Fight Cancer

Fight Cancer

Charles Spender

Distributed by Smashwords

ISBN: 9781311261052

FOURTH EDITION, November 2, 2024

Copyright © 2013 Charles Spender

Table of Contents

Introduction

Scientifically proven anticancer products (turmeric, vitamin D, black seed, broccoli, and others)

Moderately cold showers are safe and cannot cause an illness

The adapted cold shower: an unstressful and easy procedure

The many benefits of adapted cold showers for cancer patients

Reduction of fatigue

Reduction of pain

Enhancement of antitumor immunity

Reduction of nausea

Improvement of mood

Rare side effects

Brief cardio exercise

Benefits of ultraviolet light

Various raw diets for losing overweight and tumors

The importance of organ meats: the pancreas, liver, and thymus

58 ways to change your lifestyle for health improvement

The Shatalova method

The Gonzalez protocol

The Revici method and similarities with the Gonzalez protocol

Fasting to lose weight and tumors

Diets of uncivilized ethnic groups and populations described by Weston Price

Pungent chemotherapy

Nonrecommended alternative treatments of cancer

Conclusions

APPENDIX I: 40 ways to distort the results of a clinical trial and cancer statistics

APPENDIX II: Revici's medical tests and therapeutic agents

Literature

Introduction

The latest version of this ebook (November 2, 2024, or later) can be downloaded in a high-quality EPUB format here, here, or here. This booklet describes many methods for cancer treatment, all of them free of charge and based on lifestyle changes. Three of these methods are scientifically proven well but are not used by conventional medicine and are not recommended officially for cancer treatment: turmeric, physical exercise, and vitamin D. The amount of scientific evidence about the anticancer properties of these approaches is overwhelming: close to a thousand scientific papers in total (link, link). Turmeric and its active ingredient curcumin are at the top: over 600 scientific papers. The possible reason why these methods/products are not officially recommended for cancer treatment: they cannot bring profits to the healthcare industry and therefore nobody is lobbying healthcare authorities about these treatments. Another possible reason is that clinical trials testing a single method are not available for each of the above, also because of the absence of a profit motive. Therapeutic use of temporary hyperthermia (increased core body temperature or local heating) is supported by hundreds of scientific studies and is being gradually incorporated into oncological clinical practice. As explained later, the best approach to testing these modalities is simultaneous because they are a part of the hypothesis that cancer is caused by a suboptimal lifestyle in combination with genetic predisposition. It would be silly to try to identify a single active ingredient of a healthy lifestyle. Those who wish to test this hypothesis on the basis of good scientific evidence, may consider the following comprehensive lifestyle intervention: a balanced diverse diet free of vitamin and mineral supplements (the diet should not primarily consist of junk food and should contain normal proportions of protein, fat, and carbs), brief cardio exercise every day (twofold pulse acceleration), two level teaspoons of a turmeric powder daily, a tablespoon of canned cod liver daily (vitamin D), brief sun-bathing or UV-tanning sessions (1 minute on four sides, as another source of vitamin D and for other reasons), moderate hyperthermia (core body temperature 38°C) once every 2 weeks in a hot bath or as a result of intensive exercise, and daily adapted cold showers (moderate cooling is proven to reduce fatigue and is widely known to reduce pain), plus inclusion of raw broccoli into the diet (a lot of scientific papers about anticancer effectiveness of these products and their ingredients, link) along with pancreatic enzymes. Forget about killing cancer cells, the goal is to normalize metabolism and the immune system, which are expected to gradually take care of the cancer and related health problems.

I should say upfront that after many years of research in this field, in my opinion, the Gonzalez protocol (devised by Nicholas J. Gonzalez, M.D.) is the most effective treatment for many types of cancer as compared to either conventional or alternative therapies. The Gonzalez protocol is supported by scientific studies and by scientific argumentation and is described in a separate chapter toward the end of this booklet.

This booklet also offers three experimental anticancer treatments; there is no scientific proof, but there is a good and easy-to-understand scientific rationale. One of the experimental methods is already mentioned above and is designed to enhance the antitumor immune response (link) and to improve quality of life: adapted cold shower. The moderate repeated cooling can allow you to undertake more rounds of chemo-, radiotherapy, or surgical treatment because cooling reduces many side effects of those methods. (Note: This manual does not recommend cytotoxic chemotherapy.) This approach should improve the chances of survival. Cold showers can have rare side effects and may not be appropriate for patients with some leukemias and lymphomas.

Although the evidence of effectiveness of cold showers is currently scarce, there is plenty of indirect evidence from laboratory animals and studies on human subjects. According to a study on laboratory rats (link), repeated cooling should be effective against sarcomas and some carcinomas, but the most suitable types of tumor in humans are currently unknown. The treatment is free and safe, so it would be reasonable to try it, especially if all other options are exhausted.

