Become a Member

The Miracle Cures Keep Coming 

Doc Gumshoe looks at the "Did the Nazis Bury a True Cure for Cancer" ad from Brad Lemley

By Michael Jorrin, "Doc Gumshoe", March 14, 2017

[ed. note: Michael Jorrin, who I call Doc Gumshoe, is a longtime medical writer (not a doctor) who writes for us about medicine and health a couple times a month. He has agreed to our trading and disclosure restrictions, but does not generally write directly about investment ideas. His ideas, thoughts and words are his own, and you can see all his past pieces here.]

The last time Brad Lemley entered our line of sight, he was promoting something he called “The Apostle’s Protocol.” He headlined his spiel with the phrase “Jesus’ Lost Words,” which he told us that we wouldn’t find in the Bible, but which were in an ancient manuscript which had been found in a cave in Egypt in 1945.   The particular medical miracle found in this holy ancient screed had the power to cure Alzheimer’s disease in as little as four days.   There was a Doc Gumshoe post about “The Apostle’s Protocol” and one other equally holy packet of miracles in June of last year, titled “Yet More Miracle Cures from On High.”

This time the figure Brad Lemley summons up to give prestige and authority to his claims is Dr Otto Warburg, who genuinely was a distinguished Nobel Prize-winning scientist in the 1930s.   Lemley’s claim is that Dr Warburg was working under the direct orders of Adolph Hitler, who made an exception for Warburg and did not send him to the gas chambers despite his un-Aryan ethnicity, but required him to continue working on his secret cure for cancer.

For your astonishment (or maybe entertainment), here’s how Lemley presents it:

“In 1944, a German scientist performing cancer research for Hitler made an incredible discovery …

DID THE NAZIS BURY A TRUE CURE FOR CANCER?

FOUND: A PRICELESS WAR RELIC COVERED UP BY OUR U. S. GOVERNMENT FOR 70 YEARS!

Please be warned: The story you’re about to hear was DENIED by our own United States government…

In fact, there is evidence that suggests it has been covered up since the end of the Second World War. Until today…

Even as I speak to you now, certain powerful parties have a vested interest in keeping this information hidden…

…and I fully expect this video to be removed from the Internet in the next 24 hours.”

That’s’ the kind of guff that’s meant to get readers to hurry up and opt in to whatever Lemley is hyping.   But then Lemley does go on (eventually) to identify the source of this cure for cancer as Dr Warburg, who propounded the theory that the single cause of cancer was a change in the way the mitochondria in some cells metabolized glucose.   In most cells, glucose is metabolized by oxidation, but in some cells glucose can undergo anaerobic metabolism, i.e., without oxygen.   It is those cells that become cancerous, according to Dr Warburg’s research.    His belief was that all one had to do to prevent the development of cancer cells was cut off the glucose supply to those errant mitochondria.   Accomplishing this is, unfortunately for those who subscribe to Warburg’s credo, well-nigh impossible.   That’s because, regardless of whether we consume sugar or carbohydrates, we convert a great part of whatever goes in our stomachs into glucose, which is the prime energy source, not only for those perverted little mitochondria in cancerous cells, but for all the cells in our bodies.

Warburg knew this, but he thought that cancer could be controlled by decreasing blood glucose levels.   As cancer research progressed, and the evidence mounted that a considerable number of other factors could cause cancer, Warburg persisted in the belief that his theory was the only fundamental explanation and that the later evidence was nothing more than a distraction from the essential truth that glucose was the cause.

Lemley does not go into this, of course.   He stays right with Dr Warburg in 1944 and disregards the 70-plus years of research that have not only failed to back up Warburg’s theory, but resulted in much greater understanding of the way cancers originate, evade our immune system, and metastasize.   And, along the way, this research has resulted in treatment protocols which, even though they do not originate in recently-unearthed sacred screeds or underground secrets, have had important and beneficial results for millions of patients.   But more of that later on.

Having asserted that Warburg’s cancer cure was definitely all anybody needed to know about how to defeat cancer once and for all, he goes on to other claims, viz:

“… every detail on how you can use this cancer miracle for yourself and your family is now available in a FREE book called The Secrets of Underground Medicine…

And, in addition to full details on the Warburg cancer miracle, this 510-page free book also contains full, PROVEN underground disease therapies like…

How a revolutionary “food solution” can now REVERSE full-blown diabetes… in as little as 8 days?! (page 415)

How an all-natural arthritis wonder can actually REGROW healthy, young, pain-free joints. (page 295)

How a simple nutrient your doctor doesn’t know… can SAVE YOU from a deadly heart attack, build “bones of steel” and even fight off prostate cancer…

It’s called “Nutrient K” and there’s an 80% chance you are deficient right now… (find out on page 54)

Or how the incredible “Methuselah Diet” has already extended animal lifespans by an additional 83%… could it work to add 60 years to YOUR life?! (page 407)”

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


Here Lemley is touting some of the other miracle cures in his book.   These will turn out to be the same or similar to the ones he talks about in his other books.   And, as with those other miracle cures, it’s likely that there’s at least a modicum of fact behind some of them.

What is Nutrient K?

