"The major cancers of our time are diet-caused, mainly by fat and cholesterol."
Dr Ernst Wynder, American Health Foundation, addressing the US Senate Select Committeeon Nutrition and Human Needs


   Cancer is a state of cellular growth which occurs when somenormal cells of a plant or an animal become abnormal and continue to grow abnormally.It is characterized by the ability of the abnormal cells to subdivide and grow outsideof the constraints which automatically limit the subdivision and growth of normalcells. It is uncommon in nature. It does not occur in properly nourished and vigorouslyhealthy humans.

   Cancer, in the many forms we know it, is a disease of civilization,and is practically unknown among primitive people properly nourished on a simplenatural diet. Whether such people live in the Arctic or in Africa, and whether theyeat fish and whale meat, or mashed corn and bananas, cancer as it afflicts our society,is unknown. The book Cancer--a Disease of Civilization by Vilhjalmur Stephansson,describes studies of Eskimos* in the late 1800s and early 1900's specifically lookingfor cancer among them, and how not one case could be found. The only Eskimos to everdevelop cancer were those who came to live in white man's settlements and who adoptedwhite man's dietary and other living habits. Similar observations have been madeby doctors in other primitive natural areas of the world.

   In his book The Cradle of the World and Cancer--A Diseaseof Civilization (1927), Dr E.H. Tipper said: "Cancer has been suspectedof being a disease of civilization. judging from my experience in general practicein London, twenty years in West Africa, and again in rural England, I am convincedthat this is true. It is due to the conventionalism and bad feeding of civilization,and is an exact index of the degree to which the alimentary tract has deviated fromits natural and normal state of health". And referring to the practice of nativeseating only natural foods he said: "There is no such thing as constipation--thereis no cancer. At the first dawn of civilization amongst them this disease makes itsappearance; where civilization is advanced it is rife".

   Dr Roger Williams in 1898, writing in Lancet, blamedenvironmental factors of the alarming increase in cancer during the preceding 50years, and noted the death rate in England had increased from 17 per 10,000 per yearto 88. Dr Williams attributed the increase to the fact that meat consumption haddoubled, and he advocated eating more vegetables and getting more fresh air and exercise.However, since then the very opposite to Dr Williams' advice has been adopted, andaccordingly, cancer as a cause of death is now second only to cardiovascular disease,and continues to increase.

   The most common form of cancer in affluent Western countriesis cancer of the bowel which includes cancer of the colon and rectum. The third NationalCancer Survey by the US National Cancer Institute showed that this form of cancernow causes more deaths than any other. Previously, breast cancer caused more deathsamong women, and lung cancer among men. The incidence of cancer is much lower amongvegetarians, particularly those who consume no dairy products.

   Cancer growths are called tumors or neoplasms and may occurin many different forms and in different parts of the body. Arising from cells inoriginally normal tissue, the initial growth is called a primary tumor. Primary tumorsusually occur in tissues which in their day-to-day function have a constant wearingout and renewal of cells--tissues such as the skin and the lining of the digestivetract, the respiratory tract and the female genital canal. Primary tumors also occurat locations in which there is cell renewal due to irritation or injury. Primarycancer rarely occurs in muscle or nerve tissue in which tissue the cells do not normallysubdivide and renew, but these tissues are capable of supporting the growth of secondarytumors originating from stray cancer cells from a primary cancer elsewhere.

   Although they vary greatly in appearance and function, all cellsof the body are basically the same, having developed from the same primitive cellsof the early developing fetus after conception. Having developed into different specializedcells of the various body tissues, they are said to be differentiated. To becomecancer cells, normal cells change in degrees to a primitive form capable of the unrestrainedreproduction characteristic of primitive undifferentiated cells. The degree to whichcells become de-differentiated determines the degree of malignancy of the cancer.If a tumor is composed of cells which are only slightly abnormal and grow slowlywith near-normal cell division without spreading, it is considered benign, presentingno immediate threat to life.

   Tumors consist both of cancer cells and cells which are apparentlynormal, the latter sometimes making up 90% of the total, as if the body was attemptingto contain the cancer cells by surrounding them with normal cells. Malignant cellsfrequently detach from the primary tumor and circulate in the lymph and bloodstream.Usually they are apprehended in the lymph nodes adjacent to the primary tumor anddestroyed by the white cells. However, in cancer patients the immune system is defectivein varying degrees, and the migrating cancer cells may not only survive in the lymphnodes, but proceed further to colonize elsewhere in the body as a secondary tumor.This process is called metastasis.

   Few people die from the primary tumor, but once the cancer hasmetastasized the condition is usually regarded in orthodox circles as "terminal".

   When cancer grows or metastasizes, it does not "infect"adjacent cells but grows as an entity, still reproducing abnormal cells the sameas itself. For instance, if breast cancer metastasizes to the lung, the secondarytumor in the lung will be composed of cancerous breast cells.

   Whereas in the past, malignancy has been considered as a virtualdeath sentence, this is no longer the case. Many people have recovered naturallyfrom "terminal" cancer and there now is sufficient knowledge of cancerto help others do the same. (See Spontaneous Remission of Cancer.) With this knowledgethe complete avoidance of cancer is simple and easy.

   Some body organs such as the liver and the adrenal gland, havingbeen substantially damaged, can regenerate to almost full capacity. Nerve cells andmuscle cells, when destroyed, do not regenerate, but nor do they commonly becomecancerous.

   A medical definition of cancer which may assist the reader'sunderstanding and acceptance of the detailed explanation which then follows is givenby Professor Otto Neunhoeffer of Hamburg, Germany:

   "The malignant disease is a syndrome characterizing resultsarising from abnormal biochemical reactions, which if not interrupted or reversed,result in a tumor, which then in itself becomes a very active source for abnormalprimary reactions, thus accelerating the entire process.

   "It is an accepted fact that a malignant tumor developsonly after an average eight-year period of pre-cancer. To understand this preliminaryperiod when the condition actually existed, even though undetected, it is necessaryto distinguish between biochemically malignant disease, and a malignant tumor."

   Whereas cancer patients usually die of cachexia, which is thewasting away of the body as its vital processes progressively fail, and whereas itis clear that the growth of diseased cells is only part of this degenerative process,it is obvious that the prevention and reversal of the disease depend not upon destructionof cancer cells with vicious medical procedures, but in correcting the underlyingdefects in body chemistry which initiated the whole process in the first place.

How cancer starts

   The general medical viewpoint of cancer being a cellular upsetinitiated by some quirk of nature, and localized somewhere within an otherwise healthybody, is absolutely untenable to anyone possessing an enquiring mind and reasonablepower of observation. Based solely on the existence of the localized symptom (ie.the cancer growth) and completely inconsistent with most of the known facts, thisviewpoint, as a basis for cancer treatment and research, has prevented and continuesto prevent any chance of solution to the cancer problem.

   Although the "novel" concept of cancer being a constitutionaldisease primarily of dietary origin has been in existence at least since 1809 whenDr Richard Lambe of London wrote a treatise on the cure of cancer using a diet ofraw fruit and vegetables, only recently has the cancer "establishment"started to seriously investigate this possibility, having in the past ruthlesslysuppressed such notions and all those who held them.

   Among the many independent physicians who over the years haveused dietary methods in researching and treating cancer, are four of the 20th Century'sgreatest men of medicine, selected here because their descriptions of the cancerprocess most adequately explain the subject.

  1. Dr Otto Warburg, double Nobel Prize winner and Director of the Max Planck Institute of Cell Physiology, Germany. The holder of many international honors, Dr Warburg was considered by Dr Dean Burk, head of the National Cancer Institute at the time, to be the world's greatest bio-chemist.
  2. Dr Max Gerson, of Germany, friend and confidant of Dr Albert Schweitzer, who described Gerson as a medical genius.
  3. Dr William F. Koch of USA, BA, MA, PhD, MD, described by Dr Willard Dow, founder of the Dow Chemical Company, to be the greatest bio-chemist of his time and so far ahead of his contemporaries they could not understand him.:

   Compassionate men and competent authors, typically "aheadof their time", these doctors between them had over 200 years experience inresearching and successfully treating cancer in all its stages.

   Because the opinions of these great doctors on the causes ofcancer essentially agree, and because their achieved successes prove their commontheory in the absence of any other tenable hypothesis, the explanation which followsis a composite of their theories and observations.

The cancer milieu

   Although individually only a tiny component of the body, everysingle cell is a living organism in its own right, and needs to be constantly suppliedwith nutrients, fuel and oxygen, at the same time needing to be cleansed and itswaste products to be removed. Responsible for this care is the extracellular fluid(lymph) surrounding the cell which derives from the bloodstream and is continuallychanging. The quality of this fluid is, of course, dependent on the quality of theblood which is in turn dependent on the quality of the diet and the efficiency ofthe liver. Not only must the liver supply the bloodstream with the proper nutrients,it must at the same time keep it as free as possible from toxins.

   The Western diet and other civilized indiscretions result ina toxic, fat-clogged bloodstream and eventual liver impairment, responsible for thedeterioration of the cellular environment to that known as the "cancer milieu".


   In 1947 Dr F. Windesch of Germany demonstrated that by intermittentwithholding of oxygen, normal body cells could be changed into cancer cells. Thisdiscovery was confirmed in 1953 by Drs Goldblatt and Cameron (Experimental Medicine,97, 525, 1953).

   Dr Otto Warburg, the Director of the Max Planck Institute ofCell Physiology, in Germany, stated in 1955 that a lifetime of research had convincedhim that cancer was caused by oxygen deprivation to the cells.

   Dr H.A. Schweigart, another German, found that cancerous tissuealways is depleted in oxygen.

   Dr W. Spencer Way of Florida, writing on the importance of oxygen(Journal of the American Association of Physicians, December, 1951) said:"This confirms the finding of Fischer who kept cancerous mice under a pressureof two atmospheres for 14 hours and cured their cancer. If agents acting as catalyzerswere used, the results were even better".

The role of blood viscosity and circulation

   As described in Chapter 11, the degree of viscosity of the bloodstreamis a key factor in all disease, more so than ever with cancer. Apart from anythingelse, the freedom of the blood to flow is a crucial factor alone. As we have seen,the degree of freedom to flow is determined mainly by the viscosity of the blood.

   The connection between high blood viscosity and poor oxygensupply with cancer is clear. Referring again to Dr Dintenfas' paper on blood viscosity:

   "Wardle in 1967 suggested that it is the increased bloodviscosity in the small digital arteries which is responsible for the common symptomof malignancy. Red cell aggregation, platelet aggregation and hypercoagulabilitycan contribute to this syndrome. Crenated red cells, raised fibrinogen, increasedplatelet stickiness are all common features of malignancy."

   It is commonly known that the ESR (red cell sedimentation rate,see Chapter 10) of cancer patients is always high. Dr Melvin Knisely stated in 1947:

   "Thus far, completely unagglutinated blood has been foundonly in strictly healthy animals and men. No severely ill person has yet been seenwho did not have intravascular agglutination of the blood and visibly pathologicvessel walls." (From the paper, "Sludged Blood," by Melvin H. Knisely,Edward H. Bloch, Theodore S. Eliot and Louise Warner, Hall Laboratory of Anatomy,University of Chicago, Department of Zoophysiology, University of Copenhagen, andDepartments of Anatomy and Preventive Medicine, University of Tennessee, Science,Nov 7, 1947.)

   It appears that in tissues provided with reasonable circulation,primary cancer does not readily occur, and furthermore, should it have already started,there will be no metastasis in tissues where free circulation is maintained. Thefollowing extracts from Dr Leopold Dintenfas' book, Rheology of Blood in Diagnosticand Preventive Medicine (1976) explain why:

   "Olwyn (1971) in his editorial, reviewed the effect ofanticoagulants on tumor metastasis and noted that a number of investigators founda significant protection from metastasis by the application of heparin, plasmin,warfarin or decoumarol. In an informal survey of 200 patients with a history of myocardialinfarction or cerebral arterial insufficiency, receiving heparin daily or every secondday for periods of two to 22 years, Griffith (1971) found no instance of malignanttumor. Michaels (1971), who reviewed 540 patients on oral anticoagulant therapy forthromboembolic disorders) found presence of metastasis reduced eightfold againststatistical expectation."

   A similar study by Dr Bjorn Stinkvist, University Hospital,Upsala, Sweden, on women maintained on digitalis for cardiac problems, showed thatspreading breast cancer was only one-tenth of the rate experienced by women not ondigitalis, and even when it occurred the cancer was less aggressive.

   Impairment of free circulation can also be caused mechanicallyby tight clothing or plain inactivity. In a number of cases tight-fitting brassiereshave been suspected as a factor in breast cancer, particularly in overweight women.

Pre-cancer and de-differentiation

   Normal body cells will degenerate if for some reason their oxygenrespiration is impaired, and if the impairment is severe enough, of course they willdie. As their respiration becomes reduced, the cells, in an effort to survive, graduallychange over to a process of fermentation for their energy needs. This is an inefficientprocess, but capable of sustaining life. Lactic acid is produced as a byproduct insteadof carbon dioxide.

   As the changeover progresses, the cells in stages come to resembleprimitive forms similar to embryonic cells, although still identifiable with thetissue of their origin. This change is called de-differentiation.

   According to the degree of de-differentiation, the cells lookand behave less and less like normal cells and more and more like primitive cells--capableof subdivision and growth outside of normal body control. Such unrestrained growthis cancer, and as there are varying degrees of de-differentiation, so there are varyingdegrees of cancer. In other words, the degree of malignancy (ie. uncontrollabilityand rate of growth) is proportional to the degree of de-differentiation and fermentation.

   It is significant that in pre-cancerous tissue, the processof unrestrained growth does not seem to commence until triggered by the call fornew cell growth in a location where some form of irritation or injury has occurred.Because of this, the belief has widely been held that cancer can be caused simplyby irritation or injury.

   And because the mere restoration of plentiful oxygen does notalone return cancer cells to normal, another widely held belief is that the processof de-differentiation is irreversible, and this would indeed be the case if cancerwas caused by a mutation as is commonly believed. Contrary to this belief, Dr Kochalways held that if the correct chemistry was provided, it was possible for the cells'respiratory cycle to be restored.

   Another interesting fact is that in all body cells, even thoseof a newborn baby, there exists a virus-like organism which always multiplies inconditions of disease. This proliferation occurs as a natural event, and so numerousdo these organisms become in pre-cancerous cells and cancer cells that at one timeit was generally believed that they were the actual cause of cancer. The virus theoryof cancer is still believed by some researchers, who have unsuccessfully attemptedfor years to produce a vaccine against them.

   As cancer growth increases, so too do the levels of lactic acidand other toxic wastes which further worsen the cancer milieu so that a vicious circleensues. The cancer, relying on fermentation for energy (fermentation is only one-fifteenthas efficient as respiration) demands more nutritional sustenance than the body canafford, and so the body, overloaded with toxins, wastes away. This is cachexia, whichleads to death, usually by pneumonia or heart failure.

   The local swelling which occurs with cancer is enhanced dueto the fact that cancer cells contain up to 90% of their mass as water compared to66% for normal cells, according to Dr Raymond Damadian, the inventor of the FONAR*diagnostic scanner. The increased water is due to the high levels of sodium in thecells.

   Whereas it has been demonstrated in the laboratory that theintermittent withholding of oxygen from a cell can alone cause it to become cancerous,this condition does not appear to occur in the body to the extent of, by itself,causing cancer. Although high blood viscosity, reduced circulation and low oxygensupply are always involved, further nutritional or chemical impairment to the oxygenrespiratory cycle within the cell is necessary. In fact, the latter influence alone,if pronounced enough, can initiate the cancer process even if adequate oxygen isavailable to the cell. In this case the cell is deprived of oxygen because it isdeprived of the enzymes necessary to use the oxygen. This depends on nutritionalfactors, the presence of carcinogens, and the state of the vital organs, the liverin particular.

   Dr Warburg considered the breakdown of cell respiration to bedue primarily to the absence of what he called "active respiratory substances"inadequately supplied in the diet, and to a lesser extent, poor oxygen supply inthe circulation. He thought in some cases carcinogens were implicated by their effectof inhibiting the action of the active respiratory substances. The active respiratorysubstances included iron salts Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Thiamin(Vitamin B1) Pantothenic Acid, Nicotinamide and Cobalamin (VitaminB12).

   Dr Koch said that clinical observations disclosed the persistenceof toxemia over a period of as long as twenty years previous to the advent of thegrowth. The eventual breakdown in the cells' respiratory cycle occurred when varioustoxic amines deactivated the key respiratory component of the cell called the "functionalcarbonyl group (FCG)". Oxygen transport from the blood was reduced by poor circulationand gellation of tissue colloids, he said, but this alone, without the deactivationof the FCG was not sufficient to cause cancer. Evidence of subsequent fermentationwas the large elimination of lactic acid even when the lungs were well ventilated(from the Survival Factor in Neoplastic and Viral Disease --William F. KochMD).

   Dr Gerson divided the cancer process into two components, thegeneral component and the local component. "The general component," hesaid, "comprises mainly of the deterioration of the essential organs of thedigestive tract, chiefly the liver. There the damage is done by a permanent dailypoisoning brought about by our modern civilization". The subsequent change incells from normal to embryonic form, using fermentation--ie. the local component--heascribed to an inadequacy of oxidizing enzymes and the presence in the cell of sodiumexcess and potassium shortage.

   Dr Moerman observed that cancer only appeared in tissues thatwere chronically sick, and said, "In perfectly sound tissues cancer has neveryet, to my knowledge, come into being". He said the factor which finally causedthe breakdown in cell respiration was injury to the oxygenating power of the celldue to the absence of nutritional substances such as Vitamins A, B complex, C andE, together with citric acid, iron, iodine, sulphur and others, together with anadverse sodium-potassium ratio. Dr Moerman said, "It is no longer a theory thatcancer is a disease of the body as a whole, it has been incontestably proved. Eachcancer patient shows a great number of clinical symptoms which have not been provedto be a consequence of the local tumor, but have been proved to be caused by an abnormalmetabolism. To support this opinion I need only to point out the increasing emaciationof the body, which symptom we call cachexy, followed by death. We all know that thisemaciation followed by death, occurs repeatedly, whereas on examination it appearsthat the cancer tumor is no larger than a chicken's egg. It is a fact the emaciation,followed death can never be explained by this tumor somewhere in the body; it canbe explained by an abnormal condition of the metabolism. The cancer patient definitelydoes not die from the tumor in such a case, he dies from the disease of the bodyas a whole. This disease--and not the tumor exclusively--is cancer.

