Why I Don’t Support the Cancer Industry

I refuse to run, walk, donate or in any way support the cancer industry because it is a money-grabbing scam run by shysters who pretend they’re searching for a cure. We’ve been searching for a so-called cure for almost a century. If there were a cure, we’d have found it by now. We waste billions of dollars every year supposedly searching for a non-existent cure. There is no cure for cancer. If there was, we’d have found it by now. Cancer is so old and has been with us so long it is found in Egyptian mummies and dinosaur bones. There is no cure. There never will be.

In his farewell address to Northwestern Ontario several years ago,
Dr. Dhali Dhaliwal called on all levels of governments to rationalize and improve the focus of cancer research. One in four people will die of cancer. Because of longer lifespans, that cancer death rate is increasing. He berates the cancer industry for focusing on a cure instead of better prevention and treatment. We’re still using what he calls “slash, burn and poison” treatment that hasn’t changed much for almost a century – that is surgery (slash), radiation (burn) and chemotherapy (poison). We must research potentially better treatments such as viruses, anti-bodies and growth inhibitors.

Dr. Dhaliwal says 40% of breast cancers can be prevented with exercise. How many people know that? He recommends Vitamin D and Folate (folic acid) supplements as preventatives (do NOT take more than the recommended amount of Folate). Yet, we hear very little about these. We need low tech preventative measures such as behavioral change, better diets, exercise, stop-smoking campaigns, etc. We need to understand the attributable risks for the cause of cancers: tobacco 29%, diet 25%, reproductive hormones 15%, alcohol 6%, occupational 2%, environmental 2%. We need better understanding of the effects of meat consumption especially as it affects bowel cancer.

Cancer industry spokespeople point out that cancer patients are surviving longer now than in the past. However, this is deceptive and self-serving. Cancer patients survive longer, not because they’ve found a cure but because of better education about the cause of cancer (cigarette smoking is a major killer) plus prevention, earlier detection, diagnosis and treatment. THAT’S where we should focus cancer research instead of looking for “The Cure”. Forget “The Cure”. There is none. We need to discover the root cause of cancers (there’s over 200 different types) – whether it’s viral, bacterial, radiation, chemical, poor diet, environmental, hereditary or a combination of these.

Yes, we’ve made some slow advancements in treatment but we need to focus on prevention. The best way to deal with cancer is not to get it in the first place. Do you think we can rely on the cancer industry to focus on prevention? Of course not! They’d be putting themselves out of work.

And, yes, it IS an industry. It employs millions of people in research and in cancer charities. According to the August 8, 2011 Macleans magazine article “Buy, Sell, Donate” this past July it was revealed that the “Canadian Cancer Society spends more money on fundraising than it does on cancer research.” Now THAT’S an industry! Cancer charity lotteries have become big business. The article reports, “Last year $3.69 of every $100 the Cancer Society raised through its lottery trickled through to the charity – the rest went to pay for prizes and marketing.” That’s less than 4%. Now THAT’S an industry!

According to a June, 2011 Time magazine article, there are over 7,000 cancer charities in the United States and Canada. Now THAT’S an industry! The percentage spent on cancer research varies between 54% and zero %. Yes, that’s ZERO. Some of them spend all their proceeds on fundraising, administration and six figure salaries and NOTHING whatsoever on cancer research. Now THAT’S an industry!

My mother has leukemia (blood cancer). Her leukemia pills cost $120 each. Yes, each pill costs $120! At one pill a day that’s $3,600 a month. Now THAT’S an industry! Both the cancer industry and the pharmaceutical industry have a vested interest in NOT finding a cure or developing better methods of prevention and treatment. Chemotherapy generates billions of dollars in revenue every year for the pharmaceutical industry. Try to tell me that’s NOT an industry.

You might think I’ll change my tune if I get cancer. You’d be wrong because it’s not a matter of IF I get cancer. It’s a matter of WHEN. My mother had bowel cancer and now has leukemia. My father died of lung cancer. Three of my four grandparents died of cancer (the cause of death of the 4th is unknown). In other words, I am genetically predisposed to cancer. It’s been said that if you live long enough everyone will eventually die of cancer. And, it’s for that reason I refuse to waste my money supporting the cancer shysters who are supposedly looking for a non-existent cure while ignoring better avenues of research. We need better ways to prevent it. We need earlier detection. We need better diagnosis and treatment. We need to improve our health-care delivery systems, reduce errors, develop evidence-based care, better information management and reduce “wait and waste”.

