Breast Cancer Cure

I've commented on various topics through this website and on other websites via their discussion boards. In all this time I've not really ever laid out My Thoughts on cancer, and whether there is any cure for it.

What you are about to read here is the first in a series of posts on cancer and is based on my research, my knowledge of disease and its causes (I got an science award in high school for my research and consequent reporting of a syndrome which involved numbness in the buttocks and thigh, dull ache in the same area and lower leg, recurring tingling in the same area, whose cause ultimately was... wearing denim jeans that were too tight - remember, the 80s was the tight jean decade. It was a shame that many women with the syndrome took blood thinning medication to increase blood circulation instead of wearing jeans that were more loose), and my experiences with being ill, identifying the cause and basically fixing myself without the aid of modern "medicine" (I have not been "sick" for 11 years). All of it mixed with a dash of "what makes sense."

Some of the following goes against accepted medical practice and it is NOT medical advice. Some of it quite radical in thought. Nevertheless, I ask you to at least contemplate the ideas. Chew them over in your mind. Decide for yourself whether it makes sense or is totally out there. And if you want to be notified of further cancer postings, send an email to contact@michaelrossonline.com with "Subscribe Cancer" in the subject line. And if anything I've written here is unclear, please also send me an email and ASK for clarification.

Anyway. First let me relay some alternative concepts about cancer in general and how the body works in general. I urge you not to speed read your way past this, even if you think you know some or all of it. Understanding the basics is paramount to understanding the more advanced stuff later on.

Onward.

Royal Raymond Rife invented a few medical devices. One more well-known device being a microscope. And it is reported that he was the first person to be able to see a virus using his microscope - something modern science had only recently achieved without the aid of an electron microscope.

Rife theorized - based on his observations - that cancer was caused by the body creating an immortal tumor around a particular virus.

He likewise theorized that the virus could be killed with frequency. And created a frequency generator which work using pulses of light. Light actually does have mass, and it was the minute mass of the light pulses hitting the skin which would create a low level sound wave which was deadly to the virus. With the virus killed, the body no longer had a use for an immortal lump of cells and disposed of them.

He reportedly was given 43 terminal cancer patients to test his theory and generator on. He cured every single patient. A 100% success rate. And when asked to license his "treatment" so it could be sold for large amounts of money, he refused and instead wanted to give his therapy to the world. He was subsequently ridiculed, his research grants dried up, his experiments denounced as fake and test results subsequently "lost" by the testing hospital.

Dr Sam Chachoua's father was dying of bone cancer. In an effort to "save" him, he researched every cancer cure he could get his hands on as well as stories of spontaneous remission going back hundreds of years.

He noticed a pattern in the remission patients, developed an experimental treatment and asked the hospital for lab space to test his idea. Because his father was, in fact, a doctor, the hospital humored him. But their smugness turned to jealousy when the treatment killed all the cancer cells in the lab.

It was at this point he discovered something which can only be described as idiotic. And that is... only approved treatments can be given to a cancer patient and the only treatments allowed to be tested and researched by accredited doctors are the approved treatments. In short... you can only test existing treatments and existing treatments are all that's allowed to be given. (A doctor can lose their license to practice medicine if they so much as prescribe aspirin to help treat cancer!)

And the three accepted treatments are: radiation treatment, chemical therapy (chemo) and surgery.

What makes this even more idiotic is: radiation and chemicals are what is used in the lab to make a cancer grow!

Anyway. During his testing and retesting, he discovered something unusual. Every time he killed a cancer tumor he found within the middle a virus - just like Rife had discovered. He thus concluded, the body, in an effort to protect itself, created an immortal cluster of cells around something that could otherwise harm it - much like an oyster will grow shell around a grain of sand which gets in its shell.

Like Rife, he allowed his research to be tested by the accepted medical profession - with the added promise they publish the results no matter what they were. After the tests were completed they refused to hand back his serums and cell cultures and refused to publish their findings. They too "lost" everything. Chachoua sued them and won. A court awarding Dr Chachoua $10 Million dollars in damages.

Dr Hulda Clark also discovered a "bug" at every cancer tumor. Strengthening the other two theories that the lump is part of the body's self defense system.