Nutrient K is pretty sure to be Vitamin K, which has been known for more than 80 years as essential to the coagulation of blood.   It was initially termed koagulationsvitamin in German, thus Vitamin K.   There are at least two forms of Vitamin K, K1 and K2.   The former, Vitamin K1, is abundant in most green leafy vegetables, including kale (which I assiduously avoid, because it tastes – to me, anyway – like eating plastic), but also spinach, Swiss chard, collard greens, and several others, all of which I like quite a bit.   The latter, Vitamin K2, is present in eggs, meat, and in many proteins.   (A third form, Vitamin K3, or menadione, is not considered to be a bona fide vitamin and has no known physiologic role.)    In addition, bacteria in our intestines generate Vitamin K.   So it is very rare for people to have a Vitamin K deficiency, although some diseases can prevent the body from absorbing Vitamin K, and several medications can decrease Vitamin K absorption.   In many developed countries, all newborns receive injections of Vitamin K to reduce the chance of bleeding, which, although quite rare, is definitely dangerous.

Vitamin K is also an essential bone-building vitamin; osteoporosis has sometimes been found to be associated with low levels of Vitamin K.   And recent research also suggests a link between Vitamin K and a group of proteins collectively termed glutamic acid (Gla) proteins, which have a range of physiologic roles, one of which is related to the control of deposition of calcium in the arteries.   Unchecked, arterial calcification leads to sclerosis, or hardening of the arteries, associated, as we know, with several cardiovascular conditions.   Vitamin K deficiency may lead to reduced activity in those Gla proteins and increased arterial calcification.

Proponents of Vitamin K supplementation also point to possible links between Vitamin K deficiencies and other diseases, such as type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and cancer.   In fact, they even cite studies comparing levels of risk in cohorts with the highest versus lowest levels of Vitamin K, e.g., for all-cause mortality, a 36% relative risk reduction; for cancer, a 46% relative risk reduction; for coronary heart disease mortality, a 57% relative risk reduction; for T2DM, a 51% risk reduction.

I have not checked these studies, but my skepticism index is stratospheric.   May I point out that nowhere was it asserted that these relative risk reductions were achieved by increasing  the Vitamin K levels in a group of patients, whether through diet or supplementation – just that, observationally, patients with the higher Vitamin K levels were found to be at lower risk for those outcomes.   Since Vitamin K is abundantly available in a healthy diet (green leafy vegetables and proteins) we do not know whether the comparison is between individuals on a healthy diet and those who subsist on soda pop and pizza.   And, most important, we do not know what the absolute levels of risk in these specific cohorts were.

We need to remember the famous (or should I say infamous) presentation of the Women’s Health Initiative, in which it was reported that women taking hormone replacement therapy had a 23% increase in the relative risk of a heart attack compared with women not taking HRT.   This was based on a really tiny increase in the absolute risk.   The MI rate for women on HRT was 37 per 10,000 patient-years, whereas the risk in patients taking placebo was 30 per 10,000 patient years.   That’s a difference in absolute risk of less than 0.1%.   But it was proclaimed as an increase in relative risk of 23%: 7 on a base of 30 rather than 7 per 10,000 patient years.   So my guess is that those relative risk reductions, while perhaps mathematically correct, are hugely overstated in practical terms.

All this said, the benefits of Vitamin K do appear to be real.   Whether this extends to Vitamin K supplementation for most people is another question altogether.   As I said earlier, I eat plenty of leafy greens (except for kale), along with a reasonable amount of protein, so I do not think I’m likely to be Vitamin K-deficient.   However, you can bet that Brad Lemley would be quite definite in his opinion that I do not get enough of what he calls Nutrient K.   He says that cattle, which were formerly fed sufficient amounts of the Nutrient K-containing leafy greens, no longer get that same healthy feed and consequently beef from such malnourished cattle is deficient in that miraculous stuff.   So the inescapable fact is that I need Nutrient K supplements.

If there were robust data that Vitamin K supplementation actually led to decreased risk for T2DM, cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, etc., it might be reasonable to include an assay for Vitamin K as part of a complete blood count, which currently includes measurement of Vitamin B12 and Vitamin D.   And, by the way, Vitamin K supplements basically consist of liquid chlorophyll.

… and what about the “all-natural arthritis wonder?”

That one is called CLG9.   This is actually real, and has been reported to deliver some benefit in arthritic joints.   The technique consists of creating a sort of support base or scaffold for growing new cartilage and then inserting the new cartilage, growing on its scaffold, into the joint where the cartilage has been eroded or destroyed.   The surgery is highly complex and is limited in its application to patients whose joint damage is only to cartilage and does not affect the surface of the joint itself.   A small clinical trial reported that the CLG9 strategy worked somewhat better than a previous method of attempting to grow new cartilage, called microfracture surgery, which entails drilling tiny holes in the bone adjacent to damaged cartilage to facilitate blood flow and nourish cartilage growth.   In other words, if the cartilage in our knees is damaged, holes are drilled into our kneecaps to supply the cartilage with nutrients.   As it happens, CLG9 also employs microfracture surgery in conjunction with implanting the cartilage on the scaffold.   I don’t see CLG9 as being secret or miraculous, nor do I think it will have wide application.