   "The symptoms that occur with cancer--namely general symptoms,cachexy, multiplication of the virus and the mortal growth of the tumor tissue--areresults of disturbed metabolism." (From A Solution to the Cancer Problem--Cornelius Moerman, MD.)

   The "disturbed metabolism" (ie. the cancer milieu)referred to by Dr Moerman, is capable of causing varying degrees of cell de-differentiationbut apparently not always to the extent of causing actual cancer--maybe benign tumorgrowth but not a malignant one. Malignancy requires a greater degree of de-differentiation,and this is where tissue irritation or injury comes in:

   When normal healthy tissue is injured, before healing growthcan commence the cells in the injured area must first de-differentiate into nearembryonic form in order to multiply rapidly. When the healing is complete, the cellsbecome differentiated again and growth ceases. In pre-cancerous tissue, however,containing cells already partially de-differentiated, the further de-differentiationcalled for by the attempted healing at the site of irritation or injury may besufficient to convert some of the cells into cancer cells.

   An illustration of this process is supplied by laboratory experimentsin which the powerful carcinogen, coal tar, is applied to patches of skin on micein order to produce cancer. In properly fed and exercised (ie. very healthy) mice,cancer does not eventuate, but in "normal" laboratory mice cancer usuallyappears after varying lengths of time. However, if before the appearance of the anticipatedcancer, injury such as a cut* is caused in tissue remote from the patch of coal tar,cancer will appear not where the coal tar is, but at the site of the injury. Thiswas demonstrated over sixty years ago by Dr H.T. Deelman of Groningen, Germany. Beforethat, in 1925, in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, Drs Murphy and Sturmreported: "It has not been an unusual observation in our experience that mice,failing to develop skin cancer as the result of the application of tar, are foundto have tumors of the lungs".

   This shows clearly that the coal tar causes cancer essentiallyby its poisoning effect of the bloodstream and subsequent breakdown of the body'sdetoxifying capability, and that the local irritation at the site of the patch ofcoal tar is only a secondary cause.

   In humans the breakdown of the body's detoxifying capabilitymay take many years, with the gradual deterioration of the liver, kidneys, and othervital organs, depending on the nature of the abuse they have been subjected to.

   It is held by most authorities that the process of cell de-differentiationis irreversible, and for the conventionally held mutation theory to be true thiswould have to be the case. However, Dr Koch long ago demonstrated how the oxygenrespiration cycle could be restored in some cases and the cancer cells returned tonormal. More recently, reversions of cancer cells to normal have been again reportedand are described in the report of the National Research Council, titled, Diet,Nutrition and Cancer (1982). In one of the cases, cultured cells reverted tonormal after the application of ascorbic acid, and in another, cancer cells revertedto normal of their own accord when, in an experiment, they were relocated to theirlocation of origin in the body. One of the leaders in this sort of research is DrLeo Sachs of Israel, who reported to the 13th International Cancer Congress in Seattlein 1982 how he had changed leukemia cells and sarcoma cells in laboratory animalsback to normal differentiated cells, either by the injection of certain protein substancesor by agents which caused the cell to produce these substances.

   Epithelial tissues such as the skin and lining of the digestivetract etc., which in a normal healthy body are being constantly renewed by continuousreplication of cells and at the same time are exposed to varying degrees of irritation,*are therefore more prone to cancer. For this reason, cancer of the skin and at variouslocations along the digestive tract and respiratory system are by far the most commonand account for the majority of cancer deaths. Cells capable of rapid growth wheninfluenced by certain hormones, such as cells of the female breast, are also moreprone in some circumstances to cancer. The most common stimulus to such cell growthis the excessive production of estrogen which occurs on a high fat diet. Such cancersare known as hormone-dependent cancers, but in all cases of common cancers, however,it can be shown that poor blood and reduced circulation are the primary factors.

   For many years it has been believed by some doctors that canceris caused by local irritation alone, so often has cancer been observed to appearat such sites (eg. cancer of the lip among pipe-smokers). It can easily be seen,however, that the irritation is not the prime cause of the cancer but merely thetrigger action which by calling for a healing process has instigated the criticalde-differentiation of cells.

   Although the intestine lining has a rapid turnover of cells,cancer of the intestine or duodenum is extremely rare. As can be seen from Fig. 20.1,there are four common cancer sites in the digestive tract ahead of the intestineor duodenum and six common cancer sites after it, while the intestine itself appearsto be immune. Why is this? The explanation is that the first four sites are exposedto direct damage from irritants contained in food, such as spices, condiments, salt,various chemicals and excessive heat and cold. Once food enters the intestine however,it is no longer too hot or cold and the harmful irritants are neutralized by theenzymes of the digestive juices, and even though there is a high turnover of epithelialcells in the intestine, there is no direct tissue damage and therefore no subsequentcancer. Following the intestine is the bowel (colon) with its six common cancer sites.These are explainable by the toxic process and chemicals produced in the bowel itself,described under the heading "The Role of Diet".

Figure 20.1 Common Cancer sites in the intestines
There is strong medical support for the belief that many cancers might be prevented by eliminating chemical irritants from food. Malignant growths of the human digestive tract tend to appear in the "narrows' of that tract where food slows down its passage and rubs against the intestinal linings most forcefully. These "narrows" are shaded spots in, the above sketch, marked with numbers: 1. the larynx; 2. the tracheal bifurcation; 3. the entrance to the cardiac stomach; 4. the pre-pyloric stomach; 5. the ileo-cecal valve; 6. the cecum; 7. the right colonic flexure; 8. the left colonic flexure; 9, the sigmoid colon; and 10. the rectum. Occurrence of cancers at these point is significant when one notes how relatively long are the cancer-free portions of the intestine. (Source: Natural Food and Farming,  Atlanta, Texas.)

   Primary tumors rarely, if ever, occur in nerve or muscle tissue,because although capable of healing when injured, they are made of cells which donot replicate.

   That the entire constitution is involved in the cancer processis evident by the fact that, preceding cancer there are many general signs of degeneration.Dr Moerman listed these as:

   Singly, these signs were not pathognomonic of cancer, Dr Moermansaid, but in combination they were.

   Another sign which often precedes the appearance of cancer,cirrhosis and kidney failure, is body-wide itching. This finding was made after astudy of generalized pruritis (itching) in elderly patients by Drs Gary Kantor andDonald Lookinghill of the Milton Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania.

   Dr R. Stoeger, of Germany, in his book, To Age--But WithoutCancer, describes his observations of cancer patients which indicated that theypreviously had displayed low thyroid activity and lowered immune responses. Morerecently, studies at St John's Naturopathic Center, Portland, Oregon, reported inthe Cancer News Journal, Vol 15, No 4, Winter, 1981, quote:

   "100% of all (cancer) patients had below normal temperatures(96.8-97.8°), but simultaneously with measurable immune response and the patients'increased sense of wellbeing, body temperatures returned to the normal range (98.0-98.6°).And, even more interesting, those patients who continued to improve, stabilized at98.6°. This included the high percentage of patients who had always had a lowtemperature. "

   These observations fit in with those of Dr Edward Howell thatin well established cancer and other chronic disease conditions, enzyme levels andactivity in the body were below normal.

   Food aversions are yet another sign of cancer. It is commonfor cancer patients to develop aversions to certain food substances such as meat,chocolate and caffeine, which are known to be cancer causing. Such aversions areobviously a defense reaction by the body. In the book, Human Nutrition and Dieteticsby Davidson, Passmore, Brock and Truswell, the authors state: "Doctors and dieticiansshould be constantly aware of the diagnostic significance of loss of weight, anorexiaand food aversions as early signs of malignant disease".

   Notwithstanding the many general signs which precede the onsetof cancer, it is difficult for conventional researchers to recognize the constitutionalnature of the disease because they study only the biological process of the diseasein its final stage. In their experiments with animals they apply a powerful chemicalto the animals and observe cancer appear as a result. To the observer, a single chemicalhas caused the cancer, even though he knows that dietary factors can influence theonset and course of the disease. The confusion in the medical outlook is unavoidablewhile cancer is viewed as a local cellular disease. Researchers concentrate on lookingonly for what Dr Gerson called the local component. They should read Dr Gerson'sbook which, in referring to experiments on animals shows that whatever chemical assaultis necessary to cause cancer in them, the cancer never commences until after theliver has been damaged "together with pathological changes in the kidneys, spleenand lymphatic apparatus". Further enlightenment would follow after reading thedescription of Dr Gerson's experiment in which he completely eliminated cancer ina rat simply by interconnecting* its blood circulation with that of a healthy ratwith a fully functioning liver.

   However, the constitutional nature of cancer--a point of medicalcontention for nearly two hundred years--is gradually being realized in conventionalcircles. It is now recognized that cancer occurs in stages and references are madein medical reports to conditions of pre-cancer. A fairly recent news item is significant,headed:

   "Cancer Detected Before It Begins" (Sydney DailyTelegraph, September 2, 1980) "A unique technique detecting the onset ofbreast cancer before it appears is being developed by a Sydney biophysicist. Dr VeronicaJames is working at the University of NSW on an x-ray technique to pick up changesin breast tissue which might herald a cancerous tumor. Changes occur in the elasticsubstance collagen of the breast before even a minute cancer appears, according toDr James."

   It must soon become obvious to everyone that cancer does notsuddenly originate from a mutation in the nucleus of a healthy cell.

   Once the biological sequence necessary for cancer is complete,and cancer cells have actually formed, cancer growth will still not eventuate ifthe immune system has reasonable function. Many people live apparently cancer-freebecause of this protection. Therefore, although not a cause of cancer, failure orpartial failure of the immune system is a necessary prerequisite for developmentof cancer growth.

   In his book, Cancer--The Facts (Oxford University Press,1979), Sir Ronald Bodley Scott says: "In the majority of cases there is a preliminaryperiod of vague ill-health rapidly succeeded by a phase in which the symptoms arethose of the primary tumor".

   Thus the cancerous growth or tumor is really only a symptomof the real disease which is lipotoxemia and the subsequent tissue degeneration andimmune system weakness which follow. A world famous cancer specialist, Dr D.W. Smithersin his paper "Cancer, an Attack on Cytologism" (Lancet: 493, 1962)said: "overgrowth and de-differentiation (of cells) are effects of disorganization--repercussions,not driving forces. Cancer is no more a disease of cells than a traffic jam is adisease of cars".


   Secondary tumors are formed by cells of the primary growth detachingand colonizing elsewhere in the body. As mentioned, most circulating cancer cellsdo not survive; for such cells to establish as secondary growths they need to bestationary in contact with tissue in a location favorable to them, such as withina blocked vessel or stationary blood clot. As mentioned in The Role of Blood Viscosity,metastasis does not occur when the bloodstream is kept free-flowing, either by properdiet or the use of blood thinning drugs. Once established, the growth of secondariesmay be comparatively rapid compared to that of the primary tumor and is usually considered,in the orthodox view, as a "terminal" condition.

   The more rapid growth of metastasized cancer in some cases maybe explained by the fact that. while in their original location cancer cells arestill partially responsive to normal growth restraint, while in the distant locationthere is no restraint. To illustrate this, experiments have shown that it is possiblefor certain cancer cells to become normal when returned to their original tissue.

   One such case is described as follows: "Certain cancerscan be produced simply by transplanting cells to novel sites in the body where theycan multiply without the usual restraint or by placing them next to inert solid surfacessuch as plastic or metal. It seems unlikely that mutation plays any part in theseprocesses, especially since certain of the cancers produced in this way will recovertheir normal restrained behavior when they are returned to their normal location"(from Diet, Nutrition and Cancer, US National Research Council, 1982).

Cancer tests

   By the time you have read this chapter, it will be appreciated(or perhaps not appreciated) there is a strong likelihood that the average person,if they have not already developed cancer, is probably well on the way to doing so.Autopsies of people who have died from various other causes than cancer have showedthat unsuspected pre-cancer or cancer was present inside the majority. Cancer testsare not exact, and even well developed cancer may not be revealed. Tissue biopsiesand exploratory surgery, whatever they may reveal, are damaging and more likely toaccelerate the development and spread of cancer anyhow.

   Kasper Blond, MD, FICS, world famed cancer specialist, says:"Certain liver function tests are a more reliable indication of pre-cancerousand cancerous conditions than biopsies. These tests indicating a disordered functionof the liver are not specific for cancer and are present in all chronic nutritionaldisorders as well. . . An increase of the fasting blood sugar over 90 mg% is alwaysa sign of a pre-cancerous disorder. The number of tests indicating that cancer isa general disease is constantly increasing and no scientist today can seriously considercancer as a local disease.

   If a patient has less than 10 mg% of Vitamin C in his blood,one is justified in suspecting cancer.

   "Supporters of the early diagnosis of cancer do not realizethat the appearance of a local tumor occurs at a very late phase in the course ofthe cancer disease.

   "Anyone who has studied the results of correct feedingof the cancer patient must be impressed by the number of chemical blood-changes inthe course of the disease."

   So when all is said and done, what really is the point of medicaltests? Non-invasive tests are open to doubt, invasive tests cause harm and are likelyto worsen the situation. Whatever medical treatment which follows is innocuous anyhow.

   No matter what the tests reveal, there is only one sensiblecourse of action to start with, and that is to stop doing the things which causecancer.

The role of diet

   A study conducted at Loma Linda University, California, on 100,000Californian Seventh Day Adventists, with emphasis on diet showed that their cancerrate (all kinds) is half that of the national average.

   The Australian, June 10, 1975 reported: "Accordingto a survey of 800 Adventists in Sydney, incidence of common malignant diseases suchas lung cancer and stomach cancer is only one-third that of the rest of the community.Incidence of abnormal blood pressure and high cholesterol levels was about 10% ofthat of the rest of the community".

   Upon investigation, the connection between bad diet and cancerbecomes just as obvious as its implication with the other degenerative diseases.

   The pollution and oxygen deprivation in the fluids of the bodywhich form the environment surrounding the cells of all tissues is directly attributableto bad diet, and the factors causing lipotoxemia have already been fully described.In the cancers common in industrial countries, once again fat appears to be the mainvillain (see Figs 20.2, 20.3, 20.5), followed by cholesterol and excess protein.Apart from its contribution to lipotoxemia, fat adds further to the cancer risk,as already mentioned, by causing increased production of the growth stimulating hormone,estrogen. As previously explained, red cell aggregation, platelet stickiness andhigh blood viscosity invariably accompany a diet high in these substances, and aremade worse by sugar, alcohol, tea, coffee, salt, and the rest of the tasty junk withwhich our bodies are assaulted.

Fig 19.2 Breast cancer mortality rates
Breast cancer mortality (age adjusted) vs per capita consumption of animal fat. Compare this group with Fig. 19.5. Italy, Israel and Malta, with low animal fatintake, still have high cancer mortality. This is accountable to the high intake of vegetable oils by these people.
Fig 19.3 Colon cancer mortality rates
Colon cancer mortality (age adjusted) vs per capital consumption of total dietary fat, both animal and vegetable.

   Moreover, the Western diet, as discussed earlier, is very deficientin Vitamin C due to inadequate amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables. Vitamin Cis essential for building and maintaining collagen, the protein substance which bindsthe tissue cells together; it is necessary for proper utilization of oxygen by thecells, for the integrity of the immune system, and for detoxifying the body. Allvitamins and minerals of course are essential, especially Vitamins A and E, in preventingcancer, but Vitamin C is the most difficult to obtain from normal food sources inadequate amounts.

   Dr F.W. Forbes Ross of England, in his book Cancer: Its Genesisand Treatment (published in 1912) emphasized the paramount importance of potassiumin the diet in the prevention and reversal of the cancer process. He ensured allhis regular patients maintained an adequate intake of potassium and claimed thatnot one of them ever developed cancer, notwithstanding that many had come to himwith an obscure internal disease which he suspected may have been cancer. Dr ForbesRoss also claimed a high success rate in treating patients who came to him with cancer,by supplementing their diets with bicarbonate of potash.

   On a good diet it is unnecessary to use supplementary vitaminsor minerals (with perhaps the exception of Vitamin C, as previously discussed) andit should be noted that both potassium and magnesium are inadequately provided inmeat, eggs, cheese, fat, sugar and grains.

   The chemical circumstances which directly influence the behaviorof body cells is determined, moreover, not only by the substances of which the foodis formed, but also by whether they are cooked or raw and by the way in which theyare digested and assimilated and the wastes eliminated.

   Constipation: For over a hundred years it has been observedby doctors that the most common factor associated with all forms of cancer is thecondition of constipation. Not only does the Western diet cause blood pollution andhigh blood viscosity, it is guaranteed also to cause constipation. In most respectablehomes can be found, along with all the other patent medicines, some form or otherof bowel-opening preparation, and perhaps one or two magazines in the bathroom.

   Sir William Arbuthnot Lane, the famous British surgeon,* repeatedlyemphasized that he had never known a single case of cancer which had not been precededby prolonged intestinal stasis. Professor Aviles of the Biochemistry of Cancer Department,Guadalajara, Mexico, in an article entitled "The Anti-cancerous Properties ofVitamin F" (Let's Live, September 1954), said that out of 7,715 cancerpatients examined over a 15 year period, 99% had suffered from constipation and thatthe degree of malignancy was parallel to the degree of constipation.

   Dr Denis Burkitt and Dr Hugh Trowell of England both spent 25years as doctors in areas of rural Africa. These doctors observed over that timethat constipation in these areas was virtually non-existent, and so too was cancer.Dr Burkitt noted that the rural Africans passed about one pound of fecal matter perday, about four times the amount of English people and that the Africans' feces weresoft, bulky and almost odorless.

   Investigation showed another significant thing. The transittime from eating to elimination was for the African about 24 hours whereas with theEnglish it was three days or more. This meant that, even with a daily bowel movement,the wastes of food eaten by the English remained within them three times as long.

   The obvious cause of these differences was the sort of foodeaten. The average African villager ate mainly cornmeal, beans, bananas and potatoes.This diet was low in fat and animal protein, devoid of refined carbohydrate, andcontained about three times the amount of vegetable fiber of the English diet.

   The researchers analyzed countless medical records, and thisis what became evident:

  1. Cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in Western countries, was virtually unknown in rural Africa.
  2. The cancers of civilized populations were also virtually unknown.
  3. So too were diabetes, hypertension, appendicitis, hemorrhoids, diverticulosis, varicose veins, phlebitis, obesity and hernia.

