For me, this therapy is still the most outstanding therapy and should serve as the basis every cancer patient’s therapy. If I write this here, after all the experiences with so many cancer therapies throughout the entire world, then please understand that I do so after very careful consideration. You should study this therapy intensively regardless of which therapy you should decide on other than the oil protein diet.

First it must be stated that even in allopathy there is no real agreement on how cancer is caused. There are reports of cancer being caused through viral infections e.g. Burkitt-Lymphoma, through the Eppstein-Barr virus, liver cell cancer through hepatitis B, and T-cell leukemia through a retrovirus named HTLV-1. For the most part however the reports involve cancer-causing substances, so-called noxa in the form of radiation and chemicals. These noxa then ensure that certain genes, which normally would repair these genetic defects, are inactivated, and a malignant tumor can develop. Since our cells are exposed again and again to these attacks in the course of aging, naturally the probability of contracting cancer also increases with age in a parallel relationship. In summary we can say that cancer occurs because mutations occur in our cell nucleus, the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and over years a tumor forms from this. This is why it is called the mutation theory.

Disregarding allopathy, for which cancer is simply a genetic pre-disposition, which cannot be countered anyway, many researchers around the world are considering whether there is a reason that our body produces a tumor. Primarily psychological theories often view the tumor as a sensible product. Dr. Hamer has described this in detail or there is a theory in which the tumor is viewed as a new intellectual challenge, in the sense of: Now I’ve got to change something. This would also explain the increased incidence of cancer in the elderly.

These days, whoever writes about Dr. Hamer runs the risk of being thrown into the same pot with the “greatest quack in oncology”; particularly since Dr. Hamer was arrested again 2004 in Spain and was extradited to France. The official reason given by the French government for his arrest, as stated in the warrant, is: “Incitement against allopathy and instigation to new medicine, with the objective of practice”.

How do the trillions of cells in our body actually communicate? How does a cell know what kind of cell it actually is? A lot is being said these days about our genes, but one thing is certain: Normally we have the same genes in all of our cells, regardless of whether these cells are in our knee or in our eye. It is absolutely impossible that all of this information is stored in our genes. While morphogenetic fields are being researched in Russia and in China knowledge of meridians (energy paths) has been part of the traditional education of all doctors for millennia, in the modern west these “things” are still relegated to the “esoteric corner” as is cell-to-cell communication via photons (light).

This theory states that a tumor occurs because certain cells can no longer perform the tasks they are supposed to perform, and consequently they attempt to create a balance through overproduction, (by the way, this is explained by others, including Dr. Hamer, in somewhat different terms).

The trigger is always a stress situation, which can be of a bodily nature (poor nutrition, radiation exposure, toxins etc.) and/or a psychic nature. This stress situation prevents a cell from organizing itself in its usual manner (e.g. cell membrane voltage, mitochondrial activity, etc.) This lessens the vital cell functions and the cell tries to find its own ways out of this situation. Unfortunately this “attempt” leads to more stress and the cancer circuit cannot be stopped.

The famous doctor Wilhem Reich, who opposed his teacher Sigmund Freud and wrote a lot about freeing natural sexuality, was one of the first who considered cancer to be an energy deficit. He describes in detail how cancer cells have lost the relationship to the whole (body) and that their energy charge is no longer sufficient to handle the tasks intended for them.

Naturally, as a psychoanalyst, it was clear to Dr. Reich that such cell disorders are the result of great emotional blockage. What Reich only described in theory, Dr. Albert Popp was able to prove in the laboratory recently – namely the changed radiation of biophotons from cancer cells. Also Kirlian photography (photos that are made in a dark room, in a high-frequency field) brings more and more verifications for this theory to light.

The word parasite comes from the Greek and means, one who eats at the table of another. Colloquially, freeloaders are also referred to as parasites, i.e. life forms that live at other’s costs. Thus, for example, the Russian scientist, Tamara Lebedewa, has maintained for years that what which pathologists make out to be cancer cells under the microscope are really trichomonads. At first glance this seems to be absolute scientific nonsense, a second look however reveals that this is not so crazy at all, particularly in light of all of the research done by Ms. Lebedewa and her Russian colleagues.

The thought that parasites are responsible for cancer is not all that new. Karl Michael described this almost 200 years ago, and in 1893 Pfeiffer wrote that cancer was induced by the parasite amoeba sporidium. In the last century it was then Professor Koch in Germany, Newjadomskij in Russia, and Hulda Clark in America (see under cancer therapies: Clark), who again and again came back to a parasite theory,

A lot has been written in recent years about the importance of the acid base balance, also with reference to cancer. However, when we finally have to explain why for cancer patients, the pH value of the blood increases while it decreases in the interstitial tissue, even the most basic logical explanation patterns are missing (the pH increases in the blood because the chlorine from NAC1 is intercellularly bound on proteins and the basis sodium forms alkaline salts).

