Life here in the high Andes --
(we live at close to 10,000 feet or 3,000 meters, take your pick) -- is pretty
"tranquilo," as they say in Ecuador. There seems to be something in the water, the
climate, the culture, or perhaps it's a combination, that resists the kind of
contentiousness and never-ending conflict that grip so much of the rest of the
world.
There is one notable exception, however:
it is the mere mention of anything pertaining to health care that does not sing
"hallelujah praises" to the great glory of the pharmaceutical industry.
Yes, even in the remote part of the world in which I live, we're not immune to the
drumbeat of pharmaceutical industry shills -- most of them on the payroll, some not --
standing guard over the comment sections of web pages where there is the slightest possibility
these things can be discussed, fully "locked-and-loaded" and ready to pounce on
anyone who commits the ultimate sin in their book: to express an independent line
of thought that does not coincide with officially santioned
Industrial Medical Complex
doctrine and propaganda.
The truth of this hit home quite
recently when a local alternative practitioner,
Bob Higgins, wrote a series of
articles for our local English-speaking online pub,
Gringo Tree,
expressing his very personal journey in the world of cancer treatment. [Readers can
contact Bob at:
cuencaholisticguide@gmail.com].
He first published an article, entitled
Cancer and Institutionalized Medicine:
Who's the Real Enemy? Then he followed this up with
Cancer vs. Institutionalized Medicine,
whose comment section has to contain some of the most foul flaming I've ever seen
in my 20+ years on the internet. And then just a few days ago,
Gringo Post Forum, an
unrelated local forum, had an entire page
of posts in which Higgins was included, even though he had never participated in the discussion.
(It concerns an MMS Conference that is taking place in Vilcabamba, about 5 hours south of here.
Neither Bob nor I are attending.) Fact is, Bob knew nothing about the MMS conference. Nonetheless, the MMS
matter was used as a opportunity by shills to
seriously flame
Higgins. He was sandbagged for an issue in which he took no part.
Since over 99% of my clients are outside of South America,
it might appear that my presentation here is starting to appear provincial. However, I have seen
this same treatment of alternative practitioners for years on other blog sites, and yet I have
chosen to say nothing. Should I have? Or should I have said something?
After meeting with Bob to discuss what
had just happened him, I composed the following response, which has just been
sent to the editors of Gringo Tree. It contains compelling arguments that anyone
can use against shills for the Medical Industrial Complex.
< --- Prior to posting this response,
Bob and I met at the Caton Family Library outside Cuenca. With over
6,000 volumes, the majority of which are devoted to chemistry, physics,
health, nutrition, medicine, botany, horticulture, agriculture, and
their related disciplines, this library is the largest English-speaking
library of its kind anywhere in Ecuador.
ADDRESSING ROBERT HIGGINS' "ALTERNATIVE CANCER" ARTICLES
================================================================
by Greg Caton --- Herbalist
I watched with interest as the
responses to Robert Higgins recent articles on
alternative cancer therapies poured in and I was somewhat surprised by the level
of vitriol by some of our more spirited defenders of the Medical Industrial Complex . . .
(Charlie, Victor, Mark Zuckerburglar, William Baker, Kenneth Merena
-- some
names real, some fake . . . it doesn't matter.
You guys know who you are.
You are the dominant bacterial organisms who have made the blogosphere your
primary intestinal habitat -- if only because ordinary people have more important things to do.)
Since the possibility exists that some misinformed
individuals could read this mindless dribble and take it seriously, I thought it might
be refreshing to let some of this propagandistic fog clear
and deal with established facts. I will also attempt to transcend personal attacks on
Bob's character --- cheesy, though predictable, because when the therapies you're
defending produce such disastrous therapeutic results, what other fig leaf are
you going to reach for besides deflection? Let's bring the focus back to
where it belongs.
I'll make this easy with a simple numbering system --- and footnotes for those
who want documentary support. I provide hundreds more references in
Meditopia.
