It used to be “The Big Bad Wolf” but now it seems that it’s li’l ol’ me!
The British government is trying to tell us that we cannot talk about the reality of cancer…
From Europe By Karma Singh…
Way back in 2006, the year before I published the first edition of “Cancer? So what?”, I knew someone who worked in a cancer research centre on Long Island NY. At the time, I had a gadget available which I thought might bring about the necessary heavy detoxification and, possibly, save the lives of some late-stage cancer patients. I, therefore, offered, via my acquaintance, to supply four of the gadgets free of charge to test. I did not get an immediate response to my offer.
Around six weeks later, I was informed that they would test the gadgets and it would cost me $50,000.00 per patient! Flabbergasted at such a pecunious response I, of course, asked how on Earth they could come up with such an insane idea.“That’s the amount of money they would lose if a patient recovered instead of dying” was the reply. (sic)
In the intervening years, I have learned that ensuring that people die of cancer is one of the three big sources of income for the medico-pharmaceutical industry.
Every day, around 1,700 people die with cancer in the US alone. Putting all the countries where health care is dominated by the medico-pharmaceutical industry together we come to around 4,500 to 5,000 deaths PER DAY! Times $50,000 equals at least 225 million dollars per DAY, each and every day; times 365.25 gives us just over $82 billions per year in earnings for the medico-pharmaceutical industry.
At the beginning of the 20th century, cancer was so rare that a family doctor could expect to see three cases during his entire professional career.
There is one famous incident in 1911 (another version states that it was in 1903) when a professor at a medical school called all of his students back from vacation because he had just received a cancer patient: The opportunity to study a cancer case was so rare then that he felt perfectly justified in curtailing their vacation.
Following the First World War, for reasons which I make plain in the book, the incidence of cancer began to rapidly rise. It is still rising and is now, after pharmaceutical medicine and heart attacks, the number three cause of death throughout the First World!
You may have heard of Hoxsey and others who found ways of healing cancer. What happened to them, you may wonder? Some sold their discoveries to the medico-pharmaceutical industry in the expectation that they would use them: Others, such as Hoxsey, refused to sell because it became clear that the intent was to bury his discoveries. He and others were hounded to death but continued to help cancer sufferers almost until their last breath.
Does cancer kill?
No, is the simple answer!
Astonishing as it may seem, the statement can be made that “No-one has ever died of cancer!”
What needs to be understood is that cancer is NOT an illness but a natural, temporary, emergency solution to a very different problem.
At the behest of the pharmaceutical companies which control almost all medical training, medical personnel are focused exclusively upon the suppression of symptoms and are taught nothing about identifying causes and removing them as this would reduce pharmaceutical sales. The medico-pharmaceutical industry proceeds exclusively by attacking symptoms.
As cancer is not a problem but a temporary, emergency solution for a problem, it should be perfectly obvious that attacking the emergency solution whilst ignoring the real problem is a recipe for disaster; hence their extremely miserable “success” rate with cancer. Dependent upon where you draw your statistics, the medico-pharmaceutical industry has a success rate no higher than 12% and some put it as low as 0.2%! It is, in any event, fairly certain that most cancer related deaths are caused by medical treatment.
And “cancer research” to “find” the “cures”?
The owners of the medico-pharmaceutical industry have known and hidden these for many decades. Curiously (perhaps) the amounts collected by donations for cancer research approximately equal the amounts which they spend each year to suppress knowledge of and access to methods which do actually work – methods with success rates of 80% plus because they tackle the real problem.
Methods of dealing with cancer which tackle the cause(s) usually result in your body naturally removing the tumours for which it has no further use.
A cancer tumour is, basically, an emergency method of reducing general toxicity in the body.
One could, reasonably, view a tumour as a toxin storage organ – it’s actually more sophisticated than that as I explain in the book.
Going back to the statement “no-one has ever died of cancer” one sees, when you look at it closely, that either, because the real problem has not been tackled, the cancers grow so large that they prevent the proper function of your body’s other organs and you die from organ failure; the other major cause of death lies in attacking the solution (the tumours) instead of removing the cause(s) and so greatly increasing the level of toxicity that the patient dies of poisoning.
