Many people think that cancer is caused by DNA damage and that not even nature c

an cure cancer. Both of these assumptions are pure nonsense. Most likely everyth
ing you know about cancer was intentionally designed to deceive you so that canc
er patients will choose the wrong cancer treatments.
Why would someone spread false information about cancer? That is what this artic
le is about.
Let us start with a three-question test:
What causes a cell to be cancerous?
What is the 5-year cure rate of orthodox medicine, meaning what percent of their c
ancer patients are alive five years after diagnosis?
What is the 5-year cure rate of several of the best-known natural cancer treatment
experts?
14 Questions and Answers About Cancer
BONUS
eBook
14 Questions and Answers About Cancer eBook - Free Download
DOWNLOAD
Most people think that cancer is caused by DNA damage and that orthodox medicine
is frantically searching for a cure for cancer.
There are two problems with these beliefs. Both beliefs are complete nonsense an
d come from the propaganda and deceptions of television.
Cancer is not caused by DNA damage. The definition of a cancer cell is a cell wi
th low ATP energy (i.e. a low level of adenosine triphosphate). It is difficult
to imagine a cell biologist who is so stupid they think that DNA damage can caus
e low levels of ATP energy. Only a very, very small fraction of DNA has anything
to do with the creation of ATP energy.
Yet the media glorifies all of the cancer researchers who are diligently trying to
fix the DNA damage of cancer cells. It is all a scam to make sure that cures for
cancer are never found.
The truth is that there are many people who know how to cure cancer. They just d
on t work for the pharmaceutical industry and you don t hear about them in the media
and they don t win Nobel Prizes.
The low ATP level is actually caused by microbes which are inside the cancer cel
ls, generally Helicobacter Pylori. This is an amazing microbe which can have 16
different sizes and shapes and sizes depending on the pH it is exposed to.
Advanced Cancer Theory
This microbe intercepts glucose as it enters the cancer cells and thus reduces t
he amount of glucose available to be converted into pyruvate. With less pyruvate
, the cell will create less ATP energy (or course I am skipping many steps in th
is process). For a more detailed discussion read What Causes Cancer.
The ICRF has developed more than 20 cancer treatments which revert the cancer ce
lls into normal cells. How do they revert cancer cells into normal cells? They s
afely target and kill the microbes inside the cancer cells.
Killing cancer cells is old school but there is nothing wrong with things that can
safely target and kill cancer cells (such as purple grape juice), but the new a
pproach is to kill the microbes inside the cancer cells. This was first done in
the 1930s but that technology was persecuted and shut down by the FDA and AMA. I
t has been restored, however, by the High RF Frequency Devices (which are not th
eir real name, which we cannot use on this website due to the FDA).

About cure rates

You probably think that orthodox medicine (e.g. the pharmaceutical industry, onc
ologists, the American Medical Association or AMA, etc.) has a 5-year cure rate
for cancer patients of more than 50 percent. A 5-year cure rate would mean, by def
inition, that 50 percent or more of their cancer patients are still alive five y
ears after being diagnosed with cancer.
You probably think that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not only doing
its best to find cures for cancer but are shutting down quacks who are pretending
to cure cancer but in fact do not know how to cure cancer.
You probably think that the media is constantly looking for who has the best cur
e rates for cancer so the media s investigative journalists can keep the general p
ublic apprised of who has the most effective cancer treatments.
And so on.
Are your assumptions correct? NO.
Cure rates are not an academic issue because you, the reader, may get cancer som
e day or you may know someone who gets cancer, such as a spouse or relative. You
r very life, or the life of a friend of loved-one, may be on the line as you dec
ide who is telling the truth about cancer research.
Choosing a cancer treatment is literally a life-and-death decision. The cure rate
s for different cancer treatments can range from 3 to 95 percent for the same typ
e of cancer. So who is telling the truth and who is lying? And if they are lying
, why are they lying?
So let s talk about cure rates.
First, what is the overall 5-year cure rate of the oncology profession according
to their own statistics?
Second, what was the cure rate of a South African immigrant who used nothing but
purple grape juice to treat cancer?
Before reading on, take a guess at the answers to both of these questions and wr
ite your answers down to see how you did.
According to Dr. Jonathon Stegall, the answer to the first question is this:
A 2004 study in the journal Clinical Oncology evaluated the contribution of chemo
therapy to 5-year survival rates among adult cancer patients. In other words, th
e goal of the study was to look at how significant chemotherapy s role was in succ
essful treatment outcomes (defined by oncologists as 5-year survival). In order
to arrive at a meaningful conclusion, data from many previous studies was pooled
and analyzed. The 22 most common cancer types were included in the study.
The results were surprising. The overall contribution of chemotherapy to five-yea
r survival in American adults was 2.1 percent. This means that approximately 98
percent of the credit for survival was attributed to all other treatments, such
as surgery, radiation, nutrition, etc.
It is important to note that this study is often misquoted. You have probably hea
rd this statistic quoted in a way which suggests that those receiving chemothera
py only have a 2.1 percent 5-year survival rate.