Last year, the local newspaper published a letter I sent them explaining why I refuse to support the cancer industry. It provoked an angry response from a reader. She said her brother would not have lived five years longer had it not been for his cancer cure. Left unsaid, it’s apparent he eventually died of cancer. That’s NOT a cure, sister although it makes a case for better education. He lived an extra five years because of treatment. And with even better treatment, he might have lived an extra twenty years rather than just five. That’s why we need to focus on prevention, education, earlier detection, better diagnosis and improved treatment rather than wasting scarce research funds looking for “The Cure”.

If there was a cure, we’d have found it long ago. Dr. Dhaliwal said, “We cannot eradicate cancer but it can be reduced.” So, that’s why I refuse to contribute to the cancer industry shysters.

Sept. 15, 2011

Your comments are WELCOME!
If you like what you’ve read or not, please “Rate This” below.
Lengthy comments may time-out before you’re finished so consider doing them in a word doc first then copy and paste to “Leave a Reply” below.

About gerold

I have a bit of financial experience having invested in stocks in the 1960s & 70s, commodities in the 80s & commercial real estate in the 90s (I sold in 2005.) I'm back in stocks. I am appalled at our rapidly deteriorating global condition so I've written articles for family, friends & colleagues since 2007; warning them and doing my best to explain what's happening, what we can expect in the future and what you can do to prepare and mitigate the worst of the economic, social, political and nuclear fallout. As a public service in 2010 I decided to create a blog accessible to a larger number of people because I believe that knowledge not shared is wasted.
This entry was posted in News & Views and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Why I Don’t Support the Cancer Industry

  1. KaD says:

    The cure for cancer is simple-repair the immune system that went wrong in the first place, that failed to recognize when cells were faulty and destroy them. Where is the focus on that? As you know from the pills, cancer makes WAY too much money for too many people to shut it down with a cure.

  2. Cassidy says:

    While I respect the claims you made in your article, I must point out that they are false. It was noted years ago that when advancements are made in cancer treatments, the researcher that found them can’t say he had found a cure. It is largely known that there isn’t a general cure for such a disease. The money used in cancer research goes toward treatment strategies, further research on the types of diseases, and patient support. Implying that the people needing the money are shysters is quite a leap when they’re generally hoping to further help prevent the disease; they know eradication is impossible at this point, as you said, they’ve been researching this disease for a century.

    • gerold says:

      I appreciate your remarks. Yes, there’s a big difference between ‘cure’ and prevention & treatment.

      In the third-last paragraph I stated, “And, it’s for that reason I refuse to waste my money supporting the cancer shysters who are supposedly looking for a non-existent cure while ignoring better avenues of research. We need better ways to prevent it. We need earlier detection. We need better diagnosis and treatment. We need to improve our health-care delivery systems, reduce errors, develop evidence-based care, better information management and reduce “wait and waste”.”

      Unfortunately, only a small fraction is spent on the above.

      BTW – I didn’t even mention the numerous so-called cancer institutes that spend only a tiny fraction of their funding on ANY sort of research. Instead, most of it goes to marketing, advertising and exorbitant salaries. THAT’s an industry with a vested interest in maintaining cancer rather than preventing it.

      – Gerold

  3. Steve R says:

    Hi Gerold. I have done a huge amount of research in to this subject and have also concluded I would not accept treatment. The cancer industry is trying to cure cancer in the same way tree surgeons are working furiously to cure Dutch elm disease. I have formulated a theory as to what causes all cancer and would be happy to share – if you are interested.

    • gerold says:

      Hi, Steve

      Sounds interesting. How do you propose to share this information?


      • Steve R says:

        I can do it via email or the blog? You’re call…

        • gerold says:

          If you shared it on the blog it would reach a greater number of people.