   The "civilized" Western diet not only causes lipotoxemiaand high blood viscosity by virtue of excess fat, cholesterol, protein and so onentering the system from the digestion, but in addition causes autointoxication whenunexpelled wastes putrefy in the colon (large bowel). The digestive process involvesbile from the liver and the action of bacteria normal to the colon. These bacteriacomprise 20-30% of the bulk of the feces. There are different types of colon bacteria.Healthy people have a type which requires oxygen to live, called aerobic bacteria.With the putrefying remains of a high fat, high protein, low fiber diet, the bacteriachange to a form called anaerobic bacteria, which take over the colon, and thesereact with acids in the bite to form poisons, which include apcholic acid and deoxycholicacid which are carcinogenic. Not only is the colon therefore constantly exposed tothese carcinogens in an oxygenless situation, but at the same time the toxins aretaken up by the bile fluid which circulates back to the liver, and so enter the alreadytoxic bloodstream to exert their carcinogenic effect throughout the entire body.

   The Western diet is further conducive to cancer in that it lacksnot only the necessary fiber but lacks also the anti-carcinogenic substances containedin the missing raw fruit and vegetables.

   On the other hand, with a low fat, high fiber diet, normal aerobicbacteria operate free of toxins, the high fiber feces contain a much higher proportionof intact bile, and the fecal matter stays in the colon less than 18 hours. Thisstudy was described by Dr M.G. Hall of the Bacterial Metabolism Research Laboratory,London, in the papers, "Fecal Bile Acids and Clostridea in Patients with Cancerof the Large Bowel" (Lancet, March 8, 1975) and "Steroid NuclearDehydration and Colon Cancer" (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,December 27, 1974)

   Appendicitis is caused by poisons and harmful bacteria of thecolon. As described by Dr Norman Walker in his book, Colon Health, the appendixsecretes a powerful germicidal fluid into the cecum, which is located between thesmall intestine and the colon. This germicide acts as a barrier protecting the intestinefrom the entry of colon bacteria and likewise protecting the colon from any harmfulsubstance entering it from the intestine. So constant sometimes is the demand uponthe appendix that it may lose function and become inflamed. This is appendicitis.

   At the end of his long medical career, Dr Ernest Tipper (referredto at the start of this chapter) stated explicitly: "In the case of cancer,constipation and excessive meat eating should be the two suspects; when they arepresent cancer is rife, where absent there is none".

   High protein: Correlations between dietary fatand cancer have been evident for many years, and similar correlations exist withhigh protein intake. When dietary tests are conducted with animals, the "test"animals are compared with animals on a standard diet which are called the "controls".Both groups are subjected to chemicals known to cause cancer and the two groups arecompared. In a test using the virulent carcinogen aflatoxin, rats on a diet containing20% protein all developed cancer, but those on a 5% protein diet developed no cancerat all. A similar test in which large amounts of sugar were added to the diets ofboth groups was described by Dr M. H. Ross ("Proteins, Calories and Life Expectancy",Federation Proceedings, 18:1190, 1959): "40% of the rats still aliveafter one year, whose intake of both milk protein and sugar was high, developed spontaneoustumors of all kinds throughout their bodies. In contrast, only 20% of the rats onlow protein, high sugar intake developed tumors. Further, coronary arterial athermatoidlesions and unusually high blood levels of cholesterol were found in rats maintainedon high protein diets, even without extra fat. And after one year, 75% of the ratson high protein developed kidney disease".

   Cooked protein is difficult to digest, and when incompletelydigested protein enters the colon it putrefies and ammonia is formed.

   Dr Willard Visek, Professor of Clinical Sciences, Universityof Illinois Medical School, said recently: "In the digestion of proteins, weare constantly exposed to large amounts of ammonia in our intestinal tract. Ammoniabehaves like chemicals that cause cancer or promote its growth. It kills cells, itincreases virus infection, it affects the rate at which cells divide, and it increasesthe mass of the lining of the intestines. What is intriguing is that within the colon,the incidence of cancer parallels the concentration of ammonia".

   Dr Broda Barnes (mentioned earlier for his studies of heartdisease) ascribes the association of high protein diet with cancer as being due mainlyto hypothyroidism brought about by the demands of protein metabolism upon the thyroid.(See Hypothyroidism. )

   Meat: Consumption of meat is strongly suspectedto be conducive to cancer. Dr John Berg and associates of the US National CancerInstitute and Tohoku University School of Medicine (Japan), studied 179 colon cancerpatients and 357 non-cancer patients, all Japanese of varying origin and background,and found that consumption of beef was the only factor common to all the cancer patients.Dr Raymond Shamberger of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation told the American Associationfor Cancer Research annual meeting in San Diego in May, 1975, that he has identifiedin beef, and to a lesser degree in pork, chicken and fish, the potent carcinogenmalonaldehyde. This chemical begins to form in flesh soon after death. Leftover foodcontains more of it than fresh. The measurement of malonaldehyde content has beenused in the food industry for years to determine if food is stale or rancid, butwas not known to be carcinogenic.

   As described in Chapter 15, cooked meat causes damage to allvital organs, and it must be clearly understood that in order to prevent cancer orreverse it, these organs must be capable of reasonable function.

   One hundred years ago, Dr Charles de Lacy Evans, who had beena surgeon in an English cancer hospital before devoting his career to natural medicine,described the cancer inducing properties of meat. He added: "When meat is given,it should be boiled, and the liquid broth, soup or beef tea, thrown away. It containsthe irritating constituents of the flesh which encourage the growth of cancer".

   In 1977, the International Agency for Research on Cancer reporteda comparison between Copenhagen and rural Finland. In Copenhagen the consumptionof meat was very, high compared to Finland whereas the Finns consumed a great dealmore fat. However, despite the much lower consumption of fat in Copenhagen the incidenceof colon cancer there was four times higher than in Finland. A comparison betweenNew York and Finland revealed the same situation.*

   Meat not only contributes large amounts of fat, cholesterol,protein and substances known to be carcinogenic, at the same time it contains nofiber and therefore causes constipation. In addition, growth hormones given to beefcattle to make them grow faster can have the same artificial stimulating effect withinthe body of someone who eventually eats the beef. Furthermore, it has also been recentlydemonstrated that dietary cholesterol specifically inhibits the anti-cancer actionof macrophages, the large white cells of the body's immune system.

   An animal experiment reported in Nature, December 1978,showed that dietary cholesterol paralyzes the macrophages. Two groups of animalswere fed a synthetic diet containing 8.5% protein and only 1% fat, the same dietwhich has been shown to support healthy growth in children. Cholesterol, the equivalentof two eggs a day (600mg) for a human, was added to the diet of the test group andboth groups were given a carcinogen to promote cancer. At the end of one year, 100%of the cholesterol group had cancer with 90% deaths, whereas the other group sufferedonly a 20% incidence, all of which died; however, the remaining 80% remained perfectlyhealthy and free of cancer.

   Most human studies comparing the incidence of cancer with bloodcholesterol levels have shown the expected positive relationship. However, the Framinghamstudy, in the case of males, showed an inverse relationship in which colon cancerincidence was 2.7 times higher at blood cholesterol levels below 190 mg%, and becauseof this observation some health authorities have recommended that levels above 190be maintained. This advice is wrong, because the Framingham conclusion did not takeall factors into account. The error is explained in a paper titled "Diet andColon Cancer", from the Pritikin Research Foundation, May 1982. In the Framinghamcases, says Pritikin, the cancers are still related to the intake of cholesterolalthough not to the level of cholesterol in the blood. The blood cholesterol levelis relatively low only because it is being used up to produce the large amounts ofbile acids needed to process the large amount of fat in the diet, and it is the excessof bile acids in the colon that increases the cancer risk.

   Processed starch and sugar: In a 43-country surveyby the British Cancer Institute, sugar featured as the primary dietary factor inbreast cancer, fat second and protein third.

   Dr Victor Bagnall, writing in "Nutrition: Its Relationto Cancer" (Cancer News Journal ), showed sugar consumption to be correlatedto breast, prostatic, ovarian, bladder, intestinal and rectal cancer. Dr Joseph Isselsof Germany also has made this correlation.

   Processed starch food taken in large quantities is associatedwith stomach cancer. An Israel study described in You Can Fight Cancer and Winby Jane Brody and Arthur Holleb (1977), showed that stomach cancer incidence wasgreater among people consuming high levels of bread, noodles, cereals, beans andnuts.

   Salt: As mentioned in Chapter 14, salt is a powerfulirritant and a strong inhibitor of enzymes, as well as interfering with circulationby causing fluid retention in the tissues. Even in small quantities, salt has beenobserved to increase the rate of cancer growth.

   Dr E. D. Robinson of the National Biochemical Laboratory, MountVernon, New York, considered common salt "the most active cancer cause amonginorganic agents". Dr Albert Schweitzer, when he went to work in Africa in 1913,said he knew of no cancer there among natives and put this down to their diet. "Themost significant difference," he said, "was that natives 200 miles fromthe coast consumed no salt. Later, when these natives started using salt, we haveseen cases of cancer in growing numbers on our region . . . Salt is the chemicalenemy of potassium, and can cause body chemical imbalance."

   Raw food vs cooked food (refer to Chapter15 ): The main factor underlying the disease called cancer is the cooking offood--not just because of the deleterious effects on the food--but chiefly becausecooking renders palatable the animal protein and fats which cause most of the harm.Foods which in their natural uncooked state would be rejected by humans, are madeedible and tasty by cooking and flavoring.

   As long ago as 1829, Vincent Priessnitz of Silesia discoveredthe adverse effects of eating cooked food. He fed two pigs on experimental diets--oneon cold raw foods, the other on hot cooked foods. When he killed them, he discoveredthat the pig fed on the raw food had firm healthy flesh but the flesh of the pigfed on cooked food was inflamed and brittle.

   Not only does the cooking of any food deplete its nutritionalvalue and tend to produce pathogenic substances, it also destroys natural enzymeswhich normally assist in the digestive process. Whereas a healthy person can supplyfrom body sources the necessary enzymes in adequate amounts regardless of whetherenzymes are contained in the food or not, ailing people or the elderly may to a varyingextent lack this capability. In this latter case, eating cooked food may depleteenzyme reserves to the detriment of proper metabolism elsewhere in the body.

   In addition to the depletion or destruction of enzymes, vitaminsand minerals, other pathological changes occur in food when it is cooked and thisis indicated by the excited reaction of the immune system when the food is eaten.The white blood cell count of the healthy person increases to a level proportionalto the degree to which the food has been heated or processed, and may double or eventreble. This effect, already described, is called leucocytosis.

   The greatest demand on the digestive organs is the digestionof cooked food, particularly meat and cereals, and it will be remembered that theconstant consumption of cooked food produces marked hypertrophy of the pancreas.

   Dr Edward Howell of Chicago pointed out over fifty years agothat the hypertrophy of organs consequential to excessive function often proceedsto the atrophy of exhaustion, and that atrophy of the pancreas occurs in many terminalwasting disease.

   Vitamin, mineral, enzyme deficiencies: Most peoplein Western countries, mainly by virtue of the fact that most of the food they eatis cooked or processed in some way, are likely to be marginally supplied with manyvitamins and minerals. At the same time their enzyme systems will be overtaxed, oftento the extent of damaging the pancreas, and it is not surprising that patients withchronic disease conditions usually display a number of deficiencies. As already mentioned,cancer patients usually have low enzyme levels and low body temperatures. Drs A.Goth and I. Littmann in a paper entitled "Ascorbic Acid Content in Human CancerTissue" (Cancer Research, Vol 8, 1948) described how cancer most frequentlyoriginates in organs whose ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) levels are below 4.5 mg% andrarely grows in organs containing ascorbic acid above this concentration.

   Other deficiencies most commonly associated with cancer arethose of Vitamin A, Vitamin E, and the minerals iodine, selenium magnesium, potassiumand germanium, and many people as a protection take these substances in syntheticform. As already discussed, it is far better to follow proper dietary rules ratherthan work with the guesswork associated with synthetic products.

Anti-cancer diets

   As a person with cancer, or developing the early stages of cancer,has already defective blood chemistry, with marginal function of vital organs anddiminished enzyme activity, it is imperative that only the simplest, purest, mosteasily digestible foods such as fresh ripe fruit be eaten. Ripe fruit is virtuallypre-digested and its digestion demands very little enzyme activity.

   The principles of correct dietary procedures have been usedin the prevention and correction of cancer and other conditions for at least as farback as 1809, and probably throughout history. There are today probably hundredsof special diets designed to promote good health, and by this stage the reader shouldbe qualified to assess them.

   The Gerson diet: The Gerson diet, based on raw fruitand vegetables, low in sodium and high in potassium, has proven most effective inthe restoration of cancer patients and patients with all manner of other metabolicdiseases. Although, as mentioned, similar diets have been used successfully sincethe early 1800s to restore cancer patients, Dr Gerson's diet, which includes supplementaryenzymes,* was developed more scientifically in the light of 20th Century researchover many years of successful cancer treatment, and today forms the basis of allsuccessful cancer therapy.

   Sir Arbuthnot Lane summed it up over fifty years ago, thus:

   "What we should do then if we would avoid cancer is toeat wholewheat bread and raw fruit and vegetables, shunning all meat. First thatwe may be better nourished, second that we may more easily eliminate waste productsand thus adequately drain the house in which our cells live. * Whoever will correcthis diet to a reasonable extent, take reasonable exercise, and keep his digestivetract absolutely clean, need have no fear of cancer."

   Vegetables and herbs: Early in 1984 the National CancerInstitute reported a study in North Carolina which showed that women who ate lessthan two servings of fresh fruit or vegetables a day were three times more likelyto develop cancer as women who ate four or more servings a day.

   It is recognized that all the many nutrients, some of them stillpossibly undiscovered, play a part in the chemistry of every cell. Dr Leo Wattenberg,working at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine, discovered that rats feda balanced, highly purified diet containing all know vitamins and nutrients werenot able to make certain enzymes (biological catalysts) in the liver which inactivatecancer-causing chemicals. However, when the rats were fed a crude diet containingalfalfa (known in Australia as lucerne) they were able to produce the enzymes. Andwhen alfalfa alone was added to the purified diet, this caused the enzyme to be made.Other experiments showed that this enzyme increased protection against cancer evenwhen cancer-causing chemicals were added to their diet. Dr Wattenberg found thatcabbage, Brussels sprouts, turnips, broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, dill and celerycaused the enzyme to be made but varied in effectiveness according to their freshnessand the soil in which they were grown.

   Dr Wattenberg identified the actual chemicals in the vegetableswhich cause the protective enzymes to be formed. They belong to a well-known familyof organic chemicals called indoles. He also found that citrus fruits contain chemicalscalled flavones which have the same effect as indoles. Beans and seeds are rich inplant proteins called lectins which have been found to protect animals against cancerin laboratory experiments.

   In other experiments by Dr M. R. Mainlow at the Oregon PrimateResearch Center, alfalfa, when added to experimental diets had been shown to lowerassimilation of cholesterol from food. In tests on monkeys and rabbits, assimilationwas reduced from 76% to 47%. The active substances in alfalfa are known as saponins,a type of glycoside found 'in plants. Saponins lower the surface tension of water,and historically have been used as wetting agents for cleaning purposes. Cast intorivers, saponins kill fish without rendering them poisonous to eat. They are hemolyticif injected into the bloodstream, but are not absorbed into the bloodstream fromthe intestines. It would appear these substances dissolve fat and thereby lower bloodviscosity.

   As indoles derive also from glycosides, the protective actionsof alfalfa and other vegetables may be related in a similar manner to those of ginsengand eleuthococcus. (See Relief of Stress. )

   Amygdalin is a substance contained in many kinds of plants andis claimed by many people in the field of cancer treatment to be capable of inhibitingor destroying cancer cells. Amygdalin is also known as Laetrile or Vitamin B17, and is in common use by unorthodox practitioners as a primaryanti-cancer agent. The results obtained from its use have varied widely and havebeen inconsistent and inconclusive, and there has been great controversy in medicalcircles about it. Some amygdalin proponents claim it works as a vitamin (usuallydeficient in the diet), while others say that its anti-cancer action is brought aboutby cyanide released specifically only in cancer cells triggered by a substance inthe cell, and therefore harmless to normal cells.

   It is evident, however, that when good results have been obtainedusing amygdalin it has always been in conjunction with modified diet usually supportedby supplementary digestive enzymes, as well as in association with other lifestylechanges.

   In addition to amygdalin, there are countless other herbs andherbal extracts claimed over hundreds of years in folk medicine to inhibit and sometimescure cancer. Many of these are currently being investigated by medical researchers.

   There is no question that many complete remissions of cancerhave been achieved by herbal medicines taken internally and in some cases applieddirectly to external cancers. The famous Hoxsey Clinic in Texas successfully employedthis form of treatment for many years, but although an independent investigationin 1954 by ten senior physicians from different states certified to the superiorityof Dr Hoxsey's methods, the AMA eventually had his clinic closed.

   Apart from inhibiting or reversing the growth of cancer, herbalmixtures have been reported to alleviate angina and reduce symptoms of diabetes,in which cases it is clear that fat metabolism and blood viscosity must be favorablyinfluenced.

   Obviously the correction of any errors, be they deficienciesor excesses, must favorably affect cellular chemistry. This may explain why, in thehistory of folk medicine, an enormous variety of herbal substances and extracts,used singly or in combinations, have been shown to favorably influence the courseof various diseases, often effecting cures. There are far too many reports and claimsof this kind, from all over the world, to be disregarded.

   However, what works in one case may not work in another, andwith so many variables involved in the processes of cell chemistry leading to cancer,consistent results cannot be expected unless all factors are optimised.

The role of carcinogens

   Diseased teeth: In his book Prevention andCure of Cancer, Dr Mulhim Hassan of Lebanon insists that a prime cause of canceris the poisoning of the bloodstream by diseased and infected teeth, and his bookis illustrated with many photographs showing the healing of various cancers and eyeinfections subsequent to removal of the infection source. Dr Joseph Issels of Germany(referred to later) has for over forty years asserted the causal connection of oralinfections with cancer, and the removal of infected teeth is considered by him tobe absolutely essential as part of the cancer therapy. Dr Max Garten, also of Germany,said in agreement with Issels: "This is one phase in the cancer treatment thatrequires adamant and uncompromising attention".

   Food additives as carcinogens: In July 1976,specialists from the US National Cancer Institute, American Health Federation, HarvardUniversity, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wistar Institute of Philadelphia,testified before the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs to theeffect that the potential of food additives for causing cancer had been grossly exaggerated,but that the "Standard American Diet" itself, high in fat, protein, highly-refinedcarbohydrates and low in "roughage", is possibly a causative factor andcertainly a predisposing factor in hundreds of thousands of cancer cases each year.