Lemley informs us that he’s letting us in on a number of secrets that powerful forces are in league to suppress, for ignoble reasons – not only a sure-fire cure for cancer, but also cures for diabetes, arthritis, and just about whatever ails us.   But he warns that you, the exceedingly fortunate person to whom he is offering these miraculous cures, must act really quickly, because hidden forces are likely to suppress his priceless offer.

“Did you know the cost of chemotherapy for cancer can run as high as $65,000 per MONTH?!

That’s insane.

And that’s EXACTLY why the pharmaceutical industry has a very clear interest in denying a true cancer therapy that requires no chemotherapy drugs at all…

They’re not alone.

You see, the trillion-dollar “Big Pharma” industry has a very willing partner in crime…

Our own United States government.

You see… in our government’s Food & Drug Administration (FDA), Big Pharma has a devoted little lap dog who follows commands at will…

Because Big Pharma OWNS the FDA.”

Well, yes.   That’s the conspiracy, which Lemley is exposing.   All you have to do to get his three books is subscribe to his newsletter.

pastedGraphic.png

“And this gift is absolutely FREE when you agree to give my Natural Health Response newsletter a try today.

“All we ask is a small contribution to cover printing and mailing your monthly issues.”

Don’t know how much the newsletter costs, but of course, as he hints in his spiel, he can tell you his “favorite sources” for these various miracle cures, including the one that’s supposed to increase your life-span by 83%.   For sure, that’s where he makes his money.

A slight shift in focus

A common theme in miracle cure promotions, in addition to the conspiracy theory that Big Pharma and the FDA are about to take evil action against Lemley and his fellows, is that mainstream medical care has failed utterly in its efforts to treat cancer.

Here’s Lemley’s spiel:

“…despite all the “advances” of modern medicine, we’ve made very little progress in improving cancer mortality rates.

The reality is… cancer will likely kill more than 600,000 Americans this year….

And based on current trends, cancer will soon pass heart disease as the leading cause of death in America….

And the truth is, “modern medicine” has NO IDEA how to cure cancer once it starts…

They’re completely clueless.

And so cancer patients face a horrible future of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery… before they die.

Lemley is more or less correct when he says that cancer will likely kill more than 600,000 Americans this year.   This came from a report from the American Cancer Society that was published on January 5th of this year.

What he does not say is that according to that same report, the cancer death rate has been falling steadily at about 1.5% per year since 1991.   If cancer mortality had remained the same, about two million more Americans would have died of cancer in the past quarter century.   A large part of this decrease in cancer mortality took place in men, due largely to fewer prostate, lung, and colorectal cancers.   And this was almost certainly due to a widespread decline in smoking, as well as to an increase in PSA testing, leading to earlier detection and treatment of prostate cancer.   (The decline in smoking was greater in men; women had smoked less to begin with.)   Breast and endometrial cancers, the principal cancers in women, were more or less unchanged.

However, another set of factors comes into play here.   Here are some mortality data for the year 2014, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

Total deaths in the US  2,628,418

Heart disease             614,348

Cancer                    591,699

Lemley is correct in saying that cancer will probably soon pass heart disease as the leading cause of death in the US.   But that won’t be because cancer death rates are increasing.   It will be because heart disease death rates are declining even faster than cancer death rates.

According to the NIH, yearly heart disease mortality declined from 307.4 per 100,000 population in 1950 to 134.6 per 100,000 in 1999, and it has continued to decline steeply since then.   For example, in my home state of Connecticut, mortality from heart attacks was 66.6 per 100,000 in 1999 and 41.5 in 2006.   The American Heart Association calculates that if the heart disease mortality rate had remained at its peak, 621,000 additional heart disease deaths would have taken place annually from about 1996 onward – that’s almost 10 million people.   But those folks who escape dying of heart attacks don’t live forever – lots of them survive to succumb to something else, frequently the big C.

And yet another factor to consider.   Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older folks.   In the days when very few of us lived much past the age of 30, cancer wasn’t a significant cause of death.   People died of famine, pestilence, war, and routine accidents.  But we’re definitely becoming a society of seniors.   Here’s the US life expectancy figures for the past century or so:

Birth Year   Men   Women

1900         46.3   48.3

1925         57.6   60.6

1950         65.6   71.1

1975         69.1   76.8

1998         73.8   79.5

2014         76.4   81.2

Those are really big increases in life expectancy – about 67% for men and 68% for women.   And with those increases come big changes in the diseases that we have to guard against.   We no longer worry much about leprosy or bubonic plague, but Alzheimer’s disease has become a major concern.   And, of course, cancer.

Where should we be looking for answers?

No cancer is truly benign, but not all cancers are equally malignant.   Here are the most recent fatality rates for the most common cancers:

Site         Current fatality rate

Prostate          11.7%

Skin (melanoma)   12%

Breast            17.4%

Lymphoma          25.4%

Colon/rectum      36%

Leukemia          49.6%

Ovary             69.5%

Liver             71.6%

Pancreas          85.1%

It is somewhat misleading to characterize pancreatic cancer as intrinsically seven times more malignant than prostate cancer, or liver cancer as six times more malignant than melanoma.   An important difference between these cancers is that the ones with the lowest fatality rates – prostate, melanoma, and breast cancer – are relatively easy to detect, while ovarian, liver, and pancreatic cancers are frequently detected only at the point where treatment becomes exceedingly difficult.

