Re: Other origins of tumors

[Guest guest]

No. Tumors form as a result of some form of mechanical irritation

in conjunction with high levels of toxicity. The body will collect

toxins in areas of low humor circulation or in capillaries and shunts

that become blocked with undigested proteins. This stagnation could

be compared to a storm sewer during and after a rainstorm when drains

become clogged with debris causing a back up of water that, over

time, will lose its oxygen content and becomes anaerobic.

Candida and other fungi like Mucor Racemosis Fresen and Aspergillis

Niger will become scavengers and they will devour the dead matter

(necrosed tissue). People make the mistake of thinking that the tumor

is the source of the cancer when in reality it is the result of it.

Likewise the presence of a bacteria, virus or fungi is considered to

be the causative factor of cancer when it is only the biological

response to a putrid environment. The flies don't cause the swamp.

Cancer is a metabolic condition and it is natural in a highly

polluted environment. The cure is to clean up the environment and the

microbe shifts its morphology to a harmless form in the Cyclogenia

pleomorphia. Other factors are involved but cancer is primarily a

result of a toxic environment and the tumors form as a protection

mechanism to contain toxins that would otherwise poison the entire

organism.

More proof that Rife was

right.

> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080425/full/news.2008.779.html

>

> Beamray/Old Mie

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.

Try it now.

>

>

[Guest guest]

No. Tumors form as a result of some form of mechanical irritation

in conjunction with high levels of toxicity. The body will collect

toxins in areas of low humor circulation or in capillaries and shunts

that become blocked with undigested proteins. This stagnation could

be compared to a storm sewer during and after a rainstorm when drains

become clogged with debris causing a back up of water that, over

time, will lose its oxygen content and becomes anaerobic.

Candida and other fungi like Mucor Racemosis Fresen and Aspergillis

Niger will become scavengers and they will devour the dead matter

(necrosed tissue). People make the mistake of thinking that the tumor

is the source of the cancer when in reality it is the result of it.

Likewise the presence of a bacteria, virus or fungi is considered to

be the causative factor of cancer when it is only the biological

response to a putrid environment. The flies don't cause the swamp.

Cancer is a metabolic condition and it is natural in a highly

polluted environment. The cure is to clean up the environment and the

microbe shifts its morphology to a harmless form in the Cyclogenia

pleomorphia. Other factors are involved but cancer is primarily a

result of a toxic environment and the tumors form as a protection

mechanism to contain toxins that would otherwise poison the entire

organism.

More proof that Rife was

right.

> http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080425/full/news.2008.779.html

>

> Beamray/Old Mie

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.

Try it now.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I must at least partially disagree with you. Dr.

thoroughly showed that if there was no " cancer

organism " , there would be no tumor or the tumor would

be benign. There are many people who have toxicity

and irritation, but do not develop a tumor. Also,

healthy animals that are infected with an overwhelming

dose of " cancer organism " develop tumors. I'm sure we

could find examples of people who lived a healthy life

but still developed tumors.

This matter is actually two sides of the same coin.

Toxicity makes us susceptible to infection or

proliferation of the " cancer organism " , but the

" cancer organism " makes the cells susceptible to

irritation and toxicity. I assume that was

referring to Dr. Simoncini's work in finding Candida

as a cause of tumors. His work is real-world and is

very convincing. He treats the fungal infestation, not

any toxicity or irritation, and the tumors disappear.

It has been a similar theme with most researchers who

had cancer theories based on an organism. It is my

working theory that the Candida that Dr. Simoncini

finds in cancer is the fungal form of the cancer

organism that Dr. Gruner found, which is a pleomorphic

form of Rife's BX organism.

Regards,

--- comdyne2002 wrote:

> No. Tumors form as a result of some form of

> mechanical irritation

> in conjunction with high levels of toxicity. The

> body will collect

> toxins in areas of low humor circulation or in

> capillaries and shunts

> that become blocked with undigested proteins. This

> stagnation could

> be compared to a storm sewer during and after a

> rainstorm when drains

> become clogged with debris causing a back up of

> water that, over

> time, will lose its oxygen content and becomes

> anaerobic.