   The liver is the body's first line of defense against harmfulorganisms and substances ingested in food. If the major cause of cancers were indeedcarcinogens in the food, surely cancer of the liver would be most common. But itis not.

   Denmark has very strict prohibition against most food additivesbut has a cancer death rate 20% higher than Norway and Sweden which have far fewerrestrictions on additives. In Cancer Research, Vol 35, page 3379 (K. Carroll),the dietary fat intake per capita in Denmark was reported as 158 gm per day and inNorway and Sweden as 132 gm per day, a difference of 20%. Again the cancer rate correlatesexactly with the fat intake.

   All the observations and animal tests over and over reveal thatwith or without carcinogens, high fat levels constitute the greatest danger.

   Saccharin: In tests where rats were fed saccharinthe equivalent for humans of 800 12 oz bottles of saccharin-sweetened soft drinkper day cancer occurred in about 14% of the second generation rats. So it, was bannedby the US Food and Drug Administration even though it was never shown to cause cancerin humans. Thus many people reverted back to sugar which has indeed been shown toincrease human mortality.

   Fluoride and chlorine: Fluoride is an insidious,cumulative poison strongly suppressive to the immune system. There have been a numberof occasions where the concentration of fluoride in water has inadvertently reachedhigh levels, resulting in serious sickness through poisoning. Some people have died.

   High levels not only cause white teeth to mottle, but Dr J.Yiamouyiannis, Science Director of the US National Health Federation, after researchingthe records of the National Cancer Institute covering 25 cities, concluded thereis a definite link between fluoridation and the cancer death rate.

   Dr Dean Burk, for thirty years in cancer research with the USNational Cancer Institute and formerly Chief of Cyto Chemistry there, now runs theDean Burk Foundation in Washington, DC and is currently working with Dr Yiamouyiannis.On December 10, 1983, Dr Burk issued an open communication which reads as follows:

   "The trends of the average annual cancer death rates (CDRs),from 1940-1969, of the 10 largest artificially fluoridated American cities, whosefluoridation commenced during the period 1952-1956, were compared with the correspondingtrends of the average annual cancer death rates of the 10 largest American citiesof equivalent initial CDR that remained nonfluoridated over the same period of 30years. Comparisons were made with both weighted and unweighted averages. By 1969,the US officially reported, observed, average cancer death rate had reached an excessof more than 10% in the fluoridated group (population ca. 10,000,000) above thatin the nonfluoridated group (population ca. 7,000,000). Initiation of this differentiationtook place coincidental with initiation of artificial fluoridation, and was clearlyevident statistically and graphically within 3 to 5 years, thus specifically indicatinga causal, time-linked fluoridation-cancer association.

   "The foregoing observed ('crude') data were adjusted forage, sex and ethnicity simultaneously and separately by conventional indirect methods,using the 1950 total US population as standard, for the periods 1940-1950 and 1950-1970,so as to consider trends before and after fluoridation. In these adjustments allcensal and interpolated intercensal data were used, in accordance and with widespreadpractice, and also a number of variations in choice of standard populations, andage groupings, (eg. to, 9 or 4), and also with respect to both ratio (SMR) and differencebetween CDR observed and CDR expected. The results obtained indicate that no morethan about 20-40% of the fluoridation-cancer linkage can be explained by the indicatedadjustments for age, sex and ethnicity, leaving the fluoridation factor dominant.

   "All proposed contraindications to this finding of a highlyharmful (mortal) fluoridation-cancer link, most notably those contraindications advancedin Britain, were in error from inadequate consideration of available and necessarydata of the type just indicated, primarily (1) prefluoridation period data and (2)otherwise widely used intercensal data (interpolated or officially estimated). Thecontraindication advanced in the Opinion of Lord Jauncey (Edinburgh Court of Session,June 1983, page 362, item 131) suffers from the same scientific inadequacy, and isat odds with the Decisions in the three major American courts where fluoridationwas ruled a dangerous to health (Judge Flaherty, Pittsburg, November 1978; JudgeNiemann, Illinois, February 1982; and Judge Farris, Houston, May 1982), and wheremuch the same scientific information was presented in evidence."

   T. Okamura and T. Matsuhisha reported a similar correlationbetween fluoride and gastric cancer in Japan. Due to a number of deaths of patientstreated on kidney machines using fluoridated water in the USA and Canada, the USSurgeon General cautioned all American hospitals to avoid use of fluoridated waterin kidney machines. (See also Subtle fluoride poisoning , Chapter 21.)

   Chlorine is a chemical used to disinfect water supplies in certainareas and it too is known to be suppressive to the immune system. Its effect is describedin the discussion on the immune system which follows.

   Other carcinogens: There are innumerable chemicalsubstances used in industry and domestically which in addition to various chemicalsused in the processing of food, are known to be detrimental to body chemistry tothe extent of favoring the onset or growth of cancer.

   Although most people are exposed to them, only a minority actuallydevelop cancer even among those who are heavily exposed. Thus such chemicals mustbe considered to be not primary causes, but "trigger" factors which influencepre-cancerous tissue to further adverse change. Cigarette smoking is an example ofthis as described in the discussion on lung cancer. Another example, not as clearlyproven, is aluminum which enters foodstuffs from aluminum cooking utensils. Suspectedof being the most widespread pollutant of indoor air is formaldehyde, a chemicalused in particle board, artificial wood-grain finishes, foam insulation, plastics,disinfectants, paper products, even toothpaste, and many other products. The chemicalcontinually enters the air (a process called "off-gassing") from the varioussources and causes allergic responses which range from irritation of eyes, skin andrespiratory tract to nervous disorders and asthma. Recent research by the ChemicalIndustry Institute of Toxicology showed that rats exposed for two years to formaldehydefumes developed nasal tumors.

   Reference earlier in this chapter was made to the associationof beer consumption with the incidence of cancer. A possible link is suggested bythe report from a British Regional Heart study of 7,000 men aged 40 to 60 in whichit was found that heavy beer drinkers had 30% more lead in their system than lightdrinkers or teetotallers. Those that smoked as well, had even higher amounts of lead.It is known that commercially manufactured beer also contains nitrosamines, whichare carcinogenic substances. It is known also that beer, even in small quantities,increases the level of blood fats, reducing circulation and increasing blood pressure.

The role of smoking

   Smoking directly contributes to the cancer process in many ways.

  1. Inhaled carbon monoxide inhibits the oxygen-carrying capacity of the red blood cells.
  2. Stress is produced in the body.
  3. The effect of 1 and 2 is to increase blood viscosity and reduce blood circulation.
  4. Carcinogenic chemicals are introduced into the body.
  5. Smoking destroys Vitamin C, essential to collagen integrity, oxygen metabolism, and body de-toxification.
  6. Irritation in the respiratory tract is capable of triggering lung cancer.

The role of exercise

   The direct effect of aerobic exercise in the metabolism of fat,lowered blood viscosity, and vastly improved oxygen transport has been fully described.It has been shown too, that physical fitness provides enormous protection againstphysical and emotional stress--in fact every single body function becomes more efficient,including the function of the immune system, a most crucial factor in cancer.

   Its protective effect against all disease can be clearly seen,regardless of all other factors, and it has been observed that the incidence of canceramong athletes is only one-seventh that of the average population. Although immenselyeffective, aerobic exercise cannot, however, convey full protection when the othercancer factors, which may include the stress of overtraining and intense competitionsare severe.

   Studies by Dr Andervont (1944) and Dr Muhlbock (1950) of Holland,with laboratory mice susceptible to mammary cancer, demonstrated that by segregatingthem in different sized groups in different cages of different materials, the incidenceof cancer among the females varied from 29% to 83%. In one experiment using two groupsof mice caged under identical conditions but with one group provided with an exercisewheel, the group with no wheel had a cancer incidence of 67%, and the group withthe exercise wheel only 43%. It was assumed that the exercise wheel provided a psychologicaladvantage to the mice in that group, but it is more likely that the benefit was aphysical one. Another study by the Labor Research Institute of Japan, reported inPrevention, February 1977, showed that mice given the carcinogen Lexzidinesuffered 33% less cancer when an exercise wheel was provided to the experimentalmice.

   Other tests on mice showed when a test group was fed only halfthe amount of food that was consumed by the control group, ie. the same food butonly half as much, when carcinogens were added, only 2% of the test group developedcancer as against 40% of the controls. However, if the extra calories where burnedup by exercise, the incidence in the control group was also only 2%.

The role of stress and personality

   Stress and its relationship to disease has been described inChapter 8. Intense and prolonged stress has been shown clearly and specifically tobe strongly associated with the onset of cancer. In this regard its effects are widespread.

  1. Oxygen available to the tissue cells is decreased because of elevated blood fats and increased blood viscosity which follow stress.
  2. It likewise decreases oxygen available to the lymphocytes, the protective white cells of the body's immune system, thus debilitating them.
  3. The immune system, constantly stimulated by stress, becomes exhausted and impotent, the thymus shrunken.
  4. Other hormonal upsets may occur.

   In this condition, the body's defensive white cells, althoughcapable of destroying the cancer cells, make no effort to do so.

   Dr G.J. Nossal of Melbourne, in his book, Antibodies andImmunity (Nelson), discussing the destructive effect of x-rays on white cellssays, "It is not unusual for human beings to have placed on them a stress asgreat as near-lethal (to the lymphocytes) x-irradiation".

   Whereas emotional stress appears to be the most significantstress factor, it should be remembered that faulty diet, alcohol and tobacco arealso stress factors and that all stress factors are additive.

   Galen, the famed Greek physician of the 2nd Century AD attributedcancer to a melancholy disposition.

   A century ago the physician, Sir James Paget wrote: "Thecases are so frequent in which deep anxiety, deferred hope and disappointment arequickly followed by the growth and increase of cancer, that we can hardly doubt thatmental depression is a weighty additive to the other influences favoring the developmentof the cancerous constitution".

   Sir Heneage Ogilvie, a British surgeon, in his book, No MiraclesAmong Friends says: "The instances when the first recognizable onset ofcancer has followed almost immediately on some disaster, a bereavement, the breakupof a relationship, a financial crisis, or an accident, are so numerous that theysuggest that some controlling force that has hitherto kept this outbreak of cellcommunism in check has been removed".

   J. I. Rodale, a lifetime student and author on the subject ofhealth, collated so much material linking state of mind with cancer that he wrotea book on the subject called Happy People Rarely Get Cancer.

   Dr Lawrence Le Shan, an experimental psychologist and researchspecialist, noticed this link among his patients over twenty years ago. He made apreliminary test to confirm for himself the link of emotional disturbance with cancerwhich involved 28 subjects, 15 patients with cancer, eight patients with no cancerand five free of disease. Considering emotional factors only, he correctly selected14 out of 15 cancer patients, missing out on one patient with skin cancer. He incorrectlypicked three patients, one with arteriosclerosis, one with allergy and one with hypothyroidism,as having cancer. The factors he considered were: loss of a crucial relationshipand loss of purpose for living, the inability to express hostility, and emotionaltension over the death of a parent, not necessarily recently. In 22 years of continuedresearch, the syndrome of despair, the bleak hopelessness of ever achieving any meaning,zest or validity in life, he found to be the predominant factor. Seventy-six percentof all cancer patients studied, Dr Le Shan said, had this syndrome as against 10%of non-cancer patients.

   Historically, cancer rates have always been significantly higherin cities throughout the world. In the Scientific Australian, July 1979, itwas reported that: "More than one-third of Sydney-siders suffer from depression,according to a survey conducted recently by Professor John Gibson at the AustralianNational University. The feelings ranged from deep melancholy to intense despair".The advent of cancer for the deposed Shah of Iran is understandable considering theenormous stress he suffered.

   Certain personality types are more susceptible, in our modernway of life, to cancer and other degenerative diseases. These types relate closelywith the type'A' classification of Drs Rosenman and Friedman. In his book YouCan Fight For Your Life (M. Evans & Co, NY 1977) Dr Le Shan says: "Cancervictims seem to have a strong life potential, creative, more inner 'fire'. This impressionwas so strong and consistent that I often found myself speculating whether cancermight not be a selective disease that is more likely to appear in those with thehighest level of emotional force, especially if their lives did not allow for thefull venting of that force".

   This is readily understandable inasmuch that the higher theintellect, the more exposed it is to the syndrome of "future shock", oneof the most harmful factors of modern civilization*. The more creative and activea person is, the more they over-commit themselves to diverse personal relationshipsand projects until they become intolerably over-involved and therefore over-stressed.It would seem that, with higher aspirations and emotions, they not only reach higherpeaks in life, but suffer greater depression from emotional set-backs.

   This type of person, however, has the best record of recoveryfrom cancer. When they are down, they count their blessings and get up again. A reportpublished in April 1978 by the Institute of Neotic Sciences, San Francisco, by DrC. Simonton, former chief of radiation therapy at Travis Air Force Base, and psychologist,Jeanne Achterberg and Stephanie Matthews, remarked that people who show remarkablepowers to resist the ravages of cancer seem to display special personality traits."They are verbal, confrontive, at times scrappy but generally receptive andhighly creative people." The report rated these people highly in the qualitiesof nonconformity, ego strength, self-control, self-reliance, independence and energy.This too is readily understandable as such people do not easily accept defeat andeven without knowledge of cause and effect, would attempt lifestyle changes in adetermined effort to survive. In many cases just one or two commonsense changes wouldmake the vital swing to the right side of a borderline condition.

   It is Dr Le Shan's opinion that it is not the fear of death--anegative emotion--that marshals the body's resources for survival. Instead, it isthe positive emotion of the wish to live that provides the vital force.

   In his book You Don't Have to Die, Dr Harry S. Hoxseysays: "Cancer is not only a disease, it is also a psychosis. Tell a victim heis hopeless (or let him discover if from his family) and the will to live becomesparalyzed. Show him a way out, strip him of fear and hysteria, give him even a forlornhope, and the will to live is stimulated. It becomes a powerful ally in the battleagainst death".

Relief of stress by drugs

   As described in the discussion of the role of the immune systemwhich follows, tranquilizers and other drugs have a depressing effect on the immunesystem and are therefore harmful to a cancer patient. However, a report in the NewScientist (August 21, 1980) is of interest. It comes from British gerontologist,Dr Stephen Fulder, and describes a substance, assumed to be a drug, called eleutherococcuswhich is derived from a plant from the same plant family as ginseng. It acts as atonic and helps people resist stress, without adverse side effects. The report concludes:

   "The most prestigious specialist medical institutes inthe USSR have recently found eleutherococcus useful as an adjunct to other medicinesin hastening the cure of chronic conditions such as chronic pneumonia, chronic tuberculosis,and vascular dystonia. Oncology institutes in several regions of the USSR, includingthe Petrov Oncological Institute in Leningrad, reported success in improving thegeneral health of patients with cancer, and reducing the chances of metastasis (thedevelopment of secondary tumors). It was also found useful in reducing the debilitatingeffects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy and therefore allowing higher doses to begiven. The same goes for ginseng. Its glycosides have recently been shown to hastenthe recovery of patients after serious operations, considerably shortening theirdependence on the hospital and reducing complications. Trials with healthy* peoplehave been extensive in the Soviet Union. The biggest was organized at the Volga carplant in Togliatti, in which eleutherococcus was given to no fewer than 80,000 workerswith a consequent reduction in various illnesses and therefore in work losses."

   This form of therapy, like other herbal therapy and megavitamintherapy, although doubtlessly beneficial as described, would be superfluous if thediet were correct in the first place.

   It should be realized, of course, that many people live highlystressed and emotional lives without getting cancer. The prerequisite for the onsetof cancer is the development of the pre-cancerous state of the body's tissued--the"cancer milieu". Countless people live for years with the cancer milieuwithout the occurrence of cancer growths, but the advent of severe stress with itsdepressing effect on the body's defenses is all that is needed, when in this condition,for cancer to advance, and grow.

The role of natural sunlight and radiation

   In Chapter 18, I quoted Dr Joseph Meites, an endocrinologistat Michigan State University. Dr Meites said that light entering the eyes causesnerve impulses which influence the lower brain and pituitary gland and trigger arelease of various hormones. He further stated: "We have no idea how many diseasesare linked with hormone problems, but we do know that several diseases such as diabetes,infertility, cancer and thyroid disorders are involved with hormone imbalance".

   In view of Dr Ott's specific reference to the role of naturallight associated with leukemia in school children, some positive attention shouldbe directed at the effect of natural light and its influence on the pineal and otherendocrine glands.

   An interesting article on the pineal gland in the ScientificAustralian, March 1980, described some of the gland's functions, but only touchedupon its dependence on light. It stated significantly the association of melatonin,a hormone secreted by the pineal gland, with a person's mood. In proper amounts,melatonin induces the feeling of comfort and wellbeing, and it has been suggestedthat the hormone could well be used as an alternative to currently used anti-anxietydrugs. This information derives from experiments performed by Dr R. F. Seamark ofAdelaide University in collaboration with Professor Maurice King of Newcastle University.

   Bearing in mind the clearly established relationship betweenanxiety and stress with the onset of cancer, straight away it can be seen where alink may exist between lack of natural light and the onset of cancer. Specifically,the ultraviolet spectrum of natural light, by its effect on the retina of the eye,activates the pineal gland to produce melatonin which is an anti-stress hormone andtherefore an anti-cancer influence.

   Additionally, and possibly more important, is the direct effectof sunlight radiation on lowering blood fat and cholesterol levels and detoxifyingthe blood as described in Chapter 18.

   Dr Ott's third book, Light, Radiation and You (1982),describes the specific effects of different wavelengths of light and other formsof radiation energy on increasing and decreasing the incidence and growth of cancer,both in humans and in laboratory animals. A recent report of Dr Ott's work, in theMerced Sun-Star (Feb 2, 1983) described the experience of Helen Fleming,director of the Merced (California) College radiologic technology program, whosetumors disappeared when she moved to the country and got lots of sunshine. The tumorsreappeared when she returned to work but regressed again when the lights in her officeand home were changed to a type recommended by Dr Ott.

   Also described in Chapter 18 is the adverse effect of variousother fluorescent lights. Lancet, August 7, 1982, described an Australianstudy which sought the reason for the doubling of melanoma incidence in the past30 years. The study of 274 women patients revealed a correlation between office fluorescentlighting and a 250% increase in melanoma risk. Data on 27 male patients showed a440% increase in risk over 10 years of exposure. The types of fluorescent lightsinvolved were not specified* and there is conjecture on which light wavelengths couldbe implicated.