This points to the strategy that has been emphasized by the medical organizations and public health authorities for many years, namely early detection.    But, as you’ve read in previous Doc Gumshoe sermons, the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has taken shots at the tests that have been most effective in the early detection of prostate cancer and breast cancer, which are respectively the most common cancers in men and in women.   The USPSTF has opposed both prostate cancer screening via the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test and breast cancer screening by means of mammograms in women under the age of 50.   I believe both of those USPSTF recommendations were profoundly misguided and harmful, and I have pointed to recent increases in metastatic prostate cancer as being in part due to a reduction in PSA screening, and thus, an increase in the number of missed prostate cancer diagnoses at the earliest possible point.

The next frontier in early detection?

Admittedly, the PSA test is far from perfect, and diagnostic tools for early detection of other cancers tend to be more complex, expensive, and/or invasive, as well as not ideally sensitive and specific.   This has led to an upsurge of interest in new diagnostic devices that are loosely grouped as “cancer tests on a chip” or “point-of-care diagnostics.”

The premise for these tests is that as cancers develop, and particularly as they metastasize, some cancer cells are present in the bloodstream, although in miniscule numbers.   In the past, it has not been possible to detect cancer cells in the bloodstream simply because there were too few to detect by the assays that were then available.   It now appears that nanotechnology may make it possible to capture tumor cells by labeling nanometer-sized traps with antibodies to specific cancer strains.   The objective is to be able to take a very small blood sample from a patient and place it on a chip which is equipped with the antibody-labeled nanoparticles.   The technique is termed “microfluidic diagnostics,” and it has become quite trendy.   It may make it possible not only to get a quick yes/no answer to the question whether there are cancer cells present, but a more detailed answer as to the specific genetic characteristics of the cancer, which can then provide a clue as to the cancer’s site.

Travis recently sniffed out the identity of an outfit that was being touted as having a possible cure for cancer, employing gold nanoparticles.   The pitch was headlined “Starting in 2017, a radical new gold-based oncology protocol could make cancer up to 96% survivable…”   He identified the company being hyped as Opko, which has a couple of diagnostic devices targeting prostate cancer.   One, the 4KScore device, promises to yield more detailed information on the cancer itself, presumably relating to how aggressive it is.   The one that’s ready to go is the Claros 1, which provides PSA results in about ten minutes.

(By the way, regarding the claim that this new protocol could make cancer 96% survivable, according to the American Cancer Society, the 15-year survival rate for men who have a radical prostatectomy is already 95%.)

But diagnosis of any disease inevitably leads to the next question: what do we do now?   Tumor cells floating around in the bloodstream may be signs of a clear and present danger: a cancer is present, and those tumor cells may be on the way to taking root somewhere else in the body.   Which is to say, the cancer may metastasize.   On the other hand, an isolated tumor cell might just as easily be gobbled up by one of the many cells in our immune system that destroy cancer cells every day.   It may not be going anywhere.

Where point-of-care diagnostics could make a huge difference is in the early detection of those cancers which currently have a high fatality rate – ovarian, liver, pancreatic.   There does appear to be optimistic news on that front.   Researchers at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute have developed a microfluidics device that uses carbon nanotubes, each labeled with antibodies to a specific type of cancer.   The device has an array of 170 wells with the carbon nanotubes, which can function as semiconductors, and emit a signal when a cancer cell has linked to antibody.   Theoretically at least, a single device of that type could identify a large number of different cancers, including the different types of breast cancer.   It might also be able to identify cancers that were becoming metastatic.

But it doesn’t do to be too optimistic.   Even though early detection has been highly successful in bringing down cancer mortality, there are clearly Forces Abroad that won’t want to see broad adoption of devices that give patients an instant answer to that worrying question, “Do I have cancer?”   Most doctors could probably be counted on to give extremely careful and measured answers.   At the same time, most patients, upon getting the tiniest hint that the answer could be “yes,” would insist on moving to the next step, whatever that might be.   The consequences to the health-care system could be overwhelming, as could the costs.

Early detection/prevention strategies do exist for some of the more difficult-to-treat cancers, but they tend to be underused.   For example, colonoscopies reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer by 57%, according to one study, and also reduce the mortality from colorectal cancer by 61%.   But the percentage of US adults who have colonoscopies is difficult to pinpoint.   Not quite 60% have sigmoidoscopies, which examine only the descending section of the colon, and therefore can fail to detect a significant number of polyps, which may eventually mature into cancers.

Ultrasound is reported to detect about 65% of ovarian cancers, but in the absence of symptoms, relatively few women opt to have ovarian ultrasound.   It is a non-invasive outpatient procedure that some women who might be at elevated risk for ovarian cancer might consider.

Where does Doc Gumshoe come out on these questions?

I don’t want to come down too hard on people who have faith in miracle cures.

(Please note that I’m using the term “miracle cure” as shorthand for the entire panoply of supplements, whether they are promoted as “miracle cures” or merely as aids to health.)   The alternatives are apt to be complicated and in some cases unpleasant diagnostic procedures, followed by treatments that some people will characterize as “worse than the disease.”   But the miracle-cure promoters willfully ignore the very real progress that has been made in cancer care – that 1.5% annual decrease in the number of cancer deaths since 1991, despite the really huge number of people who are now not dying of heart disease.