>

> Candida and other fungi like Mucor Racemosis Fresen

> and Aspergillis

> Niger will become scavengers and they will devour

> the dead matter

> (necrosed tissue). People make the mistake of

> thinking that the tumor

> is the source of the cancer when in reality it is

> the result of it.

> Likewise the presence of a bacteria, virus or fungi

> is considered to

> be the causative factor of cancer when it is only

> the biological

> response to a putrid environment. The flies don't

> cause the swamp.

>

> Cancer is a metabolic condition and it is natural in

> a highly

> polluted environment. The cure is to clean up the

> environment and the

> microbe shifts its morphology to a harmless form in

> the Cyclogenia

> pleomorphia. Other factors are involved but cancer

> is primarily a

> result of a toxic environment and the tumors form as

> a protection

> mechanism to contain toxins that would otherwise

> poison the entire

> organism.

[Guest guest]

I must at least partially disagree with you. Dr.

thoroughly showed that if there was no " cancer

organism " , there would be no tumor or the tumor would

be benign. There are many people who have toxicity

and irritation, but do not develop a tumor. Also,

healthy animals that are infected with an overwhelming

dose of " cancer organism " develop tumors. I'm sure we

could find examples of people who lived a healthy life

but still developed tumors.

This matter is actually two sides of the same coin.

Toxicity makes us susceptible to infection or

proliferation of the " cancer organism " , but the

" cancer organism " makes the cells susceptible to

irritation and toxicity. I assume that was

referring to Dr. Simoncini's work in finding Candida

as a cause of tumors. His work is real-world and is

very convincing. He treats the fungal infestation, not

any toxicity or irritation, and the tumors disappear.

It has been a similar theme with most researchers who

had cancer theories based on an organism. It is my

working theory that the Candida that Dr. Simoncini

finds in cancer is the fungal form of the cancer

organism that Dr. Gruner found, which is a pleomorphic

form of Rife's BX organism.

Regards,

--- comdyne2002 wrote:

> No. Tumors form as a result of some form of

> mechanical irritation

> in conjunction with high levels of toxicity. The

> body will collect

> toxins in areas of low humor circulation or in

> capillaries and shunts

> that become blocked with undigested proteins. This

> stagnation could

> be compared to a storm sewer during and after a

> rainstorm when drains

> become clogged with debris causing a back up of

> water that, over

> time, will lose its oxygen content and becomes

> anaerobic.

>

> Candida and other fungi like Mucor Racemosis Fresen

> and Aspergillis

> Niger will become scavengers and they will devour

> the dead matter

> (necrosed tissue). People make the mistake of

> thinking that the tumor

> is the source of the cancer when in reality it is

> the result of it.

> Likewise the presence of a bacteria, virus or fungi

> is considered to

> be the causative factor of cancer when it is only

> the biological

> response to a putrid environment. The flies don't

> cause the swamp.

>

> Cancer is a metabolic condition and it is natural in

> a highly

> polluted environment. The cure is to clean up the

> environment and the

> microbe shifts its morphology to a harmless form in

> the Cyclogenia

> pleomorphia. Other factors are involved but cancer

> is primarily a

> result of a toxic environment and the tumors form as

> a protection

> mechanism to contain toxins that would otherwise

> poison the entire

> organism.

[Guest guest]

, as you very well know Dr. Rife found organisms associated with

cancer. The difference between benign and cancer is the presence of

this organism. As I said, its a scavenger. Where are we apart in this

line of thinking?