          – Gerold

        • Steve R says:

          Ok. This might take a lot of instalments…I will try to break it up into manageable chunks…

          I started by asking myself a few simple questions – all of which doctors and cancer specialists seem unwilling or unable to answer.

          There are over 200 confirmed causes of Cancer. They range from ionizing radiation to pathogens to chemicals and even lifestyles.
          Is it more likely that 200+ causes of cancer all use a different mechanism or the same one?
          If it’s different a mechanism, what are the chances of you ending up with the same result – biologically? Almost zero – I would suggest.

          So, is there something that all these things do, chemically, which is the same?
          It turns out yes, there is.

          So far, I’ve investigated the big 4 (ionizing radiation, UV, smoking and Alcohol) plus around 2/3 of the IARC class 1 list of carcinogens and confirmed they have something in common. I use scholar.google.com for research.


          Read and comment – then I will continue…

          • gerold says:

            Thanks, Steve. I have a lot on the go right now and it’s getting close to my bedtime so post as much as you can and, if necessary, I’ll moderate tomorrow evening.
            – Gerold

          • Steve R says:

            Sure. Before I say any more – let me introduce some bizarre risk factors or causes of Cancer which people may not know.

            Working night shifts, hormone replacement therapy, exhaustive physical exercise, living in the Arctic circle and long haul flights(from east to west, but not west to east).
            Also, being blind is a recognized indicator of a low risk of cancer.

            You are probably thinking this is all starting to sound a bit weird – but stick with me – all these are linked and explained by a single unifying theory.

            More tomorrow…

          • gerold says:

            Definitely interesting. Let’s continue tomorrow.

            – Gerold

          • Steve R says:

            Modern medicine has done a good job of informing people about one important aspect of health – that of anti-bodies defending the body against foreign invaders (viruses, pathogens, germs etc). But there is another war of attrition going on. The war between oxidants and anti-oxidants. This war is arguably more important than the anti-body conflict and very few people are even aware of it. This battle rages all the time and all aerobic life have developed very sophisticated mechanisms for dealing with oxidants.

            Ever wonder why vitamins are important to human health? Well, vitamins A, C, D and E are all anti-oxidants, but there are lots of others – glutathione, catalase, superoxide dismutase etc, More on this later.

            I will concentrate on a small, but very important, sub-group of oxidants called Reactive Oxygen Species(ROS) – for which I have done most of my research. There are other nitrogen-based groups which also cause problems for which I have done no research.

            Molecular oxygen(O2) is reduced (has an electron removed) to water via a series of stages. O2 has 1 electron removed to become superoxide(SO), SO has 1 electron removed to become hydrogen peroxide(HP) and HP has 1 electron removed to become hydroxyl. H is further reduced by 1 electron to become water – which is excreted from the body.This process happens all the time during aerobic respiration in the mitochondria within living cells – literally trillions of reactions per day. But, there is a problem – for some reason, between 2% and 5% of these reactions don’t make it to become water – leaving their ROS intermediates behind.

            If you remember chemistry lessons from school – molecules/atoms which have unpaired electrons in the outer rings are reactive with other molecules. This is because they steal electrons from other molecules which can result in chemical reactions. All ROS are oxidative. SO is the least reactive(dangerous), HP more so and H is really dangerous. Hydroxyl will oxidise anything – instantly. As you can see though, each ROS can readily morph in to it’s more reactive cousin by further reduction and there are a number of processes which cause this to happen (Fenton reactions etc).

            This oxidation has serious consequences for important biomolecules including cell membranes(lipids), proteins, amino acids and of course RNA/DNA. Serious damage to RNA/DNA can cause genetic mutation.

            To make matters worse, some ROS reactions leave behind other radicals which in turn oxidise other biomolecules, creating chain-reactions. One such process is called lipid peroxidation, but there are others…

            Digest and comment…

          • gerold says:

            Ok, so far. Are these ROS what’s referred to as ‘free radicals’?

          • Steve R says:

            That’s correct. Now just to complicate things. ROS have a positive role and are required for normal biological functions. Some examples include inflammation (required to trigger a defensive immune response), macrophages (white blood cells – use an ROS storm to kill foreign invaders) and cell signalling (when cells die and are produced).

