told that it would be best for her, with her breast cancer, if she received highdose chemotherapy. What she wasn't given to read were the studies that show that there is absolutely no benefit to doing high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer, as several studies show. I don't know about you, but when I see something on TV... 152

Machine Translated by Google

When I see a report about cancer, it is usually about leukemia and even more often about children and cancer. Probably because the emotions it generates make it easier to get donations and because you can sometimes say something positive about Chemotherapies can report. That these diseases are not even 0.6%! of all cancer cases in Germany is usually not said. Just imagine that you are at the airport and there are 20 planes waiting to take you from Munich to Hamburg. You already know that 19 of them will crash, and a pilot has to convince you to fly anyway. Honestly, would you board one of the planes or wouldn't you rather look for an "alternative" transport route to your destination? Surely I wouldn't get on any of the planes, you might say, and yet something similar happens almost every day in German hospitals. According to the best statistics, their chance of survival through chemotherapy treatment is just 5% and yet the majority of epithelial cancers are still treated with chemotherapy. However, the big question of why remains unanswered by conventional medicine. Please reconsider. Although even the best statistics at the Although major cancers such as breast cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer or prostate cancer clearly show that their use has little or no effect, thousands of cancer patients are still treated with chemotherapy drugs every day. No conventional doctor seems to come up with the idea of questioning the entire procedure, no matter how many books Dr. Dr. Ulrich Abel will write later (Dr. Abel is the author of the book: Chemotherapy for advanced carcinomas, in which, as an employee of the German Cancer Research Center, he examined most of the chemotherapy studies in detail and found that there are actually almost no studies that prove it that chemotherapy for epithelial cancers helps patients live longer. 153

Machine Translated by Google

The cancer business is one Billion dollar business

There are now more people living with cancer than those with cancer gives. It's easy to imagine that companies that make hundreds of millions a year from cancer drugs, mammography machines, lab tests and radiation machines will do anything to please their shareholders. We experience what this fight looks like again and again. Have you never been surprised that a health minister supports cigarette advertising (BRD) or that it is forbidden to sell a vitamin C tablet that contains more than 250 mg of vitamin C at the checkout of a supermarket, even though it is there? 80% alcohol next to cigarettes? An even bigger problem is the few criminals who are responsible for thousands of people not only suffering but also dying. I would like to show you the extent to which this has taken on the example of Prof. Herrmann.

In 1997, at the age of 47, Prof. Herrmann was still the shooting star of German cancer research, as the newspaper Focus called him. As a “student” of the German “Gene Pope” Prof. Dr. Mertelsmann received cancer research contracts from the German Cancer Aid, the Thyssen Foundation and the German Research Foundation. He has received seven research awards, was an expert, a member of many professional societies and spokesman for German genetic therapists. But in midMarch 1997, the image of this professor crumbled medical faculty in Ulm. Prof. Hofschneider from Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry in Munich and Mr. Bartram from the Institute of Human Genetics at Heidelberg University indicated in a letter to the medical faculty that Prof. Herrmann and his assistants

154

Machine Translated by Google

Tenant and partner, Prof. Brach, had falsified cancer research. To make a long story short - in the end it turned out that Prof. Herrmann and Prof. Brach falsified at least 50 research results in the 1990s. Interestingly, 28 of these were created in Freiburg, where Prof. Mertelsmann worked, and seven other “scientists” from Freiburg were co-authors of 32 studies. In other words, most of the major cancer research in Germany was falsified! The reason I am writing this in such detail is so that you can really understand how “scientific” conventional oncology is. Now one might think that Prof. Herrmann and Prof. Brach have been in prison ever since and also have to pay back millions in research funding. But far from it. Both of them have not even had their medical licenses revoked and have not spent a single day in prison to date. Based on such research, cancer drugs are approved and these drugs are then administered to thousands of cancer patients. Have you ever seen a list of which drugs have been tested and which approvals have been withdrawn? Not me!

While tax evaders are immediately taken into custody, forgers don't even see the inside of the prison for a day. You see, the chance of you getting a drug that was approved based on incorrect research is far greater than is often assumed. Even if your doctor means well for you, how does he know that the statistics weren't created by such criminals? And have you ever thought about why Prof. Herrmann never went to prison - isn't he responsible for the deaths of many cancer patients? How was it actually possible that no one discovered Prof. Herrmann for years? Who actually checked what happened to the German Cancer Aid?

155

Machine Translated by Google

what happened in Geldern? In the original text of the FH Task Force, which led the investigations, it says in its final report: “For the publications listed here that are subject to falsification and are specifically suspected of falsification, the funding institutions are 41 times the DFG (German Research Foundation), 43 times the German Cancer Aid/Dr. Mildred Scheel Foundation and the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology (or Federal Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Technology) 12 times. Other funding institutions are also listed. A total of 14 of the works listed here have already been withdrawn (as of March 1, 2000). In 5 publications, some of the authors have withdrawn their own names from the publication (as of March 1, 2000).” I find it extremely interesting that the German Cancer Aid, of all companies, paid most frequently for Prof. Herrmann's studies. Now, of course, every thinking person immediately comes up with the following questions: Did the German Cancer Aid cover Prof. Herrmann over the years because his study results were in line with the policies of the German Cancer Aid, or did the German Cancer Aid support donations from many people to Prof. over the years? . Herrmann paid without the results of the studies ever being examined in more detail? I honestly don't know which of the two would be worse. The official membership list of the German Cancer Aid is full of professor titles and political names. But not a single one of these professors and politicians noticed (officially) what was going on here for many years. I don't want to say any more about the role of German Cancer Aid in this book. However, you can order their “Blue Booklets” free of charge at: Deutsche Krebshilfe, ThomasMann-Straße 40, 53111 Bonn – and then ask yourself whether what is in these booklets will help you on your way. But Prof. Herrrmann and Prof. Brach were not the only ones who were convicted of manipulation by the FH Task Force 156