   It should be remembered that ordinary window glass, spectaclesand car windows etc., filter out ultraviolet light, and so to gain benefit from naturalsunlight a person must spend some time outdoors without glasses. An alternative isthe use of fluorescent lights which emit ultraviolet light.

   Whereas doctors recommend people to shield themselves againstsunlight to reduce their risk of skin cancer, it should be clearly understood thatskin damage by sunshine is not the real cause of cancer but only a secondary or "trigger"factor.


   X-rays are known to be causative of cancer. People who havehad many x-rays show a high incidence. Of 1,400 adult males who had x-rays of thehip, those with twenty or more x-rays had twice the rate of leukemia than the others.A similar proportion was noted in a survey of 10,000 women. Because of the dangerof x-rays, new equipment has been designed and modern x-ray machines incorporatingimage intensifiers and fast film only emit one ten-thousandth of the radiation ofthe machines of 10 years ago.

   X-rays destroy white blood cells and deplete the immune system.Dr I. Bross of Rosewall Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, USA, Seymour Becker, Chiefof Suffolk County New York Health Department Radiation Control Unit, and RichardSandler, Energy Consultant to Ralph Nader, all agree that widespread use of diagnosticx-rays should be halted. In 1960, Dr Emile Grubbe, a world authority on radiation,said just before he died of cancer caused by radiation, that x-rays emitted by TVsets were dangerous over a period of years. Genetic damage could result. Accordingto the International Commission on Radiation Protection, no one should receive morethan 5 rem of radiation before age 30. As one year's TV watching provides approximately1 rem, most young people will far exceed this amount.

The role of the immune system

   It is generally agreed that regardless of the cause of cancer,a properly functioning immune system will attack and attempt to destroy it.

   Malignant cells which migrate in the lymph and blood, in orderto colonize elsewhere must first survive the defense mechanism of the body's immunesystem and lodge in a place "safe" for them. Usually they are arrestedbefore they accomplish this. Millions of such cells are released from the primarytumor but the overwhelming majority do not survive.

   The degree of protection afforded by the action of the immunesystem against abnormal cells must depend of course on the degree to which the lymphocytesand macrophages can discern the difference between normal cells and abnormal cells.They lymphocytes must be programmed to know which cells to attack and destroy andwhich to ignore. With different degrees ranging from slightly abnormal to very abnormal,there must be a dividing line.

   A factor complicating this otherwise straightforward state ofaffairs is the similarity of cancer cells to embryo cells. Embryo cells within apregnant woman are not the same as her own body cells, and indeed are "foreign"to her immune system. The mother's immune system, however, ignores the embryo growthbecause the embryo cells produce a substance known as blocking factor. Thus evena transplanted fetus not of the woman's own making can survive and grow in her womb.Cancer cells, having reverted to embryo-like form, are capable also of producinga blocking factor which protects them to a greater or lesser extent from attack bythe immune system.


An effective immune system at work
A T cell, a thymus-derived lymphocyte, attacks a cancer cell (large sphere), which it identifies by the antigen molecules protruding from its surface.
The cancer cell is dying indicated by the deep folds in its surface membrane, These micrographs were made by Andrejs Liepins of the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research.

   Thus the efficiency of the body's defense against cancer cellslies not only in the health and vigor of the white cells but also in the proper programmingof the lymphocytes and the rest of the immune system by the thymus hormones. In addition,cancer cells can be destroyed by inflammation* which is a secondary immune response,but it is known that cancer patients with their lowered metabolism are incapableof producing a proper inflammatory reaction. In 1932 Professor G. von Bergmann ofGermany stated: "Cancer metabolism takes place once the body is no longer capableof producing an active inflammation metabolism" (A Cancer Therapy, DrMax Gerson).

   The thymus gland relies on a rich blood supply, well oxygenated,as do all body tissues, and its function is influenced by secretions of hormonesfrom the other endocrine glands. It has been described already how even the effectof natural light is important to proper function of the endocrine glands. If thethymus is debilitated, which it invariably is in people degenerated, stressed, orsick, the immune system becomes ineffectual.

   The majority of people are never in a condition of robust health,and the fact that the "common" cold is indeed so very common, testifiesto the marginal condition of the average person's thymus. The general degenerationof the vital organs accompanied by the towered immune function which usually accompaniesold age accounts for the increase in cancer incidence in the older age groups.

   The thyroid gland is also an important component of the immunesystem, and it is significant that cancer is most common among hypothyroid peopleand least common among hyperthyroid people. Thyroid suppressing drugs have been shownto increase the growth of all kinds of cancer.

   In kidney transplant operations, the immune system of the recipientmust be suppressed by drugs in order to prevent tissue rejection of the new kidney.The incidence of cancer among kidney recipients then increases enormously.

   It has been found that the body organs, adenoids, tonsils, andappendix, rather than being useless appurtenances, are in fact, important componentsof the immune system. Although the body can get by without them, a certain degreeof protection is lost. Two researchers, Dr J. R. McVay and Dr Howard Bierman, workingindependently, reported that cancer occurs more often in those who have had theirappendix removed. One may conjecture, at the same time, that internal pollution hasled to the infection of the appendix in the first place, leading then to the developmentof the cancer milieu. Some carcinogenic substances are conducive to cancer, not becauseof their influence on tissue cells, but because of their debilitative effect on theimmune system. The paralyzing effect of cholesterol on white blood cells has alreadybeen mentioned.

   When cancer becomes so advanced in a patient to cause severepain, if pain-killing drugs are employed with resultant further depression of theimmune system, the cancer will advance rapidly with little hope for the patient.

   In September 1979, the Australian Federal Government, followingthe lead of USA, Britain and Canada, banned a number of drugs containing methapyrilene,a drug shown to be carcinogenic to animals. The drugs were tranquilizers and medicinesfor colds and allergies. It is interesting to note that some months earlier, in May,a letter appeared in Medical Journal, written by Dr David Horrobin, directorof the Endocrine, Pathophysiological Laboratory of the Clinical Research Institute,Montreal, in which he described research with rats in which the growth of tumorswas accelerated by tranquilizers. He said urgent investigations were needed in viewof the very high levels of tranquilizers used in our society.

   Dr Edward Humphries, a veterinarian of the Bureau of AnimalHealth, also in May 1979, warned that the use of chlorine in water supplies may belowering people's resistance to a variety of diseases. In a five-year study he hadnoted a link between the incidence of "Q"-fever among abattoir workersand the chlorinated water supplies in certain Australian country towns. Q-fever didnot appear at all among abattoir workers in towns with unchlorinated water. Dr Humphriessaid that his study supported research by US cancer researcher, Dr Isiah Fidler,of the Cancer Research Center, Frederick, Maryland, who had found a marked depressionof white blood cells in animals which drank hyper-chlorinated water.


   It is now apparent to everyone that surgery, radiation and chemotherapyare only palliative approaches in the treatment of cancer, and that the immune systemis the key to completely eradicating cancer cells throughout the body.

   Thus immunotherapy has emerged over the past few years as the"new hope". Although immunotherapy had been tried early in the 20th Century,the efforts failed, and so this is the second time around. With greater knowledgeof microbiology and immunology, the scientists are more hopeful, though faced withperplexing problems.

   The first problem barring the application of immunotherapy asconventionally employed against other diseases is that cancer cells are not all thesame, and therefore, just as with the wide variety of influenza viruses, it is notfeasible to produce vaccines against them. This puts the entire responsibility ofreaction against cancer, when it appears, upon the body's own defenses, and the onlypotential of immunotherapy therefore, is to somehow boost the general capabilityof the immune system.

   This is easier said than done because, in the first place, theimmune system which in most cases appears normal enough, does not seem to alwaysrecognize the cancer cells as enemies and may make little or no effort to destroythem, although it is known that lymphocytes and macrophages are perfectly capableof doing so. Immunotherapy technique is to employ various vaccines and other formsof stimuli to encourage the immune system into greater activity.

   The sounds reasonable enough because the circulating white cells,although perhaps depleted in numbers, often appear to reasonably perform their othernormal functions.

   At this point the researchers are stalled and perplexed andthe reason for this is that their entire concept, although sensible, is based onfalse assumptions, which are:

  1. That cancer is a local problem wherever it appears in the body.
  2. That the patient's body, apart from the cancer, is healthy.
  3. That the patient's immune system is normal, or near normal.

   None of these is the case, and although the immune system maybe partially functional, the thymus appears unable to program it effectively, andso the cancer cells are ignored. So until the activity of the thymus is restored,the cancer cells will escape destruction.

   The immune system of a cancer patient is depleted and ineffectual,and to try and stimulate it with vaccines or other artificial methods is like whippingan exhausted horse. Indeed it can be regenerated, but only by removing stress andbuilding up the health of the entire body.

   Natural remission of cancer may occur merely by improvementin immune function perhaps brought about solely by alleviation of stress factors.In this case the disappearance of cancer tumors in itself cannot be considered acure, it means only that the cancer is being held in check by the body's white cells.

   To achieve a cure the cancer milieu within the body must becleared and the entire body restored to vigorous health.

The role of hypothyroidism

   The thyroid gland is an important component of the immune system,and it is significant that cancer is most common among hypothyroid people (hypo =low) and least common among hyperthyroid people. Thyroid suppressing drugs have beenshown to increase the growth of all kinds of cancer. Dr Broda Barnes said that incancer transplant experiments with animals the transplant would seldom take unlessthe animal's thyroid had first been removed.

   Hypothyroidism, although generally unsuspected, is very commonsays Dr Barnes (see book list), not only in the various "goiter belts"around the world but among all populations on high protein diets. Dr Barnes pointedout the observations (1954) of Dr J. G. Spencer, pathologist at Frenahay Hospital,Bristol, England, that the goiter areas of 15 countries and four continents consistentlyshow a higher incidence of cancer than adjacent areas of the same countries, andthat Austria with its high incidence of goiter has the highest incidence of cancerof the Western countries.

   The majority of people have low thyroid activity due to theirdiet, says Dr Barnes, but of the thousands of patients he has put on thyroid therapy,not one has developed lung cancer, and only six deaths have occurred from cancerof any kind.

Different types of cancer

   It has been postulated that there are as many as one hundredtypes of cancer and therefore the cancer problem is a very complicated one. On theother hand, sensible analysis of the subject reveals instead that cancer is a single,constitutional complaint preventable by the simple act of purifying the constitutionand that therefore the cancer problem is in fact a comparatively simple one.

   Primary cancers may make their appearance in any one of a numberof sites, the location depending on several factors:

  1. The degree of local circulation of blood, which determines the degree of pre-cancer. (See The Liver and Cancer: A New Cancer Theory by Kasper Blond, MD, 1955)
  2. The location of irritation or injury as a trigger for cell growth.
  3. In the case of hormonal dependent cancer, the type of hormonal upset.

Cancer of the bowel (colon and rectum)

   This form of cancer is the most common form of malignancy inWestern countries, and causes the most cancer deaths. Cancer of the intestine israre. (See Fig 20.1, appearing earlier in this chapter) There is no doubt, therefore,that colon cancer is directly attributable to the poisonous milieu in the colon causedby constipation and the residues of the high fat, high protein Western diet.

   Countries with a high consumption of beef--Australia, USA, Canada,New Zealand, England, Scotland and Argentina--suffer from a high incidence of bowelcancer. Scotland has the highest bowel cancer rate in the world, with the worst incidencearound Aberdeen, the cattle raising center. The Scottish consume 19% more beef percapita than the English and their bowel cancer rate is precisely 19% greater thanthe English.

   Similar to the relationship between beef consumption and coloncancer, there is also a strong relationship between beer drinking and colon cancer.

   This latter relationship is held to be accountable for the higherincidence of colon cancer among males.

Breast cancer

   The incidence of breast cancer is much higher in countries wherepeople eat high fat diets. Frequently cysts (soft lumps) wilt appear first but disappearquickly when the diet is rectified.

   Breast cancer is the number one cause of death in women aged35-50 years in the USA; Holland and Denmark have seven times the rate of Japan withits low-fat diet.

   Oral contraceptives cause 90% of women using them to developbreast cysts within two years. These women have a much greater (260%) chance of developingcancer.

   The effect of the Western diet, in changing the type of intestinalbacteria which react dangerously with the bile, has been described. Another effectof this process is that the female hormone, estrogen, is produced. An excess of estrogeninduces premature development in young girls. Whereas a hundred years ago girls commencedmenstruating at 17 to 18 years, they do so now at 12 or 13. Estrogen is such a potenthormone that a three-and-a-half-year-old girl who had been rubbing her mother's estrogenskin lotion all over herself in a period of two months developed breasts and an adultuterus.

   In the USA, Premarin, an estrogen preparation designed to keepwomen youthful, was shown to increase the incidence of cancer of the uterus by 400%in two years and by 1,400% in seven years. The high estrogen levels result in thecysts and breast cancer mentioned. In the UK, cancer of the ovaries has been linkedwith estrogen contraceptive pills. The incidence of cancer of the cervix and uterusis twice that of those who use a diaphragm.


Fig 20.5 The effect of high-fat diets on breast cancer ratesBreast cancer mortality (age adjusted) vs per capita consumption of dietary fat,courtesy Kenneth K. Carroll, "Experimental Evidence of Dietary Factors and Hormone-dependent Cancers", Cancer Research,  Vol 35, page 3379.

   Prolactin is a hormone produced by the pituitary gland and isinvolved in the function of breast tissue and mammary glands of the breast. In testson rats it was noted that cancer was associated with an increase in the prolactinto estrogen ratio in their bodies. Dr Ernst Wynder in his report to the US SenateSelect Committee described a study with a group of nurses who voluntarily adopteda low-fat vegetarian diet. Their prolactin levels decreased 40-60% in four weeks.

   At an International Congress of Vegetarians, Dr Kristine Nolfiof Denmark described how she cured herself of breast cancer by adopting a 100% rawvegetable diet. She later established a sanitarium, "Humilgardin" wherethis diet is employed and consumed by patients and the staff. All forms of rheumatismand arthritis are alleviated, also psoriasis, hemicranea, gallstones, and stonesin the renal pelvis and urinary bladder. Loss of hair, fat accumulation and dandruffcease.

Cancer of the stomach

   The countries with the highest incidence are Japan and Iceland.

   Japanese average an intake of 1 oz of salt per day and havea very high rate of hypertension. Examining the stomach lining of young Japanesemen with inflammation of the stomach, observers noted it took two weeks of salt-freeeating before the inflammation disappeared.

   The rice consumed in Japan used to be dusted with talcum powderto make it look whiter. Talcum is mined along with asbestos. In Russia, asbestosminers have high rates of lung cancer and stomach cancer.

   In tests on animals where cancer-producing substances were injectedinto their stomachs, those animals on a 35% fat diet developed four-and-a-half timesmore tumors than animals on a 5% fat diet.

   The people in Iceland eat a lot of smoked fish and smoked meat.Investigating 1,600 deaths caused by stomach cancer, the highest incidence correlatedwith the consumption of smoked meat. The carcinogen in smoked meat is called 3-4benzopyrine. The amount of this carcinogen in 1 lb of smoked mutton equals that in250 cigarettes. In the coal mining areas of Utah, USA, miners have three times thestomach cancer of non-miners, and eight times the incidence of people in non-miningareas.

   The barbecuing of meat has been strongly suspected for yearsnow. Tests on 25 rats fed smoked meat showed they developed tumors and 21 died in90 days. Nitrates and nitrites are used as preservatives of processed meats, ham,bacon, frankfurts etc. Much of the nitrates' effectiveness depends on its conversionby bacteria into nitrite. The permitted level of nitrite in the USA is 0.2%. Nitritescan be changed in the stomach to nitrosamines, some of which are carcinogens. Thesehave been observed to cause cancer in all laboratory animals. It should be rememberedthat preservatives work by inhibiting the function of enzymes, and therefore theconsumption of preserved foods must inevitably lead to the depletion of enzyme activityin the body.

   Researchers at the University of Nevada have found that nitrosaminesdid not occur in the presence of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C). Nitrates which normallyexist in vegetables can be converted to nitrites in prolonged storage. It was recentlydiscovered in Europe and in the USA that commercial beer contained nitrosamines.A paper by B. C. Challis and C.D. Bartlett, organic chemists, Imperial College ofLondon, April 1957, described how nitrosamine formation from nitrates and aminesincreased tenfold when small amounts of coffee were consumed. Thus Vitamin C wouldlessen the danger of this combination. Nitrites can also affect oxygen transportwhen they combine with the iron in the hemoglobin of the blood. It is thought thatthe high levels of sodium nitrite in the salt used in Japan were partly responsiblefor their cancer rate.

   It has been noted that among Japanese who migrate and live inthe USA, the incidence of stomach cancer decreases but the incidence of cancer ofthe colon increases.

   Scientists at the University of Texas report that common seasoningssuch as cayenne pepper, paprika and particularly turmeric (the main ingredient incurry powder) alter cells permanently by disorganizing chromosomes.

Cancer of the liver

   Despite the fact that the liver continually processes all theblood in the body as well as receiving substances directly from the intestine, thusbeing more exposed to carcinogens and toxins than any other tissue, and despite thefact that liver cells are capable of replicating faster than any others, primarycancer rarely occurs there. However, secondary cancer of the liver is common. Primarycancer of the liver may occur when cirrhosis exists and the liver tissue is attemptingto restore itself. Heavy drinkers and smokers are very susceptible.

   As is well known, natives of undeveloped countries, who eatmore natural food, escape most of the degenerative diseases of civilization. However,among some of these people primary cancer of the liver occurs frequently, and thisis directly attributable to the potent carcinogen, aflatoxin, which like the carcinogensused to quickly cause cancer in animal experiments, is powerful enough to do so inthe healthy livers of humans. The incidence of liver cancer among natives in Johannesburgis 27 times that of the USA, and in Mozambique is 270 times greater.

   The 20% rate of primary cancer of the liver among the Bantupopulation was attributed primarily to their poverty-restricted diet of corn andcorn mush, cooked in iron pots.

   Aflatoxin is an excretion of a mould which can penetrate theshells of peanuts and poison them, and is also sometimes found in rice. Aflatoxinincreases greatly in rice which has been cooked and kept for later use.

   Brazil nuts contain aflatoxin and their importation into Austriahas been banned. Peanuts are the worst. In England in 1960, 100,000 turkeys all diedof liver cancer when fed mouldy peanut meal. In the tests that followed, calves givenaflatoxin, one part in half a million in their food, all got liver cancer in threeweeks and all died in 16 weeks. Steers given one part in three million got livercancer in 16 weeks. Tests on ducks and trout in even weaker concentrations had thesame results. With rats, one part in 70 million killed them all with liver cancerin 6-8 weeks.