Of course, not every case of irritation will develop cancer but

cancer will not develop unless there is some form of irritation. It

may be mechanical, chemical or for other reasons but what is clear is

that the cancer develops as a result of an external influence upon

the cellular structure and has little to do with its internal make

up, DNA/RNA etc. Too many researchers are chaising their tails by

looking for the answer in genetics. If genetics were a major cause

then our ancestors would have passed it down to us but 100 years ago

it only struck about 1 out of 30. Today we are approaching 1/2 of the

population. No cures in sight, none planned either. $$$$

>

> > No. Tumors form as a result of some form of

> > mechanical irritation

> > in conjunction with high levels of toxicity. The

> > body will collect

> > toxins in areas of low humor circulation or in

> > capillaries and shunts

> > that become blocked with undigested proteins. This

> > stagnation could

> > be compared to a storm sewer during and after a

> > rainstorm when drains

> > become clogged with debris causing a back up of

> > water that, over

> > time, will lose its oxygen content and becomes

> > anaerobic.

> SNIP

[Guest guest]

, as you very well know Dr. Rife found organisms associated with

cancer. The difference between benign and cancer is the presence of

this organism. As I said, its a scavenger. Where are we apart in this

line of thinking?

Of course, not every case of irritation will develop cancer but

cancer will not develop unless there is some form of irritation. It

may be mechanical, chemical or for other reasons but what is clear is

that the cancer develops as a result of an external influence upon

the cellular structure and has little to do with its internal make

up, DNA/RNA etc. Too many researchers are chaising their tails by

looking for the answer in genetics. If genetics were a major cause

then our ancestors would have passed it down to us but 100 years ago

it only struck about 1 out of 30. Today we are approaching 1/2 of the

population. No cures in sight, none planned either. $$$$

>

> > No. Tumors form as a result of some form of

> > mechanical irritation

> > in conjunction with high levels of toxicity. The

> > body will collect

> > toxins in areas of low humor circulation or in

> > capillaries and shunts

> > that become blocked with undigested proteins. This

> > stagnation could

> > be compared to a storm sewer during and after a

> > rainstorm when drains

> > become clogged with debris causing a back up of

> > water that, over

> > time, will lose its oxygen content and becomes

> > anaerobic.

> SNIP

[Guest guest]

Rife, Dr. , and others, found that the " cancer

organism " was causative, not secondary. Irritation,

toxicity, hormonal imbalance, etc., are secondary

factors. Dr. Simoncini says that the fungal infection

_is_ the cancer, and that the changes in the tissue is

just a reaction to the fungal infection. This is

different than the interpretation you're presenting.

Regards,

--- comdyne2002 wrote:

> , as you very well know Dr. Rife found

> organisms associated with

> cancer. The difference between benign and cancer is

> the presence of

> this organism. As I said, its a scavenger. Where are

> we apart in this

> line of thinking?

>

> Of course, not every case of irritation will develop

> cancer but

> cancer will not develop unless there is some form of

> irritation. It

> may be mechanical, chemical or for other reasons but

> what is clear is

> that the cancer develops as a result of an external

> influence upon

> the cellular structure and has little to do with its

> internal make

> up, DNA/RNA etc. Too many researchers are chaising

> their tails by

> looking for the answer in genetics. If genetics were

> a major cause

> then our ancestors would have passed it down to us

> but 100 years ago

> it only struck about 1 out of 30. Today we are

> approaching 1/2 of the

> population. No cures in sight, none planned either.

> $$$$

[Guest guest]

Rife, Dr. , and others, found that the " cancer

organism " was causative, not secondary. Irritation,

toxicity, hormonal imbalance, etc., are secondary

factors. Dr. Simoncini says that the fungal infection

_is_ the cancer, and that the changes in the tissue is

just a reaction to the fungal infection. This is

different than the interpretation you're presenting.

Regards,

--- comdyne2002 wrote:

> , as you very well know Dr. Rife found

> organisms associated with

> cancer. The difference between benign and cancer is

> the presence of

> this organism. As I said, its a scavenger. Where are

> we apart in this

> line of thinking?

