Here’s a graphic account – with photos – of what can be achieved using black salve
Posts Tagged ‘cancer’
Posted by Jonathan Chamberlain on January 24, 2015
Posted by Jonathan Chamberlain on October 16, 2014
Anamu (Guinea Hen Weed) Anamu (Petiveria alliacea) is a herb that is indigenous to the Amazon rainforest and the tropical areas of the Caribbean, Central and South America and Africa. It is also known in Jamaica as guinea hen weed, guinea hen leaf, garlic weed or gully root. Anamu has been used for a wide variety of conditions, including arthritis, digestive disorders, infections, diabetes, cancer, for pain relief, and to induce abortion. Some of the compounds isolated from the plant have never been identified in any other plant – some were similar to compounds found in garlic, a plant known to have medicinal properties. Laboratory investigations show that anamu retards the growth of several strains of cancer and leukaemia cells. In a plant-screening programme performed at the University of Illinois at Chicago, over 1,400 plant extracts were evaluated for the prevention and treatment of cancer. Anamu was one of only 34 plants identified with active properties against cancer. One of its active chemicals is dibenzyl trisulphide (DTS) which is known to directly kill all cancer cell lines that it has been tried on (while not harming normal cells). “…DTS at concentration of 10 mM, a dose lethal to all cancer cells tested,…” West Indian Medical Journal, 2007 Jan; 56(1):17-21. Other substances in the herb boost the immune system, fight infections and relieve pain. On the negative side it is not advised for pregnant women (it induces abortion), for people on blood thinners (it is a blood thinner) or for hypoglaecemia. For further details read: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070813/news/news7.html Dosage: One full tablespoonful of the whole powdered anamu plant – preferably organic – is diffused in one litre of hot water. The resulting tea is drunk preferably on an empty stomach. An average dosage is four ounces (about half a cup) twice daily. Available on the internet at a cost of about US$30 a lb. Supporting personal anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that this could be a powerful herbal weapon against cancer. For further details go to http://www.rain-tree.com/anamu.htm#.VD-QSsJ0zrc
Posted by Jonathan Chamberlain on June 28, 2014
Kill the B*****ds!!!
Violence is so much part of our automatic response system to ‘things we don’t like’ that it seems not only inevitable but somehow right, the way it ought to be.
Al-Qaeda is hiding out in the mountains of North Pakistan – hell, let’s bomb them. Cancer cells are growing in my body? So zap them with radiation and chemical poisons. Boys are knifing other boys in the street? So kill them all.
Whoa! Kill all the kids, even if they don’t have knives? Maybe that’s the necessary price for a crime free street – but maybe we just kill the kids with knives, or those that we suspect of having knives. You mean that it’s OK to kill a wedding party of innocent villagers if it increases our chances of getting a few of the really bad guys – but it’s not OK to kill Kids on the street?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not in favour of killing any kids, or bombing any wedding parties in North Pakistan for that matter.
Going back to the Vietnam War it was generally agreed (by the big boys with guns) that it was OK to devastate huge tracts of countryside with chemicals like Agent Orange? Sure, you might say, if it helps us to win the war. Remind me, did we win that war? And do we really think the policy of violence has made Iraq and Afghanistan safe and healthy for the long term future? As I write this, the Sunni and the Shia are wreaking ungodly violence on each other.
Wouldn’t it be better if they just talked, laughed, had picnics, listened to good music and so on? Wouldn’t their worlds be happier and better places to bring up their kids?
So the question we should be asking is not: What is the best way of killing cancer? No, a much better question is: What is the best path to a healthy future?
If an action is effective in achieving its goal then it is hard to argue against it even if it has negative consequences. However, going postal on cancer using instruments and tactics of extreme violence – surgery, radiation and chemotherapy – simply have not been that successful. Sure, lumps, possibly (this is not unanimously agreed), should be whipped off as soon as they are seen but if there is any sign of spread to other parts of the body the smart decision would be to hold off.
What we need are approaches that help the body return to and sustain a state of health. Once we have phrased the question in this way we can see that a combination of cleansing, diet, exercise, supplements and herbs, along with music and laughter – are more likely to achieve the goal we desire.
