The fundamentals concerning irradiation
Since you do not feel it, you will hunt it down in the future
In my opinion irradiation is still considered far more harmless than it really is, and I cannot believe the nonsense that is print-ed in books or cited in presentations. Many professors maintain publicly that irradiation only damages diseased cells. In response I can only say, “Are there any limits to how much nonsense can be stated publicly?”
Naturally I know that many doctors only say such things to assuage their patients’ fear of irradiation or because they want to exert more pressure on the patient so that he really does undergo radiation therapy. I could also say at this point that many doctors consciously lie because they (should) know better due to their education. And this returns us to the old issue which is; How can a patient make an objective decision for a therapie if he only gets one-sided information. And if there is one thing of which I am 100% certain, it is that irradiation with 30 x 1.8 Gy most certainly and most sustainably destroys healthy cells, influences, and in many cases is the direct or sole initiator, for new tumors.
In the literature there are hundreds of findings that prove the hazard of irradiation therapy, as you will read later in this book. The big question however is why is iradation therapy so popular? Several influences come together here. First natural-ly irradiation can destroy cells, tumors too, completely – it depends on the amount of radiation. Since all of oncology rests on the long outdated statement: tumor gone = cancer gone, it is naturally a logical process to implement destructive therapies for all types of tumors. However the financial aspect is at least as significant. Irradiation therapy is real big business and the magnitude of the revenues for the machines and the therapies is astronomical. Naturally people don’t talk about this, because certainly a doctor would not prescribe a radiation therapy for financial reasons – and certainly not a chemotherapy, and certainly not a bone marrow transplant for which a university clinic bills a “laughable” € 190,498.07. Yes, you have read the number correctly. A single therapy costs more than 190,000 Euros, plus additional charges.
In addition, radiation therapy can be simply executed, requires relatively little “doctor time” for the therapy, and it makes sense for the patient, because the patient usually believes that the cancer illness will be gone when the tumor is destroyed. Here as well radiation therapy works extraordinarily well in conjunction with the explanation of the destruction of the micrometastases. There are not many patients who think of asking a doctor whether he has ever seen a micrometastasis under a microscope. These micrometastasis apparently are going to be destroyed with the radiation. In studies, irradiation therapies are only compared with other conventional therapies, so that one of them naturally comes out on top in the contest.
The greatest advantage and disadvantage of iradiation is that irradiation cannot be seen and at first they it does not hurt. Frequently the side effects only kick in often after months, and if things go wrong the primary response is: “The cancer was stronger”. All of these reasons together have made it possible for radiation therapy to attain a position in today’s oncology, that is totally unexplainable based on the statistical data. The statistics that see the light of day in most cases are not earth shaking, a thinking person is almost afraid to ask how many studies have never been published. However in spite of all, this or precisely because of all this (depending on the individual perspective) there is a reason why radiation therapies are still considered to be the first standard therapy, and many people who worry more about the stockholders than the people who are ill, will also ensure that nothing changes in this regard.
I am absolutely certain that neither this book, nor any other measure can stop the “daily oncological insanity of irradiation”. To avoid misunderstanding. I am not always fundamentally against irradiation, but from what I have been able to learn, I am of the opinion that 99% of all irradiation therapies do not benefit the patient. When you consider that doctors irradiate a tissue after an operation just because they believe (not know!!!) that cancer cells could still be present there, although the surgeon maintains he has cut “in healthy tissue”, then you can see how far removed modern oncology is from scientific medicine.
All of oncology is built on theoretic constructs and radiation therapies happen to fit very well within these theoretic constructs. I know that this sounds like heresy, but believe me, nobody would be happier than me to learn all of these theories are true. What is true however, is that patients get cancer again, precisely at those points where they were radiated. What is true is that all “safe radiation quantities” are only theoretical constructs and it is also true – whether radiologists like it or not – that precisely these irradiations generate cancer.
I do not want to put radiologists or doctors in general in a bad light. But where irradiation is involved, apparently entire groups of professions can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction. I have to say this with such hard words because we are just starting to understand the significant influence of even low frequency waves like transmitted by antennae, and we are very far away from knowing what a radiation quantity of 60 Gy can effect in our bodies. Any doctor who maintains that he knows better in this regard should nominate himself for the Nobel Prize, because he would be the only one in the world. First I find it irresponsible, and second I find it legally unsound for a radiologist to tell his patient that the recommended radiation therapy does not damage healthy cells, or causes little damage to healthy cells. The fact is namely that the radiologist hopes this is the way it is, knowledge is some-thing else. Apparently many medical specialists do not read the literature about X rays; otherwise they would know the following:
As early as 1960 Dr. Zabel described that a tumor only bears the brunt of 0.5-4.0% of the total radiation, the remaining tissue absorbs at least 95% of the amount of the radiation. However because there is a fight around the tumor involving various immune system cells, and it is precisely these immune system cells that are attacked or destroyed by the irradiation. Every person who as undergone irradiation can confirm this due to the increased vulnerability to infection during and after the irradiation. This is a paradoxical situation because the body is then robbed of its defensive function against the rest of the cancer cells.