Lung cancer

   Until recently lung cancer caused more deaths among men thanany other form of cancer. It now ranks second to cancer of the bowel.

   Smoking not only introduces carcinogenic tars and other irritantsinto the lungs, but also elevates blood fats by its effect on the nervous systemand simultaneously reduces oxygen available to the tissues by carbon monoxide poisoningof the red cells of the blood.

   However, not all heavy smokers get lung cancer, and at the sametime there are many nonsmokers who do get lung cancer. Admittedly lung cancer isso markedly more prevalent among smokers that it is certain that smoking must beregarded as a powerful causative agent, but it could never be said that smoking wasthe primary cause of lung cancer.

   More directly causative of lung cancer is a high fat, high cholesteroldiet. In a Chicago survey of 876 smokers, in those with cholesterol levels of 275mg% (7.0 mm/L) the lung cancer rate was 37 per thousand.* For those with cholesterollevels of 225 mg% (5.77 m/L) the lung cancer rate was only five per thousand, butfor those smokers with a cholesterol level of less than 150 mg% (3.8 mm/L) therewas no cancer incidence at all.

   It is noteworthy that the Japanese, who smoke much more thanthe Americans, surprisingly have a much lower incidence of lung cancer, and it isfurther noteworthy that although over a 30 year period the percentage of Americanmales who smoked decreased from 60% to 40%, lung cancer mortality increased threetimes.

   These facts do not exonerate smoking as a cause but it shouldbe noted that the prime causative factor once again is the condition of lipotoxemia.

Cancer of the mouth, larynx and esophagus

   This kind of cancer, like all the others, stems from faultydiet and is associated with various factors which provide the necessary local irritation.Heavy drinkers are susceptible and their risk is increased twenty-fold if they smokeas well. In some countries where this form of cancer is common, the irritation isprovided by heavily spiced or very hot food.

   Cancer of the esophagus is common in certain areas of Iran wherethe diet consists almost entirely of coarse bread. In this case the necessary conditionof pre-cancer would be due not to dietary excesses, but to dietary deficiencies,there being no fruit or vegetables available.


   Leukemia is the uncontrolled proliferation of white blood cellsin the body and bloodstream. It occurs mainly in young people.

   It is known that the incidence of leukemia is very low amongprimitive natives and vegetarians, and that the disease responds rapidly when a raw,low fat, vegetarian diet is adopted. (See Chapter 2.)

   It is also significant that tests in the 1940s and 1950s showedthat leukemia patients displayed low levels of Vitamin C. These tests were describedby Dr A. Vogt, "Vitamin C Treatment of Chronic Leukemia" (Deutsche MedizinischeWochenschrift, Vol 66, 1940), Dr E. D. Kybos, "Large Doses of Ascorbic Acidin Treatment of Vitamin C Deficiencies" (Archives of Internal Medicine,Vol 75, 1945) and Dr A. L. Waldo and Dr R. E. Ziff in "Ascorbic Acid in LeukemiaPatients" (Cancer, Vol 8, 1955).

Prostate cancer

   Cancer of the prostate is usually preceded by a benign conditionin which the prostate becomes enlarged. The enlargement is caused mainly by accumulationof cholesterol crystals.

Cancer of the uterus

   This form of cancer is associated with obesity, and women fiftypounds or more overweight are ten times more susceptible to its development. Overweightdiabetics have the highest risk.

Skin cancer

   There are three distinct types of skin cancers:

  1. Basal cell carcinoma.
  2. Squamous cell carcinoma.
  3. Malignant melanoma.

   The first two are far more common and less dangerous than melanomabecause they are less aggressive and have little tendency to metastasize by way ofthe lymph or blood circulation.

   It is generally accepted that most skin cancers are caused byoverexposure to strong sunlight because the cancer appears on the face and otherexposed areas of people who spend a lot of time in the sun. As would be expected,the incidence of skin cancer is greater in countries with sunny climates and greateramong fair-skinned people than in dark-skinned people.

   However, as with lung cancer and other cancer, the incidenceof skin cancer more closely correlates with the level of blood fats and cholesterol,and regardless of exposure to sun, skin cancer does not readily occur among peopleon very low fat/cholesterol diets. As with other cancers, sun damage is merely thetrigger effect which initiates cell division.

   According to Dr George Engel, a dermatologist in Illinois, thenumber of deaths from malignant melanoma in the USA doubled in the 25-year periodto 1978. As American exposure to sunshine has not apparently increased over thatperiod, the reason for these increased deaths cannot be ascribed to the sun. Thesame situation exists in Australia, where a recent study showed that melanoma incidencehas doubled in the last 30 years.

Kidney cancer

   Australia has the highest incidence of kidney disease and kidneycancer in the world. This fact reflects not only the excessive intake of protein,fat and cholesterol in the diet, but also the enormous consumption of analgesic painkillerstaken in the form of tablets and powders. High as the general incidence of kidneycancer is, it is ten times higher again in women who take these drugs regularly.(See Analgesic Addiction, Chapter 21.)

General observations

   A report from Holland said that people living within 150 feetfrom a busy highway suffered a nine times higher cancer incidence. This would nodoubt be due to high levels of carbon monoxide although a report from Japan describedhigh incidence of lead poisoning from exhaust fumes. Remember that carbon monoxidehas affinity for combining with the red blood cells to the exclusion of oxygen.

   Smokers who smoke filter-tipped cigarettes to avoid the intakeof carcinogenic tars still inhale the deadly carbon monoxide, and people in theirproximity inhale up to 50% of the amount too.

   Dr D. J. Field, Lancet, September 21, 1974, reportedthat polyunsaturated fats inhibit the white blood cells from fighting infection.

   Dr R. K. Boutwell, Cancer Research, 9:741, 1949: "Thestimulating effect of fat on the rate of formation of certain types of tumors iswell established".

   Dr C. A. Baumann, American Journal of Cancer 35:213,1939: "An increase in the fat content of the diet exhilarated the appearanceof tumors due to ultraviolet irradiation (skin cancers)."

   Dr H. P. Rusch, Cancer Research 5:431, 1945 showed similarresults in animal tests with ultraviolet rays (as in sunlight) when their diets werehigh in fat.

   Dr Ernst Wynder, American Health Foundation, stated:"Both epidemiologic and animal data suggest that colon cancer is due largelyto high fat consumption".

   Dr E. R. Pickney, American Heart Journal 85:723, 1975:"There is certainly a reasonable epidemological association between a diet highin polyunsaturates and the increased incidence of cancer (especially gastric) inhumans." He went on to say that his research showed that 78% of people who usedmore polyunsaturated fats showed marked "clinical" signs of aging and that60% had had skin lesions removed because of suspected malignancy.

   It appears that polyunsaturated fat inhibits the function ofthe white cells. It has a discernible effect on red blood cells, causing them toaggregate, ie. stick together, restricting circulation.

   A Lancet report, August 16, 1969, stated that in theUK on the average a person annually consumed 3 lbs of chemicals, not naturally presentin food. Dr Ben Feingold of the Kaiser Permanent Medical Center, San Francisco, authorof Why Your Child is Hyperactive, puts the American figure at 5 lbs.

Medical treatment of cancer

   "Considered in its broadest terms, orthodox cancer treatmenttoday is a failure and a disgrace. Contemporary cancer management in a number ofrespects, constitutes professional malpractice."--Dr Brian A. Richards, in hisbook The Topic of Cancer (1982).

   In a lecture at the American Cancer Society's annual ScienceWriters' Conference in New Orleans in 1969, Dr Hardin Jones of the University ofCalifornia Department of Medical Physics, said:

   "My studies have proven conclusively that untreated cancervictims actually live up to four times longer than treated individuals. For a typicaltype of cancer, people who refused treatment lived for an average of twelve and ahalf years. Those who accepted surgery and other kinds of treatment lived an averageof only three years . . . "

   In a paper titled "Cancer Cures More Deadly Than Disease",Dr Jones said further:

   "It is utter nonsense to claim that catching symptoms earlyenough will increase the patient's chances of survival. Not one medical scientistor study has proven that so in any way.* Furthermore, untreated breast cancer casesshow a life expectancy four times longer than treated ones. My wife and I have discussedwhat she would do if breast cancer were diagnosed in her, and we both agree she woulddo nothing except to keep as healthy as possible. I guarantee she would live longer.For not only does radical surgery or chemotherapy do nothing to prolong a cancervictim's life, but that same person will, in most cases, live a lot longer if heor she refuses treatment. Beyond a shadow of doubt, radical surgery on cancer patientsdoes more harm than good."

   The continued failure to effectively combat cancer, despitethe repeated optimistic promises of new breakthroughs has reduced the credibilityof the medical profession, but this failure is made to look less dismal by the misleadingsurvival rates published by medical authorities.

   Conventional medical treatment of cancer is a failure for theobvious reason that it is not addressed at removing the cause but merely at destroyingone of the symptoms, ie. the cancer growth. This absurdity 'is due to the steadfastlyheld view that cancer occurs as a local malfunction of cell growth caused probablyby a chance mutation in an otherwise healthy body. The other symptoms of weight loss,fatigue, poor skin tone, etc. are thought to be caused by the tumor growth.

   The three basic medical treatments are surgery, radiation andchemotherapy, all of which are traumatic and more often than not accelerate the declineof the patient.

   Whereas there may be something gained by the surgical removalof a self-contained tumor inasmuch as stopping its parasitic action, in most casesthere are millions of stray cancer cells already circulating in the body and usuallymetastases already established. When a surgeon says "he got it all" heis being very optimistic.

   Dr Robert Bell, MD, FRPS,* formerly a cancer surgeon who abandonedsurgery when he realized its futility against cancer and devoted the rest of hislife to natural healing, wrote: "it is of no more avail to excise the localmanifestation of blood contamination--which cancer undoubtedly is--and thus expectto eradicate the constitutional affliction, than it is to cut out a piece of dryrot in a beam without adopting means to remove the cause of the mischief".

   Further-more, surgery or biopsy, because the subsequent healingprocess causes de-differentiation of tissue cells, can actually initiate cancer growth.In such cases, said Sir James Paget, "The surgeon has unwittingly supplied bythe local injury what was needed for the production of a cancerous growth".

   After surgery, radiation and/or chemotherapy is the next step,because even in "terminal" cases, it is hoped that by retarding the tumorgrowth, the patient will gain extra time. Radiation usually diminishes the size ofthe tumor, and this is encouraging to see, but once again this is only the diminutionof a symptom. While this is going on, destruction occurs to normal tissue as well,and enormous numbers of circulating white cells of the immune system are destroyed.

   Said Dr W. A. Dewey, Professor of Therapeutics, University ofMichigan: "As radium is directed only at the end products of cancer, it is notonly useless, but it destroys the healthy tissue around the tumor, destroying bloodvessels and protective glands which are most necessary to the healing process, andchases the disease to some internal organ, thus so complicating the case that cureis impossible".

   Chemotherapy is even worse. Senator Hubert Humphrey before hedied, called it "death in a bottle". The idea of chemotherapy is to delaycancer growth by preventing replication of the cells, and the so-called advantageof the chemicals is that they circulate through the entire body so reaching all sitesof cancer growth whether detected or not. The disadvantages are that all other replicatingnormal cells are affected as well, resulting in hair loss and ulceration of varioustissues, accompanied by nausea, vomiting, vertigo and so on. At the same time, thealready diminished immune system is further destroyed.

   It is hard to believe. The medical authorities and the chemicalmanufacturers admit that the chemicals used can actually cause cancer, and the pharmacistswho handle them wear special protective clothing and masks in fear of their own livesThese frightening chemicals are then purposefully injected into the very bloodstreamof the cancer patient, whose wretched liver now has to try to detoxify this furtherassault. As the patient's survival depends upon restoration of the liver and thefunctioning of the immune system, chemotherapy is not only bound to fail, it virtuallyguarantees the patient's further decline.

   On chemotherapy, Dr Charles Huggins, Nobel Prize winner, ofthe University of Chicago, said: "I am very much against chemotherapy generally.It simply makes the patients too ill. Remember there are worse things than death.One of them is chemotherapy".

   Sometimes radiation and chemotherapy are used together, andthis procedure is the most lethal of all, but is commonly used by doctors obsessedwith the destruction of cancer cells regardless of all else. Hope rises as the tumordiminishes in size, and then crashes as the inevitable regrowth appears.

   The entire medical show, nothing less than ridiculous when honestlyassessed, is of course fearfully expensive in money, and in terms of grief and despair,immeasurable.

   At the Annual Scientific Meeting on the subject of cancer atSydney University in November, 1980, Dr P. Shubik of USA was frank. In his openingremarks he said that "there were no cancer experts any more in the USA".What he meant was that cancer has the medical profession perplexed and confused.There is no medical cure presently foreseen, and hope lies mostly in extending thelife of patients by improving current methods of treatment. During the meeting, thesubjects of diet, physical fitness, exercise and stress were not discussed exceptfor one "workshop" on diet which only two doctors attended. The immunesystem was discussed once, but not as a serious cancer factor.

   More recent are reports of the work of Professor John Williams'team at the Australian National University in Canberra. Hoping for a breakthrough,they are seeking methods of arresting cachexia, the wasting of the body which occursin the final stages of cancer. A medical breakthrough will only be achieved howeverwhen the fact, known for over a hundred years, is accepted that not only cachexia,but the tumor, the pre-cancer and the "cancer milieu" are all stages ofthe one degenerative process.

   Why are people still ignorant of medical facts known for onehundred years or more?

   In addition to Drs Koch, Gerson and Moerman, there have beena whole succession of doctors going right back to Dr Lambe in 1809 who have successfullytreated cancer by helping their patients correct the constitutional disorders oftheir bodies.

   Despite their proven methods, these doctors could never breakthe barrier of prejudice historically surrounding the medical profession, but insteadwere persecuted in varying degrees as troublesome nonconformists. Such rejectionis a peculiar part of human nature and has always been encountered by innovatorsin all fields.

   For a new method to be accepted by the medical establishment,the fact that it works is almost irrelevant. Unless research is on an "in"subject and conducted on "approved" lines, the authors of research papershave great difficulty having them printed, particularly in the more conservativemedical journals. Dr Gerson submitted dozens of papers on cancer therapy to the Journalof AMA but none were accepted. Dr Koch and Dr Moerman, along with Dr Hoxsey and manyothers, received the same rejection.

   This is why today the medical profession is so ignorant of muchvital information, not only information on cancer. The vital facts of diabetes andheart disease also, known for over one hundred years and scientifically proven inthe 1930s by Dr I. M. Rabinowitch and in the 1940s by Dr Lester Morrison, are stillunknown to most doctors.

   This opposition and cover-up is due not only to conservatismand vested professional interests, it is professed policy of the drug and chemicalcorporations together with such food industries as the meat, dairy and sugar industrieswho between them control most of the funding for medical research.

   Perhaps Dr Gerson's story provides the best example. The curerates he achieved among so-called terminal patients were phenomenal, but he couldnot get the recognition in the USA that he had achieved in the 1920s and 30s in Europe.Dr Gerson, who had cured the wife of Dr Albert Schweitzer of tuberculosis, and DrSchweitzer himself of diabetes, was described by Dr Schweitzer: "I see in himone of the most eminent geniuses in the history of medicine. He possessed somethingelemental. Out of the deepest thought about the nature of disease and the processof healing, he came to walk along new paths with great success."

   Gerson got as far as presenting five "hopeless cases"completely cured of cancer to a Senate subcommittee in Washington in 1946 which wasevaluating cancer research. The proposal for support for Gerson was narrowly defeatedafter heavy pressure from the medical lobby.

   On April 28, 1981, a significant event occurred in Sydney, Australia.Dr John McDougall of Honolulu delivered a public lecture on the subject of diet andbreast cancer. In fact, he is researching the subject on a medical grant from theStraub Foundation of Honolulu. He is the first person to receive such a grant; inthe past not even Linus Pauling, a double Nobel Prize winner, could do so, so stronglyagainst this sort of research was the establishment. Dr McDougall's dietary approachis based firmly on the Pritikin diet, and he is showing very good results with hispatients.

   A valuable step forward, and interesting reading, is the USNational Research Council's comprehensive report, Diet, Nutrition and Cancer(1982). Unfortunately, the viewpoint of the committee which prepared the report isstill wrongly orientated looking for "mutagens", etc, and no proposal ismade of diet and nutrition as a cancer therapy.

   Meanwhile, the cancer death rate continues to increase. In 1971when the Nixon administration declared war on cancer, one in every six American deathswas due to the disease. Billions of "research" dollars later, in 1978,the rate had risen to one in five, and at this rate of increase, by 1988 it willbe one in four.*

   Hopefully the orthodox medical establishment will eventuallyget the message. In her book Cancer Under Siege (1975), Dr June Goodfieldquoted Dr Robert Good, director of the Sloan-Kettering Institute as saying: "Whenwe look back at what we do to cancer today, chopping it out, burning it out, poisoningit out, it will all seem so crude."

   Dr Good, why do you think Dr de Lacey Evans gave up surgerya hundred years ago?

   Let Dr Kasper Blond sum it up. He said: "The problem ofcancer must be considered as an insoluble medical problem, because it is essentiallya nutritional and social problem: in other words a problem of prevention. Such aproblem cannot be solved by animal experiments, vaccines and drugs. Statisticians,pathologists, biochemists and doctors CANNOT SOLVE SOCIAL PROBLEMS."

Orthomolecular Medicine

   Realizing the true nature of cancer and other diseases, manyprogressive doctors avoid the use of drugs, and concentrate on correcting the bodychemistry of their patients. Whereas the patient is given dietary instruction basedon the results of allergy tests (which are open to doubt), the main theme of orthomolecularmedicine seems to be the prescription of large quantities of artificial vitaminsand minerals which blood tests have indicated to be supposedly deficient. Orthomolecularmedicine, using vitamins and minerals therapeutically instead of drugs, is a goodattempt by medically trained people to help the body help itself.

   In addition to vitamins and minerals, other scientific modalitiesare often employed in orthomolecular medicine such as supplementary enzymes, herbalmedicines, hyperbaric oxygen, ultraviolet irradiation of blood, chelation, DMSO andso on. The relative merits of such modalities are open to question in tight of thefact that in most cases the same or better results can be achieved by strict dietin a very short time. However, no doubt in certain cases, modalities such as thesehelp support life until failing body systems are restored. As mentioned, Dr Gersonfound it necessary to provide supplementary enzymes in the form of calves' liverjuice and to use coffee enemas to stimulate the removal of toxins.