Clark also discovered, what she believed to be, the source of the "bug." And its source was another larger "bug" which was infecting the liver (everything passes through the liver) and which was able to live within the liver because of a weakened immune system mainly due to chemicals.

As a student of the biology of the body, let me tell you, the liver has to process and filter pretty well everything. If you have a chemical intolerance it is a sign that your liver cannot filter that chemical quick enough. One normal reaction can be for the body to remove the chemical as quickly as possible - which is most effectively achieved by putting it in the skin. This natural body reaction results in a skin eruption (rash or other dermatological reaction). And the "toxin" will stay in the skin for as long as it takes for the liver to filter it out. And in bad cases, the body will expel it through the skin (the skin erupts in a pustule).

What happens with most people who are diagnosed with cancer is this: They think there is something wrong - maybe a lump, maybe not feeling too good in a certain area. If it is a lump, the doctor might suggest a "biopsy" - a long needle is stuck into the lump, some of the cells extracted, and then tested to see if they are "immortal" cancer cells.

If they are cancer cells the doctor will then immediately recommend one of the three approved treatments - radiation, chemo, surgery - and recommend that treatment begin immediately. Before doing the biopsy he won't tell you the treatment has to begin right away if it is positive.

Here is how chemo works: The chemicals (toxic poison) is injected into you. This chemical poison has been manufactured to kill fast growing cells (when a cancer is small it is faster growing than when it is large - I'll cover why this is so further on). The problem is, the fastest growing cells in the body are the immune system cells - obviously it is in the body's best interest to have an immune system which can make cells faster than anything else. So thus, the first cells to be killed by chemo-therapy are your immune cells - the very same cells designed to protect you.

Sometimes this chemo might work. But you are now left with an overworked liver - which has also most likely been damaged by the harsh poisonous chemicals - and a much weakened immune system. With such an assault on the body it is no wonder you feel like shit after chemo.

Radiation therapy is just as bad, if not worse. As it totally kills your immune system. Which is why bone marrow removal and transplants are done with people undergoing radiation treatment. It also sterilizes the person and prevents them from ever having children again - ever.

Why does the doc suggest starting treatment right away? Because he knows, the moment he stuck the needle into the lump, he broke the thin sheath-like membrane which totally engulfed the lump keeping it isolated from the rest of the body. And once that precious protective membrane has been broken, immortal cells, as well as what those cells where enveloping, can now flood into the body and take residence elsewhere. This is why you often hear of cancer spreading almost as soon as it is diagnosed.

(The cancer cells need to grow rapidly so as to re-engulf what it was they had previously been surrounding. Plus, while a small cluster of cells, the distance from the core of the cluster to the outside is short. So nutrients are able to get to the core easily. The cluster grows fast. But when the cluster is large, nutrients are unable to get to the core. Thus, the size of the cluster grows fast while small and slow to no growth at all, when it is larger. And, often, by the time a lump is visible, you could have had that cluster of cells for ten years!)

Most people who die from cancer die from the treatment and not the cancer. Think about it... the person lived for years and years and suddenly cancer is going to kill them in a couple of weeks? Not likely. But with a weakened immune system, the body has virtually no defense against the chemo and radiation and finally gives in.

Part of the immune system is the lymphatic system. Consider this system as a series of pipes taking bad stuff away from the other cells of body. Like the body's sewer system. And just like a sewer system, block it up and the toxins have to overflow somewhere.

You see, the lymph system does not have a pump like the blood system. So build ups are first stored in the lymph glands. And await body movement to move them along. You know this effect as swollen glands.

Now in light of this information - all of it - let us have a closer look at Breast Cancer and its diagnosis and other suggestions around the subject.

First, women are advised to have a "mammogram" regularly to "check for abnormal cells"

A mammogram does this by shooting a HIGH dose of radiation through the breast while it is being physically deformed - and damaged. In essence, while putting breast tissue through undue stress a HUGE dose of radiation is passed through the breast. This is sheer barbarism. For it is radiation which is used in the lab to grow cancer cells and make normal cells turn cancerous. To pass such cancer causing doses of radiation through susceptible breast tissue is madness and inaptitude.

Some say, consume Soy products because the Asians do and they hardly have breast cancer at all.

