The Cancer Industry: Crimes, Conspiracy and The Death of My Mother (The Real Truth About Cancer) - 2018

By Mark Sloan – 40 Q&As – 20 Questions for your Oncologist - Unbekoming Book Summary

What can I say about the demonic Cancer Cartel that hasn’t already been said?

When healing once sought nature’s quiet grace,
The knife, the beam, and poison stole the stage.
A post-war shift reshaped the healing space,
Not born from cures, but profits set the wage.

The dormant tumor stirs when touched by hand,
A fragile balance broken by the blade.
False hopes, like castles built upon the sand,
Mask grim results, as life’s defenses fade.

The charts of death are doctored to deceive,
Where chemo’s toll is marked by hearts that fail.
Screenings spread fear, with fates they falsely weave,
Yet still, we march along this twisted trail.

The body's own great power lies suppressed,
While truth, in shadow, struggles unconfessed.

With thanks to Mark Sloan.

The Cancer Industry: Crimes, Conspiracy and The Death of My Mother (The Real Truth About Cancer)

Related Posts

1. The Top 10 Cancer Cures No One is Talking About (2011)

2. Breast Cancer and Iodine: How to Prevent and How to Survive Breast Cancer (2001)

3. Cancer is a Fungus: A Revolution in Tumor Therapy

4. The Rise and Fall of the Prostate Cancer Scam

5. Cancer Care - Lies are Unbekoming

6. Cancer and the New Biology of Water - Lies are Unbekoming

7. German Cancer Therapies - Lies are Unbekoming

8. Skin Cancer - Lies are Unbekoming

9. Breast Cancer - Lies are Unbekoming

10. Cancer: The Forbidden Cures - Lies are Unbekoming

Deep Dive Conversation Library (Bonus for Paid Subscribers)

This deep dive is based on the book:

Discussion No.39:

21 important insights from “The Cancer Industry”

Thank you for your support.

Analogy

Imagine you notice some wear on your home's foundation. You call a contractor who immediately declares an emergency, insisting the entire house must be demolished and rebuilt immediately. Without giving you time to think or get other opinions, they begin aggressive demolition work - using explosives rather than careful deconstruction.

The demolition damages neighboring structures, breaks water and power lines, and destabilizes the soil. When you express concern about the collateral damage, they insist this aggressive approach is necessary to "get it all." They continue demolishing more and more of your property, explaining that any remaining pieces of the original structure could cause the problem to return.

The work is extremely expensive, but they assure you insurance will cover it because this is the "standard of care." When you try to discuss alternative approaches like targeted repairs or reinforcement, they dismiss these as "unproven" despite their successful use in other countries for centuries.

Later, you discover that many houses in your neighborhood were similarly demolished after minor foundation issues that may never have caused serious problems. You learn that the contractor's company also owns the demolition equipment, rebuilding materials, and even the screening service that initially declared your foundation suspicious. Most tellingly, you find out that houses left alone with similar foundation wear often remain standing longer than those that underwent aggressive demolition.

This parallels how the cancer industry approaches treatment - rushing patients into aggressive interventions that often create more damage than the original condition, while suppressing evidence that less invasive approaches or carefully monitored waiting might yield better outcomes. The demolition contractor, like the cancer industry, profits from maximum intervention regardless of necessity or collateral damage, while maintaining their approach through fear, rushed decisions, and control of both diagnosis and treatment.

The analogy helps illustrate how financial incentives have turned a human health issue into an industry that often prioritizes profits over patient wellbeing, much like unnecessary demolition would benefit contractors at the homeowner's expense.

12-point summary

1. Historical Transformation of Cancer Treatment - The transition from prohibiting cancer surgery to making it standard practice wasn't based on improved outcomes, but rather on institutional and financial factors that transformed cancer into a profitable industry following World War II's influence on medical approaches.

2. Fundamental Treatment Flaws - Conventional cancer treatments consistently demonstrate poor outcomes, with studies showing untreated patients often living 2-4 times longer than treated ones. Chemotherapy shows a 98% failure rate at five years, while surgery and radiation frequently accelerate cancer spread.

3. The Nature of Cancer Progression - Research reveals that cancer often remains dormant or progresses slowly until disturbed by invasive treatments. Studies show many cancers detected through screening would never cause harm if left untreated, with only 3.3% of DCIS breast cancers and 3% of prostate cancers proving fatal even without intervention.

4. Immune System Impact - Standard treatments severely compromise the body's natural defense mechanisms. Surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation all suppress immune function while creating inflammatory conditions that promote cancer spread, effectively disabling the very systems needed for healing.

5. Statistical Manipulation - The cancer industry systematically manipulates mortality statistics by classifying treatment-related deaths as non-cancer mortality. When patients die from complications like heart failure from radiation or organ failure from chemotherapy, these deaths aren't counted as cancer deaths, artificially improving survival statistics.

6. Financial Motivations - Treatment costs have skyrocketed without corresponding improvements in effectiveness. New drug prices increase by about $8,500 annually, with some treatments exceeding $150,000 per year. The industry generates additional profits through practices like oversized drug packaging and aggressive marketing of screening programs.

7. Overdiagnosis Epidemic - Research shows massive rates of overdiagnosis, with up to 85% of prostate cancers and one-third of breast cancers detected through screening representing non-threatening conditions that would never cause harm. This creates millions of unnecessary cancer patients.

