Acupuncture doesn’t need needles to work

Acupuncture works, but it appears to work equally well with or without needle penetration. This conclusion was drawn from a treatment study involving cancer patients suffering from nausea during radiotherapy.

In a series of acupuncture studies that involved more than 200 patients who were undergoing radiation treatment, roughly half received traditional acupuncture with needles penetrating the skin in particular points, while the others received simulated acupuncture instead, with a telescopic, blunt placebo needle that merely touched their skin.

Afterwards, 95 percent of the patients in both groups felt that the treatment had helped relieve nausea, and 67 percent had experienced other positive effects such as improved sleep, brighter mood, and less pain. Both groups felt considerably better than a separate control group that received no acupuncture of any kind.

The acupuncture was performed by physiotherapists two or three times a week during the five week long period of their radiation treatment.

FDA is at war with natural cancer cures, not cancer

Headline: FDA warns about fraudulent cancer treatments The Food and Drug Administration is cracking down on teas, supplements, creams and other products that falsely claim to cure, treat or prevent cancer even though they are not agency-approved drugs.

Why shouldn’t I be free to decide what is real or fraudulent when it comes to the treatment of cancer, much less its cure? Why shouldn’t you? This is where we have irrefutable evidence of the current slave-state mentality of my fellow countrymen, the people of the united States. How could a “free” people tolerate governmental and corporate interference in the care of their bodies at all? Perhaps fluoride has clouded our judgment. Why else would we believe that the FDA is really about our protection? Especially from some leaves that might cure cancer. Maybe we should dump all of our anti-cancer tea in the Boston Harbor. How about some Selenium as well?

It is a disgusting outrage and an embarrassment that a free people would tolerate such restrictions when it comes to the care of their health. How do you defend the FDA’s war on natural cancer therapies? Is it really “fraud” to heal cancer without FDA approval? No. The real fraud is the claim that the FDA could protect us from fraud. They encourage it. They allow it. They subsidize it pharmaceutically. What would you call the monopoly practice of oncology and its barbaric treatments?

Cancer is not caused by a lack of chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. But it may very well be caused by a lack of that which the FDA claims is fraudulent. More people die of the treatment for cancer than cancer itself. More people die each year from FDA approved substances than have died from ingesting natural medicinal substances since the dawn of these united States of America (I am not including mercury here, even though, technically, it’s natural). It’s strange that when allopathic medicine uses a substance from nature, it’s not only toxic, but unlike the homeopaths, they use it in a toxic dose.

In the private sector, if any company had a track record even 1/10 as bad as FDA and the drug industry they “regulate,” it would have been bankrupted within a year and its executives brought up on criminal charges. Instead of Nixon’s perpetual War on Cancer, we now have the pharmaceutical industrial complex’s war on natural cancer treatments. This is made possible only because of the monopoly status granted allopathic medicine by government despite the prohibition against granting titles of nobility. Read the Constitution for goodness sake. It is, in actuality, the responsibility of the People to hold public servants to their oath of office, but too many of them are under the influence of all that is approved by government. If “we the people” remain addicted to FDA approved drugs, it may be a conflict of interest that our republic cannot Bayer.

Does government do anything right? How about the War on Illicit Drugs? Surely that is justified because they are more dangerous than the FDA approved variety. Aren’t they? Just wait ’til you read my next blog entry…

 

Mammograms cause cancer

Everyone knows radiation causes cancer. 

Most everyone knows that the breast tissue is some of the most sensitive tissue to radiation damage in the body.

Ionizing radiation causes double and multiple strand breaks in DNA and is accepted as a primary cause of cancer. Since the 1970s, the gold standard for breast cancer detection, in the Western world, has been screening mammography.

2004 Radiation Research
The Neoplastic Transformation Potential of Mammography X-Rays
To help resolve the controversy regarding the risk of mammography breast screening, a study was carried out with a grant to the University of Birmingham, UK.  A comparison was made using an actual low-dose mammogram X-ray machine and a standard high-dose X-ray (chest X-ray). Results suggested that the risks (of developing cancer) associated with mammogram screening may be approximately five times higher than previously assumed (which was 1%), making the estimated increased risk of 5% for each exposure. The authors suggested that the risk-benefit relationship of mammography exposure clearly needs to be re-evaluated.

celldoubling.jpg

Enter thermal imaging:

The above image is an infrared image of a developing breast tumor appoximately 2-3 years before a mammogram could pick it up.

Thermal imaging is a technology that has been available for 30 years but is actively suppressed by General Electric because it competes with the very profitable mammogram machines.  It is completely passive, no squashing, no radiation, no potential harm what so ever!

I have waited for 12 years for someone else to figure this out and have finally concluded that this is not going to happen in the medical community without a little push.  So, I am negotiating the purchase of a thermal imaging machine to be placed in my clinic.  Very shortly I will be able to begin screenings for many disease processes that show up as cellular inflammation years before a physical tumor will be detectable.  For example, diabetic avascular necrosis, skin cancer, varicose viens, heart disease, arthritis, etc.  All without radiation exposure!!

A breast thermogram will be a 5 view panel for $175.00, (about half what a mammogram costs)  Area exams for nerve damage or strains will be $50.00 per image needed to properly view the problem.  Please contact me to schedule your exams.  (The camera costs well over $30K)

At this time this is not covered by insurance, but with your help I beleive we can get that changed shortly.  The early detection capabilities of this technology will reduce the costs of health care tremendously within a very short time.

DrD