Well, before buying into that, please also note, that Asians don't consume vast amounts of our other chemicalized foods, chemicalized water, don't undergo mammograms and most likely do not wear bras - which is important and I will come back to it. So to suggest that just one thing they do is the reason for their lack of breast cancer is also ludicrous.

Now picture this everyday scenario: A woman gets up in the morning. Has a shower. Upon finishing the shower she puts deodorant under her arms - this deodorant is invariably made with aluminum powder, whose sole function is to BLOCK UP the armpit pores to help prevent sweating - and other chemicals. The chemicals seep through the skin into the body. The lymph system needs to get rid of it so tries to take it away (after all, the body cannot expel them through the pores because they've been blocked by aluminum powder). However, there is a problem, the bra with its underwire and tight straps is restricting the flow. Chemical build up needs to be stored. It is stored in the lymph glands and some overflow will thus seep into the porous breast tissue and possibly into a milk gland. The prolonged exposure to the toxic chemical combined with the reduced fluid flow caused by bras, combines to create a situation conducive to breast cancer.

Thus, to prevent the likelihood of breast cancer, the first two things a woman should do is, switch to an all natural, no chemical whatsoever, deodorant - and - stop wearing bras. After all, being bra-less is how nature intended, right?

If you must wear a bra - because you cannot find any tops that adequately "hide" your nipples or whatever, and it is too warm to wear a cardigan or jacket - then a soft cotton-only stretch sports bra should be worn - and even then, only for minimal amounts of time and should be removed immediately upon getting back home.

As for breast cancer being something which is inherited...

I say, it makes more sense that the child inherits dressing and grooming habits. Thus, the child will do what its mother did - wear similar type bras and use deodorants in a similar fashion. As the child was under the mother's control for the formative years, the child also picked up certain diet habits which, likewise, hinder the liver's ability to process chemicals.

As for soy (soy sauce, soy milk, soy flour in bread, soy in baby formula, soy lecithin in other foods stuffs)... it creates an estrogen dominance. Thus sending the woman's hormones into a over-excited state. Over-excited sensitive breast tissue chock full of chemicals with its waste removal pipes clamped shut by a bra = breast cancer susceptibility.

To further help prevent breast cancer... avoid mammograms like the plague. And drink plenty of home made juice (so buy a juicer). After all, the body uses what you consume to make cells and immune system cells. So consuming good quality juice gives your body the building blocks it needs to fix existing cancers and prevent new ones. As long as you give your body the chance to do so and don't hinder it by absorbing chemicals, wearing tight bras, and so on.

Is this solution - natural deodorant without wearing a bra - too simple?

Sure it is: Why does it have to be complicated? In fact, the simplest thing to do is not wear a bra. That alone will open the lymph system so the toxins can be flushed away. And greatly reduce the incidence of breast cancer. And if you are concerned with a sagging breast... ask yourself... would you rather have a slightly sagged breast or a breast removed - followed by chemo and radiation only to be told we didn't get it all, and only to have a recurrence some time later because that is what ALWAYS happens?

I think the answer is obvious, don't you?

(The next post in the series will be on Endometriosis and Cancer of the Uterus)

Do YOU Qualify? I Don't

For the third time this week, someone offered me something - but only if I qualified. And it is this latest phone solicitation which has caused me to write.

Like all sales calls, it was cleverly disguised with over-use of my name, asking to speak to the principal and asking how I was. It went something like this...

Ring Ring.

Picking up the phone, "Mike Ross."

Caller: "Hi Mike, I'm Debbie with Sponge Bobbits, and we have the backing of Big Brand Name Store You Have Heard Of and Another Store You've Heard of. Can I speak with the principal."

Me: "So what are you selling today?"

Caller: "Mike, are you the principal?"

Me: "Yes. What are you selling today?"

Caller: "How are you, Mike?"

Me: Silence as I waited for the caller to not wait for my answer and just continue on.

Caller: "Mike, Are you there?"

Me: "Yes."

Caller: "Well Mike, we are big and great and a wonderful business and we have the backing of..."

Me (breaking in): "Look, I don't care how big you are, or where your office is or who you have backing you. I only care about what you can do for me. Now for the third time, what are you selling?"

Caller: "We aren't selling anything, Mike. I'm calling to see if you qualify for..."

Me (breaking in again): "I don't qualify."

Caller: "But you..."