Machine Translated by Google

to have undertaken. This is what you can read in the final report: “The task force examined 170 joint publications (publications in journals and book articles) by Prof. Mertelsmann and Herrmann. Evidence of data manipulation was found in 58 papers, with Mr. Mertelsmann as the last author in 15 of these publications, taking a position that normally signals special responsibility for the publication. In our opinion, it contradicts every reality of life that someone whose professional activity is so closely linked to another person over a long period of time does not register whether the other person's way of working is compliant or not. In December 2001, Prof. Mertelsmann (University of Freiburg) was acquitted by the court. However, I don't want to comment on this. But other professors are also mentioned, e.g. B. Prof. Lin-demann: “Of the 129 journal publications, Mr. Herrmann is co-author on 53 papers. Of these 53 publications, 27 are on the list of incriminated publications, 6 of which are his first author. Four of the 25 book contributions can also be found on this list. Additionally, in the habilitation thesis several fake images were found (see appendix 18). These allegations led to the retraction of the habilitation thesis. From our point of view, however, it remains to be noted that Mr. Lindemann has disqualified himself as a scientist. Mr. Lindemann didn't even want one for his habilitation thesis assume sustainable responsibility; Rather, he tried to withdraw the work after the obvious data manipulation it contained became known and to submit a new, cumulative work that referred exclusively to 'Herrmann-independent' work. It still seems to us to be an unusual process when, after the allegations have become known, a new 'clean' work is submitted and this is submitted at the same time as the work containing forgeries. Mr. Lin-demann did not consider it necessary, based on this revelation,

157

Machine Translated by Google

“To suspend his position as professor, which he obviously obtained with a work that was tainted by falsification.” On the next few pages I could name many more professors from oncology whose manipulations were “discovered”. My main aim, however, is to show you how unlikely your chance is that you will be prescribed chemotherapy or other conventional cancer therapies that are only prescribed because there are money-hungry, selfcentered and power-hungry people There are doctors who, to put it simply, go over corpses. The biggest scandal for me, however, is how the German judiciary (and not just the German one) deals with these results. Because not a single doctor went to prison after these scandals were announced.

So if you still believe that the chemotherapy or cytokine injection you received is only prescribed because it has helped so many people in recent years - then it will be of no use to you if you read this book now Continue reading.

An exception? More than a quarter of the funding provided by the American association

Scientists interviewed by the Science Research Center admitted that they had personally come into contact with at least 2 cases of research that they suspected had been falsified or plagiarized in the previous decade. I think so, for example. B. to Dr. Poisson from St. Luc Hospital in Montreal/Canada, who falsified data about the tumor size of his patients. Or think of the scandal surrounding Prof. Hübener from the university Eppendorf University Hospital (UKE) in Hamburg. Hundreds of patients were irradiated at a dose that courts later said caused patients to die from the radiation . The report for colon cancer patients says: “Overall

158

Machine Translated by Google

51 patients experienced severe adverse events of EORTC/RTOG grade = 3 (51/83 = 81%). An actuarial evaluation according to Kap-lan-Meier showed – extrapolated – a side effect rate of 85% after 5 years and 93% after 10 years. A total of 20 patients were alive at the time of evaluation (20/63 = 32%). 43 patients died, 23 mainly from tumors, 11 mainly from late damage and 9 from the causes/diseases." The 11% was later extrapolated to 20%. But let's take a closer look at what has never been discussed in public until today. Prof. Trott, University of London, in the report dated July 28, 1993 on the case of patient S., who was irradiated in 1987 using the Hübener sandwich method: “In conclusion, I would like to state that, according to the state of radiobiological knowledge from 1987, the combination of preoperative radiation with 4 x 5 Gy and postoperative radiation with 15 x 2 Gy (or 2.4 Gy) results in an intolerable overdose target volume, which resulted in an unacceptably high risk of chronic radiation effects on the pelvic organs.” Overall, Prof. Hübener's patients received a total dose of 50 55 Gy. However, this is an absolutely normal amount and is rather at the lower end in today's cancer therapies, where the standard radiation treatments are often 30 - 35 times 2 Gy. Since this point could not be attacked, they rushed to the 4 x 5 Gy and blamed this dose entirely for the dilemma (plus the dubious sandwich therapy, i.e. radiation before and after the operation ) . This tactic once again avoided a “larger” discussion about how useful radiation actually is for certain types of cancer. Far be it from me to absolve Prof. Hübener of his guilt, but given the many reports, many “colleagues” make it quite easy for themselves when they blame Prof. Blame Hübener's sandwich therapy. The same colleagues often prescribe a much higher dose than Prof. Hübener on the same day and feel “in the right” as long as they do so 159

Machine Translated by Google

Keep the single dose below 2.5 Gy. We have known for a long time that radiation exposure accumulates and is not just dependent on an increased individual dose. These doctors never ask themselves whether some patients die from the therapy and where the limit is. Is it 50 Gy, 70 Gy or 100 Gy? And no matter what number you mention here, the next question from a logical person is: “How do you know that this number is correct?” If you want to read the whole story from two different perspectives, then go to the following one Websites:

www.strahlskandal.de (pages of the patient's lawyer) www.strahlskandal-uke.de (The whole thing from the perspective of Prof. Hübeners)

160

Machine Translated by Google

Response rate and survival time (survival time)

Another topic also belongs to the topic of chemotherapy: response rate and survival time. It is important that you learn to differentiate these terms because, unfortunately, doctors do not always do this. So if a doctor tells you that there is something wrong with breast cancer, for example: B. Studies by Henderson and Canel-lo, by Schwartsmann and Pinedo or by Plosker and Faulds, which prove that chemotherapy such as doxorubicin or epirubicin in high doses achieved response rates of up to 70%, then this is absolutely the truth. As a rule, the doctor then doesn't say anything further and "forgets" to tell you that even in the best studies, response rates of 70% did not even reach a 25% remission (disappearance of the tumor). Most importantly, know that neither a 70% response rate nor a 25% remission rate has any impact on your survival. If you still doubted that the tumor or tumor size in cancer is not as important as it is always made out to be - all these studies prove it!

