"For some reason modern medicine has itself turned a corner and entered a darkness and is now committing crimes against humanity unequalled
in the history of our race."
 
--Dr. Mark Sircus
NATURAL HEALING 
featuring 
Alternative Cancer Treatments

INTRODUCTION: by DIANNE JACOBS THOMPSON (under construction)
1979 Around January of that year, I went home to die.   ..cont. 
I was diagnosed with stage 2 stomach cancer, chronic bronchitis, acutely infected ovarian cysts, arthritis, sciatica, low thyroid, anemia and a heart condition. Besides that I had chronic ear infections and long-standing clinical depression. The late Dr. Harold Dick, N.D., known as a "naturopathic oncology pioneer" cured me in 5 weeks. It required the diagnosis (the Carroll Food Test) of digestive enzyme deficiency food intolerances which most people have and few know about, and it also identified the primary tissue salt deficiency, along with treatment with glandular protomorphogens to restore glandular health, and Constitutional Hydrotherapy to bring about detoxification, to stimulate blood circulation and the activity of the vital organs and to jump-start the immune system. It turned out to be the basic foundation of the most successful healing system I've ever witnessed.
1986 My 5-year-old daughter was forcibly vaccinated and immediately developed a flesh-eating infection so virulent that my husband and I became infected from contact. Naturopathic medicine brought us back from the brink.
Later that year we were introduced to escharotic cancer salves and treated a dog tumor, my husband's cirrhosis of the liver, various skin lesions, moles, fungal infections, and a lump in my thigh. It eventually helped clear up the remaining symptoms from my husband's flesh-eating infection after he was forced to submit to antibiotic treatment which made a mess of it. There was much more, gallbladder problems in 1999, adrenal deficiency 2001, injury in 2002, arthritis, diabetes, and other issues between 2003-2012, including glaucoma--cured.

This is why I research and write about alternative medicine. It's a debt.

Please help support this website by purchasing hand-fired glass beads and jewelry at nitabeads1 to assist in covering the costs of books, reports, & articles needed for continuing research.


 

 

 

 


 


 

*Alternative treatments for cancer, chronic-degerative disease, infection, stress, harmful emotions and other disorders and conditions;
*Information about junk science and bad medicine, including unsafe and ineffective vaccines and undiagnosed medical conditions mimicking child abuse and Shaken Baby Syndrome;

Natural Healing Information
This site provides starting points. The rest of the journey must be yours.

"Truth wears no mask, seeks neither place nor applause, 
bows to no human shrine; she only asks a hearing"


SUBJECT: X-RAYS CAUSE CANCER
X-Rays Cause Cancer

A Compelling Reason Why John Gofman is Correct in
Identifying Medical X-rays as a Major Cause of Cancer
Copyright 2001 by Darrell Stoddard

HOME

BACK TO CANCER CAUSES

BAD MEDICINE

From: http://healpain.net/articles/reason.html

" The January 2000 Lancet article, summarized below, presents credible evidence that medical X-rays are a major cause of cancer. This reaffirms John Gofman's monumental study linking cancer to medical X-rays. See Better Than a Cure for Breast Cancer (http://www.healpain.net ) for a review of the most thoroughly validated and comprehensive cancer study of the last century.

Never does Gofman say X-rays should not be used, especially exams with modern mammography instruments that have reduced radiation exposure by a factor of 10 times. Gofman cites this reduction as the model for what should be done, but has not yet occurred with other X-ray instruments and tests. One CT scan exposes the patient to as much radiation as 5 to 25 mammograms. One fluoroscopy exam (a common X-ray test where the beam stays on) may expose the patient to as much or more radiation than 250 mammograms. There are 700,000 fluoroscopy exams each year in the U.S.