Naturally there are still many other theories, such as the anthroposophic theories of Rudolf Steiner, in which the astral body can no longer penetrate the physical body. Pischinger and Heine also have an enlightening theory with their description of the morphogenetic inductors or the breakdown of the matrix. I do not want to deal with all the theories of traditional Chinese medicine or the Ayurveda here as I believe they would exceed the scope of this book. It is important to me that you understand that the “mutation theory”, which is accepted by almost all doctors as “scientific fact”, is not nearly as scientific as it is presented to be, and that there are other theories that are far more enlightening.

Below I would like to provide you with a list of what the gold standard of allopathy (standard treatment) is for certain types of cancer. Perhaps you are thinking, “But there are certainly conventional text books for this”. Yes that is correct, but they do not include my critical comments. And from my years of experience I know that it is often the little things that make the difference as to why patients decide for this treatment, or for that treatment. Does the patient like the doctor, do the doctor’s statements come across well, is the clinic conveniently located often are more important decision-making factors than all the statistics in the world.

On the following pages I have put together a list that is compressed as possible, of those therapies that conventionally thinking doctor will offer you for your type of cancer. Space limitations prevent me from listing all possible therapies, or all that are known to me. However I am sure that I have listed the main theories and I offer my point of view.

Many a doctor would naturally clap his hands to his head and say: “It’s just not right. The author can’t keep patients away from such “vital” therapies as chemotherapy and radiation. But my response is that I am not keeping any patients away from anything.

Introduction

More than a quarter of people worldwide will ultimately be affected by cancer (1), and surgical removal remains a mainstay in the cure and control of most solid cancers. Although surgical excision of primary or even metastatic tumors can save or extend life, it has long been acknowledged that the surgical insult itself may precipitate or accelerate tumor recurrence. The notion that tumor removal may enhance tumor recurrence was cautioned at the turn of the 20th century by Paget and Halsted, who found that patients who underwent resection of their cancer did not survive as long as those managed expectantly (2). Such reports had generally been dismissed as anecdotal until more recent evidence demonstrated that the surgical operation may generate a permissive environment for tumor growth. Several groups have recently revived the idea that addressing the mechanisms involved in the protumorigenic perioperative period may provide insight into ways to improve cancer outcomes (3, 4).

To address the subject of chemotherapy without getting into an emotional discussion is probably no longer possible in the 21st century; and the reason for this is relatively simple. Nobody really knows precisely for which people chemotherapy will prove helpful in destroying a tumor, nor does anybody really know precisely if it would be better not to undergo the chemotherapy. To this day there is no medical measuring instrument that shows us whether a chemotherapy will help this person or that person. I emphasize the word people here because we are even less certain about whether a chemotherapy will help this or that type of cancer.

In the meantime the number of people who earn their living from cancer patients, is greater than the number of cancer patients themselves. It is easy enough to imagine that companies that annually earn hundreds of millions of dollars in cancer medications, mammography devices, laboratory examinations, and radiation devices, will do everything they can to satisfy their shareholders. What this struggle looks like we experience again and again. Have you ever wondered that a government minister of health supports cigarette advertising (Germany) or why it is illegal to sell a vitamin C tablet containing more than 250 mg of vitamin C in a supermarket, even though 80% proof alcohol is for sale next to the cigarettes. An even greater problem is caused by a few criminals who are responsible for the fact that thousands must not only suffer, they also must die. I would like to cite the example of Professor Herrmann to show the dimensions of this problem.

Chemotherapy also involves an additional issue: Response rate and survival time. You must learn to separate these terms because doctors unfortunately do not always separate them. If a doctor says to you that there are breast cancer studies for example by Henderson and Canello, by Schwartsmann and Pinedo, or by Plosker and Faulds, which prove that chemotherapies like Doxorubicin or Epirubicin in high doses have acheived reponse rates up to 70%, then this is absolutely true. Usually the doctor does not elaborate and “forgets” to tell you that even response rates of 70% in the best studies did not achieve a 25% remission (disappearance of the tumor). However the most important thing is that understand that neither a 70% response rate, nor a 25% remission rate, have any effect on your survival time. Should you still doubt that the tumor, or the tumor size is not as important as it is always made out to be with cancer – all these studies prove it.

Now should I undergo chemotherapy or not?

Here you can search by which country that you are in. See what establishment that is closer to your location.

Here you can search by therapy specific to your need. There are many categories that may be relevant to what you are looking for.