            In addition, numerous other normal processes rely on ROS. In total, I have found 7 normal endogenous(internal) processes which generate ROS in massive numbers.

            On the defensive side, Vitamin E is present in cell membranes (lipids), Vitamin C is a water soluble anti-oxidant.

            So, in summary. ROS are massive in scale and ubiquitous in nature and totally essential to life. In our defence, we have anti-oxidants. All biological organisms, from single celled amoeba, up to humans and plants have anti-oxidant defence mechanism designed to prevent damage. We know that plants and their extracts fight cancer. This is why we see tabloid articles claiming ginger, turmeric, flavinoids or whatever – all fight cancer. They never state the process involved.

            Doctors even use a specific technical term to describe a state when oxidative free radicals are over-whelming anti-oxidant defences. They call this state “oxidative stress”. They know that disease and ill-health occurs in people who are in oxidative stress.

          • gerold says:

            That seems to support something I read which stated we have anywhere from 10 to 15 episodes of cancer in our lifetimes but our immune system usually manages to ‘fight’ it off except when we’re stressed with illness, fatigue, poor diet, suppressed immune system, age, etc.

            So, if ROS is ubiquitous and has a positive role, how come we aren’t overcome by them or is that answered in my first sentence?

          • Steve R says:

            “So, if ROS is ubiquitous and has a positive role, how come we aren’t overcome by them or is that answered in my first sentence?” – anti-oxidants.

            I suspect we get cancer every day and eliminate it via anti-oxidants. Tumours only form when you are in oxidative stress for long periods, add a local ROS source like smoking, drinking etc. and as you get older your anti-oxidant levels reduce.

            There is also a serious co-factor which I will explain later.

            For, now. Imagine a human cell. It has a birth, a life cycle and a death. It is born through cell division and uses existing DNA as a template for the new cell. I don’t know, but I imagine the coding for cell birth and cell death are coded in to cell in DNA or via cell chemistry. It gets shot to shreds by ROS – maybe the DNA blueprint is damaged, maybe the cells proteins etc. are damaged. It then tries to function as before or die and create a new cell via cell division – using damaged DNA. Maybe it can’t die. Maybe it can’t divide and it certainly is no longer a viable cell. It’s a zombie. It can’t live, die or function.

            That sounds like cancer to me.

          • gerold says:

            But, I thought cancer cells grew by multiplying. Or, is it a case of these “zombie’ cells increasing in number that causes cancer to grow in size even though the individual cells don’t grow?

          • Steve R says:

            Yeah. They are all the same thing. Body cells mutate following ROS damage, after which the cell can no longer function properly.

            I’m not sure about the specifics of what happens – just that ROS cause the mutation and subsequent dysfunction.

          • gerold says:

            All very interesting. So, is there some way we can use this info to
            a) prevent cancer?
            b) treat cancer?

          • Steve R says:

            Two more aspects to discuss.

            1) Electromagnetic fields.
            Many people may find this one difficult to accept. So, rather than try and explain the theory – I will simply supply some quotes from science studies(in plain english), which readers can check for themselves. Then everyone can make up their own minds.

            Study: “Alteration in cellular functions in mouse macrophages after exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields.”
            Quote “All tested flux densities significantly stimulated the formation of free radicals”

            Study:”Cell Activating Capacity of 50 Hz Magnetic Fields to Release Reactive Oxygen Intermediates in Human Umbilical Cord Blood-derived Monocytes and in Mono Mac 6 Cells”
            Quote: “Our results show a significant increase of superoxide radical anion production up-to 1.4 fold as well as an increase in ROS release up-to 1.2 fold…”

            Study: “Effect of 7 mT static magnetic field and iron ions on rat lymphocytes: apoptosis, necrosis and free radical processes”
            Quote: “This suggests that 7 mT static magnetic field in the presence of Fe2+(iron) ions can increase the concentration of oxygen free radicals and thus may lead to cell death.”

            Study: “Effects of 900-MHz electromagnetic field emitted from cellular phone on brain oxidative stress and some vitamin levels of guinea pigs.”
            Quote: “It was concluded that electromagnetic field emitted from cellular phone might produce oxidative stress in brain tissue of guinea pigs.”

