More than 5,000 people search the Internet, each month, for “cancer natural cures.” Does this search represent “unrealistic hope”, as mainstream medicine characterizes all claims that cancer can be cured with natural substances? Or does this represent a growing demand for information that has been suppressed by powerful corporate interests who make billions of dollars each year by providing “treatments” to “manage” a disease that is said to be incurable? Few health subjects elicit stronger emotions than natural cures for cancer, and for very good reasons.
According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), cancer killed 1,500 people every day, in the US, in 2008. Taking 565,650 lives a year makes it the second leading cause of death after heart disease. The mainstream medical approach to treating cancer invariably involves a combination of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. All of these protocols are highly invasive, have serious side effects, and can severely weaken the immune system, leaving the patient vulnerable to secondary infections and complications. Furthermore, for many families, additional strain is created by the extremely high cost of these treatments. As the ACS says, “for almost all patients, cancer treatment presents a significant financial burden.” (Cancer Facts and Figures, 2008).
For all these reasons there is a burgeoning interest in “cancer natural cures” even though the entire field of natural cures has been discredited as unscientific for the past 100 years, ever since The Flexner Report in 1910. This report led to a standardized curriculum for all medical schools in the US, after it was embraced by the Council on Medical Education of The American Medical Association.
Researchers of natural cures point out the backing and influence of the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations in the promotion and implementation of the Flexner Report, which led to a subsequent emphasis on pharmacology in both the curriculum and funded research projects at medical schools.
The intense distrust between the two sides of this debate is reflected in a detailed complaint brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, in June of 2003, by Dr. Mathias Rath. In this complaint, “pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Amgen and Astra Zeneca are accused of deliberately preventing life-saving natural alternatives to drug based treatments from being applied in prevention and cure.”
For the purpose of this article, which is to encourage the growing interest in natural cures for cancer, we won’t look further into the alleged conflicts of interest within mainstream medicine as an industry. I only mention it to explain why natural cures in general continue to be discredited by medical authorities.
When we turn our attention to the history of research into natural ways of curing cancer, we find many stories of brilliant researchers who have found an amazing array of cures. I’ll just mention a few.
Harry Hoxsey was entrusted by his Great Grandfather with an herbal formula and tonic that many thousands of people swore cured them of cancer. Despite, or perhaps, because The Hoxsey Clinic grew to be the biggest privately owned cancer clinic in the US, he was labeled a quack and a charlatan by the medical community. He was finally forced to close his clinic by the AMA, and his head nurse, Mildred Nelson moved to Mexico to continue offering the treatment.
Royal Raymond Rife was a brilliant inventor who combined three main areas of interest; microscopes, microbiology and electronics. He first distinguished himself by designing and building amazingly powerful microscopes that achieved unheard of levels of magnification while simultaneously allowing the observed organisms to remain alive. (Modern electron microscopes kill the organisms being observed.) This was crucial to his future research.
Next Rife set out to isolate the cancer microbe, which took him twelve years. He succeeded in 1932. Then he spent thousands of hours observing the effect of specific electronic frequencies on living cancer microbes until he discovered the exact frequency that killed the cancer microbe, which he could observe through his microscope. After proving the effectiveness of the treatment in hundreds of animal studies, and human trials, Rife started to manufacture the “Frequency Instruments.”
Naturally you would expect that Rife was celebrated as a hero in the field of cancer research. Well, you’re in for a surprise. He was sued, harassed and finally closed down by the AMA in 1960. His colleague was imprisoned for three years, despite the fact that 14 patents testified to the effectiveness of the machine.
I only have space to mention one more researcher, Dr. Otto Warburg, who, in 1931, won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering that cancer cells can only thrive in an anaerobic (oxygen deprived) environment. In a lecture at the meeting of the Nobel-Laureates on June 30, 1966, in Germany he stated, “As emphasized, it is the first precondition of the proposed treatment that all growing body cells be saturated with oxygen.”
This discovery opened up an entire field of research into “bio-oxidative therapies”, which have proven very effective in curing cancer, as well as a whole host of other diseases. This is because many diseases require an anaerobic environment to survive.
However, don’t expect to see a major announcement in the mainstream media any time soon. This is because oxygen therapy, in the forms of ozonated water and/or food grade hydrogen peroxide, can be self-administered, at home, very inexpensively. For this reason you can expect that it will be discredited with the full force of the medical profession. Keep this in mind as you search the Internet for “cancer natural cures,” and as you weigh your choices for curing cancer.