The famous Otto Warburg described the increased H 2O2 production of cells caused by irradiation. Since today we know that cancer cells likewise have an increased H2O2 production, this can be responsible for an increased cancerization. I am not the only one who has had to experience this “phenomen” many times; namely that a tumor undergoes explosive growth during or shortly after a radition. Allopathic practitioners basically assume that an increased H2O2 production leads to the death of cancer cells, but closer examination also leads to the opposite conclusion.
In 1959, Dr. Astaldi published his explanation of how X rays block oxygen consumption, in a parallel relationship with the dose. This is is an important indication, since leukemia cells, for instance, can bear a lot more than healthy leucocytes. In the same year Noyes and Smith published their findings that X rays with 0.2 Gy destroy mitochondria, and that nitrogen content is increased in the mitochondria. On the average patients are radiated with 1.8-2 Gy per session, often this is done 30 times. Thus per session the patient receives 10 times the quantity required for irrevocable destruction of possibly millions of mitochondria! The patient is unfortunately unaware that destroyed mitochondria do not regrow, and thus energy production is impaired for the rest of his life.
These are two arguments that speak strongly against any type of X-rays. In my opinion, whoever denies the importance of mitchondria relative to cancer is beyond help. Mitochondria are vital, not just for cancer, but for our health, and whoever denies this does not really understand anything about biochemistry. However the second part as well, the increased nitrogen content of the mitochonrdia, plays a major role (see mitochondria theory under nitrous oxide).
In 1961 the work of Wohlfarth, Bottermann, and Schneider confirmed that mitochondria under X-rays completely crumble just 15 minutes after the irradiation, fatty acid oxidation is destroyed, and changes are visible in the cytoplasm. We must also thank the researcher Kuhl for his contribution relative to cancer and irradiation. In 1966 he brought the following research together, which Dr. Seeger published in his best German book: Krebs – Weg ohne Ausweg (Cancer – Path with no Return):
1. In 1903 the Berlin Professor Dr. G. Schwartz was able to demonstrate that X rays, radioactive radiation, etc. destroy the cell phosphatides; this means the lecithins in the the cell membranes and erythrocyte membranes. Thus these rays invoke the same effect SEEGER was able to demonstrate histochemically in 1937/38 as initial phase of the cancer genesis. Because the phosphatide-containing (i.e. lecithin containing) base structure of the mitochondria is also destroyed, as a con-sequence of the associated disengagement and destruction of the structure-bound oxidation ferments, especially the cytochromoxydase (SEEGER 1938), succinodehydrase and cytochromes (von EULER 1939), an oxygen utilization disorder occurs in the cell, and thus resulting in an electron accumulation of increased negativity, i.e. cancerization of the cell. J. THOMAS (1959) confirmed through oxidation blocking caused by radiation exposure as a consequence of ferment inactivation at concurrent increase of glycolysis.
2. The consequence of oxygen utilization disorder (SEEGER 1938/51) is the fact determined as early as 1925 by C. and F. CORI at the Berliner Charité clinic, (who later won the Nobel Prize), that the blood from a revulsive vein of a leg tumor has a greater oxygen content than blood from the vein of the healthy leg. J. THOMAS (1959) likewise confirmed a significant oxygen increase in the venous blood of cancer patients as a result of blocking or damaging the oxidation fements. Thus the experimental findings of SEEGER (1937/38) and the results derived in 1951 from these findings afford a brilliant confirmation.
3. Through the ionizing radiation therapy, the lipoprotein membranes of the lyosoms in the cell plasma, (these are cell organelles that are 0.4µ in size), are destroyed and hydrolytic proteolytic ferments are freed, which SEEGER as early as 1938 was able to demonstrate with the aid of ABDER-HALDEN ninhydrin reaction. Their optimum effect is in the acid area which initially is provided by the left-hand lactic acid, occuring through the glycolysis, although this is quickly eliminated.