            Study: “Fifty-hertz magnetic fields induce free radical formation in mouse bone marrow-derived promonocytes and macrophages”
            Quote: “Our findings show a significant increase of free radical production after exposure to 50 Hz electromagnetic fields”

            #2 to follow.

          • gerold says:

            I’m not surprised. There’s been much written about the dangers of electromagnetic fields caused by everything from cell phones to power (mains) lines and everything in between. The iGadget freaks think ‘wireless’ is great so they’re slowly frying themselves.

            I try to reduce it by using a cable router rather than wireless, keep cell phone away from my body, etc. but the only way to eliminate it altogether is to live in a cave. They’ve recently installed cell tower transmitters on the high-rise roof above my head. I don’t even bother inquiring about safety as I expect they’ll lie.

            By the way, power (mains) frequency in most of the world is 50 Hz whereas in North America and some parts of Asia it’s 60 Hz. Are there any studies on 60 Hz? I doubt they’re any safer, though.

            What about sunlight? Since we evolved to accommodate the sun, is limited exposure to the sun beneficial or harmful?

          • Steve R says:

            Any ROS increasing activity + oxidative stress is bad. Sunshine in general is good for you – in moderation. It creates Vitamin D in the skin which is very beneficial. Sunlight (UV) generates ROS in the skin. Sunscreens are on my to do list for research. Many contain substances which increase ROS, for instance Titanium dioxide:

            Study: “Reactive oxygen species produced upon photoexcitation of sunscreens containing titanium dioxide”

            Quote: “The photoinduced production of singlet oxygen was shown by 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-piperidine. The generation of reactive oxygen radical species upon irradiation of sunscreens significantly depends on their composition, as the additives present (antioxidants, radical-scavengers, solvents) can transform the reactive radicals formed to less harmful products. The continuous in situ irradiation of titanium dioxide powder, recommended for cosmetic application, investigated in different solvents (water, dimethyl sulfoxide, isopropyl myristate) resulted in the generation of oxygen-centered reactive radical species (superoxide anion radical, hydroxyl and alkoxyl radicals).”

            So, you have to rely on the manufacturer including anti-oxidants in their formulation in order for your sunscreen not to be carcinogenic. Add to this the already carcinogenic nature of UV + oxidative stress.

            They also ignore the capacity of various natural chemical/biological processes to convert less reactive radicals straight back into more dangerous ones. So testing in isolation is useless.

            You can see why cancer research is a minefield and yields so many contradictory results – it relies on so many overlapping factors. If the test subject is not in oxidative stress – no cancer. If they are – then cancer, but over a time-scale which is difficult to observe and in amounts which may not be detectable. The source of the oxidative stress itself is a combination of a 1000 different factors – many of which are unrecognised as a whole. It’s about oxidative load minus anti-oxidant capacity, both of which are difficult to assess, over a time.

            What should be happening is:
            Chemicals/products/risk factors/life styles should be tested for their ability to increase or produce ROS or reduce anti-oxidant capacity. If they do – they are carcinogenic.They should not be assessed for their ability to induce detectable Cancer.

          • gerold says:

            You say, “cancer research is a minefield and yields so many contradictory results – it relies on so many overlapping factors.” No wonder a century of research has yielded so little.

            With so many factors combining to create Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) it’s no wonder researching cancer is fruitless. So, if we should search for factors that produce or increase ROS on the one hand and “reduce anti-oxidant capacity” as you say, then why are we wasting time and limited resources researching cancer?

            Is not the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result?

          • Steve R says:

            Cancer is a very profitable business – the treatment not the cure. Medicine is not in the business of good health or cures – it likes long-term, chronic diseases for which it can prescribe 5,6 or 7 drugs for the rest of your life. In the case of cancer, $100,000 per patient will do nicely.

            There are a couple more aspects to consider.