>

> Of course, not every case of irritation will develop

> cancer but

> cancer will not develop unless there is some form of

> irritation. It

> may be mechanical, chemical or for other reasons but

> what is clear is

> that the cancer develops as a result of an external

> influence upon

> the cellular structure and has little to do with its

> internal make

> up, DNA/RNA etc. Too many researchers are chaising

> their tails by

> looking for the answer in genetics. If genetics were

> a major cause

> then our ancestors would have passed it down to us

> but 100 years ago

> it only struck about 1 out of 30. Today we are

> approaching 1/2 of the

> population. No cures in sight, none planned either.

> $$$$

[Guest guest]

Re: Other origins of tumors

> Rife, Dr. , and others, found that the " cancer

> organism " was causative, not secondary. Irritation,

> toxicity, hormonal imbalance, etc., are secondary

> factors. Dr. Simoncini says that the fungal infection

> _is_ the cancer, and that the changes in the tissue is

> just a reaction to the fungal infection. This is

> different than the interpretation you're presenting.

>

> Regards,

>

,

One thing I found really interesting is that chemo " therapy " drugs are

anti-fungals. This supports what you have been saying.

Nenah

[Guest guest]

Re: Other origins of tumors

> Rife, Dr. , and others, found that the " cancer

> organism " was causative, not secondary. Irritation,

> toxicity, hormonal imbalance, etc., are secondary

> factors. Dr. Simoncini says that the fungal infection

> _is_ the cancer, and that the changes in the tissue is

> just a reaction to the fungal infection. This is

> different than the interpretation you're presenting.

>

> Regards,

>

,

One thing I found really interesting is that chemo " therapy " drugs are

anti-fungals. This supports what you have been saying.

Nenah

[Guest guest]

--- Nenah Sylver wrote:

> ,

>

> One thing I found really interesting is that chemo

> " therapy " drugs are

> anti-fungals. This supports what you have been

> saying.

Many nutritional and other natural therapies are also

anti-fungal. What impresses me about Dr. Simoncini's

therapy is how quickly the tumor regresses; and all

he's doing is killing the fungal infection with baking

soda. The same occurred with other therapies based on

a " cancer organism " .

Regards,

[Guest guest]

I'll agree with that but the original question was 'cause' and the

fungal infection is the result. The tumor is the initial focal point

and the presence of Progenator cryptocides is the cancer. I think it

is important that everybody not think that some microbe has invaded

their sacred space and is the cause of their troubles. Their milieu

sets the stage for this disease and much of that is under their

direct control. True, there are factors such as chemical

contaminates, empty foods, acid inducing soft drinks and halogens put

into the foods and water supply etc., but it all boils down to a

metabolic breakdown. We don't 'catch' cancer we invite it, knowingly

or unknowingly to be sure, but non-the-less cancer is a disease of

civilization. Its cure lies in natural remedies, not anything that

modern medicine offers.

>

> Rife, Dr. , and others, found that the " cancer

> organism " was causative, not secondary. Irritation,

> toxicity, hormonal imbalance, etc., are secondary

> factors. Dr. Simoncini says that the fungal infection

> _is_ the cancer, and that the changes in the tissue is

> just a reaction to the fungal infection. This is

> different than the interpretation you're presenting.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

> SNIP

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'll agree with that but the original question was 'cause' and the

fungal infection is the result. The tumor is the initial focal point

and the presence of Progenator cryptocides is the cancer. I think it

is important that everybody not think that some microbe has invaded

their sacred space and is the cause of their troubles. Their milieu

sets the stage for this disease and much of that is under their

direct control. True, there are factors such as chemical

contaminates, empty foods, acid inducing soft drinks and halogens put

into the foods and water supply etc., but it all boils down to a

metabolic breakdown. We don't 'catch' cancer we invite it, knowingly

or unknowingly to be sure, but non-the-less cancer is a disease of

civilization. Its cure lies in natural remedies, not anything that

modern medicine offers.