161

Machine Translated by Google

Should I do chemotherapy now or not?

In my opinion, using chemotherapy drugs as an initial strategy will sooner or later go down in history as medical misconduct and as the sole means of treating cancers such as breast, colon, prostate, pancreas, kidney. or lung cancer, it is certainly a medical mistake today - and from a legal perspective it is slowly but surely on increasingly shaky ground.

162

Machine Translated by Google

Basics on the topic

Radiation You who don't feel it,

You will never hunt it again Dr. Seeger

Unfortunately, in my opinion, radiation is still trivialized far too much and sometimes I really can't believe the nonsense you read in books or hear in lectures. Even today, many professors still publicly claim that radiation only harms sick cells. All I can say is: “How much nonsense can you actually say in public today?” Of course, I am aware that many doctors only say such sentences to allay their patients' fear of radiation or to put more pressure on the patient to actually undergo radiation therapy. But you could also say that many doctors consciously lie because they (should) know better due to their training. And that brings us back to the old topic: How can a patient objectively decide on a therapy if he only receives one-sided information. And if I am 100% sure about one thing, it is that radiation with 30 x 1.8 Gy very well and very sustainably destroys and influences healthy cells and in many cases is the direct or sole trigger for new tumors. There are hundreds of places in the literature that prove the dangers of radiation therapy, as you can read later. The big question, however, is why is the radiation 163

Machine Translated by Google

therapy actually that popular? Several influences come together here. For the first time, you can of course fundamentally destroy cells, including tumors, with radiation - it just depends on the amount of radiation. Since the entire oncology sector unfortunately still relies on the long-outdated phrase: tumor gone = cancer gone, it is of course logical to use all types of tumor-destroying therapies. But the financial aspect is at least as important. Radiation therapy is really big business and the sales for the machines and therapies are at dizzying heights. Of course, we don't talk about this, because it can't be the case that a doctor prescribes radiation therapy for financial reasons and of course not chemotherapy or certainly not a bone marrow transplant for e.g. For example, a university clinic only charges a “ridiculous” 190,498.07. Yes, you just read that right. A single therapy costs a whopping over 190,000 euros plus other additional costs. Furthermore, radiation therapy is easy to carry out, requires relatively little “doctor’s time” for the therapy and it is logical for the patient because they usually believe that once the tumor is destroyed the cancer will go away. Radiation therapy also works excellently in explaining the destruction of micrometastases, because almost no patient comes up with the idea of asking a doctor whether they have ever seen such a micrometastasis under a microscope, which is supposed to be the case be destroyed by the rays. In studies it goes without saying Radiotherapy was always compared with other conventional therapies, so that of course one always emerged as the winner of the competition. The biggest advantage and disadvantage of radiation is that you can't see the rays and they don't hurt at first. The Side effects often only appear after months and here too - if things go wrong - the top sentence applies: “The cancer was stronger”. All of these reasons together have made radiotherapy more important in oncology today. 164

Machine Translated by Google

which cannot be explained at all using figures.

In most cases, the statistics that come to light are underwhelming; as a logical person, you don't even want to know how many studies were never published. But despite everything or precisely because of this (depending on your point of view), it can be explained why radiotherapy is still considered the first standard therapy and many people who care more about shareholders than about the sick will continue to ensure that in the future nothing changes here. I am absolutely aware that neither this book nor any other measures can stop the “everyday oncological madness of radiation”. To avoid missunderstandings. I am not always and fundamentally against radiation, but from what I have learned, I am of the opinion that 99% of all radiation therapies do not benefit the patient. If you just think about the fact that doctors irradiate tissue after an operation just because they believe (don't know!!!) that there could still be cancer cells, even though the surgeon claims that he cut “in a healthy state”. , then you can see how far so-called modern oncology is from scientific medicine. The whole of oncology is based on theoretical constructs and radiation therapy fits in well. I know this sounds very heretical, but believe me, no one would be happier than me if these theories were true.

What is true, however, is that patients get cancer again in the places where they were irradiated. It is true that all “safe amounts of radiation” are only a theoretical construct and it is also true – whether radiologists like this or not – that it is precisely these rays that cause cancer. Far be it from me to badmouth radiologists or doctors in general. But when it comes to radiation, entire professional groups can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction. I have to say this in such harsh words because we are just beginning to understand what a huge impact it has 165

Machine Translated by Google

We already have low-frequency waves like transmission towers and are still a long way from what radiation amounts of 60 Gy can do to our bodies. Every doctor who claims he knows better should put himself forward for the Nobel Prize because he would be the only one in the world. I find it firstly irresponsible and secondly legally vulnerable for a radiologist to go and explain to his patient that the proposed radiation therapy has little or no negative damage to healthy cells. The fact is, he hopes that it is so, knowing is something else. Apparently many doctors don't read literature either about X-rays, otherwise they would know the following: As early as 1960, Dr. Zabel that a tumor is only about 0.5 receives 5.0% of the total radiation and the remaining tissue absorbs at least 95% of the amount of radiation. But since a battle is taking place around the tumor in which various defense cells are integrated, these important defense cells are attacked or destroyed. Everyone who has been irradiated knows that this is the case because of the increased susceptibility to infection during and after irradiation. This is a paradoxical situation because the body is deprived of its defense function against remaining cancer cells.

