Sunday, 26 January 2014

Can This Leading Physics Professor Crack Cancer?

A New Theory of Cancer: "Conventional medicine has got it wrong"...

Following 50+ years of failure to seriously improve cancer outcomes, a leading physicist professor Paul Davies has been recruited to re-evaluate what cancer actually is, and rethink the whole approach to cancer....with an objective scientific mind....totally free from orthodox medical dogma.

As he explains... "It might surprise you, but conventional medicine has no official theory or explanation for cancer". (No wonder they struggle to get significant success in most cases!) But...if they had an official stated theory, it might be in danger of being contradicted. While kept vague, they are on safer ground.

A top physicist recruited by the National Cancer Institute to crack cancer suggests current cancer theory and treatment is seriously misguided...

....And shockingly, his scientific analysis of cancer seems to have much more in common with the view of alternative cancer doctors!!  (commonly called quacks!)

Recording: New Scientist Live:  Published June 9th 2013


New Challenge: Can a top physicist crack cancer?

World renowned British theoretical physicist Professor Paul Davies of Arizona State University (and a significant team) has been tasked with the job of  rethinking the issue of CANCER....starting from scratch.... in terms of scientific logic, free from the hindrance of medical training or dogma. He has no medical qualifications or training whatsoever.

It must be conceded that physicists have cracked some staggering puzzles, so why not give them a go at cracking cancer? This is the thinking behind this new initiative. One major aim is to review all the significant data and facts related to cancer and 'connect the dots' in a new and different way, to form a new conceptual landscape.

When the National Cancer Institute asked if he would conduct this work, Paul Davies admitted knowing nothing about cancer. "Perfect" they replied!

Thus he started with a blank canvas. It also seems likely he knew nothing about alternative cancer approaches or theories either. In short, he is being hired to think outside the box.

He is undoubtedly a superb communicator of scientific knowledge and this is a very interesting talk, possibly of great significance in the history of medical thought, regarding the way we view cancer and tackle it in the future.

What's astounding about his theory, is that conventional medicine has many things wrong, and although not saying so, many of his conclusions are far closer to the paradigm associated with alternative cancer doctors and writers in that field. Perhaps he's never studied alternative cancer theories, but ironically there is little contradiction between his general theory and that of many alternative doctors.

In fact, amazingly, his current conclusions seem to largely disagree with conventional medical dogma on cancer, and (coincidentally) have much more in common with the views of most alternative cancer doctors!  (You know, - the ones often referred to as quacks!!!)

Shockingly honest revelations!

Furthermore, it's shocking to see someone of such status in the science world, expose the failings of cancer treatment, along with statistics! Bravely, he strongly suggests that both cancer treatment and research are deeply flawed in their thinking. Here are some of his findings:

"Cancer cells are not invincible, they are quitevulnerable. Cancer loves sugar, and hates oxygen, so we have to deprive them of sugar, give them plenty of oxygen, and restore pH". (Dr Paul Davies).

This exact same analysis, - and suggested rational solution, is the basis of most alternative cancer treatments.

On conventional cancer treatment:

 Regarding cases where cancer has spread, he states that...when it comes to the main categories of cancer, breast, colon, lung, and prostate, that have spread, then survival rates have not improved for several decades.

* Conventional cancer treatments... "mostly don't work", or add just a month or two to a patients life.

*  Conventional medicine has no official theory or explanation for cancer.

* Most tumours never cause a problem. Even cancer cells floating around the body rarely cause a problem. But they are all treated much the same.

On cause and treatment:

*  "I'm not a fan of beam weapons or toxins or surgery".

* "Cancer loves sugar, hates oxygen, and likes acid. Cancer results in a by-product called lactic acid...which lowers the pH of the region around the cancer".

*  Cancer cells are not invincible, they are quite vulnerable. Cancer loves sugar, hates oxygen, so we have to deprive them of sugar, give them plenty of oxygen, and restore pH.

* On gene expression: "If you take a cancer cell and put it in a normal healthy cell tissue environment, it reverts back to a normal cell.....and if you put a healthy cell into a cancer cell environment, it "joins the enemy" and switches to being a cancer cell!!!"  So there is a lot about the tissue micro-environment that determines whether cells are healthy or malignant.

* It follows that cancer is a disease of the tissue micro-environment. And if you have a biologically stressed unhealthy micro-environment it may trigger and promote cancer, Likewise if you restore the tissue micro-environment, you can then control cancer.(Conventional cancer treatment does nothing to address this micro-environment issue).

At the heart of his thinking is a theory whereby cancer is related to embryo-genesis, and acts akin to embryonic cells. This idea is very similar to the  Trophoblast Thesis of Cancer, (as covered in a recent post) though not identical, and with different explanation as to purpose.

So, all in all, this leading physicist, with the mind of a supremely logical scientist, free from medical dogma or constraint, has come to conclusions that have much more in common with alternative doctors, than orthodox medicine. Why? Because there is a fundamental logic to the alternative approach to cancer, as explained in these pages. 

He confirms:

1/ Cancer is a disease of the cellular environment

2/  Healing cancer is achieved by addressing the cellular environment

3/  You must deprive cancer of sugar, boost oxygen, and attain alkaline pH state.

(All things known and understood by alternative cancer practitioners, whom the system outlaws, in favour of so-called advanced technology regarding radiotherapy and chemo drugs.)

He also reveals.... that, according to the National Cancer Institute, there have been about ONE MILLION papers written on cancer, of which, 80 PERCENT of them are actually WRONG! Errr...that's 800,000 scientific papers on cancer that could not be replicated or validated! (i.e.worthless) $Billions wasted.