   Orthomolecular medicine although imperfect, has achieved verygood results, and for people incapable of maintaining a correct diet, it will bea big help. In respect to cancer, the only consistent successes achieved by orthomoleculardoctors all depend on nutrition, modelled on the Gerson diet as a basis.

Spontaneous (natural) remission of cancer

   On rare occasions, to the surprise and sometimes disbelief ofdoctors, well established cancer growths in a patient mysteriously disappear. Believingsuch cancers to be "incurable", sometimes a doctor will reverse his originaldiagnosis and say the patient never really did have cancer in the first place. However,it is now accepted that such remissions do occur--probably more often than generallybelieved.

   In his valuable book Victory Over Cancer Cyril Scottquotes surgeon Hastings Gilford stating in 1925: "Though cancer is so commonlyregarded as inevitably fatal, many cases are recorded of its 'spontaneous' disappearance--andnothing can be more certain than that these recorded cases are very few in comparisonwith those which are unrecorded". Hastings Gilford then listed the names ofmany eminent men who have testified to spontaneous cures of cancer. Among the nameswere Paget, Brodie, Muller, Sauerbrach, Gleitmann, Rohdenburg and Lomer. Lomer hadrecorded 213 cases and Rohdenburg 302. A Dr E. F. Bashford provided a list of 13other eminent doctors, all who had observed spontaneous healing of tumors.

   Scott then quotes Dr Georgina Luden (USA) who said: "Theimportance of this fact can hardly be over-estimated. It is a proof positive thatthe human body can wage a winning fight against malignancy under the most untowardconditions . . .

   "Since outside aid has proved useless, the victory musthave been won by inside means. Changes in the body chemistry, resulting from increasedor renewed activity of organs by which the chemical condition in the body is regulated,seem to be the only available explanation, since the chemical composition of theblood must influence the body cells."

   Now remember--these spontaneous cures happened by "accident",not by design, so that a patient today who knows exactly what to do must have aninfinitely better chance of achieving success, ie. complete spontaneous remission.

   Sir Alexander Haddow, a medical leader in cancer research, alwayssaid the key lay in finding out why spontaneous remission occurred. He was right.

Cases of recoveries

   The chances of curing cancer (ie. achieving naturalremission) hinge on three main factors.

  1. The remaining capability of the liver and other vital organs.
  2. The extent to which the immune system can be regenerated.
  3. The fighting spirit of the patient.

   If proper metabolism of nutrients can be restored, auto-intoxicationstopped, and at the same time the detoxifying capability of the body increased toexceed the production of toxins by the cancer cells, then favorable blood chemistrywill be regained and cachexia arrested.

   The improved circulation and increased oxygen permeating thebody acts then to retard and maybe arrest the growth of tumors and at the same timeassists the immune system to regenerate.

   The outcome of the fight depends on whether or not the combinationof natural anti-tumoral chemistry in the body plus the destructive capability ofthe immune system, exceeds the capacity of the cancer cells to multiply. The mostimportant factor is not the extent of the cancer, but the regenerative capacity ofthe body and the extent to which this can be assisted. In a critical situation itappears that the anti-tumoral effects of various herbal extracts can be of vitalassistance.

   On the other hand, too rapid disintegration of cancer tissuecan produce toxins faster than the body can expel them, and perhaps kill the patient.This is the reason that cancer therapists employ coffee enemas which stimulate theexcretory function of the liver. It is thought that in some cases the surgical removalof an easily accessible tumor may favor the balance of factors involved.

   There have been many cases of full recovery from cancer. Mosthave been achieved by diet.* Some have followed surgery, some have followed vitamintherapy, while others have resulted even from faith healing, meditation and variousfolk medicines.

   There are many cases of spontaneous (natural) remissions whichhave occurred for no apparent reason at all.

   Obviously, in all of these cases, one or more of the influenceswe have discussed have changed sufficiently to allow the natural body functions toreverse the cancer process. There is no doubt that the faith healing cures occurredprimarily because of the patients' improved state of mind and the subsequent strengthenedimmune responses. The apparent medical cure would be accountable perhaps also toconfidence inspired by the surgeon, relief from a stressful situation, combined withthe benefits of rest and the adoption of saner living habits.

   In other words, all cures of cancer are achieved by the bodyitself, when given the chance to do so.

   The purpose of dietary methods, combined with correction ofother environmental factors is purely and simply to arrange circumstances favorablefor a spontaneous (natural) remission. And having achieved such a remission,and knowing how and why it occurred, there is no need to wait five years before callingit a cure.

   Now that the physiological effects of diet, physical exercise,stress, rest, sunlight and so on are more fully understood, they can now be properlyconsidered as interrelated instead of separate factors. Particularly with cancer,every single component involved must be corrected simultaneously to ensure best results.

   Francis Chichester's bout with cancer is a classic example ofall these factors. He devotes two chapters of his book, The Lonely Sea and theSky to describing his ordeal. He says:

   "After the last sail in Figaro, I had a desperate attackof worry. I was struggling hard to make my map business pay. It was not big enoughto pay for the new talent it needed in both the sales and the production departments,but it was too big for me to provide all the ideas as well as the sales drive needed.Now I had this ghastly load of a new boat added, with all the extra work of planningit, and visiting it in Ireland. I had a nightmare fear of not being able to sellGipsy Moth II, and of being landed with two yachts. It was too much to bear. Thetrouble was that by the end of the Fastnet I was tired out. If only I had laid offeverything for a week, I should have regained my strength to cope with things."

   Cancer of the lung* was diagnosed soon after this and the diagnosisconfirmed by five different doctors. He was told his only possible hope was to haveone lung removed immediately. He was booked into hospital for the operation but wasin such a low state that the operation was postponed. A little later Chichester feltan irresistible urge to go to the south of France and so went there with his wife.In the town of Vence he became so ill that a doctor was summoned, Dr Jean Mattei.Chichester relates:

   "He examined me and said 'Ce n'est rien, and if you followmy treatment you will be climbing up those mountains in three days' time.' The fantasticthing is that I did, in fact, climb up the Baou Blanc in five days' time. At 2,200feet it may not be much of a mountain, but it was the most wonderful climb I evermade.

   "What I regarded as a miraculous chain of events had startedin London when I felt the urge to go to the South of France. There I reached a doctorwho had been considered one of the cleverest lung physicians in Paris before he settledin Vence; also I fetched up in a town which had been considered a health resort,with a magic quality of air for lungs, since the time of the Romans. How did thisthing come about? Sheila said that the doctor gave me back my confidence, that myillness was already on its last legs.

   "For myself, I think that some part of my body had ceasedto function, that the doctor had correctly diagnosed what this was, and suppliedthe deficiency. To me he was a wonderful man; short, nuggetty, fit, with terrificenergy exuding strength and activity. He never seemed to stop work, seeing thirtypatients a day at times. I heard tales of his sitting up all night with a seriouslyill patient, for two nights running.

   "It was in April when I fell into the good doctor's hands.In June I accepted an offer to navigate Pym in the Cowes-Dinard race." (Thatwas in 1959.)

   Of his wife, Chichester says:

   "She has a strange and amazing flair for health and healing.She believes most strongly in the power of prayer. When I was at my worst, she ralliedmany people to pray for me, my friends and others. Whether Protestants, Roman Catholicsor Christian Scientists, she rallied them indefatigably to prayer. I feel shy aboutmy troubles being imposed on others, but the power of prayer is miraculous. Hardlyanyone would doubt its power for evil--for example the way Australian Aboriginescan will a member of their tribe to death; so why should its power for good be doubted?On the material side I believe that fasting is the strongest medicine available andthat it played a very important part in my recovery. I believe that my being a vegetarianfor preference helped a lot."

   Unfortunately, Chichester's story has an unhappy ending. Hewas an intelligent, courageous man, health conscious and disciplined, but at thesame time badly misinformed on matters of health.

   In his book, Gipsy Moth Circles the World, he describedhis food supply for his 1966 voyage. The food was carefully selected on the basisof his diet in England.

   The food list is a dietary disaster, obviously based on thefallacious belief that sugar enhances energy and endurance. Although he describedhimself as a vegetarian, in fact he was not, because he ate a lot of fish, eggs,cheese and milk. In addition his diet contained a preponderance of refined carbohydratein the form of sugar, chocolate, honey, syrup, marmalade, jam, sweet puddings, cakesand biscuits, honey bars, glucose tablets, liquor and soft drinks, plus canned anddried fruit. On top of all that he took large quantities of butter, oil and nuts.Ketchup, yeast and coffee were further accessories.

   And although he had written a book on physical fitness, it wasa subject he did not understand. His recommended exercise program does not achievethe protective "training effect" of aerobic exercise.

   If, in addition, you add the unremitting stress to which Chichestersubjected himself throughout his entire life, then it is clear that out of the threemajor cancer factors he failed in all three.

   Thus, despite having achieved complete remission of his lungcancer in 1959, Chichester's mode of life and diet was one which almost guaranteeda further onset. He remained free of cancer until 1971 when it was found he had cancerof the spine. There was no recurrence however, of lung cancer.

   He refused to rest--it was not in his nature--and he died aged70, in August 1972.

   Chichester's demise was tragic; it was a case of good intentionsand dedication ending in disaster because of misconceptions. His recovery from lungcancer had been assisted by fasting but he did not realize why. He placed great importanceon physical fitness but did not understand the physiology involved. He felt thatthe prayers of his friends had assisted in his recovery but did not understand thephysiology of stress.

   It should be realized that for prayers to work as in this case,it is necessary for the patient to be aware of them and so feel the encouragementand morale boosting of his friends. Chichester's reference to the bone pointing ritualsof Aborigines is valid, but they too, like voodoo, only work when the victim is aware.The influence for good or evil functions by way of the subject's own mind.

   Travelling by bus recently from Brisbane to Surfers ParadiseI chatted with the driver of the bus most of the way, for an hour or so. He toldme of an incident he was involved in at Cairns in Queensland a few years ago to dowith an Aborigine wasting away as a victim of a 'bone pointing' ritual. The Aboriginewas a town dweller but still strongly influenced by tribal ceremonies and beliefsand was reduced to a dying condition.

   The driver, in collaboration with some friends, contrived toperform an operation on the stricken man whereby they actually made an incision inhis side, and by sleight of hand produced a piece of bone. Having convinced the manthat the harmful influence was gone, he rapidly regained good spirits and good health.

   The victim in this case did not have cancer (at least not inthe accepted sense) but he was being destroyed by hormonal disruption of his internalmilieu just as surely.

   Another case is Dr Ian Gawler, a veterinarian from South Australiawho was pronounced cured of cancer throughout his body after having been told bya specialist in 1976 he had only two or three weeks to live. The case was describedin an article in the Medical Journal of Australia written by Dr Ainslie Meares.

   Dr Meares said: "This young man has shown an extraordinarywill to live. He has consistently maintained a rigorous discipline of intensive meditationfrom one to three hours daily.

   "He has developed a state of calm which I have rarely observedin anyone, even in oriental mystics. It would seem as if the patient has let theeffects of the intense meditation enter his whole experience of life. His extraordinarylow level of anxiety is obvious. It is suggested that this has enhanced the activityof his immune system by reducing his level of cortisone."

   Dr Gawler, the patient, said he believed the cancer was thephysical manifestation of disharmony within. "I believe that the disease isthe end stage of your soul trying to tell you something is wrong."*

   In the USA, former Major-General John Medaris made a similarrecovery. He said, "People who have a positive fighting spirit and who don'tgive up hope stand a much better chance of fighting any disease. If you're not atpeace with yourself and God, if you're mixed up inside and have inner conflict, yourhealing is adversely affected".

   One of Major-General (later an Episcopal minister) Medaris'physicians, Dr James Maxfield of Dallas said, "It's unusual for a man to havethree types of cancer and open heart surgery and still be going strong. There certainlyis a factor of faith in his case".

   Actress Gloria Swanson, at 84 a busy sculptress and artist,described in an interview with the British magazine Here's Health (May 1979)how fifty years previously she had a tumor on an ovary which disappeared of its ownaccord after she gave up eating meat in 1928. She had maintained a strict naturallifestyle ever since and said, "You can cure anything through food. You mustkeep the body clean inside and it will heal anything--it repairs itself'.

   Nearly all the people I have known with cancer are now deadand every one of them erred badly in at least two out of the three lifestyle factors.

   I have described how my first wife's lifestyle led to migraine,peritonitis, asthma and heart disease and how she recovered from these. What I didnot mention was a skin cancer on her cheek which puffed up like a small sultana.Even though she did little exercise, the adoption of the Pritikin diet alone wassufficient to cause the skin cancer to regress in about five weeks and completelyvanish. We lived apart and I could not strictly supervise her diet, but it is significantthat on one occasion when she felt depressed she partially abandoned the diet andI could tell simply by the reappearance of the blister-like cancer. She respondedto a gentle pep-talk and returned to her reformed diet, whereupon the cancer onceagain regressed and vanished in four weeks.

   Dr O. C. Simonton, formerly chief of radiation therapy at theUSAF Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base has used psychology successfully inslowing and arresting the growth of cancer. The first patient he treated this waywas a 61-year-old man with throat cancer so severe that he could hardly swallow liquids.Dr Simonton said, "I had him relax three times a day and mentally picture hisdisease. I had him visualize an army of white blood cells coming, attacking and overcomingthe cancer cells. The results of the treatment were both thrilling and frightening.Within two weeks his cancer had noticeably diminished and he was rapidly gainingweight. The man had a complete remission".

   His findings are the same as Dr Le Shan's. He says cancer patientsoften have a low self-image, with feelings of loss and hopelessness, have troubleventing emotions, especially hostility, and feel they have no reason for living.But he declares: "You are more in charge of your life--and even the developmentand progress of a disease, such as cancer--than you may realize. You may actually,through a power within you, be able to decide whether you live or die."

   Dr Simonton and his wife Stephanie produced a book called GettingWell Again (Cancer Counselling and Research Center, Fort Worth). The book hasbeen highly praised by none other than Dr Hans Selye, the author of Stress WithoutDistress referred to in Chapter 8. In part Dr Selye said, "The authors appearto have caught the very essence of the stress concept, especially as it concernsthe goal of overcoming cancer. Since I myself have endured and overcome an allegedlyincurable cancer by means of a code of behavior very similar to theirs, this opportunityto express my admiration for the Simontons' volume gives me great pleasure".

   And from a news article in the Sydney Sun Herald, September16, 1979 we have this interesting report:

   "Dr Losang Dolma, a 45-year-old Tibetan lady doctor, nowpractising in India, claims to cure 80% of cancer cases she treats, Her treatmentfor cancer involves the use of precious stones, powdered and made into pills. Thusthe treatment is very expensive." (And therefore impressive --Author.)

   Dr Dolma presented a paper at the World Health OrganisationConference on Asian medicines in Canberra, Australia.

   Commenting, Dr Brian Furness, Director of Health Services atthe Australian National University, said, "There is a great storehouse of informationin Tibet that is unknown in the West. In all humility we cannot say what is goingon". A spokesman for the Australian Medical Association was quoted--"Itmay seem out of this world, but we are not disposed to ridicule it. We are preparedto listen and learn." The director of the Cancer Council of NSW, Dr Gordon Sarfatywas reported to be reluctant to comment without knowing the full details, but saidthe use of jewelry seemed "a far-fetched notion."

   I would like to add the comment that being far-fetched and expensiveis the reason that it works, at least with Orientals.

   Two significant points are displayed by this report, both encouraging:

  1. Further substantiation of the profound influence of psychological factors in the onset and remission of cancer.
  2. The willingness of some doctors to investigate "unorthodox" methods of treating disease.

   It should be noted that when complete remissions of cancer areachieved using psychological means such as those employed by Dr Simonton and Dr Dolma,such remissions cannot be accepted as cures because, unless the cancer milieu withinthe body has been rectified, degeneration of the body will continue and reappearanceof cancer is always possible.

   In the 1960s Dr Joseph Issels, at his Ringberg-Klinik in Germany,proved a 17% cure rate in the many "hopeless" terminal cancer cases treatedthere. His story is told in the book A Time To Heal by Peter Newton-Fenbow(Souvenir Press, 1971). Newton-Fenbow achieved a complete remission of widespread"terminal" cancer while following Dr Issels' treatment. Dr Issels' conceptof the cancer problem described in his book, Cancer--A Second Opinion (1975)is as follows:

   "The conventional idea on cancer is that it is a localdisease affecting--initially--one part of the body and requiring localized therapyin the form of either surgery or radiation or chemotherapy or a combination of these.This is not my opinion. Here in the Ringherg-Klinik we believe that cancer can neveroccur in a healthy body. A healthy body is in the position to recognize the cancercells and to reject them. However, the defense mechanism of the body can become damagedin many ways and will eventually lose the power of being able to reject the cancercells. At this stage we would say that the body now has the ability to develop acancer tumor. We therefore believe that the tumor develops because of an illnessof the entire body and therefore the tumor is a symptom only of the body's chronicillness.

   "Therefore a purely localized therapy which concentratesupon the removal or destruction of the tumor itself will not be highly effective.It is also necessary to treat the entire patient."

   Issels' treatment combined conventional treatment with a formof immunotherapy with which he endeavored to restore the action of the body's immunesystem. He was emphatic that the patient should be fully informed, and said, "Inthe twenty years of experience with the so-called incurable, I have seen what reservoirsof undreamed-of strength and courage can be drawn upon, even in terminal cases bythe adoption of a positive attitude. I have found that a patient, previously depressedand without hope, has started to live again, provided he has had the opportunityto talk about his complaint and its implications to the doctors and his relatives."

   Diet was considered important and was carefully composed witha view to wholesomeness. Here is where Issels erred badly when assessed from theGerson viewpoint, because although the Klinik diet excluded ham, bacon and pork,it contained nuts, yoghurt, eggs, vegetable margarine, cheese, meat, fish and honey.Thus the worst cancer factor--lipotoxemia--would still substantially remain, particularlywhen walking was only mildly encouraged. Notwithstanding these faults, he achievedcomparatively excellent results. In 1969 Professor John Anderson of Kings CollegeHospital, London, visited Issels' Klinik and stated:

   "Based on a survey of the clinic and its patients and onstatistical evidence about the survival of these patients, I am of the consideredopinion that this is a new approach to cancer treatment and appears to be a considerableimprovement on what is usually offered . . . Some of the cases I saw would have beenregarded as hopeless by physicians in the United Kingdom . . . The Issels' approachto the treatment of cancer is a unique and pioneering solution to a very difficultproblem . . . Dr Issels is an able physician, a shrewd and penetrating clinician. . . There can be no doubt that he is genuine in what he does and the results hegets . . . He is undoubtedly producing clinical remissions in patients who have beenregarded as hopeless and left to fall back on their own resources."