The famous Otto Warburg described the increased H2 O2 production of cells by radiation. Since we now know that cancer cells also have increased H2 O2 production, this may be responsible for increased cancer formation. I'm not the only one who has had to experience this "phenomenon" several times, namely that a tumor grows almost explosively during or shortly after radiation treatment. Conventional doctors generally assume that increased H2 O2 production leads to the death of cancer cells, but if you think further logically, you can also draw the opposite conclusion. Dr. In 1959, Astaldi published how X-rays inhibit oxygen consumption in parallel with the dose. This is an important note because e.g. B. Leukemia cells tolerate significantly more than healthy leukocytes. Published in the same year 166

Machine Translated by Google

Noyes and Smith that X-rays with 0.2 Gy destroy mitochondria and the nitrogen content in the mitochondria is increased. On average, patients today are irradiated with 1.8 - 2 Gy per session and often 30 times. Per session, ten times the amount is administered that is necessary for the irreversible destruction of possibly millions of mitochondria! Unfortunately, patients are not aware that destroyed mitochondria no longer grow back and that energy production remains impaired until the end of life. These are two arguments that speak very strongly against any type of X-rays. Anyone who still goes around today and denies the importance of mitochondria in the issue of cancer can no longer be helped in my opinion. But the mitochondria are vital not only for cancer, but for our health in general and anyone who denies this understands absolutely nothing about biochemistry. But the second part, the increased nitrogen content of the mitochondria, also plays a major role (see mitochondrial theory under nitrogen oxide). In 1961, the work of Wohlfarth, Bottermann and Schneider confirmed that mitochondria under X-rays crumble completely just 15 minutes after irradiation, fatty acid oxidation is destroyed and changes in the cytoplasm become visible. We also have a lot to thank the researcher Kuhl Related to cancer and radiation. As early as 1966 he compiled the following research, which Dr. Seeger published in his best book: Cancer - Path without a way out : 1. The Berlin Prof. Dr. was able to do so as early as 1903. G. SCHWARZ demonstrated that X-rays, radioactive radiation, etc. destroy the cell phosphatides, i.e. the lecithins, in the cell and erythrocyte membranes, thus causing the same effect that SEEGER was able to demonstrate histochemically in 1937/38 as the initial phase of cancer genesis . Since the phosphatide-containing, 167

Machine Translated by Google

i.e. lecithin-containing basic structure of the mitochondria is destroyed, the associated detachment and destruction of the structure-bound oxidation enzymes, especially cytochrome oxidase (SEEGER 1938), succinodehydrase and cytochromes (von EULER 1939), leads to an oxygen utilization disorder in the cell, resulting in an accumulation of electrons increased negativization, resulting in cancerization of the cell. J. THOMAS (1959) confirms oxidation inhibition caused by radiation as a result of ferment inactivation with a simultaneous increase in glycolysis.

2. The consequence of the oxygen utilization disorder (SEEGER 1938/51) is that already reported in 1925 by the later Nobel Prize winners C. and F. CORI at the Berlin Charité discovered that the blood of the vein draining from a tumor in the leg has a greater oxygen content than the venous blood of the healthy leg. J. THOMAS (1959) confirms the significant increase in oxygen in the venous blood of cancer patients as a result of a blockage or damage to the oxidation enzymes. The experimental findings of SEEGER (1937/38) and the consequences derived from them in 1951 are therefore brilliantly confirmed.

3. Through the ionizing radiation treatment, the lipoprotein membranes of the lyosomes located in the cell plasma, which are approximately 0.4 Mü large cell organelles, are destroyed and hydrolytic proteolytic ferments are released, which SEEGER was able to detect as early as 1938 with the help of ABDERHALDEN's ninhydrin reaction. Their optimum effect is in the acidic range, which is initially caused by the left-lactic acid resulting from glycolysis, although this is quickly eliminated.

4. Ionizing radiation weakens the lymphocytic defense wall (compare the work of SEEGER: On the effect of mis168

Machine Translated by Google

tel extracts, Req. Heilk. 1965) is destroyed and the cancer cells can spread; The entire lymphatic system is damaged, thus the body's defense against cancer cells. Even after low doses of 25 - 50 r, an increased loss of lymphocytes occurs due to nuclear shrinkage and cell disintegration. The spleen, thymus and lymph nodes shrink and regress to 50% of their normal weight (A. MARQUARDT and G. SCHUBERT). 5. The mitochondria of the normal cells in the tumor environment, in which only the enzymes of oxidation are contained in a structurally bound manner (SEEGER 1937/38), are damaged and decimated. The reduction of mitochondrial ferment depots on the one hand, and the inactivation and destruction of the respiratory enzymes in the remaining mitochondria on the other causes these normal cells to be converted into cancer cells through the ionizing radiation treatment. 6. Ionizing radiation treatment leads to sudden cell breakdown. The entire body of the cancer patient, which is already overloaded with the toxins from the cancer cells such as malignolipin, toxohormone (polypeptides), mucopolysaccharides, etc., which it cannot cope with, is suddenly explosively filled with cell detritus from the melted tumor masses, D(-) = left-handed pathological amino acids (KÖGL and ERXLEBEN), pathogenic left-handed lactic acid (WARBURG), hydrogen peroxide, etc. and the condition of the cancer patient becomes cachectic and life-threatening. The cancer patient does not die from his tumor, but from the toxins it secretes. The toxic effect of ionizing radiation is best demonstrated by the fact that a dog parabiotically linked to an irradiated dog suffers fatal poisoning (S. SCHMIDT, Rothenfelde).