            X-ray, CT and mammograms are all ionizing radiation. Radiotherapy is (very strong) ionizing radiation. All these increase ROS. Also, many chemo drugs use ROS to kill cancer cells. Do you think this is a good idea? They may reduce the size of your tumour in the short-term, but it’s not a cure – they are just setting the tumour back(at best) whilst spreading it. Do you think an annual mammogram is a good idea just as you reach the age when oxidative stress is becoming an issue – in your 50s. Do you think 10 years of annual mammograms might give you breast cancer?

            I must emphasize the importance of sleep or more specifically preventing what I call chrono-disruption.

            The reason working night-shifts, living in the Arctic circle and jet-lag is associated with increased cancer risk, is (IMHO) the elimination of a night-time anti-oxidant cascade which takes place whilst we sleep. This cascade can be blocked by EMF/RF and visible light at night. If you sleep next to your cellphone(3G+Wifi), WiFi router, cordless house phone etc. you are going to have a problem. Switch them all off – if you can. Night lights for kids are also a problem. If you must have one – get an LED bulb and place it as far away as you can.

            Fluorescent bulbs are a problem. CFL light bulbs should banned – don’t have them in your house.

            I can finish by giving a list of tips on how I would try and avoid becoming another statistic – if that would help.

          • gerold says:

            Yes, please provide a list of tips that can help our readers.

            I’ve long been leery of fluorescent lights (they’re all over my damn office) since doing a simple experiment illustrating immediate deleterious physical effects of fluorescence. Grasp a bathroom weigh scale with both hands and squeeze under incandescent or sunlight (I can do 125 lb.) Then do it under fluorescent light (I can barely do 105 lb.) Admittedly, this is anecdotal and hardly scientific.

            On another matter, is increased body oxygenation a risk? I’ve been doing the “One Minute Cure” involving three drops of food-grade (35%) hydrogen-peroxide (HO2) per cup of distilled water three times a day. Apparently our bodies have enzymes that separate the hydrogen (expelled) from the oxygen which ‘oxygenates’ our organs. Supposedly this prevents/cures disease and provides more energy. I cannot testify to disease prevention as I rarely get ill but I can certainly testify to increased energy as I have more energy plus I go to bed a half hour later and now wake up a half hour to an hour before the alarm goes off. I wonder if this is short-term gain for long-term pain (cancer)?

          • Steve R says:

            Hi G.

            There’s nothing I can think of to explain the ‘scales’ anecdote. I have seen some un-verified evidence of EMF/RF having an adverse effect on blood cells.

            Reduced O2 delivery means reduced muscular performance?

            As for the H2O2. Hydrogen peroxide is the one of the intermediate stage ROS radicals. I know that hair dressers have an increased risk of cancer supposedly due to the chemicals they are exposed to at work – one of which is H2O2. It can also enter through the skin. My sister, who was a hairdresser, died at the age of 37 from breast cancer.

            As for oxygen, the explanation of increased risk associated with exhaustive exercise is increased O2 consumption and aerobic respiration resulting in increased ROS production:

            O2->superoxide anion->hydrogen peroxide->hydroxyl->water

            with 2% -5% not making it to water. It’s like over-revving your car – you pay a price.
            Having said that – some exercise is good.

            Summary to follow.

          • Steve R says:

            Ok. How would I (ideally) protect myself and my family:

            Organic, non-GMO only. GMO/Glyphosate is a nightmare. Avoid bread, wheat, soy(unless guaranteed non-GMO), aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, MSG, trans-fats/hydrogenated vegetable oils, polyunsaturated fats. There is nothing wrong with saturated fat, butter, eggs, coconut oil and mechanically presses olive oil. Trans/hydrogenated oils are prone to oxidation when cooking – ROS. Cooking in general increases/induces ROS. Meat is okay, but processed meat contains carcinogens (over and above those associated with cooking). Lots of veg plus sources of anti-oxidants. Seek them out. Dietary sources of vitamins, resveratrol (wine, grapes), ginger, flavinoids. Limit alcohol.

            I wish I could stick to half of that.