So let’s not kill the kids that carry knives, let’s change the world they live in so they don’t have to carry knives. Let’s not attack cancer tumours with technologically sophisticated weapons. Let’s instead change the context in which the cancer is growing and so persuade the cancer cells to self-destruct. We know this can be done – and the earlier people put in place such changes the more likely it is they will live long, fulfilling and healthy lives.
How can we change the context? Well, there are far too many possibilities to summarise here. For a full discussion of all the options read my book The Cancer Survivor’s Bible (www.fightingcancer.com).
The more options you do the better the outcome is likely to be. It’s really that simple.
Jonathan Chamberlain is author of: Cancer? Don’t Panic!; The Cancer Survivor’s Bible; Cancer Recovery Guide: 15 Strategies for Restoring Health; The Amazing Cancer Kid – the true story of Connah Broom’s amazing recovery. These books are available from internet bookshops. His website is at http://www.fightingcancer.com
© Jonathan Chamberlain 2014
Posted by Jonathan Chamberlain on April 7, 2014
Proof or Disproof?
It seems obvious that to call a treatment proven is the opposite of calling a treatment disproven – but the more we think about it the less obvious this may be.
Let’s take as our starting point a treatment that is effective 95-100%. I think we would all be happy to consider such a treatment proven – and this is the case in relation to chemo and penile/testicular cancers. Chemo has a very high success rate in this area. Similarly we would be happy to call a treatment that had 0-5% success effectively disproven. Again chemo as a treatment for pancreatic cancers would come into this category and again there would be little argument. So far so good.
But what do we do with treatments that are 50% successful? Well, I think most of us would consider this also proven. It works half the time. That’s pretty good.
So what about a treatment that was 25% successful? Is this also ‘proven’? Perhaps, but we’re beginning to stretch the definition of ‘proven’ to its limits. OK so what about 10-15% effectiveness? Would this be proven or disproven?
It is in this area that calling it proven or disproven really depends on other factors – mainly on the point of view of the person judging the success or failure of the treatment. What about a 5-10% success rate? Again, if you are gung ho in favour of the treatment you’ll call it proven and if you are gung ho against it you’ll call it disproven. So there is no objective barrier between what is proven and what is disproven. It really is a matter of interpretation.
The problem for chemo is that its effectiveness as a stand alone treatment is not good. It varies from cancer to cancer. Overall the general range of figures quoted is 5-15%. But the truth is one or two cancers have very good responses to cancer and virtually all the rest have a very poor response. But many people with cancers for which the effectiveness is known to be low to zero nevertheless receive chemotherapy. In these cases doctors must accept that they are using disproven treatments.
Often they do so alongside surgery as insurance. Sometimes they mix two or three together and experiment on the patient. Sometimes the reason they give the treatment is not to be curative but to ‘buy time’. However there is a great deal of dispute as to how much time is generally bought in this way. Some people undoubtedly do buy a few months but many others die earlier than they might otherwise be expected to. All in all it’s a mixed picture. Doctors believe they are buying time because chemotherapy often causes tumour shrinkage – but this shrinkage is almost always temporary and when the tumour grows again it does so at vastly increased speed. Chemotherapy makes tumours more aggressive.
So, for many cancers, calling chemo a proven treatment is really stretching the bounds of what words mean.
If your doctor is advising chemo do get the figures for likely effectiveness. Chemo is generally brutal. You don’t want to incur pain only to discover it is likely hastening you to your death. Sadly that is what happens to some chemo patients. I know because it happened to my wife.
Posted in Cancer Perspectives | Tagged: cancer, cancers, chemotherapy, disproven treatments for cancer, effectiveness, proven treatments for cancer, success rate, unproven treatments for cancer | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Jonathan Chamberlain on November 16, 2013
Chemo therapy? Makes sense right? Er…well, no. Ian Jacklin interviewed a doctor who said this: “I asked one of my Oncologist friends why he gives chemo when he knows it won’t work. He said cause it’s the only way he will get paid.”