( 1 ) THERE IS NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT SUPPORTS CONVENTIONAL CANCER THERAPY.
As I detail extensively in Chapter 4 of Meditopia, ( 1 )
there is absolutely no credible
evidence, anywhere, in any language, in any country, in any time period, in any of the existing
extant literature, on this planet and quite likely any other, that supports the notion that most
conventional therapies for serious degenerative disease, but most particularly any conventional
cancer therapy, actually work. There is, however,
plenty of credible evidence that supports the fact that
few things are as effective in KILLING people as conventional cancer treatment.
It was not without sound foundation that the late two-time Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Linus Pauling,
could say,
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the
major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." ( 2 )
(Try to keep in mind that when it comes to Nobel Prizes, Linus Pauling, unlike Barack Obama, actually
EARNED his.) If you knew what I knew, you would -- as do I -- regard Pauling as being excessively
diplomatic when he said this, if not downright obsequious, given his standing in the orthodox
scientific community. This only makes it a more astonishing admission.
This is why you have medical renegades who have introduced
the revolutionary concept of
"evidence-based medicine." And -- believe me --
it is truly revolutionary. Why? Because it defies the conventional medicine
position that it is perfectly acceptable to foist incredibly expensive, dangerous
medical products, procedures, and modalities upon the public using fake
data (as "Isabella" pointed out in her post) all the while pointing a finger at
those "outside" the system as quacks and snake oil salesmen and whatever
other pejoratives you can construct using the 26 known letters of the
English alphabet. As Dr. Barbara Starfield (3) so aptly pointed out, where
there is increased expenditure within the modern medical model, there is more
death and disease. Ours is the Age of Iatrogenesis : death from doctoring.
Over the years I have constructed several models to assist those
who are cerebrally challenged to get their heads around the simple, historical
observation that the cancer industry has nothing to do with coming up
with a cancer cure and everything to do with suppressing those who do.
I have created
corollaries
of Parkinson's Law (4), put together a short treatise
tying together the time-honored principle of planned obsolescence
in business administration with the NEED FOR iatrogenesis (5), shot
holes the size of beach balls through
orthodox media campaigns designed
to deceive the public (6), and the first four chapters of
Meditopia itself --
a free read at meditopia.org -- stand as an indictment of this
incredibly corrupt system, replete in its filth, devoid of any moral
or ethical fiber. (7)
( 2 ) THERE IS
NOTHING "SCIENTIFIC" ABOUT "MEDICAL
SCIENCE" . . . AND THIS IS BECAUSE ORTHODOX SCIENCE HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH THE IMPARTIAL QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE --- BUT RATHER THE QUEST
FOR CONSENSUS WITHIN A PRIVILEGED, PROFESSIONAL, AUTHORITATIVE ELITE.
One of the things I do in
Chapter 4 of Meditopia is dissect Thomas Kuhn's
famous landmark work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to show that
science is a control system. It isn't about the quest for impartial knowledge.
But apart from that, throughout my entire career, I have seen one
ridiculous article of faith that carried all the weight of gravity and
feigned sincerity by established medicine after another, obliterated . . . by
people who were smarter, more brilliant, more creative, more resourceful,
only to see their lives destroyed for attempting to inject a little verifiable
truth into what author, Thomas Sheridan, calls our global "psychopathic
control grid." (8) I could come up with a hundred examples, but for brevity's
sake I'll just take two salient, poignant, and very personal examples.
EXHIBIT A : In 2000 I was exposed to a researcher who claimed
that he created a formula to rapidly accelerate the healing of broken
bones. Upon investigation, I quickly realized that one of the hidden
assumptions of his formula is that the body utilizes silicon to create
calcium compounds. (9) This angered me at first, because as anybody
who was paying any attention during their high school chemistry
classes knows, elemental transmutation is impossible, right?