>

> Rife, Dr. , and others, found that the " cancer

> organism " was causative, not secondary. Irritation,

> toxicity, hormonal imbalance, etc., are secondary

> factors. Dr. Simoncini says that the fungal infection

> _is_ the cancer, and that the changes in the tissue is

> just a reaction to the fungal infection. This is

> different than the interpretation you're presenting.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

> SNIP

>

>

[Guest guest]

One problem with natural therapies is that they have

to fight an uphill battle. Once a tumor is

established, it produces substances that compound the

metabolic imbalance. I believe that natural methods

do work, but from what I've seen, a nutritional or

other natural therapy has to be all-consuming, an

example being the Gerson therapy. I would think that

natural methods are even better for prevention of

cancer and also prevention of recurrence. The ideal

would be to have a therapy that deals directly with

the cancer organism to get rid of the tumors, and have

the natural methods to clean up the terrain and

prevent recurrence.

Regards,

--- comdyne2002 wrote:

> I'll agree with that but the original question was

> 'cause' and the

> fungal infection is the result. The tumor is the

> initial focal point

> and the presence of Progenator cryptocides is the

> cancer. I think it

> is important that everybody not think that some

> microbe has invaded

> their sacred space and is the cause of their

> troubles. Their milieu

> sets the stage for this disease and much of that is

> under their

> direct control. True, there are factors such as

> chemical

> contaminates, empty foods, acid inducing soft drinks

> and halogens put

> into the foods and water supply etc., but it all

> boils down to a

> metabolic breakdown. We don't 'catch' cancer we

> invite it, knowingly

> or unknowingly to be sure, but non-the-less cancer

> is a disease of

> civilization. Its cure lies in natural remedies, not

> anything that

> modern medicine offers.

[Guest guest]

One problem with natural therapies is that they have

to fight an uphill battle. Once a tumor is

established, it produces substances that compound the

metabolic imbalance. I believe that natural methods

do work, but from what I've seen, a nutritional or

other natural therapy has to be all-consuming, an

example being the Gerson therapy. I would think that

natural methods are even better for prevention of

cancer and also prevention of recurrence. The ideal

would be to have a therapy that deals directly with

the cancer organism to get rid of the tumors, and have

the natural methods to clean up the terrain and

prevent recurrence.

Regards,

--- comdyne2002 wrote:

> I'll agree with that but the original question was

> 'cause' and the

> fungal infection is the result. The tumor is the

> initial focal point

> and the presence of Progenator cryptocides is the

> cancer. I think it

> is important that everybody not think that some

> microbe has invaded

> their sacred space and is the cause of their

> troubles. Their milieu

> sets the stage for this disease and much of that is

> under their

> direct control. True, there are factors such as

> chemical

> contaminates, empty foods, acid inducing soft drinks

> and halogens put

> into the foods and water supply etc., but it all

> boils down to a

> metabolic breakdown. We don't 'catch' cancer we

> invite it, knowingly

> or unknowingly to be sure, but non-the-less cancer

> is a disease of

> civilization. Its cure lies in natural remedies, not

> anything that

> modern medicine offers.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I was 'blown away' by part of your responses. Specifically, you wrote,

" ...We don't 'catch' cancer we invite it, knowingly or unknowingly to

be sure, but non-the-less cancer is a disease of civilization. "

Your comment is profound, but what I found nearly shocking is the

question of how much we have forgotten the teachings of the " pioneers "

regarding cause and effect, leading you to have to remind everyone

about Bechamp's concepts regarding milieu.

You, and the others participating in this particular thread are

informed and experienced. Other threads and responses are not so well

represented by knowledgeable participants.

I do not want to sound elitist, but it is amazing to read some of the

misunderstandings or plain untruths that pass through these chat sites

representing " facts " . I fear for those who read comments which will

inevitably lead them to failure in the application of frequency and

other alternative approaches.