It’s entirely understandable that a person who is facing difficult and expensive treatment might first try a miracle cure on the chance that it might work.   Or that a person who has undergone a course of treatment without success might then turn to a miracle cure.

What is not understandable is when an intelligent person chooses a “miracle cure” in preference to a treatment modality that has an established – although not perfect – record of success.   We know of a woman who chose “the healing rays of the sun” in preference to standard treatment for her breast cancer.   I am sorry to report that the sun’s rays did not live up to her expectations.

My argument with the promoters of “miracle cures” is that they encourage this type of behavior.

 

* * * * * * * *

A Gumshoe denizen recently suggested that I look into a promotion coming from Dr Al Sears, and I will do so, after I’ve dealt with a lot of the debris from my in-box (lots of recent stuff that you might be interested in).   But I want to let him know that we’ve run across Al Sears in the past, and delved into his favorite “miracle cure,” (which is curcumin) in a piece called Somewhere Between “The Next Aspirin” and “An Ingredient in Curry.”   Best to all, Michael Jorrin (aka Doc Gumshoe).

guest

12345

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

72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ascension Art
Guest
Ascension Art
July 2, 2017 12:12 pm

All of you are commenting but not stating the most basic fact. Every cell in the universe gives off its own frequency which can be measured and if you point the exact opposite frequency at its opposing frequency they cancel each other out. The natural herbs cells give off a frequency which cancels the cancer or diseased cells frequency But Dr. Raymond Royal Rife discovered this in the early to mid 1900’s. And cured terminally ill cancer patients and his lab, research, frequency genarators and microscopes that are as powerful as our elctronmicroscopes we have now was destroyed. Along with a microscope that magnified 17000 times that of everything available at the time. One of his microscopes minus some main components are in a German museum and the other was seized when the powers to be raided his clinic and shut it down along with all his research. This is a vibrational universe with frequencies interacting with light and matter which effects the vibratory frequencies it comes in contact with. Imagine 2 rocks thrown in a still pond in different areas and the ripples from each thrown rock coming in contact with the other rocks ripples and the new ripples that are created. Quantum physics and mechanics is the answer! Raise your frequencies by meditating and mental visualization. The laws of the universe govern everything! Its time to wake up and realize we are all light and all matter comes from the plasma or light frequencies given off by the sun and stars. And matter is just slowed down frequencies of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
3397
unanim us
Guest
unanim us
August 4, 2017 9:02 pm

+ Thank you Michael Jorrin for this article. +

tumpliner
Guest
tumpliner
August 5, 2017 10:37 pm

Well, you can use cannabinoids to effectively kill tumerous cells. They can be had from marijuana, but also from hemp at a much lower cost. I had a PSA of over 2100 three months ago. After 30 days use of hemp extract at > 50mg a day it dropped to 300, then dropped to 100 after 60 days. It should keep dropping, since it is just doing what the immune system does to kill cancer cells– supply cannabinoids that can seat onto receptors on the cancerous cells and so trigger a process that results in the death of the cell. Tumors grow when the immune systems ability to trigger such cell deaths is not sufficient to kill the number of existing tumerous cells.

Add a Topic
4091
Add a Topic
3397
tumpliner
Guest
tumpliner
August 5, 2017 10:53 pm

Yes, it seems strange to me that the use of CBD, and other cannabinoids that may be extracted from hemp, is not known as an effective treatment for killing cancerous cells. It is not a cure, but it seems to be a very effective treatment, and I would categorize it as a folk remedy. There is a lot of confusing information about it, including the fact that it is not uncommon for medical marijuana vendors to use the word “hemp” to mean marijuana. There is no money driving the propagation of this information. Big pharma would lose out on profits from their expensive, less effective drugs. The medical establishment’s radiation and chemo treatments would not be needed. The medical marijuana folks would lose business when and if it was realized that you can get the same cancer treating effectiveness of marijuana from hemp at about 10% of the cost.
It is not quite all that simple, though. Marijuana contains the THC that hemp does not have, which is supposed to be effective for pain.
Another odd thing I have found is that I can buy marijuana seeds to grow (I live in a state where that is legal), but I cannot get hemp seeds anywhere!
As far as I can see, the only motivator for spreading the information of the effectiveness of hemp versus cancer is the pro-life purpose we feel towards ourselves and each other as citizens. I hope that will be enough. I would love to see that future generations will not have to be bothered by cancer.

Add a Topic
5953
Add a Topic
4091
Add a Topic
4091
Art
Member
Art
August 8, 2017 10:26 pm

I don’t believe much of anything when it comes to selling me something. That includes this, Lemley, the FDA and big pharma. We live in a for-profit culture and that rules everybody. Gumshoe, Lemley, the FDA, big pharma and legislators.

So we have cancer that MSK cured in 1896…but now they can’t ? We’ve had FDA doctors pulled off cancer studies that were shown to have worked…twice. We have many clinics over time that cured many cancers and were all shut down by the FDA. We seen the FDA make false accusations against Drs. to arrest them or obtain cease and desist orders. I don’t trust anybody in our medical industrial complex.