I mean . . . the entire scientific establishment wouldn't lie about
something that fundamental, now would they? Subsequent to this,
the researcher in question led me to thoroughly examine the work of
Professor C.L. Kervran, whose thoughts are summarized in his seminal work,
"Biological Transmutations." I was willing to make this effort, because
I really wanted to know how this "bone builder" formula worked, and
I couldn't come up with an alternative explanation as to why it was
so effective to save my life.
Just like with the apologists for the Medical Industrial Complex,
the simple observable facts of daily life become obscure when you
have people in authority telling you what to believe and to trust
THEM rather than your own experience.
Like . . . what comes out of a chicken's rear end. Well . . . yes . . .
I'm talking about eggs. But did you know that the egg shell is
made of calcium carbonate, and that if you deliberately deprive
a chicken of calcium its entire life, the eggs it produces will
still be covered in shell that is made of calcium carbonate.
Where does the calcium come from if the chicken isn't
producing it internally from other elements. Kervran provides
countless other examples that science cannot and will not explain.
Not now. Not ever. Why should they? Science is not
about knowledge, and its prominents take delight in suppressing
observations that clearly defy their cherished theories.
EXHIBIT B : I make a product called H3O (Calcium Sulfate
Hydronium Solution) (10) In October, 2001, I was in Washington D.C.,
giving a demonstration of this material along with its companion
product, HRx. (11) What is the difference? H3O (also the chemical
shorthand for hydronium) has a pH of close to 0.0, yet is
non-caustic and non-corrosive to animal tissue; while HRx has a
pH of close to 14.0 and is similarly non-caustic and non-corrosive
to animal tissue. I produced a website devoted to the hundreds of
truly scientific tests that we conducted to show the properties of
these products. (12)
Okay, so back to this Expo East show. (13) About halfway through
my demonstration, I do a live example showing that when H3O and
HRx are combined --- that is to say, an extreme acid with an extreme
alkaline --- they produce no exothermic reaction and the resulting
solution has a pH that is close to 7.0. If you know anything
about inorganic chemistry, you know that all the chemistry books will
tell you that this isn't possible. Is this registering with you yet, dear reader?
I have just done a live demonstration showing that one of the bedrock
principles of inorganic chemistry has at least one provable exception.
A professor from Georgetown University approaches me ---
business card in hand. I look at it and see that he has a Ph.D.
in chemistry.
"How did you do that?" he asked.
"What do you mean?" I replied.
"What's the trick? Are the pH strips you're using artificially marked?"
"No," I replied. "There's no trick. I use ColorpHast strips from EM Science,
imported from Germany, and we make these solutions here
in the States. These products really do have the properties I've
indicated."
Suddenly, the man's face grimaced and as he turned to walk away,
he muttered,
"What a con artist!"
The truth is that this professor was more committed to believing
a mythology that was central to his position, authority, standing, and world view than he was in
trusting his own eyes. This is what historian Gary North is referring
to when he says,
"Always beware respectable people . . . because
they are beholden to the institutions that are the source of that
respectability!" And this is what those in authority count on :
that you're dumb enough, gullible enough, foolish enough to
believe whatever they come up with --- even when it defies
what your own senses tell you. People will believe a medical
doctor, who frequently has financial motives that conflict with
the interests of the patient, over their own body, which has
NO INTEREST apart from that of the patient. A doctor will lie
to you. Your own body will not. I learned this from Jerry Mander (14),
though a more convincing look at how divorced "modern science"
is from reality and how it has been transformed into a twisted
religious cult, can be found in Phillip Collins work. (15)
( 3 ) A WORLD WITHOUT CONVENTIONAL CANCER
THERAPY --- OR PHARMACEUTICALS DRUGS, FOR THAT
MATTER --- PRODUCES NO DEFICIENCIES. WHY?
Everyone knows that the body needs a variety of macronutrients,
vitamins, minerals, and enzymes in order to function properly.