If with low-dose mammography (see Lancet article below), the total number of deaths per thousand women screened is increased by six for each breast cancer death avoided, what does this suggest for X-ray examinations that may expose patients to 250 times as much radiation as mammography? Answer: One death for every 16 such examinations, or in the U.S., 43,680 excess deaths each year from fluoroscopy examinations alone. The number of deaths could be more than this or less, but the total is significant - even momentous, when this is radiation that could be easily reduced by 50% or more, with no loss of information and no reduction in the quality of health care. (Calculation based on the maximum total radiation exposure of 24 low dose mammograms, 2 each year for 12 years; compared to exposure of one lower dose fluoroscopy examination and 700,000 such exams in the U.S. each year. In practice, the exposure difference between 24 mamograms and one fluoroscopy exam is often 2 times as great as this calculation.)

Reducing X-ray exposure and smoking cessation are by far the most important measures that can be taken to save people from heart disease and cancer! It costs nothing to do either. (For more information see Lancet article below or Better than a Cure for Breast Cancer on this website)

Footnote: The magnitude of deaths caused from tobacco use, is revealed in a recent address by Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director General of the World Health Organization -- "The current annual toll of 4 million tobacco deaths world-wide will rise to10 million each year by 2030.... tobacco is set to be the biggest killer of them all -- causing more deaths than both malaria, HIV/AIDS, and TB together." (These death estimates are world wide. The death estimates given for medical X-rays are only for the United States.)

Summary from Jan. 2000 Lancet article
Is Screening for Breast Cancer
with Mammography Justifiable?
(Includes an analysis of all eight identified Breast Cancer Mammography Trials)
by Peter C Gtzsche, Ole Olsen

"Background
A 1999 study found no decrease in breast-cancer mortality in Sweden, where screening has been recommended since 1985. We therefore reviewed the methodological quality of the mammography trials and an influential Swedish meta-analysis, and did a meta-analysis ourselves.

Methods
We searched the Cochrane Library for trials and asked the investigators for further details. Meta-analyses were done with Review Manager (version 4.0).

Findings
Baseline imbalances were shown for six of the eight identified trials, and inconsistencies in the number of women randomised were found in four. The two adequately randomised trials found no effect of screening on breast-cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 104 [95% CI 084-127]) or on total mortality (099 [094-105]). The pooled relative risk for breast-cancer mortality for the other trials was 075 (067-083), which was significantly different (p=0005) from that for the unbiased trials. The Swedish meta-analysis showed a decrease in breast-cancer mortality but also an increase in total mortality (106 [104-108]); this increase disappeared after adjustment for an imbalance in age.

Interpretation
Screening for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified. If the Swedish trials are judged to be unbiased, the data show that for every 1000 women screened biennially throughout 12 years, one breast-cancer death is avoided whereas the total number of deaths is increased by six. If the Swedish trials (apart from the Malm trial) are judged to be biased, there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast-cancer mortality."

Lancet 2000; 355: 129-34

Footnote: To appreciate the importance of the Lancet article on breast cancer and mammography, it needs to be pointed out that Lancet is one of the most conservative and respected medical journals in the world. The editors of Lancet would not have published the study if they did not believe the conclusions were valid. A previous breast cancer study concluded the benefit of mammography screening exceeded the risk only for women between 50 and 65 years of age. The new Lancet study analyzed that data, plus all previous risk/benefit mammography studies and concluded, "there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast-cancer mortality." (We assume this means at any age.)

Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, refers to this kind of a shift in science, as a "paradigm discovery" - a theory that replaces previously held beliefs, usually with much resistance.

The above page linking Cancer to medical X-rays is from The Pain Research Institute and the Lancet Medical Journal. For more information about paradigm discoveries in cancer research, and the cause and treatment of pain, click on the homepage link at the bottom of the page.

Darrell J. Stoddard, Founder - Pain Research Institute
266 East 3200 North Provo, UT 84604 U.S.A."

HOME

BACK TO CANCER CAUSES

BAD MEDICINE





Dianne Jacobs Thompson  Est. 2003
Also http://legaljustice4john.com
The Misdiagnosis of "Shaken Baby Syndrome" --an unproven theory without scientific support, now in disrepute and wreaking legal and medical havoc world-wide
Author publication: NEXUS MAGAZINE "Seawater--A Safe Blood Plasma Substitute?"

DISCLAIMER: The material on this site is for informational and educational purposes only. Please consult with your health care provider for treatment advice.

EMAIL: Truthquest2


Fight Spam! Click Here!