In order to protect their financial interests…
…the pharmaceutical cartel has, in many countries, purchased legislation to prevent patients’ access to effective treatment. In Germany, Norway and some other countries they have even managed to have it made a crime to express an opinion that leukaemia can be healed! The rationale for such laws, apparently, is that making such a statement could give hope to leukaemia sufferers. Precisely why they are forbidden to have hope is not stated.
Knowing all this…
…it is something of a minefield writing a book on the subject. What I have, therefore, chosen to do is not to state how you can heal cancer but how to cause it – in full detail. It is perfectly legal to use the knowledge in the book to prevent cancer by avoiding or eliminating the causes. What is not legal and, in some countries a crime, is to use the knowledge to remove existing cancers and I, of course, being a good boy, always follow the law and, therefore, warn readers that they may be committing a criminal act by using the knowledge to remove any existing cancers.
It is now some weeks since I published the new edition of “Cancer? So what?” which has been almost completely re-written in the light of new developments in the field and my own increased knowledge.
Four days ago, a British government department – Trading Standards – made the first move in the attempt to have the book effectively banned.
Publishing the book is, apparently, quite OK. Telling anyone that it exists is, they claim, illegal! A most interesting claim which only finds a parallel in the (now repealed) law forbidding lawyers to advertise. Medical practitioners are forbidden to advertise but this isn’t a law but a ruling of their professional body, the British Medical Association.
I have, therefore, demanded that Trading Standards put in writing that which they have, so far, only communicated verbally stating under what legislation access to my book is to be forbidden. At this time of writing, I have received no reply.
So, right now, you can still get the book openly via the normal internet. If I have to go “underground” you may have to search for it on the Deep Web.
Today, you can get it here https://www.cancersowhat.com or, in German, at https://www.krebsnaund.de
There is a sliding scale of discounts for multiple copies of the book as well as e-book versions.
Blessed be
Karma Singh
www.karmabooks.co.uk
(Click on the Yule-Tide banner to access all the combination offers)
14th December 2019
Lyn Thyer & David Noakes have both been imprisoned in the UK & extradited to France (5 eyes ? Entente Cordiale ).
Their TRUE crime, they can cure cancer !
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/health/john-b-robbins-dead.html
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/killed-attack-targeting-polio-vaccination-team-pakistan-191218073119184.html
https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/parents-in-southern-california-demand-school-board-declare-district-a-sanctuary-community-for-parental-rights/
By and large I agree with you about cancer. My own book is called, ‘It’s only a disease – How I fought terminal cancer and won’, which in some ways chime with your viewpoint.
However, to claim that people do not die of their cancers is somewhat disingenuous, to say the least. Cancerous tumours often poison their host by the use of anaerobic metabolism that robs the liver of the glucose the body requires for normal functioning. The process is referred to by medics as ‘cachexia’ and leads to that massive weight loss often seen in cancer patients. That process feeds the tumour but robs nutrition from the rest of the body.
It is probably true that in many cases, leaving a tumour alone may prolong life. However, it is mistaken to claim that the cancer doesn’t kill the patient, for if left unchecked, a cachexia will kill the patient by poisoning from the byproducts of the tumour’s growth.
As for your theory about what cancer is , it is a theory only and many books have been written on the meaning of cance;, since there are many theories, and not all of them come from the oncologists and the reseachers whose employment has been funded at least in part by those fundraisers who often prey upon the recently bereaved through cancer.
As for your book’s banning, it will have fallen foul of the 1939 Cancer Act which makes it illegal to claim to be able to cure cancer, or to offer treatments that are unproven. The homoeopath, sadly now retired, who devoted her life to treating, and in many cases, curing cancer, told me once that she was not afraid of the Act She explained that she never claimed to be able successfully to treat cancer- only to treat patients who happened to have cancer. However, when I refused any conventional treatment on receiving the results of the scan that showed that my tumour was now inoperable, she confided that I had made the right decision.