In addition, the current state of science and technology allows us to safely consume raw meat, i.e., to kill virtually all bacteria and parasites while keeping the meat raw or almost raw. One of the chapters describes several benefits of safe raw meat and 100% raw diet for cancer patients. The third experimental treatment is a lifestyle that contains numerous types of hormesis. The latter means that weak stressors (harmful in large doses) improve health and extend the lifespan. For instance, a heat stroke is harmful, but a brief hot bath is beneficial for health.

The scientific hypothesis behind all these methods is that cancer is caused by an unnatural lifestyle, for example, by an unusual diet (putting the wrong kind of fuel into the gas tank), or by a lack of various mild and not-so-mild stressors that animals encounter in the wild: changes of temperature, abundant physical activity, etc. Accordingly, changing the lifestyle should normalize the patient’s metabolism and immune system and help to overcome cancer even at an advanced stage. There is some published scientific evidence that the human body can normalize cancer cells (without killing them) by means of special chemicals and peptides called antineoplastons. In addition, there are some scientific data suggesting that big changes in a lifestyle can cure cancer even at an advanced stage (link).

Radiotherapy, surgical treatment, and targeted chemotherapy may help too, but strength of evidence behind these methods is much smaller than you think (see below). This manual advises skepticism regarding cytotoxic chemotherapy (the type of chemotherapy indiscriminately killing rapidly dividing cells) because of various unethical activities and undue influence of the pharmaceutical industry. Several types of cancer (testicular cancer, gestational choriocarcinoma, Hodgkin disease, acute myelocytic leukemia, and some high-grade lymphomas) are an exception because cytotoxic chemotherapy shows extraordinary effectiveness there (which would be difficult to fake). In particular, Dr. Gonzalez recommended that patients with acute myelocytic leukemia first undertake cytotoxic chemotherapy to knock down this rapidly progressing cancer, and then they can undergo alternative treatments. In the great majority of cancer cases, cytotoxic chemotherapy shows only modest, clinically insignificant (link, link) effectiveness, which is probably unreal anyway because of various distortions and biases (for example, most of the authors receive payments from the industry, i.e., have conflicts of interest). None of the scientific evidence regarding chemotherapy should be trusted blindly (including targeted chemotherapy). The prevailing point of view is often incorrect because it has been imposed by the ruling elite for their own benefit; they can, want to, and do control all important institutions of society, usually covertly, while brainwashing you into thinking that you live in a democracy and there are no conspiracies.

At present, the way science is organized makes it easy to manipulate science by funding. To be precise, research articles usually show the results that the sponsors of the study want to see (often false results). And I don’t mean little abuses here and there: we are talking about gigantic distortions. Big sponsors can create a desired scientific consensus by sponsoring thousands of misleading studies. To give another example, the type of clinical trial that is widely believed to be the gold standard of accuracy and scientific rigor (the technical term is double-blind randomized controlled trial) is no longer trustworthy because of numerous loopholes, approximately thirty. (See Appendix I 40 ways to distort the results...) These loopholes have been exploited for decades but came to light only recently. The official treatment guidelines based on this bad information are still in place. Furthermore, the most prestigious scientific journals are completely corrupted, and you cannot believe anything they publish now (see Appendix I, point #29).

The vast majority of surgical methods have not been proven to be beneficial. For regulatory approval, prescription drugs are tested by those who produce and sell them or by people with major conflicts of interest (such as contract research organizations). Ridiculous but true. Scientific medical journals receive lots of money for reprints and advertising from the healthcare industry. Members of editorial boards of the most prestigious medical journals receive huge payments from the healthcare industry. Seventy to 90% of scientific articles contain bad irreproducible results because of fraud, bad methodology, or both.

Almost all physicians who publish scientific articles have an unacknowledged conflict of interest: humans tend to consciously or unintentionally try to prove that their profession is important for society and to avoid criticizing one's own source of income. To give an example, experienced surgeons—who see that some procedures cause nothing but harm in some situations—will keep silent about this problem so as not to jeopardize one's source of income or incur disapproval of supervisors. The mainstream view in medicine is formed by the majority of such doctors. Silicone breast implants for instance are disliked by men and cause harm to women's health (and there is a risk of death too); in actuality, only those who earn money from these implants need these operations, and their primary tool is false advertising. As for cancer, I was unable to find any studies proving that the Whipple procedure (pancreaticoduodenectomy) improves the survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. It is possible that this expensive procedure exists solely for the benefit of those who offer it.

Virtually all scientists have an unacknowledged conflict of interest related to renewal of research grants: the scientist must prove by hook or by crook that the hypothesis declared in the initial grant application is correct; otherwise, he/she will not receive the second half of the money. This conflict of interest is probably the biggest source of scientific fraud outside the private industry. Reporting of scientific fraud is discouraged not encouraged under the present system. Private corporations such as pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers face no punishment for publishing fraudulent results in scientific journals (this activity is not monitored or regulated by the government). Many official treatment guidelines are based on bad corrupted data, such as scientific studies showing a tiny beneficial effect where the authors have conflicts of interest (such small effects are likely to be the result of the financial bias).