   Dr Denis Burkitt supported Professor Anderson's recommendationthat Issels' methods be fully investigated, but they received no support and nothingever came of it.

   Preceding Dr Issels in Germany, and in the USA later, Dr Gerson'ssuccess in achieving complete remissions of cancer was much greater because his dietarymethods were much better. Full details of case histories with photographs appearin Dr Gerson's book, A Cancer Therapy--The Results of Fifty Cases (TotalityBooks, Delmar, California, 1958).*

   Both Gerson and Issels fought against the blind rejection ofthe "establishment" and were both supported by Dr Albert Schweitzer. Ontheir last parting, Dr Schweitzer said to Issels, "Now colleague Issels, I mustreturn to the Wild, but you must return to the Jungle!".

   New York journalists are supposed to be hard-bitten and cynical,and when one of them set out to expose Gerson as a fraud, he not only found Gersonto be genuine, but ended up writing a book eulogising him. The book is Has DrMax Gerson A True Cancer Cure? by S. J. Haught (London Press, also Major books,Canoga Park, California, 1962, 1976). *

   Dr Eva Hill of New Zealand who used methods similar to Gerson'sto cure her own malignant cancer, achieved in New Zealand similar degrees of successwith patients, and of course, the same inevitable rejection by her "peers".Her book, written in conjunction with John Barrett is titled Cancer and Cure--ADoctor's Story (Bachman & Turner, London, 1976).

   There are a great number of books describing natural cancercures, many of which have been written by medical doctors who have actually curedthemselves. A list of the books known to the author, which have provided him witha great deal of information, appears at the end of this chapter.

   Actor Steve McQueen nearly made it. With only a predicted fewweeks to live, he went to Mexico and undertook a dietary based "alternative"medicine therapy for his widespread cancer. He made a steady improvement, and afterthree months he appeared on Mexican TV and thanked the people of Mexico for the freedomof alternative medicine doctors to practice there.

   As he got stronger, McQueen became impatient and decided toundergo surgery at another hospital in order to more quickly rid himself of the cancer.Unfortunately, five hours after the operation, McQueen died of heart failure causedby a blood clot from the surgery.

   A happier story is that of 48-year-old Dr Anthony Sattilaro,President of the Philadelphia Hospital, USA, who like Dr Eva Hill also achieved acomplete cure. The story first appeared in the Saturday Evening Post, September,1980. Dr Sattilaro's case is a classic--full of drive, he consistently overworked;always under pressure, he ate "on the run" during the day, and indulgedin fine restaurant foods in the evening.

   In May 1978 he decided to have a check-up, and the first x-raydisclosed a large tumor in his left side. A bone scan revealed cancer in his skull,right shoulder, two backbones, sternum and a large tumor in the sixth left rib. Furthertests showed cancer of the testicles and the prostate filled with it.

   Although his survival chances were rated at zero, he underwentsurgery and hormone treatment. His weight increased from 145 lbs to 170 lbs. Andhis pain became so severe and constant that he was given pain medication consistingof a "cocktail" of morphine, cocaine and compazine.

   In August, his father died of cancer in New Jersey, and on thedrive home from the funeral, Dr Sattilaro did something that usually he would neverdo--he picked up two hitchhikers. This act saved his life, and indirectly, probablythe lives of many others. One of the young hitchhikers went to sleep on the backseat and the other, Sean McLean, talked. As Dr Sattilaro revealed his reasons forthe trip, he told his listener that he too was dying of cancer. Sean McLean replied,"You don't have to die, cancer isn't all that hard to cure". This was onAugust 9, 1978.

   Sattilato said later, "I looked at him and though he wasjust a silty kid."

   About a week later, he received a package in the mail from McLean;it contained a book called A Macrobiotic Approach to Cancer. He examined itcursorily and was about to toss it in the waste basket when he noticed a testimonialwritten by another Philadelphia physician who had successfully treated herself forbreast cancer with macrobiotic methods.

   On August 24, 1978, in a "last-chance" attempt atsurvival, he introduced himself to 30-year-old Denny Waxman, director of the PhiladelphiaEast West Foundation, which instructs people in macrobiotic dietary principles. Waxmanadvised him to adopt this diet but to omit fish, oil, flour products and fruit initially.Dr Sattilaro was disbelieving, but had nowhere else to go and so embarked upon thediet.

   In two weeks most of his pain had gone and he discontinued medicationexcept for the estrogen. He experienced a feeling of wellbeing which he could onlyascribe to the diet, and yet his lifetime of medical training did not at first allowhim to believe in it. He had one relapse of pain when he departed briefly from thediet, but thereafter has stuck strictly to it.

   His weight reduced to his normal 145 lbs and he continued toimprove. In June 1979 after a consultation with Michio Kushi, the president of theEast West Foundation, he took himself off estrogen and he continued to get stronger.

   On September 25, 1979, he underwent an exhaustive examinationin his own hospital, and the other physicians were stunned at the result. He wascompletely free of cancer.*

*Warning: Dr Kristine Nolfi reported that having completely cleared her breastcancer by rigid dieting, the cancer reappeared after she resumed eating small amountsof cooked food. This has happened with a number of people who have again clearedthemselves by resuming the strict diet. On the other hand, others have returned toeating cooked food without trouble. In his book Breast Cancer: A Nutritional Approach(1977), Dr. Carlton Fredericks says: "Tissue which has suffered dietary insultwill recover, but it remembers the transgressions. It may take five years of theaverage American diet to cause severe problems. Once corrected by proper diet . .. it may take only two months of poor diet to awaken all the old symptoms. Underthe microscope the tissues show no change, but they remember, implacably".

   Dr Sattilaro's story is told in his book Recalled By Lifepublished in 1983.

In summary

   It is apparent that cancer is the result of multiple factors,mainly self-inflicted, not all of which need be present together and which vary greatlyin proportion and degree. The cancer growth itself is a symptom of a serious constitutionaldisorder upon which cells become cancerous only because they are forced to.

   The cancer process may take many years to proceed to the stagewhere a primary growth commences and up to this point the process is easily reversible.By the time secondary growths appear the process is very advanced. The stages are:

  1. Toxemia, at first counteracted by the liver and excretory organs.
  2. Chronic toxemia as liver function gradually declines.
  3. Pre-cancer, particularly in tissues with poor blood circulation.
  4. Irritation or injury to pre-cancerous tissue causing critical cell dedifferentiation resulting in cancer cells. Still no cancer growth if immune system reasonably functional.
  5. Further depletion of immune system due to emotional or physical stress.
  6. Cancer cells, no longer destroyed by lymphocytes, form growth of tumor of low malignancy.
  7. Vicious circle commences as tumor waste products add to toxemia.
  8. Further de-differentiation of cancer cells increases degree of malignancy.
  9. Malignant cells detach from primary tumor but at first are apprehended in lymph nodes.
  10. Malignant cells carried further in lymph and into main bloodstream, but no metastasis occurs while blood flows freely.
  11. Metastasis commences when malignant cell lodges in coagulated blood in a blocked vessel. Now free of any remaining constraints to growth which may have partly controlled it at the primary site, the metastasized growth commences virtually unrestrained.

   It is obvious (and this has been demonstrated by many autopsieswhen people have died from causes other than cancer) that many apparently healthypeople have cancer of which they are unaware.* The cancer may lie dormant for yearsor be held in check by their immune responses. Subjected to shock, worry, grief orinjury, such people rapidly develop cancer when their immune responses become depleted.

   Present medical statistics of industrial nations indicate thatone person in every three must expect to get cancer sooner or later. The correctprediction is worse, because only for the fact that the majority of people perishprematurely of heart or some other degenerative failure, it is almost certain thatpractically everyone on the Western diet would sooner or later get cancer.

   According to the Cancer Society, there are seven danger signals:any sore that does not heal; any lump or thickening; unusual bleeding or discharge;any change in a mote; persistent indigestion or difficulty in swallowing; persistenthoarseness or cough; and any change in bowel habits. You cannot afford to wait forthese signals because they are too late; they indicate established cancer, and bythis time it is touch and go whether restoration of normal metabolism is possible.

   It is obvious that any substance or influence of any kind whichin any way or any degree adversely affects the chemistry of the body, can therebycontribute to the development first of pre-cancer and then to cancer.

   Cancer in humans and laboratory animals has been separatelycorrelated by many researchers, with each of the following factors:

   Whereas it is possible that correction of diet alone can preventcells becoming cancerous, it has been found that once cancer cells are establishedthey may survive, regardless of diet, if the immune system is not functioning properly.The immune system must therefore be restored to vigorous activity along with thegeneral health of the body.

   With all these facts, surely it is ridiculous to undertake anymedical treatment whatever before first rectifying as many of the foregoing factorsas possible. Nobody in the world can give one sensible reason why not. But rememberthis: let it be absolutely clear that medical treatment, particularly chemotherapy,is so damaging to the body that the patients' chances or recovery are severely prejudiced.Remember, first and foremost, our objective is to detoxify the body and restore itsproper chemical balance so that, revitalized, it can restore itself to health.

   If all that sounds reasonable, this is what to do:

  1. Adopt a diet of 100% fresh, raw fruit and vegetables, high in Vitamins A and C, preferably unsprayed, excluding any which are difficult to digest. No oils, dressings or condiments.
  2. Supplement the diet with digestive enzymes, properly prescribed.
  3. Observe all the restrictions of salt, sugar, coffee, tea, alcohol, grain products.
  4. Drink only distilled water (little water will be required anyway).
  5. Avoid air pollution, smoke of any kind.
  6. Avoid all medicines, tranquilizers, sleeping pills, sedatives, painkillers, antibiotics etc.
  7. Remove or repair infected teeth.
  8. Avoid TV set radiation.
  9. Get adequate exposure to sunshine without wearing glasses and preferably without clothes. Do not overexpose.
  10. Adopt a light aerobic exercise program but don't overstrain.
  11. Get plenty of rest.
  12. Somehow--anyhow--escape from pressure and worry. Seek peace and tranquility.
  13. Understand the problem and tackle it purposefully and confidently.
  14. Friends and relations should participate and add moral support.

   As mentioned earlier, further assistance to the body such assupplementary enzymes, thyroid extract, vitamins, minerals, herbal extracts, hyperthermia,artificial blood-purification and artificial blood-oxygenation can be provided, underproper supervision, to patients with advanced cancer whose vital organs cannot regeneratewithout help. An important feature of the Gerson treatment is the use of frequentcoffee enemas, the purpose of which is to stimulate the flow of bile in order toremove toxins formed by the disintegration of cancer tissue. Dr Gerson found thisprocedure necessary after losing some patients who suffered internal poisoning.

   The recommended program is quite simple, is painless, and getsresults. However, the additional therapeutic procedures just mentioned should becarried out with the advice and supervision of a professional consultant.

   Subsequent to the discovery of his colon cancer, president RonaldReagan, at the instigation of his wife Nancy, adopted what is known as a "prudent"diet. And after major surgery to remove the malignant tumor, his recovery was sorapid as to astonish his doctors. Said the leading surgeon, "The President ison a post-operative course that surpasses by 99.9% all patients who undergo thistype of surgery. That includes all patients, much less one who is 74 years old".Two reasons for this were given: the President's "superior physical shape"and "the amazing fact that his internal workings were those of a 40-year-old".

   From the reports the author has read, the President's presentdiet still contains food unsuitable for a cancer patient and I would feet more confidentfor him if he went 100% Gerson.

   The significance of these events is great, and perhaps soonthe "quacks" who long ago pioneered the dietary therapy for disease willbe accorded the recognition they deserve.

In conclusion

   When it is considered that cancer remissions are often achievedby correcting just one factor out of so many involved, it is likely that correctionof them all should ensure success in the majority of cases.

   At a meeting of Nobel Laureates at Lindau, Germany, June 30,1966, Dr Otto Warburg, the winner of two Nobel prizes for discoveries of key processesof cell respiration and various enzyme systems, concluded his address saying:

   "Nobody today can say that one does not know what cancerand its prime cause be. On the contrary, there is no disease whose prime cause isbetter known, so that today ignorance is no longer an excuse that one cannot do moreabout prevention. The prevention of cancer will come there is no doubt, for man wishesto survive. But how long prevention will be avoided depends on how long the prophetsof agnosticism will succeed in inhibiting the application of scientific knowledgein the cancer field. In the meantime, millions of people must die of cancer unnecessarily."

Recommended reading

A Cancer Therapy, The Results of Fifty Cases (1975)--Dr Max Gerson

The Prime Cause and Prevention of Cancer (1969)--Dr Otto Warburg

The Survival Factor in Neoplastic and Viral Disease (1961)--Dr WilliamF. Koch

A Solution to the Cancer Problem (1962)--Dr Cornelius Moerman

Cancer and Cure--A Doctors Story (1976)--Dr Eva Hill

Recalled by Life (1983)--Dr Anthony Sattilaro

The Anatomy, Physiology, Pathology and Treatment of Cancer (1844)--Dr WalterWalshe

Cancer: Its Nature and Successful and Comparatively Painless Treatment(1866)--Dr John Patterson

The Treatment of Cancer Without Operation (1903)--Dr Robert Bell

The Cancer Scourge and How to Destroy It --Dr Robert Bell

Reminiscences of an Old Physician (1924)--Dr Robert Bell

Cancer (1912)--Dr Forbes Ross

Cancer, Its Genesis and Treatment (1912)--Dr Forbes Ross

Cancer, Its Non-Surgical Treatment (1921)--Dr Lucius Bulkley

The Prevention of the Diseases Peculiar to Civilization (1929)--Sir ArbuthnotLane

Be Your Own Doctor --Dr Anne Wigmore

The Body is the Hero (1977)--Dr Ronald J. Glasser

The Greatest Battle (1978)--Dr Ronald J. Glasser

Has Max Gerson a True Cancer Cure? (1962)--S. J. Haught (Retitled Cancer--ThinkCurable! )

Victory over Cancer (1957)--Cyril Scott

My Experiences with Living Food (1954)--Dr Kristine Nolfie

Cancer, Its Dietetic Cause and Cure (1963)--Dr Maude Tresillian Fere

Does Diet Cure Cancer? (1971)--Dr Maude Tresillian Fere

Cancer is Curable --Stefanos Stefanou

How I Healed My Cancer Holistically (1978)--Dore Deverell

Civilized Diseases and Their Circumventions (1978)--Max Ganten

Fresh Hope in Cancer (1978)--Dr Maurice Finkel

Fresh Hope With New Cancer Treatments (1984) -Dr Maurice Finkel

Living Above It (1974)--Robert East

How I Conquered Cancer Naturally (1975)--Eydie Mae Hinsberger

Cancer and Vitamin C (1979)--Drs Evan Cameron, Linus Pauling

You Can Fight For Your Life (1977)--Dr Lawrence Le Shan

The Death of Cancer (1978)--Dr Harold Manner

The Psychogenic Biochemical Aspects of Cancer (1979)--Harold E. Simmons

Cancer, How and Why It May Be Wiped Out (1977) Gordon Roberts

Fruit Can Heal You (1908)--Dr 0. L. Abramowski

How I Overcame Inoperable Cancer (1975)--Dr Ebba Waerland

Healed of Cancer (1977)--Jo Lawson

Killing Cancer (1980)--Jason Winters

Too Young to Die (1979)--Rick Hill

You Don't Have to Die (1956)--Dr Harry S. Hoxsey

Laetrile Case Histories (1977)--Dr John A. Richardson

Food Is Your Best Medicine (1965)--Dr Henry G. Bieler

One Answer to Cancer (1969)--Dr William Kelly

An End to Cancer? (1978)--Leon Chaitow

Cancer, A Healing Crisis (1980) -Jack Tropp

The Grape Cure (1948)--Dr Johanna Brandt

Cancer, How to Prevent It and How to Fight It (1978)--Dr E. Berkley

Cancer Winner (1977)--Jaquie Davison

Healing Miracles from Macrobiotics (1979)--Dr Jean Charles Kohler

Stress, Cancer and the Mind --Dr Hans Selye

The Lonely Sea and Sky --Francis Chicester

The Cancer Blackout (1959)--Maurice Natenberg

Coronary? Cancer? God's Answer (1979)--Dr Richard O'Brennan

Cancer: The Facts (1979)--Sir Ronald Bodley Scott

How to Prevent and Gain Remission From Cancer (1975)--John H. Tobe

Cancer Treatment, Why So Many Failures? (1980)--Richard Ericson

Fruit, The Food and Medicine for Man (1961)--Morris Krok

A Rational Concept of Cancer (1977)--Robert W. Stickle

Cancer Holiday (1978)--Bettie Towner

A Time to Heal (1971)--Peter Newton Fenbow

Cancer--A Second Opinion (1975)--Dr Joseph Issels

Cancer--A Disease of Civilization --Vilhjalmur Stephannson

To Age--But Without Cancer --Dr R. Stoeger

Diet, Nutrition and Cancer (1982)--National Research Council

Colon Health (1979)--Dr Norman Walker

How to Prolong Life ( 1880)--Dr Charles de Lacey Evans

The Wheel of Health (1938)--Dr G. T. Wrench

Hypothyroidism, The Unsuspected Illness (1976)--Broda 0. Barnes

The Liver and Cancer, A New Cancer Theory (1955)--Dr Kasper Blond

Now That You Have Cancer (1977)--Dr Bruce Halstead

Get Well Naturally (1965)--Linda Clark

Cancer Causes and Natural Controls (1983)--Dr Lynn Dallin

Nutrition, the Cancer Answer (1983)--Maureen Salaman

The Topic of Cancer (1982)--Dr Brian Richards

Fluoride, The Aging Factor (1983)--Dr John Yiamouyiannis

A Cancer Patient's Survival Manual (1983)--Barbara Huntington

The Fitzgerald Report (1954)--Benedict F. Fitzgerald

Save Your Life (1983)--Michael L. Culbert

A Gentle Way with Cancer (1983)--Ian Pearce, BA, BM, BCh, MRCS, LRCP

The Cradle of the World and Cancer--A Disease of Civilization (1927)--DrE. H. Tipper

A Holistic Approach to Cancer (1983)--Ian Pearce, BA, BM, BCh, MRCS, LRCP

The Anti-Cancer, Anti-Heart Attack Cookbook (1985)--Ross Horne and ToniBobbin

The Cancer Prevention Diet (1983)--Michio Kushi

The Macrobiotic Approach to Cancer (1982)--Michio Kushi