For example, is anybody here aware that the ‘medical’ profession said that there is no way eating citrus fruits could possibly cure scurvy ? I see it as a good thing the FDA never investigated Vit. C or we could be dealing with Billion$ in research and and charity…and profits…in ‘treating scurvy. Like cancer of course, it would be illegal to cure scurvy.

Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
3397
anthony barbuto
Member
anthony barbuto
November 24, 2017 10:41 am

i don’t believe in the drugs prescribed by most doctors. I have read that former heads of the FDA pushed for acceptance of certain drugs….then they resigned and became a VP of that company to promote the drug they first approved. The reactions to many drugs are worse than the reason for taking the drug in the first place. This makes me remember a line from a movie;…a salesman is making small talk with a woman…he is selling “beauty aids” at a drug store. He says ” this is cold cream remover…you buy it to remove cold cream you put on your face to make your self beautiful…of course you don;t need to buy the cold cream remover….if you don’t buy the cold cream!?”….thats my position with most big pharma drugs…the side effects can be worse than what they purportedly cure. I am pre diabetic and pre heart attack. On both cases my Dr wanted me on Rx drugs right away. I told the Dr “wait”. I lowered my cholesterol and then lowered my blood sugar by change in diet. The moral to this story…the cure for what ails us is out there…its diet…..not drugs..Both my brother and sister are diabetics. They started on Rx drugs right away. They have been taking them for 20+ yrs….with gross side effects. My grandfather was diagnosed with diabetes. He controlled his diabetes with diet…he never took one drug,… in 50 yrs…

Add a Topic
3022
Add a Topic
3820
Add a Topic
1358
SoGiAm
November 27, 2017 11:30 am

Anthony, Want more bang out of your buck?…. Check out and read #ZKSS #biotech #threads https://www.stockgumshoe.com/author/dr-kss-md-phd/ Best2YouAlwayz

👍 11604
Travis
Guest
Travis
February 11, 2018 10:21 pm

All these “miracle” cures, well I call them scams, have the same presentation format. 1. an outrageous and often exotic or mysterious all encompassing healing claim. You know, the one we WANT to hear. 2. A long delay in the video or article before the “secret” is revealed with us being told several times, in just a SHORT while the secret will be revealed, just keep watching or reading. 3. Next is a short bio on the presenter establishing the presenters sterling credentials and high moral standing. 4. the presentation of the powerful enemy of the truth about the subject; always a big corporation and the federal government (can be some truth here) 5. more about how lucky you are that you can now find out what is being held back from you by the powerful enemy of the truth. 6. more about the miraculous cure, and then more about how the miraculous cure can cure just about anything you may suffer from. 7. sooner or later the pitch for you credit card billing information for your order, never mind that during the presentation you are told about this truth being revealed to you FREE many times! I’m sick of these shysters!!

Add a Topic
899
Add a Topic
899
robert
Guest
robert
June 22, 2018 2:06 am

root cause of cancer H Pylori bacteria (alien bacteria)

Add a Topic
3397
spud
Guest
spud
August 13, 2018 10:14 am

A true cure for cancer would sell itself and would not need to be combined with several other mystery cures to sell his book and news letter. Dead give away for a scam.

Add a Topic
3397
SteveW
Guest
SteveW
November 16, 2018 12:14 pm

There is plenty to fear from all sides in this argument. The inherent deception being put upon the general public is very disturbing and the entities purporting this need to be held accountable both in the public and private sectors. The advent of the internet is slowly loosing FDA/Big Pharma’s (BP is FDA’s master not the other way around)grip on the information, and they don’t like it. Do Your own research as the information is out there. One prime example is Gambogic acid. Chinese vermifuge is use for 3000+ yrs. They know it strips the AIP( Apoptosis Inhibiting Protein) survivin from the cancer cell allowing the immune system to recognize it as bad and attack it. They have known this from research conducted for the last 15+ years. It has a complex 5 chain carbon molecule that they can’t synthesis and so they have buried it trying to buy time to figure it out. They already Know how to Mix and preserve it and how to administer dosage from the natural form, but won’t release it because it is unpatentable in it’s natural form. Look up Sigma Aldrich, Gambogic Acid, Survivin, & P53 regulation (a type of Protein). then, Gumshoe tell me they aren’t holding back while people needlessly suffer and die.
Lots of research facilities (especially the Chinese) have cornered the market on obtaining this compound by government intervention restricting it’s purchase to only certified Medical research Facilities. One hand feeding the other. To those currently suffering go to Cancertutor.com. Lots of good free info and the philosophy of whole body, multiple modality approach to self-healing.