In reality, the average five-year survival rate for cancer is 69 percent. This in
cludes all stages of cancer and makes no distinction between who received which
treatments. However, given the most commonly used treatments in oncology today,
it is safe to assume that many of these surviving patients received chemotherapy
.
At this point, it is important to discuss what 5-year survival means. In the onco
logy world, 5-year survival measures the percentage of patients who are still al
ive five years from the date of diagnosis. It does not mean that they are cancer
-free, and it does not mean that they are completely healthy. Instead, it simply
means that they have not died from cancer (or any other cause) in the five year
s since diagnosis.
Survival rates can be further broken down. For example, cancer-specific survival
looks at the percentage of patients with a particular type of cancer and can be
further broken down to look at survival rates for each stage of cancer. Using th
e 5-year survival statistic with respect to breast cancer, we see that Stage 0 o
r Stage I breast cancer has a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100 percent.
For Stage II breast cancer, the five-year survival rate is 93 percent, while for
Stage III breast cancer, the 5-year survival rate is 72 percent.
Stage IV breast cancer has a 5-year survival rate of approximately 22 percent. Th
us, when we look at survival rates for cancer, it is important to be as specific
as possible with regard to cancer type and cancer stage since some cancers have
very poor survival rates while others have very good ones.
I always tell my patients that it is important to look at survival statistics on
the population level in order to know what we are dealing with, but it is equall
y important to realize that those statistics do not necessarily apply to them. M
any factors contribute to treatment outcomes, and many of those are directly in
the patient s control.
As if the battle against cancer weren t bad enough, some chemical companies seem d
edicated to making you sick so that you will need prescription drugs. For exampl
e, Monsanto loves to put chemicals in your foods and loves for you to eat GMO fo
ods. Because the average person has been brainwashed by the media, they think t
hat nature can do nothing to help cancer.
The answer to the second question is this: Johanna Brandt s cure rate was 100 perc
ent.
Johanna Brandt did not need to know how to cure cancer, Nature had to know how t
o cure cancer. And Nature had put at least 12 chemicals in purple grape juice th
at can kill cancer cells.
The best way to survive cancer is to figure out what Nature has already done.
Dr. Kelley s cancer treatments
Another natural medicine cancer researcher was Dr. William D. Kelley, a dentist
turned natural medicine cancer researcher. He worked with more than 30,000 cance
r patients using his protocol.
Dr. Kelley had a cure rate of 93 percent on his newly diagnosed cancer patients
who had not had chemotherapy, radiation or surgery.
Dr. Kelley was thrown in jail and later went to Mexico to treat cancer patients.
Why did he go to jail? Because he used products to treat cancer which cannot be

patented. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry and medical community had no interes
t in his treatments because they cannot make huge profits from treatments that c
annot be patented.
So they had him thrown in jail. They did not care that he had a 93 percent cure
rate, his treatments were not profitable enough to satisfy their greed.
Dr. Kelly used cancer treatments designed by Nature, such as natural enzymes. Th
ese enzymes made the cancer cells visible to the immune system and the immune sy
stem cured cancer. The enzymes were natural and could not be patented.
In other words, Dr. Kelly was not a medical doctor and he used natural medicine
to achieve his 93 percent cure rate. Using Nature is an unforgivable sin accordi
ng to the AMA and the media. His cure rate was irrelevant. Dr. Kelley died on Ja
nuary 30, 2005, at the age of 79.
His treatment is not a mystery, just buy his book on Amazon
Cancer: Curing the I
ncurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or Radiation or the original book One Ans
wer To Cancer
Note: The Kelley Protocol is no longer one of the major cancer treatments in nat
ural medicine, due to newer technologies, though it is frequently added to the n
ewer and more powerful protocol.
So let s talk about today.
Today, the instant someone hears the term natural medicine they immediately run ou
t the door as fast as they can run. But they are running away from the only high
ly effective cancer treatments. Nature is a lot smarter than any chemist.
Many people have cured their newly diagnosed cancer by using a very healthy diet
and drinking a quart of carrot juice (with a little beet juice mixed in) every
day. That is all they did.
In fact, if all cancer patients did that instead of using chemotherapy, radiatio
n and surgery, the cure rate for cancer in America would jump dramatically.
But who would make huge profits telling cancer patients to drink a quart of carr
ot juice, mixed with a little beet juice, every day, and eat a healthy diet? Cer
tainly not the medical community and certainly not the pharmaceutical industry a
nd media. Carrot juice and beet juice cannot be patented. Nor can a healthy diet
be patented.
The general public is so brainwashed they think Nature is too stupid to be a med
ical doctor. Yet scientists only understand about 3 percent of human DNA after s
tudying it since 1953. This means scientists still don t have a clue what 97 perce
nt of all human DNA does.
There are many other examples of natural cancer researchers who also had very hi
gh cure rates.
Dr. Philip Binzel had
seeds. He got liquid
A) tried to block the
ely, Dr. Binzel s son

an 81 percent cure rate using liquid laetrile from apricot

laetrile from Mexico. The Food and Drug Administration (FD
import of liquid laetrile into the United States. Fortunat
was an attorney and the FDA was defeated in court.