Me (breaking in): "I don't qualify, ok. I-don't-qualify-for-anything. Good bye." click. And I never did find out what they were selling.

This is the third one this week. The first one was selling some kind of phone thing. I told them I had already been contacted by them three times and the answer was still no.

The second one was told I didn't have time to find out if I qualified or not, and then was hung up on.

This third one, though, just wanted to prattle on about who was backing them and how big they were. Never actually coming out and telling me what they were offering.

A better approach would have been something like, "This is Debbie with XYZ Group. We offer a 15% cheaper mobile phone bill for businesses with five or more mobile phones. Is this something you want?"

Short, sweet and to the point. And to a busy principal, a welcome relief from the usual sales call B.S.

You will notice I never answered the caller's "How are you?" question. And she would not deviate from the sales spiel she was obviously reading from.

I find it interesting that suddenly there is an increase in phone calls which want me to qualify. (A "sales expert" must have recently breezed through the area extolling the virtues of selling by making people qualify.)

Under normal circumstances, qualifying for something is a powerful sales tool. But to call someone out of the blue and to then tell them they have to qualify - before telling them what it is they would be qualifying for, and before finding out if they are even in the market for such a thing - is a complete waste of time.

Qualifying works best when YOU contact a seller and are then told you must qualify. It has limited effect when the seller contacts you to sell something only to tell you, you have to qualify. And to tell you that before telling you what it is you have to qualify for.

You, A Popstar?

We have all heard of American Idol (or "whatever country you live in" Idol). Well, I've recently discovered (seen) a show called "Popstars." Its concept is similar - take people off the street, eliminate them one by one until you have ten left, have them perform, and allow the viewing public to vote them off.

Watching the elimination show, a few thoughts ran through my head...

1: ALL these people are shit. Yet they are supposed to be the top ten.

2: No wonder a previous winner who complained of a career not going anywhere after winning, didn't get anywhere. If this is the height of the talent.

3: How does Australian/American/Whatever Idol manage to get such good singers while this Popstars show get pathetic singers?

Seeing the lack of singing ability made me discredit the show right off the bat. But then the "judges comments" revealed more.

A representative from the record company who would be working with the winner, came on and made some truthful comments. He was booed by the audience. And there was cries of "No" intermingled with the boos. (Some of the judges even argued with him.)

It was surprising because all he spoke was the truth. The audience was denying the truth and booing him. And this is part of the reason why pathetic performers were the final ten. No one, it seems, has the guts to tell them how it really is, and instead continually praises them - even when they are not good.

It is this "praise of no talent" which leads to talent not progressing.

Think about it... if you do something and are told how wonderfully good you are, you won't bother striving to be better. You will believe what you have been told. And be satisfied. And even more so if you know you aren't any good and still find yourself getting somewhere with your lack of talent.

How about we just be truthful. And reward true talent. This is what will cause people to strive to actually become talented.

The Day A Secondary Law Got Me

$60. That's what it cost me. $8.57 a minute for parking.

While helping an old lady with hip problems, I pulled into an "All Vehicles" loading zone. I went up the lift to get the lady's bags. It took two trips in the lift. A total of 9 minutes.

As I was taking some bags from the lift to the car on the second trip, the lady yelled out from her window that I had just been given a parking fine.

I looked at the windscreen and saw the ticket fluttering beneath the wiper blade. The parking officer was still nearby.

Collecting the ticket I approached her and asked why I had been booked. I couldn't believe it... being booked while loading in a loading zone.

Well, it turns out it was a 2 minute loading zone and I had been there for a total of 9 minutes. I asked if I took longer would I be booked again? And the answer was NO!?

So now I must ask, what purpose did booking me serve? I mean, really?

It wasn't to keep the loading zone clear. Because once booked I could stay there as long as I wanted.

It wasn't to encourage me to move along. Because once booked I could stay there as long as I wanted.

I can see no useful purpose for booking me. If it was to keep the loading zone clear, then ASKing me to move or I'll get booked would have had me gone in a jiffy (after all, they had seen me loading and new I was loading and not parking, yet booked me anyway!). Hiding behind trees to jump out and book someone for overstaying their time by 7 minutes is ludicrous. And even more so when it is considered I don't even live in the area and in fact live an hour away. And extra when you realize, I was the only vehicle in the three car loading zone - so it wasn't as if I was preventing other people from using the loading zone.