What happens when your body doesn't get any one of the
many nutrients that it NEEDS? It gets diseased, right?
Insufficient Vitamin C leads to scurvy; insufficient Vitamin B3
leads to pelagra; insufficient iodine leads to goiter, etc., etc.
IN FACT . . . there is not one thing that the body needs
which is essential (that is to say the body cannot manufacture
it) whose deficiency will not result in a diseased condition.
And why is that? Because the body requires it. It's essential
to good health.
My world -- the world of phytopharmacology -- is filled
with thousands of various natural chemicals which belong
to different classes of organic compounds whose deficiency
results in harm to the body. This is because naturopaths,
like myself, will only deal in things that the body NEEDS.
We're not in the business of creating Frankensteinian
molecular structures that can be found nowhere in this
entire universe, filing a patent for it claiming ownership, and
then attempting to sell the public on the idea that our
completely artificial molecule is somehow necessary
for a restored, natural function of the body.
If I told you that I have a special kind of mud on my
property that if you put it into your gas tank, it will improve
your car's performance, would you be dumb enough to
believe me? No? Well, anybody who agrees to go in
for chemotherapy or radiation therapy buys that logic,
so why won't you? After all,
THERE IS NO SUCH THING
AS BEING CHEMOTHERAPY OR RADIATION
THERAPY DEFICIENT! Such a physical state does
not exist.
The word "pharmacology" comes from the ancient Greek
root, meaning "poison." (16) This is not an accident. The
fathers of modern medicine knew what they were doing,
and this is conveyed in the word they chose to describe
their art : using materials that are foreign to the body,
unnecessary for its optimal function, the absence of which
cannot possibly produce a deficiency, all while extolling
its vital curative properties. The very etymology of the
word provides us with a clue as to what cancer therapy
itself is about : poisoning the patient so that further treatment
will be required. This fits perfectly with the "problem,
reaction, solution" Hegelian model that rests at the very
foundation of modern government . . . and make no
mistake about it, modern medicine IS a form of
governance. (17)
( 4 ) THE MAJORITY OF MEDICAL DOCTORS
WHO ADMINISTER CHEMOTHERAPY WOULD
NOT UNDERGO IT THEMSELVES.
The figure from a study last year (2014) was 88%. (18)
However, I have seen higher. But surveys aside, I can personally
attest that Cathryn and I have talked to scores of medical
doctors over our 25 years of working together who have
told us privately that they would NOT undergo chemotherapy
or radiation therapy themselves and the only reason they
prescribe these approaches is because they risk losing
their licenses if they don't.
How many cancer patients who get sold a bill of
goods on the "chemo / radiation good-time choo-choo train"
understand that there is a greater than 50% chance (and that's
an extremely conservative figure) that the
medical doctor who sold them on that therapy would not
undergo it themselves because they know it's too danger.
That they know it doesn't work. That they know there
are better alternatives. That they know that chemotherapy
"kills cancer patients faster than no treatment at all." (19)
Probably not many.
( 5 ) ANECDOTAL TRUMPS JAMA ANY DAY.
I get sick and tired of hearing about how something is valid
only if has been confirmed by a triple blind study.
Do you have any sense of how ridiculous this is?
If I'm walking down the street and I see a woman
violently raped to the point of hospitalization, do you
understand that my testimony is of no value to the
police if I applied these people's logic? It is only what
I saw or heard, so how COULD my testimony have
any valid meaning? Only a qualified controlled study
could confirm that this woman was raped and who did it!
As I discuss in Chapter 4 of Meditopia, the first
American Medical Pharmacopia consisted almost exclusively
of "cures" that were stolen from native American Indians.
It was ALL anecdotal. And what does anecdotal mean?
It means what you have seen with your own two eyes,
without interpretation by anyone in authority. It means
knowledge that has not yet received the imprimatur of
people in authority who view you as little more than cattle ---
something to be milked until you're ready for the clinical
cancer slaughterhouse.