As he states... "the field is in a mess!"

His theory is that cancer is possibly a very ancient biological program, that has evolutionary significance and purpose. The fact that it has so many trademark survival capabilities, suggests it is a built-in default program, but you will need to view the video for further explanation.

This is quite a long talk, with some questions taken at the end, but I hope you take a look at this video, it may open your eyes to the truth about conventional cancer treatment.


The objective scientific assessment by professor Davies is clear:
"Cancer cells are not invincible, they are quite vulnerable. Cancer loves sugar, and hates oxygen, so we have to deprive them of sugar, give them plenty of oxygen, and restore pH". (Dr Paul Davies).

And it is strongly implied that cancer treatment should be along those lines. Secondly he provides an explanation for cancer that is still only theory, suggesting that cancer is an ancient billion year old throwback. However, irrespective of that proposed theory, we should largely focus on the above highlighted assertion, which is not theory, but biological fact.

This physics professor has studied the evidence with an objective mind, unswayed by conventional medical dogma. His critical scientific eye has spotted some major faultlines running through standard cancer undrestanding, strategy, and treatment concepts. He has confirmed his belief that cancer is a disease of the system, i.e. tissue micro-environment, and that factor is flatly ignored by conventional medicine. In fact toxic treatments tend to add massive harm to the micro-environment....and all parts of the body. Alternative wisdom seems to hold water after all! (No surprise to me) It clearly has strong logical foundations ignored by standard medicine.

There is clearly still much to learn, and Professor Paul Davies and is team will probably have a lot more to follow. Their theories will evolve over time. However, unfortunately, no matter what their endeavours might reveal, it is the nature of all things medical, that new officially endorsed treatments (requiring years of testing and trials) will still be a long way down the road.

Paul Davies is director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at Arizona State University. For more details, see

Although hugely important, the actual theory of cancer and its biological origins or purpose, are less important than understanding how to successfully treat and reverse cancer. But if you fundimentally understand the root cause and nature of cancer, then you have a far better chance of eliminating it, not just for a while, but for good.

Friday, 10 January 2014

Why Cancer Drugs Fail

The First World War  Vs  The War on Cancer 

Progress in the "war on cancer" is reminiscent of the type of progress enjoyed in World War One... in the trenches of the comically summed up by Captain Blackadder from the series 'Blackadder Goes Forth'...

"We've been sitting here since Christmas 1914, during which time millions of men have died, and we've advanced no further than an asthmatic ant with some heavy shopping!”

Blackadder Goes Forth (BBC TV)

Blackadder Goes Forth  BBC TV

Is it logical to try to heal a sick person with huge doses of poison?

Below I reveal...
* How conventional cancer treatments are akin to the failed strategies of World War One...
* Proof of how deaths caused by toxic cancer treatments are routinely hidden from the public...

War on Cancer: Strategy Fail...

The "war on cancer" was declared by President Richard Nixon back in the early 1970's, and since then, despite many billions of dollars spent on research, (currently said to be 5 billion dollars per year) deaths from cancer have continued to rise and rise. In fact cancer was the #7 cause of death in the US in 1970...but is now #2 . (40+ years and very little real progress)

Like the First World War, millions have died in the war on cancer. Strategy has proved to be quite hopeless, but they stick to it nonetheless. One more push - they cry! So why is progress so dismal? Wereas the First World War lasted 4 years, it has been over 40 years since the War on Cancer was declared!

Cancer is a notoriously complex disease. Attacking it with a solitary chemotherapy drug (or combo) with the sole aim of wiping out the tumour, is a strategy as bonkers as deploying a single type of weapon to fight a war.  By relying on this SINGLE WEAPON STRATEGY the enemy (cancer) can adapt and find ways to outsmart the attack. Not only that, but chemo drugs actually attack our own troops and destroy our best weapons!! (the immune system etc)

So we have a battle strategy whereby we deploy a [potentially lethal] chemical weapon that cripples our own troops and vital defences, gambling that the cancer will die before we do!  If not, then we are in big big trouble, because the enemy (cancer) can then possibly regroup and spread, meeting minimal resistance due to devastated infrastructure and crippled defences.

Ditto Radiation therapy.

Alternative non-toxic strategies:

Conversely, the majority of alternative cancer treatments typically employ a much different approach, with a far more HOLISTIC wide-scope strategy (known as a protocol) that addresses the cancer problem from several or many different angles, mainly with concentrated nutrition and special substances with known anti-cancer effects. These strategies build and strengthen the immune system and boost health, while at the same time diminishing the viability of the cancer, - by denying it the advantages it once had, such as plentiful sugar - and other cancer promoting habits. They also work to eliminate the underlying causes.

Pathologist reveals true cause of most cancer deaths

Most are killed by the treatment, not the cancer: Dr Michael Farley talks below about the damage cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation does. He also has a surprising statistic regarding cancer and causes of death. It might make you consider different treatment options, when you hear about the findings of typical autopsies. Proof that people are dying from the damage caused by treatment, not cancer!! 

What is usually found at autopsy (but always kept quiet) will shock you! - Traditional Therapies Kill, Not Cancer

Further reading options:
Many natural non-toxic treatments exist that offer far greater success, and are unlikely to kill you. I personally refused chemotherapy, (which I felt would finish me off) and followed the The Bill Henderson Protocol which to my mind is one of the best available at the current time, especially as a DIY system you can do at home. (instant download)

Another great book on the subject of alternative cancer treatments is written
 by Ty Bollinger, called  Cancer: Step Outside The Box  (instant download)

 Available on Amazon Cancer: Step Outside the Box