Finally, I host a web site which sells nothing but hopes to supply

more " correct " information to those seeking it. I invite all who are

unsure or curious to go to it. www.alternativetherapyadvice.com

As it applies to this thread, go to the COLUMN ON THE RIGHT SIDE,

and near the top, click on Energy Fields. Responses are encouraged.

Regards,

Nate Berger

> >

> > Rife, Dr. , and others, found that the " cancer

> > organism " was causative, not secondary. Irritation,

> > toxicity, hormonal imbalance, etc., are secondary

> > factors. Dr. Simoncini says that the fungal infection

> > _is_ the cancer, and that the changes in the tissue is

> > just a reaction to the fungal infection. This is

> > different than the interpretation you're presenting.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > SNIP

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I was 'blown away' by part of your responses. Specifically, you wrote,

" ...We don't 'catch' cancer we invite it, knowingly or unknowingly to

be sure, but non-the-less cancer is a disease of civilization. "

Your comment is profound, but what I found nearly shocking is the

question of how much we have forgotten the teachings of the " pioneers "

regarding cause and effect, leading you to have to remind everyone

about Bechamp's concepts regarding milieu.

You, and the others participating in this particular thread are

informed and experienced. Other threads and responses are not so well

represented by knowledgeable participants.

I do not want to sound elitist, but it is amazing to read some of the

misunderstandings or plain untruths that pass through these chat sites

representing " facts " . I fear for those who read comments which will

inevitably lead them to failure in the application of frequency and

other alternative approaches.

Finally, I host a web site which sells nothing but hopes to supply

more " correct " information to those seeking it. I invite all who are

unsure or curious to go to it. www.alternativetherapyadvice.com

As it applies to this thread, go to the COLUMN ON THE RIGHT SIDE,

and near the top, click on Energy Fields. Responses are encouraged.

Regards,

Nate Berger

> >

> > Rife, Dr. , and others, found that the " cancer

> > organism " was causative, not secondary. Irritation,

> > toxicity, hormonal imbalance, etc., are secondary

> > factors. Dr. Simoncini says that the fungal infection

> > _is_ the cancer, and that the changes in the tissue is

> > just a reaction to the fungal infection. This is

> > different than the interpretation you're presenting.

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> >

> >

> > SNIP

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

According to Dr Tullio Simoncini, yes, cancers do come

from yeasts, mushrooms... http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Linfection.htm

Regards,

Ouvana

_____

De : Rife [mailto:Rife ] De la part de

comdyne2002

Envoyé : lundi 28 avril 2008 2:19

À : Rife

Objet : Re: Other origins of tumors

No. Tumors form as a result of some form of mechanical irritation

in conjunction with high levels of toxicity. The body will collect

toxins in areas of low humor circulation or in capillaries and shunts

that become blocked with undigested proteins. This stagnation could

be compared to a storm sewer during and after a rainstorm when drains

become clogged with debris causing a back up of water that, over

time, will lose its oxygen content and becomes anaerobic.

Candida and other fungi like Mucor Racemosis Fresen and Aspergillis

Niger will become scavengers and they will devour the dead matter

(necrosed tissue). People make the mistake of thinking that the tumor

is the source of the cancer when in reality it is the result of it.

Likewise the presence of a bacteria, virus or fungi is considered to

be the causative factor of cancer when it is only the biological

response to a putrid environment. The flies don't cause the swamp.

Cancer is a metabolic condition and it is natural in a highly

polluted environment. The cure is to clean up the environment and the

microbe shifts its morphology to a harmless form in the Cyclogenia

pleomorphia. Other factors are involved but cancer is primarily a

result of a toxic environment and the tumors form as a protection

mechanism to contain toxins that would otherwise poison the entire

organism.

More proof that Rife was

right.

> http://www.nature.