Add a Topic
771
Add a Topic
4463
Add a Topic
3397
Kerry
Guest
Kerry
November 23, 2018 2:17 am

Michael Jorrin, I came here from Lemley’s spiel as a result of taking interest in CLG9. I studied Warburg very early on in my cancer research. Almost reluctantly, I have to agree that sugar is not the cause of cancer and removing it from the diet is not the solution. If you cut the sugar, malignant cells issue more signalling compounds to increase gluconeogenesis and then you merely get an increasing cachexia problem – not a cure. Warburg didn’t have all of it right, by any means. Yes, mitochondrial dysfunction is definitely involved, but not exactly in the way depicted by Lemley. Modern cancer “experts” tell us cancer is genetic. But they imply it is endogenous. It most certainly is not. It is exogenous – the genetic material one can refer to as the fundamental cause of cancer originates from anaerobic bacteria and may be transmitted by any of a number of vectors ranging from the same bacteria through viruses, yeasts, protozoa and even some parasites, such as helminths. My cancer model predicted helminths and similar parasites could do so and the prediction was verified in my very own body – soles of the feet, in point of fact. Not my favourite way of being vindicated, but there you have it. Neither does nuclear genetic mutation figure in the causality stream, except in the case of retroviruses. Rather, if mutation in the causal stream takes place at all, it is almost always mitochondrial DNA mutation. However, even mitochondrial mutation need not take place to initiate cancer. Oncogenic RNA can simply encode the aberrant proteins that modify cell behaviour, without affecting DNA, at all. Further, presence of the pro-malignancy genes is not enough to cause cells to engage in runaway multiplication. Instead, they can remain dormant. There must be a proliferative signal – a trigger, that sets cell cycling in motion. Healthy cells and malignant cells respond in the same manner to this signal, except that malignant cells do not obey the regulating constraints. It is a normal part of the healing process in response to tissue damage. Warburg had this much right – the predominant signal is acidosis, although certain chemical compounds can act as substitute substrates in this signalling cascade and so they can have the same effect as acidosis. He also had it right that cancer cells perpetually respirate anaerobically. However, it is hardly something that takes place in the mitochondrion. Rather, it takes place in the plasma membrane ETCs. All cells have these and use them for anaerobic respiration. In the case of healthy cells, it is only on a temporary basis, although certain leucocytes can do so for longer than most other cell types, because they often must perform their functions in oxygen-deficient environments. This is one of the reasons leucocytes can be more prone to malignancy. Malignant cells actually undergo a progressive transformation process, which is mapped more or less by Grades 1 to 4, based on cell morphology. In this process, aerobic respiration in the mitochondria is abrogated to aerobic respiration in the plasma membrane as mitochondria are actually dismantled. Their population, through redundancy, actually declines in malignant cells. But plasma membrane ETCs are notoriously inefficient. Therefore, in order to solve the problem in which there is insufficient surface area in the cell to offer enough space for the number of ETCs they need for high rates of replication, they increase the cell surface area to populate with more pmETCs. Hence the progressively more convoluted shapes of cells through successive daughter cell generations. Viewing this picture logically. the pH-based therapies show definite, because malignant cells pump protons out through the pmETCs and rely upon these forcing their way back into the cells’ alkaline interiors through pmATP Synthase complexes. In other words, malignant cells create acidosis and depend upon it to respirate. Make the tissue fluid basic and they have trouble respirating. Low grade cells may be forced to return to mitochondrial respiration and even redifferentiate to resume some semblance of normal function. In doing so, they cease replicating. However, more advanced cells cannot and must instead undergo apoptosis. ETC inhibitors also have a desirable effect, since this also depletes the extracellular proton supply. They act much more effectively on pmETCs than on mETCs for the very simple reason that pmETCs are the first ones they reach and do not even need to penetrate into the cells. Therefore, they affect healthy cells far less than they do malignant ones. The next class of excellently effective anticarcinogenics are those that activate the p14 to -19, p21, p27 and p53 genes. This method inhibits CDKs, which in turn tightens the DNA replication fidelity tests in the G1 and G2 phases of the cell cycle. It is completely harmless to healthy cells, but forces mutated daughter cells to undergo apoptosis. Also, dormant cancer cells can be tackled. Dormant cancer cells are nearly impossible to detect. But there is a way to activate them. Once they become active and commence replicating, they are exposed to the influences of ETC and CDK inhibition. To do this, one activates the p42 and p44 genes. None of it is difficult. Cancer needs not be feared at all. Lots of natural substances, especially from a surprisingly wide variety of herbs, can accomplish this with great potency and extremely high safety without causing the harm engendered by chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. Cachexia is easily stopped, too. Couple this with selective immune activation, microbicidal, detox and microbiome care measures and cancer simply CANNOT PREVAIL. All these are also accomplished by natural methods. Almost too easy! By the way, Lemley is definitely right about the medical conspiracy. I exists. It is real. It is consummately evil. Laws are made and enforced against natural medicine practitioner and also maverick MDs to prevent them using these methods. Often, they are murdered. Cancer is big money to the Fortune 500 pharmaceutical corporations.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
1358
Kay
Guest
Kay
January 6, 2019 3:14 am
Reply to  Kerry

Kerry, can you elaborate on what natural method you would recommend. You probably have a good idea here@

terry
Guest
terry
January 29, 2019 5:56 pm

How do we know you are not lying, hiding the truth???

Mervyn Cole
Guest
Mervyn Cole
April 24, 2019 5:12 am

I used to subscribe to Lemley’s Newsletter but found that every day a “new” miricle cure was available if I sent $137 +p&p for a 6 months supply of Cure X, Y or Z.