In fact, the working knowledge of indigenous people all over
the world is based on anecdotal observations. Bob
Higgins' naysayers would argue that none of these natural
medicines have any value -- after all, they haven't been
"triple blind studied" and had their results published
in the Journal of the American Medical Association by
a pharmaceutical company.
I beg to differ . . .
It might be different if these studies were "legit," but
the FDA routinely helps Big Pharma pull off studies that
are hugely fraudulent (20). To put it bluntly
"most medical research is false." (21) And what happens
to those who blow this whistle on this kind of fraud?
They get punished for being honest. (22)
Is this really the kind of medical system that we should
honor, respect, support, and follow?
Strangely . . . the posters who were unjustifiably gunning
Robert Higgins' article and his personal character certainly
think so.
( 6 ) YOU WOULDN'T TRUST A LOCAL "MAFIA DON" WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE NEEDS.
SO WHY WOULD YOU TRUST AN ONCOLOGIST WITHOUT QUESTION?
I remember having a phone conversation in the
mid-1990's with Canadian physician, Dr. Guylaine Lanctôt, M.D. She was in the process
of releasing her book, "
The Medical Mafia."
This was an important checkpoint in my ongoing education as to just how criminal
the medical establishment is. There is no room in the conventional medical
establishment for objectivity. It is a world, like that of George W. Bush, "where you're either
with us . . . or you're a terrorist."
In 2010, in the aftermath of my
celebrated kidnapping,
while imprisoned in Beaumont, Texas, I spent a good deal of time with
James T. Hill, M.D. Here was a physician who, like Guylaine, had come to
the conclusion that few of the practices and principles of the Medical
Industrial Complex were sound. Unlike most physicians he worked with his
patients on improving their diets. He frequently recommended nutraceuticals,
medicinal herbs, vitamin and mineral supplements, and he prescribed a fraction of the pharmaceutical drugs
that most physicians prescribe. The local licensing board found out and
wasn't pleased. In the end, federal charges were brought against Dr. Hill
involving a single prescription and he was sentenced to more than ten
years.
But imprisoning practitioners using
fake charges and fictitious allegations isn't good enough anymore.
Those who follow the long list of "unconventional" scientists who
have died in recent years
of strange, mysterious, unusually violent deaths
are now having to add
medical
practitioners to their lists. (23) I personally know of practitioners myself who are
petrified of the wave of murders that is taking place to physicians who don't
"toe the party line."
And how is this relevant to the current
discussion? . . . Simple :
If you represented a system of health care,
especially as it relates to conventional cancer treatment, that had any validity to it,
if your therapeutic approaches were better, safer, more effective, and superior to
those offered by the naturopathic community, would it really be necessary to
falsely imprison contrarians or pay assassins to violently murder those who did not agree
with your system?
Now . . . you might say, "But wait . . .
My doctor
(or my oncologist, or my pharmacist, or my pathologist, or my registered dietitian, etc.)
doesn't have anything to do with this!"
They don't have to.
They are the
foot soldiers in a system that has other operatives who DO.
And just like "The Matrix," as long as they are plugged into this system, this vast abyss
of endless corruption -- well-meaning though they might be -- they are participants who
profit from it. They belong to a club that rewards adherents for conformity, and swiftly
punishes those who express independent thought or give credence to empirical evidence.
[Forget "1984." Welcome to the Borg!]
Therefore, you have a right to question their recommendations.
Ask yourself: Is a system that behaves this way a system
that you can trust with life-and-death decisions? I believe this is something
that deserves serious attention before giving any heed to critics of alternative practitioners
like Bob Higgins, who is merely suggesting that there may be a better way.
( 7 ) AND FINALLY . . . IF THESE FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES STILL ELUDE YOU . . .
I DEVOTE THE BETTER PART OF TWO HOURS ON MY LATEST INTERVIEW
EXPLAINING THEM! (24)
Greg Caton --- Herbalist