Modern medicine is among the leading causes of death (third place by some estimates) because of unnecessary surgical interventions, medical errors, and adverse effects of prescription drugs taken correctly. You should be skeptical about both conventional medicine and alternative medicine.

When choosing a medical procedure for any illness (not necessarily cancer), you need to ask yourself 1) Does the author of the procedure or healthcare provider want my money? Can I perform the treatment myself without paying a penny to this healthcare professional or to the inventor? 2) Does the procedure make sense or address the real ultimate cause of the illness that I can understand and verify myself? 3) Will this practitioner turn me into a permanent client of the healthcare industry because the procedure will temporarily relieve the symptoms, while causing new health problems? 4) Is the procedure dangerous: will it do more harm than good? 5) Is it likely that the scientific evidence was corrupted by those trying to sell this method? 6) Do I really have a disease that needs to be treated? 7) Is it possible that I am healthy, but the health problem was invented to sell various healthcare products? 8) If the method in question is often called quackery, is it possible that it works but is being trashed by powerful competitors? 9) If the treatment method in question is called useless, unproven, or pseudoscience in a Wikipedia article, then the method is probably safe, proven, and effective: you need to do so some research in the literature.

To learn more about imperfections of science, see the section Interpreting evidence from studies on human subjects, Chapter One, in my other book "How to Become Smarter." Furthermore, cytotoxic chemotherapy does not make biological sense because it impairs the immune system, and such drugs are often carcinogens themselves. A normally functioning immune system is necessary for defeating and preventing cancer.

Most likely, there is no rigorous scientific proof that the anticancer spices/herbs and physical exercise can cure your specific type of cancer. But, a big but, the three standard cancer treatments (surgical resection, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy) are not supported by rigorous proof either, as mentioned above. Surgical methods are used out of force of habit (in most cases, there is no proof that they cause more good than harm), whereas chemotherapy and radiation therapy are supported predominantly by biased evidence (i.e., proof provided by those who sell these treatments and/or by researchers with conflicts of interest). This problem is compounded by the fact the authors of scientific articles about profitable medical treatments often fail to show their conflicts of interest (or do not show all of them), and readers will have to spend some time to search for this information on their own.

Government agencies tasked with combating cancer routinely manipulate statistics to make themselves look good. I am aware of 10 such ploys (see Appendix I 40 ways to distort the results of a clinical trial and cancer statistics). With some creative use of statistical methods, a 5-year 90% death rate can be presented as a 5-year 90% relative survival rate. In reality, if you go the conventional route, your prognosis is as dismal today as it was decades ago, with rare exceptions. Physicians have to follow official guidelines (which were installed with the help of the healthcare industry) or else they damage their career. There are many decent oncologists who care about patients and do their best to help them.

Most patients are deceived by omnipresent propaganda and become victims of the system. It is not difficult to determine whether you are brainwashed. If you agree with any one of the first four statements below or disagree with the fifth statement, this means that the ruling elite has successfully filled your head with false knowledge, and your understanding of how the government works is profoundly incorrect:

1) Conspiracies in the ruling elite of my country are impossible and do not exist. The absence of a conspiracy is a fact not a theory.

2) Free, independent mass media are possible and do exist, for example, major media in democratic countries or opposition mass media in my country or other countries.

3) Government secrecy is impossible. All secrets are revealed sooner or later.

4) It is impossible to keep under tight control what a person says and does publicly. There are honest uncontrolled people in the ruling elite.

5) The world is ruled by evil, which has brainwashed most people into believing that the world is governed by the forces of good.

Try to prove your existing beliefs without resorting to logical fallacies. You will discover that most of your deeply held beliefs on the above topics have been programmed into your brain via daily repetition rather than through logical and/or convincing proof. Another widespread big fallacy is the notion that healthcare authorities exist to preserve the health of citizens and to cure them of diseases. If you ignore official propaganda and study unbiased scientific data, then you will see that conventional medicine actually shortens the lifespan, worsens health, and aggravates instead of curing most diseases (with rare exceptions). For instance, several scientific studies show that the more people are treated, the higher the mortality. Evidence-based medince, more appropriately called psyop-based medicine, does not prove anything (see appendix I). This sorry state of affairs is not a result of incompentence or mistakes; the ruling elite has been planning on reducing the world's population for many decades. Ask yourself, what is more advantageous for the ruling elite: if you die soon after retiring or if you receive government retirement benefits for decades? If you start questioning authority, be advised that the powers that be like to attach insulting labels to people who don't believe official sources (i.e., who are resitant to