I wrote to them to ask them to withdraw the ticket. No such luck. They basically said I had overstayed the time limit by 7 minutes, as indicated on the sign, and that is that. Grrr. (Bloody bureaucracy.)

A useless secondary law which served no useful purpose just cost me $60 and all because a sign said.

The Scarlet Raspberry Pimpernel

I was handed a magazine called Quantum Knowledge. And as I was quickly flicking through it I stumbled upon this... this... this piece of socialist-like logic written by The Raspberry Pimpernel (doesn't even have the guts to use their own name)...

What if I saw Prime Minister John Howard tell a school girl at a media set-up, the reason we had to go to war against Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a bad man and had to be removed. No mention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).

What if a country called Agronisia claimed John Howard was a bad man, then claimed Australia had WMDs, and even though the UN would not sanction action against Australia, Agronisia launched a war against Australia and its citizens.

Would John Howard say Agronisia's action was justified?

The author of this "piece" has an obvious goal to try to make the action taken against Iraq, look like something which was totally unjustified and based solely on "claims." I'd like to reword it so it reads more accurately...

WHAT IF I saw Prime Minister John Howard tell a school girl at a media event, the reason we had to go to war against Iraq was that Saddam Hussein was a bad man who had to be removed because he broke or totally ignored 12 UN resolutions, he murdered people who disagreed with him, kidnapped and tortured people who didn't perform up to his expectations, had gangs of men who would rape women to get information out of the husbands, gassed his own people, launched full military campaigns against whole villages in his own country who were against him, slaughtered hundreds and thousands of Iraqis, paid $25,000 to families of suicide bombers who blew themselves up on crowded school buses, and helped terrorists who wanted to destroy our modern western way of life. All of it clearly documented by the United Nations.

WHAT IF a country called Sillynisia claimed John Howard was a bad man, and even though there was absolutely no evidence that John Howard was a bad man or had ordered the murdering, killing, death, slaughter or torture of other Australians, and despite UN documentation clearly showing John Howard was in fact a nice man and had done nothing wrong (now or in the past), launched an attack against Australia.

Would John Howard say Sillynisia's actions were justified?

This is how ridiculous I find Raspberry's analogy. Whether you agree with the war or not is irrelevant. The issue is in the wording of the piece and the message it is trying to convey. And that is... all media events were "set ups," the war was unjustified in all manner, Saddam was only "claimed" to be a bad man and wasn't really, the UN didn't think he did anything wrong ever, and the war was against the citizens of Iraq and not against its regime.

In short, I would say Raspberry's piece is just more of the same old same old socialist propaganda we have come to expect and hear from socialists - be they the Workers World Party, Socialist Alliance (who made an appearance at another student rally a few days ago - Socialist Alliance signs a blazing) or any of the other socialist groups which permeate throughout the country/world.

And it goes to show that socialists don't have a brain - not one capable of rational and reasoned thought, that is.

When The King Stumbles (Falls and Splashes)

A few days ago I commented on Ian Thorpe's elimination from a race, which also meant he wouldn't be allowed to swim in the Olympic games in that event.

My flabbergastedness was more to do with the fact Australia Swimming takes one single event to decide who to send to the Games - and - an event which takes place four (4) months before the actual Games. And, that the aim is to send the strongest team, so Thorpe should swim in the event he owns.

In short, send the two swimmers who did qualify - AND - send Thorpe as well.

This is the puzzling thing. Why won't the Australian Swimming body just send three swimmers for that event? They send more than two for other events. Why not send more than two for the 400m event?

Since the incident occurred, a question has been raised... should the guy who got in, give up his place so Thorpe can go instead?

I say, "NO WAY! He got in fair and square. He should not be taken out of the squad for that event."

The media should just BUTT OUT and leave well enough alone. Drop the pressure TV polls - even if the results hint at him staying in. Cease the "should he drop out" interviews with champion swimmers of the past. Leave the guys alone so they can get on with their training and qualifying for other events.

HAMAS - Homicidal And Moronic Angry Splodeydopes

The GOAL of HAMAS, and pretty well all terrorists, is to get rid of civilized government and put in its place a regime which more closely resembles the Taliban. They just mask it in religion in an effort to suck-in the easily-duped populace. And they use known brainwashing techniques to help them achieve their goal

There are a bunch of standard brainwashing techniques. Such as: emotional distress, physical distress, mental distress, group environments.