            EMF is generally about power over distance plus the idea of “dirty electricity”. Everything from your house wiring to your WiFi router is kicking out EMF in varying amounts. There is no longer any doubt about the science. It has a direct DNA damaging effect, changes PH(which can extend the life of ROS), induces a macrophage/immune response(ROS storms & inflammation) and blocks that important sleep-cycle anti-oxidant cascade – probably the biggest factor in Cancer development (IMHO). You can be chrono-disrupted and sleeping fine, but sleep disturbances are associated with many, many conditions inc. (cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkison’s, schizophrenia and a load more).

            Electrical devices are often shielded, but still pose a risk. Radio transmitters are specifically designed to transmit that EMF. Cellphones(particularly smartphones), WiFi routers, tablets, laptops etc. are all WiFi transmitters – so are Smart Meters, Smart TVs, some consoles. We now live in an environment which is saturated with EMF. I personally believe the increase in Cancer incidence coincides with the establishment of national power grids – it’s not the only factor, but it’s a major one. Disable everything on your smartphone which you don’t actually need at the time (WiFi, Wireless hotspot, mobile internet, even Bluetooth). Use cables if you can. Use hands-free – never place the phone next to your head, breasts or nuts.

            Don’t sleep next to any electrical devices, especially cordless/mobile phones. Cordless(DECT) phones are almost as bad as mobile – they “talk” to the base-station constantly. There is a technology called (1)ECO DECT and (2)ECO DECT PLUS which (1) only talks to the base station during a call and (2) reduces power according to your distance from the base-station. People tend to spend longer on cordless phones and they are a problem. Use the speaker or a traditional wired phone.

            Fluorescent lights and CompactFluorescentLight(CFL) bulbs. CFLs are dangerous. Get them out of your house – today if possible. They leach chemicals and contain mercury. If you break one – they are a real environmental hazard – which you are not even supposed to vacuum up (it just spreads it). The also emit dirty electrical EMF. Google images of the output. This appears to be worse for your health. LED are good.

            Anything which transmits is a problem. Especially around kids and particularly at night. The period from 12.30am to 3am appears to be important. Has anyone checked the association between leukaemia in kids and night-lights/wireless baby-monitors? – Just a thought.

            The cancer/leukaemia electrical sub-station link is real. If you live within 200 yards – it’s a problem.

            Moderate good. Exhaustive bad.

            Cancer screening:
            Have a serious think about this. I can only say what I would do – I am not encouraging anyone to take this as advice.

            I would not have a CT scan under any circumstances. I would consider MRI, X-ray and Ultrasound, but not to look for cancer and only on a strict case-by-case basis. Even ultrasound increases ROS through a process called cavitation (collapsing O2/gas bubbles). My chances of accepting any of these would diminish with age(50+) and location (chest/abdomen or foot?), the imperative and my oxidative condition(If I had pneumonia – I may accept a chest x-ray, but not two).

            My wife would not have a mammogram – her decision.
            I cringe every time my 78 year old father-in-law tells us he has had a chest x-ray(must be 7 or 8 by now). He has asthma and recurring chest infections. He worries about lung cancer.

            Switzerland had stopped mammogram screening.


            and (in layman’s terms)


            I would not accept traditional cancer treatments. Maybe surgery.

            X-Ray was invented in 1895. Radiotherapy in 1896. They are the same technology – ionizing radiation, capable of inducing DNA strand breaks directly and induce ROS as a secondary effect. In the case of Radiotherapy – that is the whole idea – to kill cells with a massive dose, so the limited dose / safety argument does not apply. The problem is, medical science did not establish the ionizing radiation/cancer link until 20 or 30 years later. They were still using x-ray machines to measure the size of children’s feet and make their hair fail out to treat head lice. Radiologists were giving themselves hand tumours and many had amputated(multiple) fingers because they were testing x-ray machines on themselves to make sure they were operational at the start of the day.

            The problem is this revelation did not result in a change of heart about the use of ionizing radiation as an effective cancer “cure” – a complete logical impossibility.

            One last point:
            Psychological stress is associated with increased cancer risk. They don’t understand the mechanism and nor do I. If I had to guess, I would say it induces a “fight-or-flight” response which prevents an anti-oxidant cascade in the same way as chrono-disruption.