169

Machine Translated by Google

7. According to J. SEGAL (1963), ionizing radiation leads to a shift in the isoelectric point of the serum globulins to the acidic side, the H-bonds in the protein molecule break, a “folded drum” of polypeptide chains is created and this results in a increased occurrence of irreversibly de-natured proteins in the cell, which SEEGER was able to detect histochemically using several methods as early as 1938. 8. According to the hit theory (concentrated energy shoots through space like a rifle bullet. SEGAL 1960), X-ray irradiation leads to the mutation of a healthy cell into a cancer cell, and also to the creation of unphysiological, chemically very active, highly toxic, toxic substances. Peroxides and particularly chemically active free radicals are created, which then reach and damage the “target molecule” over large distances. According to WITTE (1960 report), there is no real tolerance dose; Because even the smallest possible X-ray dose, the photon, can clearly cause damage because it is so energetic that it can destroy a large number of organic molecules in the living body able. According to a judgment by the well-known physicist B. RAJEWSKI (1960), any impact of X-rays on living tissue leads to damage to their structural and functional elements (as Prof. SCHWARZ demonstrated in Berlin in 1903) of the units hit by the radiation. This also applies to arbitrarily small radiation doses. BENDER (1910) found that irradiation with lr causes chromosome remodeling mutations or chromosome breaks in 3 out of 1000 cells, which have a lethal effect on the cell. Even the skin dose of a serial X-ray examination (RRU) of 0.2 r produces an average of 400 ionizations and approx. 800 electron excitations in every cell with a diameter of approx. 10 mu, making a total of 30 million cells

170

Machine Translated by Google

damaged by chromosomal mutations, many of which are fatal, i.e. RRU destroys 1 - 2 g of the body substance.

9. According to E. HECKER (1969), the bases guanine and thymine in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) are irreversibly damaged both in vitro and in vivo by physical carcinogens such as X-rays and ultraviolet rays or high-energy electron radiation by the six-membered ring of the Thymine is broken down into urea with the loss of 3 carbon atoms and the five-membered ring of guanine is converted into a formamide derivative, which, as a result of a change in the base sequence of the polynucleotide strand of the DNA and RNA, changes the information content of the affected nucleic acid and causes a somatic mutation or a lethal mutation becomes. It always surprises me that “experts” today stand and act as if all these facts don’t exist. Admittedly, not all doctors have as much time as I do to pour over all the literature and acquire the necessary knowledge about radiation. But isn't that what you as a patient actually expect from a radiologist, who decides whether you should receive radiation therapy or not? Older research is sometimes laughed at just because it is old. But the radiation from 1960 is still the same as in the 21st century and 60 Gy is still 60 Gy. Our mitochondria are still structured the same and are even more damaged today than they were 40 years ago. So if radiation therapies are trivialized today, it is certainly not because radiation is so harmless to our healthy cells.

171

Machine Translated by Google

5th chapter

Conventional therapies

172

Machine Translated by Google

Conventional therapies

Below I would like to show you what the gold standard, i.e. the usual therapy, of conventional medicine is for certain types of cancer. “But there are conventional textbooks for this,” you might be thinking. Yes, that's true, but not with my critical comments on this. And from my years of experience I know that it is often the “small” ones things that explain why patients choose this or that therapy. Is the doctor likeable, does the doctor's statements 'come across well', where is the clinic, etc. are often more important than all the statistics in the world. On the next few pages I have put together for you, as concisely as possible, what treatments a conventionally thinking doctor will offer you for your type of cancer. For reasons of space, I cannot of course list every possible therapy or one that I know of. However, I am sure that I have basically listed the main therapies and explain my position here. Of course, some doctors will throw up their hands and say: 'That's not possible, the author can't stop patients from such 'vital' therapies such as chemotherapy and radiation.' But I would like to say that I generally don't stop any patient from doing anything. However, if I allow myself to evaluate significant studies differently than your treating oncologist, then I am certainly not doing this to confuse you, but rather to show you what the other side of the coin looks like. The fact that some doctors can't tolerate so much criticism, well, I just have to live with that and let myself be reprimanded for it. 173

Machine Translated by Google

But dear doctor, never forget one thing. We both have the same goal and just as I accept your point of view, I also expect you, for the sake of thousands of cancer patients, to accept that there are other points of view. This is the only way we can be there together for all the people who urgently need help and for anyone who claims that their path is the right one, I can only recommend reading the Gospel of John (especially 8/7) again. Let's be honest. Isn't it incredibly arrogant towards cancer patients to claim that this or that is cancer and can only be treated with three or four therapies. I wouldn't say anything if there had been objective progress in oncology in recent years , especially in epithelial cancers, but far from it. All the statistics in the world clearly speak a different language. And as long as there is no evidence of a new beginning, I will allow myself to question, question and question therapies again. We should also not forget the studies published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol 284, July 26, 2000) that conventional medicine is now the third largest factor in deaths (after heart disease and cancer). . According to these studies, approximately 225,000 people die because of doctors in the USA alone. You just have to imagine how many people die from therapy . So we should all tone down when we say we know how to treat cancer should treat. Speaking of treating. Scientists at the McGill Cancer Center in the US sent a questionnaire to 118 oncologists asking them which of the 6 common therapies they would use on themselves. 79 doctors responded and 64 of them said that they would never do therapy with cisplatin - a very common chemotherapy whose turnover is over 100 million euros per year. Much worse, however, was that 58 of the 79 doctors answered that they would never do chemotherapy. 174

Machine Translated by Google

because, firstly, it is ineffective and secondly, it is far too toxic. When I first read this I just thought, 'Well, it's nothing new that you treat patients differently than you treat yourself or your wife.' But after I thought about the whole thing again and mentally calculated what it actually means that around 75% of the doctors contacted prescribe therapies that they themselves do not support, I only felt pity and anger. Compassion for the patients who are sacrificed. Pity for the doctors who have to go through the schizophrenia of everyday oncology every day and a lot of anger at all the people who constantly represent such a system positively to the outside world. I too am constantly caught up in the contradiction of oncology, namely when conventional doctors “condescend” and ask a nondoctor like me for advice when they or a close relative have cancer. On the one hand, such contacts confirm my work, but on the other hand, it is not always easy for me to deal with people who have “fought” me for years. But one sentence always runs through my head in such situations: “Only stupid people never change their minds” and I am happy about every doctor who uses his intelligence in a positive way. Additionally, it helps me remember what I would have done 10 years ago if I had gotten cancer. So if your doctor tells you that only the therapy he suggests is successful and “Mr Hirneise, who is not even a doctor, has no idea about everyday oncology in Germany,” then you at least know that this is not true .