She was not a self publicist and always avoided the limelight. Perhaps that explains the difference between her working relatively unhampered throughout her career and your falling foul the Act. For whilst we all know of highly principled physicians who were drummed out of the profession for promoting unrecognised treatments that showed great promise, the converse is true and desperate people often fall victim to claims that have little substance to them.
Clearly, the topic of cancer is a complicated one with a potential to become a minefield. Sometimes alternative viewpoints on cancer treatment offer a roadmap to recovery, but glib claims and counter- claims can lead vulnerable individuals to unneccesary suffering.
Don’t you mean HOXEY? Who is Hoxter?
I don’t think cancer kills, either. However, my experience in observing is limited. Doctors will write “cancer” on death certificates, even if you die of “chemotherapy” or, as I found out in a letter to the editor in today’s Wall Street Journal, even if you merely have cancer when you die of old age. What I have observed personally is a family pet that has survived for way past what any of us expected with large apparent tumors and, yes cachexia. Also, while briefly working with cancer patients as a dietitian, hearing of a case where a tumor was so large as to be growing through the skin,yet apparently, the patient was not that ill. American cancer care is legalized torture and could only be proposed by sadists or those who think asset stripping via expensive poisoning is a good plan.
Good morning everyone,
some clarification needed here, I see.
First to cachexia:-
This symptom appears in almost all cases of any chronic disease. It is NOT unique to cancer, it’s just that the medicos call it “cachexia” when the patient also has cancer and not when dealing with, for example, emphysema.
This symptom is an effect of the body reaching such a high level of stress (as with, for example, being slowly destroyed by some fell disease) that stress hormones are being constantly produced by the adrenals. Part of the necessary function of the stress hormones is to close down both the natural immunity and the digestion. To “keep things going” as it were, the normal metabolism is reversed and the muscle tissues literally eat themselves. Where the stress source is emotional rather than physical, we get things like AIDS which, as Dr. Bergold at Columbia showed back in the 1980’s, if you treat as extreme stress it will disappear. I can only confirm this with the experiences with my own AIDS patients. One of the effects of the metabolism reversal is that the liver becomes heavily overburdened as it attempts to manage the toxins which this creates.
As is very common in the medico-pharmaceutical sickness industry, this one side effect is arbitrarily, ex-cathedra, stated to be the cause. It isn’t; the most likely cause is the massive amounts of toxins which they have added to a system trying to recover from extreme toxicity. I can’t, of course, repeat the whole book here but, if you read it, you will understand how this happens.
So, cachexia is not caused by cancer but, most probably, by medical treatment. There is an antidote available in Europe but the FDA won’t let you import it into America.
My knowledge of cancer could not be called theoretical: Over 15 years’ practise I developed a programme which has a success rate in the high 90’s percentage wise. In 2009, I came into contact with Dr. Leonard Coldwell who, he claims, in his cancer clinic had lost just 230 from 20,000 cancer patients. 2011 and 2012 I came into contact with other therapists and healers who also enjoyed success rates of 90%+.
All of us, completely independently of each other, have developed the self-same procedures! So, it’s not a theory but much more like Q.E.D.!
The Cancer Act is a toothless tiger and most of it has already been repealed. The maximum punishment for claiming to heal cancer is £50.00 ($65.50) BUT: I make no such claim, as you would know had you read the book. Instead, I show in detail exactly how cancers are created. I then point out that using this knowledge to avoid cancer is perfectly legal but using it to remove existing cancers could be a criminal act, dependent upon which country you live in.
The content of your last paragraph, Kevin, is that which impelled me to finally publish the book.
You are right, K: I do mean Hoxsey – don’t know what happened there; maybe one of those famous “auto-corrects”.
VERY noteworthy, is the fact that Hoxsey’s treatment consisted of “heavy duty” detoxification programmes. I explain in the book precisely why this is so effective.
I have experienced similar things Alexis. I have even heard of one case (I didn’t see it myself) where a left breast cancer grew through the skin and then just fell off leaving the woman completely healthy.