4. Through ionizing irradiation the lymphocyte defense wall (compare the work of SEEGER: Über die Wirkung von Mistelextrakten (On the Effect of Misteltoe Extracts), Erf. Heilk. 1965) is destroyed and the cancer cells can swarm out; the entire lymphatic system is damaged and thus the body’s own defence against cancer cells is destroyed. Even after low doses of 25-50 r an increased decline of lymphocytes takes place through pyknosis and cell disintegration. Spleen, thy-mus and lymph nodes shrink and degenerate 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 ferments of the oxydation are membrane-bound contained (SEEGER 1937/38) are damaged and decimated. Reduction of the mitochondrial ferment depot on one hand and inactivation and destruction of the respiration ferments in the still existing mitochondria on the other hand, causes transformation of these normal cells to cancer cells through the ionizing irradiation.
6. The ionizing irradiation resuts in an abrubt cell disintegration. The cancer patient’s entire body, which is already over-loaded with the toxins of cancer cells like malignolipin, toxohomone (polypeptides), mucopolysaccharides etc. that it can-not handle, is suddenly explosively flooded with cell detritus of the melted down tumor masses D(-)= left-handed pathological amino acids (KÖGL und ERXLEBEN), pathogenic left-hand lactic acids (WARBURG), hydrogen peroxide etc. and the condition of the cancer patient becomes cachetic and life threatening. The cancer patient does not die from his tumor, rather the patient dies from the toxins that are released from the tumor. The toxic effect of ionizing irradiation is best shown in the effect that a dog, which is parabiotically associated with a radiated dog, suffers a fatal poisoning.
7. According to J.SEGAL (1963) ionizing irradiation leads to a shift of the isoelectric point of the serumglobulins to the acid side, the H-bridges in the protein molecule break, a “Faltentrommel” model of polypeptide chains occurs and this leads to an increased occurrence of irreversible denatured proteins in the cell, which SEEGER was able to demonstrate histochemcially with several methods in 1938.
The X-ray irradiation results, according to the target theory (concentrated energy shoots through the room like a bullet SEGAL 1960) in a healthy cell mutating into a cancer cell, in addition to production of substances, which are nonphysiological, chemically very active, and that have a highly toxic effect. Peroxides and chemically very active free radicals occur, which secondarily reach and damage the “target molecule” at great distances. According to WITTE (Expert report 1960) there is no real tolerance dose; even the smallest possible x-ray dose, the photon, is capable of generating distinct damages, because it is so rich in energy that it can destroy a large number of the living body’s organic molecules.
According to a finding of the well-known physicist B. RAJEWSKI (1960) any influence of X-ray radiation exerted on living tissue results in damage of its structural and functional elements (as already demonstrated in Berlin in 1903 by Professor SCHWARZ) of the units hit by rays. This also applies for any small dose of radiation. BENDER (1910) found that chromosome restructuring mutations or chromosomal breaks, (which have a lethal effect on the cell), occur in 3 of 1000 cells, even with 1 r of irradiation Even the skin dose of a serial x-ray examination of 0.2 r generates an average of
- ionizations and app. 800 electron stimulations in each cell with a diameter of approximately 10µ. In total, 30 million cells are damaged through chromosome mutations, many fatally, this means through 1-2g of bodily substance are destroyed through a serial X-ray examination.
9. According to E. HECKER (1969) through physical carcinogins like X-ray radiatoin, ultraviolet radiation, or high-energy electron radiation, the bases guanine and thymin in the DNA are irreversibly damaged, in vitro as well as in vivo, in which the six-membered ring of the thymin with loss of 3 carbon atoms is decomposed to urea, and the 5-membered ring of the guanine is transferred in a formamide derivate, whereby the information content of the affected nucleac acids is changed and a somatic mutation or a lethal mutation is caused due to modification of the base sequence of the polynucleotide strand of the DNA and RNA.
I am always surprised that “experts” act today as if all of these facts do not exist. Granted, not all doctors have as much time as I have to go through all the literature and acquire the necessary knowledge about irradiation. But isn’t this what a patient could legitimately expect from a radiologist, who, in the final analysis is the person who decides whether the patient will get a radiation therapy or not.
Older studies are often disregarded just because they are old. But the radiation of 1960 is still the same as it is in the 21st century and 60 Gy are still 60 Gy. Also our mitochondria are still structured the same and today are even more severely damaged than they were 40 years ago. If radiation therapies today are trivialized, then this is certainly not because radiation is so harmless for our healthy cells.