I left Orthodox Medicine because it was too heavily reliant on drugs for simple paediatric conditions. I found that, in many cases of hyperactivity, asthma and exzema and gastric conditions, the diet and environment played a large part in the symptoms and by modifying these great improvements occured. But I was also aware that some conditions had to have Orthodox Treatments and I dispaired of the Homoeopaths, especially, who claimed they could treat everything from Anorexia to Zoophobia.

There are some things Natural Medicine does better then Orthodox, and vice versa. The two should work togeher to help the patient, whose cure is the most important outcome

Add a Topic
3678
Add a Topic
5198
TheReals
Guest
TheReals
August 14, 2019 5:47 pm

Another ‘debunking’ based on semantics and not science. Yes I can shoot holes in other people’s words too. That has nothing to do with the scientific facts. The doctor knows that most of his own evidence is based on data that is A) observational ‘data’, B) statistical ‘data’ (human assumptions included), C) not based on the direct quantifiable result of testing tangible matter and applying a validated numerical standard. ALMOST NO MEDICAL ‘discovery’ meets this standard. Every part in your car does. Every part in your phone does. But very little medical ‘science’ even requires, much less meets this standard of proof. Let me demonstrate:

Dr. Gumshoe, riddle me this. How exactly does drinking flouridated water improve dental health? There are reams of ‘scientific’ papers assuring us that it does. Dentists will fly off the handle if you dare suggest it doesn’t. Now clearly the only logical deduction we can draw from this is that fluoride in your stomach somehow helps strengthen your teeth!!! A miracle it would seem. Please tell us how this could possibly be?

Now remember you’re a scientist. So we need independently verifiable, reproducible data. The kind involving a test, of physical things, with a validated pass/fail criteria. That any independent scientist could reproduce and confirm themselves. Not ‘correlations’ or a ‘statistical trend within a confidence interval’. That does not meet any scientific standard. Municipaltities put fluoride in the water that we give our infant babies. Harvard says Fluoride lowers IQ. ‘Medical science’ assures us its safe. Please tell us what this science actually is and what it says, and how that was proven. Every bottle of fluoride I’ve ever seen in my scientific career has a huge warning label telling me that it will dissolve bone. Obviously this is a devious conspiracy theory pitched by the liars at places like Harvard, OSHA, the American Chemical Society. PLEASE drop the science bomb on us and debunk this ridiculous conspiracy theory. Drinking flouride is totally healthy right? In fact if ever there was a ‘Miracle Cure’ it must be fluoride right? We purposely fluoridate the water. It fixes our teeth from our stomachs. That must be based on pretty solid science, right? There were obviously long term tests against a tangible, validated metric right? We obviously tested this on infants, immune compromised, and all other special cases before we forced it upon the entire population right? Enlighten us. I literally can’t wait…

Add a Topic
540
George
Guest
George
October 18, 2019 11:17 am

The “Forces Abroad that won’t want to see broad adoption of devices that give patients an instant answer to that worrying question, ‘Do I have cancer?’ ” is what angers me about Big Pharma and Big Med, and they are precisely the problem. Board Certified Pediatrician Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., (author of How to Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor , among books he wrote as an insider which are scathing testimonies against Big Pharma’s corruption of the medical community) and a medical school professor, goes into detail about the problem of how medical students are inculturated at their inception into Big Pharma which spends billions annually wining and dining medical students, doctors, medical schools, doctors offices, and hospitals with free goodies, lavish lunches, and other trappings to keep their ugly and immoral business rich and fat. Worse, you will notice how in the last 30 years, especially, how the medical community has shifted from the Hippocratic Oath (“First, do no harm”) to a pull-the-plug- first philosophy. Mendelsohn also exposed this. Of course, for pulling the wall down and exposing the huge nest of cockroaches hiding behind it, he’s been lambasted by his peers, called a quack and other vicious insults, but it only takes a visit to one doctor’s office with your eyes open to see the truth of what he was saying. Always remember, IT IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS INTERESTS OF BIG PHARMA OR BIG MED TO FIND A CURE FOR ANYTHING. But there are good doctors out there, they are usually Catholic or Christians or religious Jewish family men and women with kids. You just have to ask around. Any doctor pushing innoculations before school age doesn’t get it. Objective studies show that innoculations before the age of two can cause greater harm to an infant or toddler than the risk after age two, but you have t dig through the medical journals. You won’t find it on the internet, which has been purged of any criticism by professional scientific research. Unless there is a clear and present risk of danger to communicable diseases, wait until they are of school age. If you need proof, look up the contraindications for any inoculation required to be supplied by the drug company that sells it by law. Aside from Vitamin K (See DrKssMDPHD’s comment below which appears to be a founded criticism) at birth, none of my eleven children received innoculations until they went to college, and all have been healthy—no autism, no defects of any kind developed after birth, or between birth and age two, or during childhood. All are still healthy. I on the other hand, developed severe psoriasis, a spinal lipoma, and a shoulder impingement soon after receiving a double-battery of innoculations just prior to and upon entering the U.S. Naval Academy when I showed my shot card to irresponsible Navy Corpsman who ignored it, and said not to worry about it, and gave me their full battery of innoculations within six months of getting them prior to entrance because they directed that I do so. As a young man, I trusted doctors and the medical community. Big mistake, but I had no choice in any case.

Add a Topic
3397
Add a Topic
920
Add a Topic
4796

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
32
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x