Please DO read the book, it makes so much plain and removes so much fear and suffering.
Blessed be
Karma Singh
Karma your explanation is oh so close.
The reason for cachexia is because when we are in a high stress situation, the mind will not allow the animal to stop and graze before they have resolved the danger.
When a gazelle is being chased by a lion it has no appetite because first and foremost it must escape the lion before it worries about eating again.
Once it has done so, the appetite will return as normal. We are the same. When we feel we are in a life and death situation (for example, a doctor gives us a terrible prognosis from some other medical condition) then our lungs go into hyperdrive (lung cancer) and we have no appetite.
In nature, we would either run away from the threat or it would eat us. But you can’t outrun a terrible medical prognosis so the fear of death remains and therefore so does the loss of appetite leading eventually to cachexia.
If we shake off the fear of death (eg we realize our doctor is a fool) then we will recover by getting TB – night sweats, coughing up blood and resumed appetite. Of course, many people will take this as a sign they are getting even sicker so will retreat right back to the fear of death situation they had.
If you are wondering why we have so much more lung cancer today then you should look at TB statistics. In the 20th century rates of TB declined but lung cancer rates increased. We just substituted one diagnosis for another because they are two sides of the same coin and because we foolishly assumed our public health practices eliminated TB.
We blamed smoking for the rise in lung cancer but smoking had nothing to do with it.
Indeed, if you look at places with very high smoking rates (China and the Middle East) you often get very low lung cancer rates.
Now, not all cancers are accompanied by cachexia because different traumas will require different physiological responses that the sub-conscious mind considers necessary to protect us. Lung cancer is a very common “metastasis” though (because the “fear of death” is a highly likely response to a horrible prognosis) which is why cachexia is very common in cancer patients.
not “oh so close”, Rtp but 100% in agreement with everything that I’ve written!
Perhaps you don’t understand the mechanism:-
1: The “antelope” perceives the approaching lioness (lions don’t hunt – only the lionesses)
2: The antelope decides that this is an emergency situation and that it should flee.
3: This decision causes a flood of neuropeptides from the hypothalamus which, amongst other things, causes the adrenals to produce the “stress” hormones.
4: The stress hormones shut down many systems, including digestion, in order to give maximal energy to the muscles (it is for this reason that, unless the lioness can catch the antelope within the first minute, it will probably get away as the stress hormones enable it to run faster)
5: Once the “antelope” perceives that the danger is past – the lionesses have caught something else or the medicos tell the patient that they’ve removed all the cancers – then it returns to normal awareness, the neuro-peptide flood ceases and the adrenals stop flooding the body with cortisol.
So, you see, it is the decision about the belief about the PERCEPTION of the environment which is the start and end of the process.
Blessed be
Karma
Great explanation Karma.
There is one famous incident in 1911 (another version states that it was in 1903) when a professor at a medical school called all of his students back from vacation because he had just received a cancer patient: The opportunity to study a cancer case was so rare then that he felt perfectly justified in curtailing their vacation
No kidding. So from where did you get your PhD in Stupid? I assume you have one, or do you have evidence that cancer of the blood, or cancer of the lymph nodes, or tumors were diagnosed by high technology over 100 years ago with ouija boards.
I mean, how would a physician know that a patient had cancer unless it was near the surface and presented itself as some sort of irregularity at or near the surface? Did physicians just cut into patients who complained of a stomach ache or fatigue, or a head ache? The first mention of leukemia was not until 1899. And this was a few years before the internet, so would not have been widely known.
X-Rays?? Hardly used for medical reasons until WWI, and then only for trauma. Oh, and did you know that their dangers, as in cancer : Dally had a habit of testing X-ray tubes on his own hands, developing a cancer in them so tenacious that both arms were amputated in a futile attempt to save his life; in 1904, he became the first known death attributed to X-ray exposure
were discovered way before they were used medically?
Or, having a PhD in stupid, you just assumed that if a disease was not easily observed, then it did not exist. That is my guess.