What is the gold standard of conventional oncology? On the next few pages I will show you as briefly as possible and as detailed as necessary: 175

Machine Translated by Google

• The conventional medical definition of your type of cancer

• How common this type of cancer is • What subdivisions there are • How this is diagnosed in conventional medicine • What stages of the disease there are • Which conventional medical therapy concepts exist? gel divided into: - Surgery - Chemotherapy - Radiation - Other therapies such as hormones, interferons, antibodies etc.

The data comes from medical textbooks and published statistics. Regarding statistics, you may be familiar with the joke: “What’s the increase in a lie?” Answer: “One lie, two lies, one statistic.” Additionally, you need to know that statistics can be “bent” in all directions. I claim that if you tell me in advance what result a study is supposed to show, then I will be either by designing the study accordingly, by making a “bent” analysis or by providing the “correct” ones. Questions make each study look the way I think it should. That's why we have to be very careful with the numbers given. Something else is often not taken into account. If a medication helps 99% of all patients, but causes severe side effects in one percent, then this initially sounds quite positive. However, if you are one of the 1%, then has 176

Machine Translated by Google

this drug will 100% fail you. So if you're told about a particularly positive or negative study, ask yourself first:

• Who paid for the study?

• Who benefits from the results of the study? • What is the advantage of telling you about this study? counts?

Only if you are satisfied with all three questions should you even consider the study in your considerations. I know from my own experience that this is very complex and often very difficult or time-consuming to carry out - but what is the alternative to this? The alternative is quite clear: belief instead of knowledge. Unfortunately, the entire treatment of chronic illnesses (not emergency medicine) in today's medicine is based on this. And unfortunately we also know how successful the whole thing is.

177

Machine Translated by Google

Acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALLES)

The conventional medical definition: Malignant degeneration and maturation disorder of white blood cells. The body produces immature white blood cells (lymphocytes), called blasts.

How common is ALL? Currently about one disease per 100,000 people.

What divisions are there? Morphologically, L-1, L-2 and L-3 blasts are distinguished. L-1 blasts are small and have a homogeneous nucleus. Approximately 20% of all L-2 blasts have a large nucleus with notches and are generally more heterogeneous (diverse). L-3 blasts are all large and homogeneous (similar).

How is ALL diagnosed in conventional medicine? Fatigue, fever, skin bleeding, pallor, bone pain, general neurological symptoms, joint pain. Bone marrow puncture (blast percentage higher than 25%), blood tests (leukocytes, Hb, platelets), measurement of the 178

Machine Translated by Google

Liver and spleen size, testicular examination, ultrasound, CT. In principle, every doctor should make a precise differential diagnosis for rheumatic diseases or osteomyelitis (inflammation of the bone marrow). In detail also on neuroblastomas, rhabdomysarcomas and of course lymphomas. Cytogenetic changes in individual chromosomes can be detected in around 50% of patients. In 4% of children and In 20% of adult ALL, the translocation of the cABL proto-oncogene (paternal chromosome 9q34) and the BCR (breakpoint cluster region/maternal chromosome 22q11), known as the “Philadelphia chromosome”, is present. Stadiums:

In contrast to solid tumors, there is no staging for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The type of treatment depends on how old the patient is, his blood count and whether it is the first, second or third therapy. Otherwise, the groups are divided into induction therapy, consolidation phase, maintenance therapy and relapse therapies as in AML (see AML for details).

What conventional medical therapy concepts are there?

chemotherapy In general, the treatment protocol for ALL is to give chemotherapy as high as possible in different blocks over 6 months, followed by another 2 years of chemotherapy at a lower dose. The following toxins are usually used: Ara-C, daunorubicin, cyclophosphamide, asparaginase, vincristine, prednisone, mercaptopurine and methotrexate. 179

Machine Translated by Google

There is no doubt that there are studies that, at first glance, speak in favor of chemotherapy. At second glance, however, you notice that almost all studies compare old chemotherapy protocols with newer ones. So again, we don't know how these protocols would compare to holistic therapies.

Bone marrow therapies (BMT) In recent years, bone marrow replacement therapies such as:

A. Allogeneic bone marrow/stem cell transplantation: Here the patient receives stem cells from a donor. First, high doses of chemotherapy are given with or without additional radiation to destroy all of the bone marrow in the body. Healthy bone marrow is then removed from another donor. The donor's healthy bone marrow is injected into the patient and is then intended to replace the patient's destroyed bone marrow.

B. Autologous bone marrow/stem cell transplantation: In this therapy, bone marrow/stem cells are removed from the patient, treated with medication to kill any cancer cells and given back after high-dose chemotherapy. The bone marrow is frozen for storage. The patient then receives high-dose chemotherapy with or without additional radiation to destroy all remaining bone marrow. The stored, frozen bone marrow is thawed and injected back into the patient. When it comes to bone marrow transplantation, one must of course not forget that there is a great chance of dying from the therapy . Both therapies are not without controversy even among conventional doctors.

180

Machine Translated by Google

Radiation: Especially for large mediastinal tumors, patients are recommended radiation therapy, usually with 24 - 26 Gy.

Other therapies such as hormones, antibodies, etc. Although there are interferon approaches, other therapies such as cytokine therapies or monoclonal antibodies do not play a role in ALL because ALL, along with testicular cancer and AML, is the stronghold of chemotherapy.