            I don’t know if I’ve covered everything – I am happy to answer questions if I can. I am not an expert, and do not encourage anyone to disregard the advice of their doctor, but hopefully what I am suggesting is sensible and risk-free and will give people a fighting chance. The medical profession is not “winning the war”, it has not produced a series of clever and innovative “cures”. It does not even know what the cellular mechanism is (for a single cause) – after 50 years of research and $200+ billion.

            Corporations lie for profit.
            Tobacco science is profitable.
            Marketing trumps reality (it has done for a while).
            Be sceptical about the claims of people who profit from those claims.

            Protect yourself and your family.

          • gerold says:

            Thank you, Steve. I and this small community of readers appreciate the time and work you put into this.

            – Gerold

  4. j spera says:

    The cause not the cure! We need more people bold enough to speak the truth. My aunt had a lump and a bloody discharge from her nipple at 63 yo they begged her to come back for more testing, she was a nurse, she told them to go test themselves, she died with full faculties at 93. Her sister, my Mom, was “wicked” healthy they found a lump and killed her with toxic poison within 11 months. thanks for this article

  5. John Theobald says:

    You might find this video introduction to the work of Dr R G Hamer and German New medicine of interest;


    • gerold says:

      Thanks, John. German New Medicine is an interesting concept; that disease is caused by biological conflicts although many would appear to be more psychological in origin. I have no doubt that many ailments do have psychological origins although I’m a little leery of any school of medicine that proclaims that ALL disease has a single cause notwithstanding the various biological conflicts that were enumerated. Also, I can’t help but notice the similarity with Scientology’s dubious “engrams” as a basis for all ailments.

      However, the video had some interesting ideas such as the importance of protein in healing, eating it before 3:00 PM and not mixing protein with carbs. As well, being an enthusiastic proponent of regular fasting (Mondays & Tuesdays work best for me) for more than 30 years for greater energy and well-being, I can attest that one should NOT fast during a healing process.

      Still, the study is interesting and I hope it will continue although fighting the medical establishment is an epic struggle especially with big pharma supporting the medical industry in order to push their drugs. I have no doubt that pharmaceutical drugs can interfere with the bodies healing natural mechanism. Given the primitive level of our so-called “health care system”; it’s certainly not a science. We have a long way to go.

      Thanks again for sharing this. Their website http://WWW.learninggnm.com deserves further study.

      – Gerold

  6. Reta Derkson says:

    i am so with you on this Gerold..My husband and daughter both died of cancer, and both had chemo and radiation, my second daughter had cancer and had surgery, but she now has MS, and my third daughter has a brain cancer, astrocytoma, and went through very ugly chemo and radiation…all three of them went through ugly stuff…I will NEVER get a cancer treatment…I have seen too much and I agree with you it is one of the biggest scams…along with psychiatry…and don’t get me started on that….My doc says Reta when was the last time you had a mamogram…I said, I don’t know about 15 years ago, had one once, will never do that again…she was concerned as my daughter had died of breast cancer…NOT my disease and besides, I would never get chemo and radiation etc… Had to re-educate myself about dis-ease and all…. Please see the video RUN FROM THE CURE and you will never support this ugly, and greedy and lying system again….

  7. Kari says:

    Agree with you 100%

  8. john says:

    May i ask your thoughts on natural Vitamin d from the sun? I am a big believer in all the benefits that the sun has to offer. People always laugh at me when i say its all about money.

    • gerold says:

      In our psychotic world, we’ve reviled the sun and its life-giving powers (not to mention a host of other attributes).
      You’re right, Vitamin D deficiency, based on my readings, is a likely cause of cancer.
      It takes only a few minutes a day in the sun to get enough natural Vitamin D to help us ward off cancers. Supplements, especially for those in northern climates, is 2nd best.
      And, you’re right about the money, too. They can’t profit from sunshine.

  9. Pingback: Stop Smoking Campaigns | Stop Smoking Tips and Information

    • gerold says:

      I support Stop Smoking Campaigns and wish you the best with yours.
      I’m a quitter. Smoked 24 years. Tried to quit and failed 6 times before quitting for good 20 years ago. It’s an agonizing addiction to overcome.
      We need to do what we can to prevent smoking in the first place as well as treat those who are already addicted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.