I guess the medics who set up and ran the concentration camps for Nazi Germany and the medics who diagnosed madness in anyone criticising the soviet regime would have said exactly the same.
This chemo madness must stop.
For alternatives that won’t damage you read The Cancer Survivor’s Bible – www.fightingcancer.com
Posted by Jonathan Chamberlain on May 11, 2013
Are cancers different from each other?
This is the view of mainstream medicine – each cancer is unique and there many be hundreds of different types of breast cancer for example. To follow tghe logic of this view we would need thousands of tailor-made chemo drugs to fight all these different cancers.
Or are cancers essentially the same?
This is the holistic view. Cancers share characteristics and so can benefit from the same interventions – diet, herbs, supplements etc.
There are dozens if not hundreds of effective cancer cures. None are perfect but in combination they can be powerfully effective. The proof is that people are curing themselves of cancer using very different strategies.
Download my free book containing over two dozen stories of people who have recovered from cancer (in one case hauling himself out of a hospice back to well ness; in another case…well they are all interesting so just read the book which you can find at www.fightingcancer.com
What’s caused these cancers to appear? Why do we have more cancer now than at any other time in history? Something toxic is happening. But we don’t have to be passive victims. The first step to recovery is to know the facts – and to evaluate all the options. Read: The Cancer Survivor’s Bible www.fightingcancer.com
Posted by Jonathan Chamberlain on April 15, 2013
Mr Iain Banks and the Nocebo
A week ago, the novelist Iain Banks announced he had terminal cancer and was not expected to live beyond a year. The doctors are the experts and this is their expert opinion. Mr Banks has no doubt it is true and has accepted his fate with commendable phlegmatism. And so it is very likely he will fulfil these expectations.
It’s called a nocebo. It’s where the witchdoctor tells the patient they will die in three days, and they go ahead and die in three days. It’s the power of the curse. Nowadays we don’t believe in that sort of thing. Or do we? Iain Banks has been told he will be dead within the year. And he has decided his doctors’ prediction is the truth. He cannot escape his fate. He may try to flee to Samara but death will find him out. My wife, Bernadette, was told she had three months to live. She was told this on January 17th of that year. She died on April 16th. That was a very accurate forecast. Or was it a curse?
My friend Pauline was diagnosed with cancer a few years ago. She died slowly over a period of about 18 months. The interesting thing for me was that she absolutely resisted any attempt on my part to make suggestions. She knew I had been through this experience with Bernadette, that I had done years of research, that I had written books. She knew all that. But this knowledge was out-weighed in the balance against the doctor’s opinion that her case was terminal. She had, quite simply, taken on the narrative of death and the idea that she might survive suddenly became very threatening.
But it doesn’t have to be that way.
Let’s take Ian Clements, a Brighton-based retired lecturer in electrical engineering who is still going strong and is cancer-free. The reason this is interesting is that a few years ago Ian was in a hospice and was expected to die within days or weeks. His bladder cancer had returned aggressively and the doctors had told him there was nothing more they could do for him. But Ian really didn’t want to die. He was not going to quietly take on the mantle of death that the doctors had thrown over him. He insisted on having one more course of chemotherapy, even though only one doctor out of the four he consulted – yes, he kept getting new opinions because the old ones didn’t conform to his desire to live – said it had a remote chance of success (5% was the figure suggested). And it worked. It succeeded in shrinking his tumour. In the meantime Ian set about following diets and taking supplements that he believed would help him. Well, we can argue as to whether it was the chemo or the alternative therapies he still follows that did it but Ian himself has no doubt it is a combination of the two. The chemo bought him some time but it is the regular monitoring of his biochemical status and the changes in his supplement regime to offset any negative trends that has kept him alive. Ian Clements has a powerful will to live. He didn’t buy into the nocebo hex the doctors had put on him.