General Please also read the information mentioned under AML. Even if the Although the individual protocols are different, the therapeutic approach for ALL and AML is identical.

181

Machine Translated by Google

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML)

The conventional medical definition: Malignant degeneration and maturation disorder of the hematopoietic stem cells. The word acute means that leukemia cells occur morphologically as blasts and a large proportion of blasts can be detected in the bone marrow (25 - 30%).

How common is AML? Currently around 2.5 cases per 100,000 people. On average, patients are over 60 years old. This particularly affects patients who have been exposed to increased radiation (tumor therapy, radioactive radiation, etc.). But also patients after chemotherapy.

What divisions are there? See the following table according to Bennet. The most common types are M1, M2 and M4.

MO minimally differentiated myeloblastic leukemia Cytochemistry: < 3% of all blasts POX-positive, myeloid marker CD33 and/or. CD 13 possibly CD l Ib positive, lymphatic B or T line markers negative 182

Machine Translated by Google

M1 myeloblastic leukemia without maturation Cell nucleus: one or more nucleoli can be defined, cytoplasm: isolated azure granules and/or. Auer rods, cytochemistry: “ 3% of blasts are POX positive, 90% of all non-erythropoietic cells are blasts

M2 myeloblastic leukemia In contrast to AML-M1, further maturation of the leukemic blasts, “ 10% of the nucleated cells are myelocytes or Promyelocytes, sometimes transitioning to mature granulocytes, often Auer rods, 30 - 89% of all non-erythropoietic cells are blasts

M3 promyelocytic leukemia Cell nucleus: often kidney-shaped or bilobular, cytoplasm: almost completely filled with large granules, occasionally “faggot cells” with bundle-shaped arrangement of Auer rods and clear cytoplasm

M4 myelomonocytic leukemia Similar to M2, but increased proportion of monoblasts, promonocytes and monocytes in the blood (“5 x 109/1) or CM (“20% of all nucleated cells), marker enzyme: alpha-NE, lysozyme in serum, etc. /O. Urine increased at least three times the upper normal value, proportion of granulopoietic cells 30 - 80% of all nonerythropoietic cells

M4eo (like M4 but additionally) “4% eosinophils in the bone marrow, predominantly immature precursors with atypical large deep basophilic granules next to normal eosinophilic granules

M5 monocytic leukemia Proportion of granulocytic cells (marker enzyme: POX) usually not 183

Machine Translated by Google

“ 80% of all higher than 10%, maximum 20%. Monocytic cells nonerythropoietic cells Marker enzyme for monocytic cells: non-specific esterase, e.g. B. alpha-naphthyl acetate esterase

M5a undifferentiated Large monoblasts in the bone marrow (rarely also in the blood), nucleus: highly loosened nuclear chromatin structure with one or more prominent nucleoli, cytoplasm: very voluminous, basophilic, partly pseudopodia, a few azure granules, a few Auer rods, "80% of all monocytic cells are Blasts

M5b differentiated Maturation of the monoblasts through promonocytes to morphologically mature monocytes, the proportion of more mature monocytes in the blood is generally higher than in the bone marrow smear, cell nuclei: strongly lobed, cytoplasm: gray, often azure granules, occasionally Auer rods, less than 80% of the monocytic cells are blasts

M6 erythroleukemia Proportion of erythropoietic cells with severe nuclear maturation disorders “ 30%, erythropoiesis often PAS-positive, proportion of myeloblasts " 30% if proportion of erythropoiesis < 50%; otherwise a myeloblast proportion “ of 30% of all non-erythropoietic cells in the cell is sufficient Bone marrow

M7 megakaryoblastic leukemia Usually ineffective puncture due to proliferation of fibers in the bone marrow, Blasts: strong anisocytosis, partially lymphoid morphology, POX negative, Diagnosis confirmation: electron microscopy Detection of platelet peroxidase or immunological detection of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa

184

Machine Translated by Google

How is AML diagnosed in conventional medicine? Fatigue, fever, skin bleeding, pallor, bone pain, general neurological symptoms, joint pain. Bone marrow puncture (blast percentage higher than 25%), blood tests (LDH, leukocytes, Hb, thrombocytes, GOT, GPT, Quick, PTT, PTZ, fibrinogen, lysozyme ... ), measurement of liver and spleen size, testicular examination, ultrasound, CT. It is important to know that blood counts can generally show values that are too high or too low. Many doctors also use the lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) value as a measurement of the disease.

What conventional medical therapy concepts are there?

General AML therapy means = chemotherapy. There are also statistics that show that patients who received chemotherapy survived the five-year limit. What many patients don't know, of course, is the fact that there are very few patients who are not treated with this therapy using conventional medicine and this naturally raises the question of whether the patients survive because of or despite the treatment. Another point is also “forgotten” in conventional medical therapy recommendations. After therapy with such intensive chemotherapy as in AML, which, as we know, is itself carcinogenic, there is no going back to holistic therapy, since the damage caused by this therapy combination cannot be compensated for by any holistic therapy . In practice, this means that the patient has to decide 100% which path he wants to take. “Let’s test this first and if this fails, then we’ll go another route” is 99% not possible.

185

Machine Translated by Google

chemotherapy In most therapy centers we speak of the 4 stages or phases of AML treatment. These are: 1.

In the first phase, induction therapy, a lot of chemotherapy is used to possibly bring the cancer into remission. Of course, the aim is always to achieve a CR (complete remission). According to school medicine, this is achieved when the medullary blast proportion is a maximum of 5%, the peripheral platelet count is less than 100,000 and the peripheral granulocyte count is over 1,500. The main substances used here are cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C), anthracyclines (such as daunorubicin or idarubicin), thioguanine and VP16. TAD therapy (thioguanine, Ara-C, daunorubicin), followed by HAM therapy (Ara-C, mitoxantrone) has become the standard in many clinics.