During these times of "distress" a person is quite open to brainwashing. And what makes it so insidious is, even if you know the brainwashing techniques and that they are being used, you are not immune to their effects.

What Hamas does is, a quick shoot and run - in the hopes of drawing Israeli gun fire into civilians. Some of the Hamas idiots may be shot - but - some of the civilians will also be killed.

Now that the CROWD is in the heightened emotional state, other Hamas people will come in, increase their distress and urge them to join Hamas to get back at the Israeli infidels. With the group pressure and the vulnerable state of mind, it is easy to be swayed. And once in, they won't let you out. Increasing the brainwashing until you become willing to go blow yourself up "for the cause."

And just what is this cause? The Hamas leaders will tell you it is to get rid of the Israelis (or whomever the baddie is this week - usually a western civilization). But NEVER will those same leaders do the tasks themselves or ask any of their own family members to go kill themselves. They ask the stupid idiots who got sucked in.

And what awaits them?

Virgins in heaven? Everlasting peace with Allah? Nope. What awaits them can be seen here (some of the images are quite graphic in nature): What a body looks like after it has blown itself up.

As I look over the images I can't help but think... while they would certainly be dead, would they be dead before they knew it - or - would they be conscious even briefly before perishing? Even if they lived for one second after the detonation to realize what had just happened to their body. In the same vein as the rumors of the "Executioner" who would pick up the head of the person he just chopped off and look into their eyes because they were still alive briefly.

And if they were briefly aware of what had just happened, I wonder if they then had a regret, a wish they hadn't done what they just did?

Oh well. Who cares what they think after the event. At least you know now why they do it and how Hamas "recruits" for further similar missions.

But besides this, I am still perplexed over our western media. Again, tonight, there was more... Palestinian Spiritual Leader, the Father of the extreme group Hamas... drivel.

What gives?

Hamas is a TERRORIST GROUP!!! The dead guy was the founder/leader/creator of that terrorist group. Thus he was the HEAD TERRORIST!!! He wasn't any God damn father or simple spiritual leader like an army chaplain. He sent people to their death and ordered them to KILL innocent civilians - women and children - and his group uses innocent children to do their dirty work.

I am getting fed up with the bullshit "poor Hamas" and "poor Palestinians" game our media is playing. Under-playing the vile atrocious acts of these barbarians while overplaying anything Israel does directly against them (not Palestinian citizens) in self defense.

Israel kills a terrorist and there is outrage from our media. A terrorist kills innocent Israeli women and children and the media hardly mentions it, and if they do they mention it in passing.

Since the death of Hamas' head terrorist I am yet to hear our media call him the head terrorist or Hamas a terrorist group.

Our media has a LOT to answer for.

Australian Swimming A.K.A. Bloody Idiots

There is a new swimming rule... one false start and you are OUT. You cannot swim in the event in which you false start.

During an event in which Australian swimmers had to "qualify" to get into the Australian team to be allowed to swim at the Olympic Games in Athens, Ian Thorpe (fastest man in the world over 400m, multiple World Record holder and current world champion) false started. Automatically putting him out of the race. Hey, fair enough.

BUT, the bloody idiots of Australian swimming have decided, because he didn't qualify (because he didn't swim in the race) he cannot compete in the Olympic Games in the event in which he is the world champion world record holder. Instead, they will let some other slow guy who doesn't have a hope of getting into the final, let alone winning, compete in the race. This "never made it into an Australian team before" swimmer, will be representing Australia in the event instead of the world champion record holder. All because the world champion record holder didn't "qualify" at this one single event.

What idiocy is this? A swimmer can win everything all year long. Break world records all over the place. And basically be unbeatable. But because they don't compete in one single solitary event, they cannot compete in the Olympic games?

I would like to see Thorpe go and swim for another country who doesn't have such moronic rules. Maybe even go swim for that African country who had that guy who couldn't hardly swim, last Olympic games. It's obvious THAT country doesn't need to have the entire team decided on one single event.

If Thorpe did that, it would be yet another shame on Australian swimming and the political games they play. After all, why support a "body" that won't support you?