Dr. Royal Rife, a microbiologist, had a 100 percent cure rate using electromedic
ine to kill microbes inside the cancer cells. The American Medical Association (
AMA) tried to buy him out. Rife refused so the FDA shut him down and destroyed h
is lab and inventory.

And there are many others. In fact, the best cancer researchers ever are all ali
ve today. We have had to develop very advanced cancer protocols because many of
the patients we work with are very sick due to their starting their cancer treat
ment with orthodox cancer treatments.
All of the above natural technologies are currently used. The Rife Machine is now
called a High RF Frequency Generator-Contact (15 watts) or High RF Frequency Gen
erator-Plasma (207 watts).
Well, that is not their real names. We are not allowed by the vendor to mention
their real names. I will bet by now you can figure out why the vendor does not w
ant us to use the real names of these devices. He is afraid of the FDA.
Natural medicine cancer researchers today use many of the above protocols, but n
ewer products and newer combinations of products have made some of the above pro
tocols obsolete if used by themselves.
A powerful combination of natural cancer treatments and electromedicine are need
ed by cancer patients.
That is why the experts put together protocols with names like Cellect-Budwig, D
irt Cheap Protocol, High RF Frequency Protocol, Cesium Chloride, etc.
What the media doesn t tell you about cancer
The media has conditioned the American people to believe that cancer is caused b
y DNA damage and that not even Nature can figure out how to cure cancer.
But surprisingly, DNA damage has absolutely nothing to do with causing cancer. B
ut even if it did so what? If you safely target and kill the cancer cells, what
difference would it make that the cancer cells have DNA damage?
A Nobel Prize was awarded in 1930/31 for the discovery that low ATP energy was t
he definition of a cancer cell.
But it was a natural medicine cancer researcher (who obviously did not win a Nob
el Prize) who discovered that the low ATP energy was caused by microbes inside t
he cancer cells which intercept glucose before it can be converted into pyruvate
and then, via two chemical cycles, into ATP.
By killing these microbes, cancer cells can be reverted into normal cells. We no
w know it is not even necessary to kill cancer cells, they can be reverted into
normal cells. The ICRF (Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc. natural med
icine researchers) has developed more than 25 treatments that revert cancer cell
s into normal cells.
The DNA damage in cancer cells has absolutely nothing to do with causing cancer.
The DNA damage is caused by the same thing that causes cancer the microbes insi
de the cancer cells.
There are many cures for cancer. But these cures do not come from the pharmaceut
ical industry. The multi-billionaires/trillionaires who own the pharmaceutical i
ndustry have zero interest in the little people surviving their cancer.
The politicians, of course, side with the trillionaires because they are the one
s who own the media and thus they are the ones who own the minds of the American
people. You cannot get elected to the White House without selling out to the su
per-rich.

Cures for cancer must come from cancer researchers who have integrity and do not
work for the pharmaceutical industry or Food and Drug Administration (Congress
has given the FDA to the pharmaceutical industry as a gift to crush anyone who c
an cure a highly profitable disease) or any of the large cancer charities (which
are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry).
The American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen For The Cure have no interest in
curing cancer. They are collecting money. In fact, the American Cancer Society w
as really founded by John D. Rockefeller Jr.
son of the founder of the pharmaceu
tical industry.
No wonder the ACS has never found a cure for cancer. They have never been lookin
g for a cure for cancer and they never will. If the ACS hired one of the ICRF re
searchers they would have over 25 cures for cancer within one week. But that wil
l never happen.
The problem with curing cancer has nothing to do with science and everything to
do with politics and information. People are told there are no cures for cancer,
over and over, so they naturally believe it.
But it is a lie.
Actually, curing cancer is easy and many people know how to cure cancer.
Revert Cancer Cells Into Normal Cells
The battle against cancer has nothing to do with cancer and everything to do wit
h the manipulation of information by the super-rich.
The media uses a very sophisticated brainwashing tactic that has been around for
many decades. Study this brilliant quote:
No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neithe
r to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public u
tterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itse
lf as a jarring dissonance.
Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives by Alan Bullock
By using the constant repetition of seeing medical doctors on television, people a
re conditioned (the uniform pattern of public utterance ) to believe that anyone wh
o is not a medical doctor must be a quack (the jarring dissonance ).
Thus, people run to their medical doctor when they get cancer. The media has don
e their job well.
Almost every time you turn on your television set you see a medical doctor being
glorified. Why? So that when people are diagnosed with cancer, by a medical doc
tor, they will immediately want to know which medical doctors treat cancer.
This process has been going on for many years, long before you were born or tele
vision was invented. The Big Cartel of the media, the pharmaceutical industry, t
he politicians, the medical industry, etc. don t want people to know that cancer c
an be cured.
The secret cartels use the media to turn people into zombies. Thus, when a perso
n is diagnosed with cancer they head for an oncologist like a robot.