Then there was – is – Connah Broom. Connah is now eleven years old. Seven years ago, having endured around eight months of chemotherapy, Connah was sent home with eleven tumours in his body and the doctor’s fond expectation that he would die within weeks and months. Today he still has a vestige of cancer left but he is otherwise a physically robust and healthy boy who has a passion for dancing and football. The reason Connah is still alive is that his grandparents said: “Connah is not going to die if we can help it.” That was pretty much it: a positive attitude, an organic diet, filtering all his drinking water, and taking an aloe vera product. Oh, yes. And then there was – and is – the light treatment that they were introduced to in Mexico. This light treatment – called Sono-Photo Dynamic Therapy (SPDT) – has been around a long time but it is not available in this country, not for children anyway. It is ‘unproven’. It is not backed up by the peer reviewed, double blind clinical trials that doctors insist on. It is only offered in remote places – Mexico, China – on an experimental basis.
Why couldn’t the NHS do that?
And if it worked this might help doctors to be weaned off the expensive drug regimes to which they are addicted, despite the lack of proof that they work. Don’t work? You might ask. Surely, science is progressing and year after year things are improving? Well, Iain Chalmers of the British Medical Journal, an authoritative voice if there was one, is on record as saying: “new treatments are as likely to be worse as they are to be better” than the old ones. That’s the word from the medical horse’s mouth.
But to return to the subject of the nocebo, it is clear that there are two paths the cancer patient can take when they are told their cancer is terminal. There is the way of dying and the way of living.
The way of dying, which appears to be the way Iain Banks has chosen, is a perfectly reasonable approach. It involves embracing the fact that we will not be around sometime soon and so we need to get used to that idea and to make the necessary practical and emotional adjustments involved.
The way of living, on the other hand, requires being bolshie and bloody-minded and utterly committed to the task of getting well again. Again this is a perfectly reasonable option. But just as selecting the path of life doesn’t mean that you will succeed in curing yourself, so also choosing the path of dying doesn’t mean that you will succeed in dying. Some people have gone home to die and somehow or other their complete acceptance has resulted in an invisible, unsought-after cure. Bizarre but true.
There are no certainties when it comes to cancer. So when Iain Banks tells us that he will be dead within a year, this is not because of the inevitable and inexorable progress of his cancer alone, it is because he has chosen the narrative of dying and it feels very comfortable to him. And that’s fine for Mr Banks. But it may not be fine for the large numbers of cancer patients who find themselves in the same situation. The loud media noise drowns out the message that there is a path of living that could equally be chosen. Perhaps the media could give some exposure to this possibility. Nuro, a German woman who lives near Brighton and who ‘cured’ her lymphoma (I have put this in inverted commas simply because the word ‘cure’ is such a contentious one – Nuro had cancer at some time in the past but now no longer does – is that a cure?). She did this with a combination of alternative interventions. She thought that she should inform other cancer patients about what she had done and offered her story to a leading national newspaper. They turned it down. It wasn’t ‘proven’. It could have been a fluke. They really didn’t want to know.
Perhaps now someone somewhere in a position of media influence will take the brave step and publish this suggestion that there is a way of life and all you have to do is choose it. And maybe it will work if you are serious enough and do the right combination of things for you (there is no THE right combination that works for everyone to my knowledge – but I know what I would do and have confidence that if cancer comes knocking on my door I will delay my demise and in the meantime I will not suffer the unnecessary pains of chemo and radiation – but that’s my informed choice – what’s yours? Don’t have one? Then read my book. Decide now before you’ve got it.)
A collection of cancer survival stories is available free of charge at www.fightingcancer.com
Jonathan Chamberlain is author of The Cancer Survivor’s Bible www.fightingcancer.com
© Jonathan Chamberlain 2013
Posted by Jonathan Chamberlain on July 21, 2012
Cancer Info Update:
Sunday Telegraph 14th February 1999 page 7
Pre-1963 polio vaccines may be killing hundreds through cancer
by Robert Matthews Science Correspondent
The mass vaccination campaigns of the Fifties and Sixties may be
causing hundreds of deaths a year because of a cancer-causing vims
which contaminated the first polio vaccine, according to scientists.