<http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080425/full/news.2008.779.html>

com/news/2008/080425/full/news.2008.779.html

>

> Beamray/Old Mie

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.

Try it now.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

According to Dr Tullio Simoncini, yes, cancers do come

from yeasts, mushrooms... http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Linfection.htm

Regards,

Ouvana

_____

De : Rife [mailto:Rife ] De la part de

comdyne2002

Envoyé : lundi 28 avril 2008 2:19

À : Rife

Objet : Re: Other origins of tumors

No. Tumors form as a result of some form of mechanical irritation

in conjunction with high levels of toxicity. The body will collect

toxins in areas of low humor circulation or in capillaries and shunts

that become blocked with undigested proteins. This stagnation could

be compared to a storm sewer during and after a rainstorm when drains

become clogged with debris causing a back up of water that, over

time, will lose its oxygen content and becomes anaerobic.

Candida and other fungi like Mucor Racemosis Fresen and Aspergillis

Niger will become scavengers and they will devour the dead matter

(necrosed tissue). People make the mistake of thinking that the tumor

is the source of the cancer when in reality it is the result of it.

Likewise the presence of a bacteria, virus or fungi is considered to

be the causative factor of cancer when it is only the biological

response to a putrid environment. The flies don't cause the swamp.

Cancer is a metabolic condition and it is natural in a highly

polluted environment. The cure is to clean up the environment and the

microbe shifts its morphology to a harmless form in the Cyclogenia

pleomorphia. Other factors are involved but cancer is primarily a

result of a toxic environment and the tumors form as a protection

mechanism to contain toxins that would otherwise poison the entire

organism.

More proof that Rife was

right.

> http://www.nature.

<http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080425/full/news.2008.779.html>

com/news/2008/080425/full/news.2008.779.html

>

> Beamray/Old Mie

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.

Try it now.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Bell in his classic 'Cancer: Its Cause and Treatment

without Operation' 1913 made the follwing statements:

" Cancer is Nature's protest against disobedience and is the penalty

she imposes upon those who, perhaps knowing or unknowingly, have

ignored her teachings. "

" ...Nay, more, the surgeon, in every instance in which he advises

operative measures to be resorted to in cancer, is surely not aware

that in advocating such a method of treatment he is persuing a course

which, as a rule, tends to aggravate the poor patient's sufferings,

shortens life, and what is equally regretable, reduces the chances of

recovery should therapeutic measures be called into operation after

the knife has failed, as it always has and always will. "

Dr. Bell cured cancer on a regular basis as he recognized it as being

a metabolic disorder combined with autointoxication of the GI tract.

He restored thyroid function which burned up globulins so that they

could not clog up capillaries and portal/caval shunts. I republished

his book and added my own treatise on cancer based upon my research

with energy medicine inspired by Dr. Rife. Its available at

www.lulu.com/comdyne

Here is the link to the preface:

http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=225756

>

> Hi,

>

> I was 'blown away' by part of your responses. Specifically, you

wrote,

> " ...We don't 'catch' cancer we invite it, knowingly or unknowingly

to

> be sure, but non-the-less cancer is a disease of civilization. "

>

> Your comment is profound, but what I found nearly shocking is the

> question of how much we have forgotten the teachings of

the " pioneers "

> regarding cause and effect, leading you to have to remind everyone

> about Bechamp's concepts regarding milieu.

>

> You, and the others participating in this particular thread

are

> informed and experienced. Other threads and responses are not so

well

> represented by knowledgeable participants.

>

> I do not want to sound elitist, but it is amazing to read some of

the

> misunderstandings or plain untruths that pass through these chat

sites

> representing " facts " . I fear for those who read comments which will

> inevitably lead them to failure in the application of frequency and

> other alternative approaches.

>

> Finally, I host a web site which sells nothing but hopes to supply

> more " correct " information to those seeking it. I invite all who are

> unsure or curious to go to it.

www.alternativetherapyadvice.com

> As it applies to this thread, go to the COLUMN ON THE RIGHT SIDE,

> and near the top, click on Energy Fields. Responses are encouraged.