The “M3 patients” are an exception here. These are patients with promyelocytic leukemia. Patients with this clinical picture initially receive all-trans-retinoic acid, as studies have shown that promyelocytic blasts “normalize” and divide normally again. Unfortunately, the side effects of this therapy are very dangerous (embolism), so this therapy is usually only used for a short time. Patients who do not respond to the above-mentioned therapies are called non-responders (NRs). I find this word very contemptuous of people because nobody seems to think about the fact that it is not the patients who are failing, but actually the therapy. However, by calling the patient an NR, one acts as if the therapy were fundamentally correct. What a fatal mistake for many patients.

2.

The second phase, the so-called consolidation phase, is theoretically about using considerably more chemotherapy. 186

Machine Translated by Google

therapy to reduce the risk of recurrence. In my opinion, this understanding of therapy needs to be seriously questioned, since the patient is not given any time to recover from the induction therapy and believes/hopes that the patient is now so healthy that he can survive further chemotherapy. Unfortunately, I have had to experience several times that this is not the case. It is also interesting that oncologists are far from agreeing on what a successful consolidation phase should look like. But you could also say heretically: Since oncologists don't know at all which therapies can help their patients, they just “treat straight away”. While some patients receive allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplants, others receive high-dose chemotherapy with Ara-C or a new “normal” dose with Ara-C.

3.

In the third treatment phase, the so-called maintenance therapy, chemotherapy is usually given in lower doses. I think this approach is very questionable, since the chance of immunity/resistance to the toxins that were previously given at higher levels is very likely and one really has to ask oneself whether maintenance therapies are nothing other than unnecessary poisoning of the body.

4.

In the event of relapses, so-called “second line” Therapies offered. In summary, this means: Even more chemotherapy in all variations. In my opinion, this shows the powerlessness of many oncologists. In every other field, except oncology, other strategies are used when the old ones have failed. Not so in oncology. Here you get even more of what didn't work before. The only thing that helps here is logic, logic and logic.

187

Machine Translated by Google

Bone marrow therapies (BMT)

A. Allogeneic bone marrow /Stem cell transplant Here the patient receives stem cells from a donor. First, high doses of chemotherapy are given, with or without additional radiation, to destroy all of the bone marrow in the body. Healthy bone marrow is then taken from another donor. The donor's healthy bone marrow is injected into the patient and then replaces the patient's destroyed bone marrow. Unfortunately, there is far too little questioning as to whether this is really the case. I don't know of any precise test procedures that prove that the new bone marrow is really the donor's own bone marrow and not your own new bone marrow. But as long as every bone marrow patient earns well over 250,000 euros, who is interested in answering this question?

B. Autologous bone marrow/stem cell transplantation In this therapy, bone marrow/stem cells are removed from the patient and reintroduced after high-dose chemotherapy has been administered. Here, bone marrow is removed from the patient and treated with medication to kill all cancer cells. The bone marrow is frozen for storage. The patient then receives high-dose chemotherapy, with or without additional radiation, to destroy all remaining bone marrow. The stored, frozen bone marrow is thawed and reinjected into the patient.

188

Machine Translated by Google

When it comes to bone marrow transplantation, one must of course not forget that there is a great chance of dying from the therapy . Both therapies are not without controversy even among conventional doctors.

Radiation and operations The use of radiation or surgery plays no role in AML. If you are primarily offered radiation, then question it three times.

Other therapies such as hormones, antibodies, etc.

Monoclonal antibodies There have been and are studies with antibodies, e.g. B. CD3 (MAB). However, it must be made very clear here that these studies have not shown any significant advantages, but have shown many disadvantages.

Furthermore, in June 2000, a manufacturer (Genentech) of monoclonal antibodies had to write a letter to all doctors in the USA warning of serious side effects because 15 women died from monoclonal antibody therapy (within 24 hours of the infusion ).

Other starting points Other agents such as arsenic trioxide, gene therapies, etc. are currently being discussed and investigated. But once again: Where are the convincing results?

189

Machine Translated by Google

Anal cancer

The conventional medical definition: Malignant epithelial tumor of the anal region.

How common is anal cancer? Currently around 2 - 5% of all colon cancers. There are studies that indicate that there is a connection between anal cancer and homosexuality, chlamydia, herpes and papilloma viruses. However, these studies are questionable because they often contain data interpretations that would not stand up to rigorous scientific examination.

What divisions are there? Approximately 90% of all colon cancers are squamous cell and cloacogenic carcinomas (cloaca = end of the hindgut). There are also basaloid (from the basal cells) and mucoepidermoid (glandularcystic structures) carcinomas.

How is anal cancer diagnosed in conventional medicine? Stool examination for blood, bleeding, sigmoidoscopy (reflection of the intestine), pain, pencil stool (thin as a pencil), colonoscopy, Xray (with pulp), sonography, laboratory with elevation of CEA and LDH. 190

Machine Translated by Google

What stages of the disease are there? The TNMG system is used worldwide to assess the tumor stage. This means:

T=

Tumor stage. Stages 1 - 4.

N=

Knot (Latin nodus). Stages 0 - 3. For anal cancer: N0 = No lymph node metastases N1 = Perirectal lymph node metastases N2 = lymph node metastases inguinal (in the groin) and on the internal iliac artery on one side. N3 = lymph node metastases inguinal (in the groin) and on the internal iliac artery on both sides.

M=

Metastases. Stages 0 (none) – 1.

G=

Degree of degeneration of the cell. Stages 1 - 4. Doctors call this differentiation. A G1 means that the cell is well differentiated, i.e. very similar to a normal cell. G4 means a poorly differentiated cell, i.e. a cell that is very different from a normal cell. separates.

Stadiums Tx tl

No assessment of the primary tumor. The tumor is