Known as SV40, the vims came from dead monkeys whose kidney cells
were used to culture the first Salk vaccines. Doctors estimate that
the vims was injected into tens of millions during mass vaccination
campaigns before being detected and screened out in 19.63. Those born
between 1941 and 1961 are thought to be most at risk of having been
Now a new study of the effects of SV40 points to disturbing evidence
that the monkey virus causes a number of human cancers. It concludes
that there is “compelling” evidence linking SV40 to mesothelioma, a
once-rare type of lung cancer whose prevalence is rapidly increasing.
Dr Janet Butel of the Baylor College of Medicine, Texas, and the lead
author of the study, told The Sunday Telegraph: “I feel strongly that
research is warranted to deter} mine how common human infections by
SV40 may be, and what factors might predispose individuals to
SV40-reLated tumours.” Her study, published in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, also suggested that the monkey vims may be
passing from those given the contaminated vaccine to their children,
spreading the cancer risk still further.
Blood samples analysed by Dr Butel and her colleagues point to the
steady spread of the cancer-causing vims in the human population, with
10 per cent of those never exposed directly to the contaminated
vaccine testing positive for, SV40. Dr Butel said: “I believe SV40 is
present in the human population today and is being spread among
individuals by an unknown route.”
The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that scientists in Britain have
joined an international effort to confirm the findings. According to
Prof Gordon McVie, the director general of the Cancer Research
Campaign, researchers have so far uncovered evidence linking SV40 to a
number of cancers, including brain tumours and bone cancer.
“I’ve a feeling that the virus might be implicated in more, such as
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer,” he said.
The study is also likely to prompt a radical rethink by doctors of
what happened 40 years ago, during the early days of polio
vaccination. Until now, SV40 was regarded as harmless, with no
evidence of longterm health effects emerging in follow-up studies of
Now it appears that these studies may not have been conducted over a
long enough period. New highly sensitive laboratory tests have
disclosed the presence of SV40 in many different types of human
The most startling results centre on mesothelioma, until recently
linked primarily to exposure to asbestos. Studies have found that
around 70 per cent of mesothelioma cases test positive for the SV40
virus. Over the past 30 years, the number of mesothelioma cases has
risen 10-fold, to about 1,000 a year, and is predicted to reach 4,000
early next century. Until now, the increase was blamed on the asbestos
But the new findings are leading scientists to suspect that SV40 may
account for a substantial number of mesotheliomas. Dr Butel said: “The
consistent association of SV40 with that tumour is compelling.”
Some scientists remain sceptical of the link, however. Robin Weiss, a
professor of viral oncology at University College, London, said that
SV40 is widely used in laboratories and could easily contaminate
tumour samples, fooling the ultrasensitive tests used to detect the,
Prof Weiss said: “Many of the positive results are probably false
positives. We’ve looked at mesothelioma and did find it in some cases,
but then we got bogged down in whether they were due to contamination
However, Dr Bharat Jasani, a leading expert on SV40 and mesotheliomas
at the University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, said that new
reliability tests rule out contamination as a possible explanation.
“There is absolutely no question of laboratory contamination being to
blame,” he said. “That part of the story is now over. The time has
come where we have to take things more seriously.”
Dr Jasani said he had little doubt that the mass polio vaccination
campaigns were to blame for SV40 entering the human population. He
added, however, that this could bring new hope to hundreds of cancer
patients, as it suggested that many might be treated by a vaccine that
attacked SV40. He said: “We could think about saving more than 2,000
lives a year from mesothelioma – and that is good news.”
A spokesman for the Department of Health said last night that it was
aware that SV40 had contaminated early polio vaccines but insisted
that there is no evidence that the virus caused tumours. She said: “It
is also important to stress that the vaccine currently used is
rigorously checked for safety and efficacy and is free of SV40.”
The Cancer Survivor’s Bible – www.fightingcancer.com
“I wish I had read this book before I was diagnosed.”
Posted by Jonathan Chamberlain on July 7, 2011
For cancer information browse this site and read my books – www.fightingcancer.com
Cure for Obesity?
This cure will surprise you. Obesity is a problem and is known to be a major contributory factor – or co-symptom – of cancer. This diet will reduce your weight – or so argues Dr John McDougall. Watch his fascinating video.