>

> Regards,

>

> Nate Berger

>

> SNIP

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Bell in his classic 'Cancer: Its Cause and Treatment

without Operation' 1913 made the follwing statements:

" Cancer is Nature's protest against disobedience and is the penalty

she imposes upon those who, perhaps knowing or unknowingly, have

ignored her teachings. "

" ...Nay, more, the surgeon, in every instance in which he advises

operative measures to be resorted to in cancer, is surely not aware

that in advocating such a method of treatment he is persuing a course

which, as a rule, tends to aggravate the poor patient's sufferings,

shortens life, and what is equally regretable, reduces the chances of

recovery should therapeutic measures be called into operation after

the knife has failed, as it always has and always will. "

Dr. Bell cured cancer on a regular basis as he recognized it as being

a metabolic disorder combined with autointoxication of the GI tract.

He restored thyroid function which burned up globulins so that they

could not clog up capillaries and portal/caval shunts. I republished

his book and added my own treatise on cancer based upon my research

with energy medicine inspired by Dr. Rife. Its available at

www.lulu.com/comdyne

Here is the link to the preface:

http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=225756

>

> Hi,

>

> I was 'blown away' by part of your responses. Specifically, you

wrote,

> " ...We don't 'catch' cancer we invite it, knowingly or unknowingly

to

> be sure, but non-the-less cancer is a disease of civilization. "

>

> Your comment is profound, but what I found nearly shocking is the

> question of how much we have forgotten the teachings of

the " pioneers "

> regarding cause and effect, leading you to have to remind everyone

> about Bechamp's concepts regarding milieu.

>

> You, and the others participating in this particular thread

are

> informed and experienced. Other threads and responses are not so

well

> represented by knowledgeable participants.

>

> I do not want to sound elitist, but it is amazing to read some of

the

> misunderstandings or plain untruths that pass through these chat

sites

> representing " facts " . I fear for those who read comments which will

> inevitably lead them to failure in the application of frequency and

> other alternative approaches.

>

> Finally, I host a web site which sells nothing but hopes to supply

> more " correct " information to those seeking it. I invite all who are

> unsure or curious to go to it.

www.alternativetherapyadvice.com

> As it applies to this thread, go to the COLUMN ON THE RIGHT SIDE,

> and near the top, click on Energy Fields. Responses are encouraged.

>

> Regards,

>

> Nate Berger

>

> SNIP

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

BTW: The preface is 3 pages. Move the drag line at the bottom of each

page so that the arrow appears along the right margin. Click on the

arrow to bring up the next page.

http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=225756

>

> Dr. Bell in his classic 'Cancer: Its Cause and Treatment

> without Operation' 1913 made the follwing statements:

>

> SNIP

[Guest guest]

BTW: The preface is 3 pages. Move the drag line at the bottom of each

page so that the arrow appears along the right margin. Click on the

arrow to bring up the next page.

http://www.lulu.com/browse/preview.php?fCID=225756

>

> Dr. Bell in his classic 'Cancer: Its Cause and Treatment

> without Operation' 1913 made the follwing statements:

>

> SNIP

[Guest guest]

Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler warned cancer came from chicken.

doug

RE: Re: Other origins of tumors

> Dear ,

> According to Dr Tullio Simoncini, yes, cancers do come

> from yeasts, mushrooms... http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Linfection.htm

>

> Regards,

> Ouvana

[Guest guest]

Dr. Virginia Livingston-Wheeler warned cancer came from chicken.

doug

RE: Re: Other origins of tumors

> Dear ,

> According to Dr Tullio Simoncini, yes, cancers do come

> from yeasts, mushrooms... http://www.alkalizeforhealth.net/Linfection.htm

>

> Regards,

> Ouvana