8. Screening Program Problems - Popular screening tests like PSA and mammography show no mortality benefit while causing substantial harm through false positives and overdiagnosis. Studies consistently show these programs fail to reduce cancer deaths while subjecting many healthy people to unnecessary treatments.

9. Natural Healing Capacity - Documented cases of spontaneous cancer regression appear much more common than previously thought, occurring in up to 20% of some cancers when patients aren't rushed into treatment. This suggests the body's natural healing abilities may be more effective than aggressive intervention.

10. Treatment Side Effects - Conventional treatments cause severe, often permanent damage to multiple organ systems. Beyond immediate complications, patients face long-term issues including cognitive impairment, cardiovascular disease, hormonal disruption, and immune system damage equivalent to rapid aging.

11. Professional Contradictions - Nearly 90% of doctors indicate they would refuse chemotherapy if diagnosed with terminal cancer, yet continue prescribing it to patients. This reflects powerful institutional pressures to maintain profitable but ineffective treatments as standard practice.

12. Information Suppression - Patients rarely receive complete information about treatment risks, alternatives, or the poor success rates of conventional approaches. Historical evidence of treatment ineffectiveness and studies showing better outcomes with less intervention are systematically suppressed to maintain the current profitable system.

20 Questions for your Oncologist

1. "What evidence shows this specific treatment improves survival rates compared to no treatment for my type and stage of cancer?" (Request actual studies and statistics rather than general statements)

2. "If I choose to delay treatment to research my options or seek other opinions, what changes in survival rates are documented in the medical literature?"

3. "What is the risk that my type of cancer could be overdiagnosed, and how can we determine if it requires immediate intervention?"

4. "What are the documented five-year survival rates for my specific cancer with and without the recommended treatments, using overall mortality rather than just cancer-specific mortality?"

5. "Would you personally choose the treatment you're recommending if you had my exact diagnosis? If not, what would you choose for yourself and why?"

6. "How many of your patients with my type and stage of cancer are still alive five years after receiving the recommended treatment protocol?"

7. "What is the complete list of potential side effects and complications from each proposed treatment, including long-term and permanent effects on organ function?"

8. "How do biopsies and surgical procedures potentially impact cancer spread, and what precautions can be taken to minimize this risk?"

9. "What percentage of patients with my diagnosis experience spontaneous regression or long-term survival without aggressive intervention?"

10. "Can you provide research showing how the recommended treatments affect my immune system's ability to fight cancer both short-term and long-term?"

11. "What specific steps can I take to support my body's natural healing mechanisms during treatment, and what evidence supports these approaches?"

12. "How will we monitor whether the treatment is truly benefiting me versus potentially accelerating disease progression?"

13. "What is the expected impact on my quality of life during and after treatment, and what percentage of patients regain full function?"

14. "What are the total expected costs for the complete treatment protocol, including managing side effects and complications?"

15. "If I experience serious side effects, what criteria will you use to determine whether to continue, modify, or stop treatment?"

16. "How do radiation bystander effects impact healthy tissue, and what can be done to minimize this damage?"

17. "What is your experience with and opinion of less aggressive treatment approaches, and why would they or wouldn't they be appropriate in my case?"

18. "How will the recommended treatments affect my hormonal balance and endocrine function, both during and after treatment?"

19. "What is your protocol for assessing and treating the psychological impacts of diagnosis and treatment?"

20. "If you determine my cancer is slow-growing or potentially non-threatening, would you support a careful monitoring approach rather than immediate aggressive treatment?"

PREFACE

“…I don’t think she knew it at the time but I could hear every sob, every whimper and every call out to God to put an end to her suffering.”

My entrance into this world came on mother’s day in the spring of 1985 – and it came in epic fashion. With my mother’s umbilical cord wrapped tightly around my neck, nurses and doctors scrambled to free me from my umbilical noose before it was too late. I can only imagine how my parents must have felt as they watched the doctor yank me out of the womb and scramble to uncoil the cord from my neck. Fortunately, the efforts of the medical personnel paid off and my mother and father had a brand-new son.

Growing up in Ontario, Canada with my parents and sister was not unlike that of your typical two-child family, but we were unique in some ways. One of the things that separated us from the herd was that my father ran his own business, which he started from scratch after finding out he and my mother had their first baby on the way. He knew the job he had couldn’t provide the life he wanted for his family, so he risked everything and made it happen. While working day and night trying to build a successful business, my mother spent her time cooking, cleaning, and taking care of my sister and me at home.

I had a great set of friends. I remember playing street hockey with them like it was yesterday. After putting down the sticks, we would play tag, swim, light fires, and most days, you could find me riding my 3-wheel ‘big wheelie’ bike. In winter, we would carve tunnels into the mountain of snow piled high at the top of our street and whiz snowballs at each other. Aside from having to wake up early to attend school and the uncomfortable reality that success in school seemed to be about mindlessly repeating what we were told, things were going well. But as we all learn eventually, life is fragile, and things can change in an instant.

On a cold morning in grade 7, my father sat my sister and me down on the couch in the living room and told us he had an announcement to make. Although I was hoping to hear about an upcoming family vacation somewhere warm, I knew by his expression that the news was not going to be good.

He told us our mother had cancer.
The cancer was on her cervix and only about the size of a baby fingernail; and although I didn’t know much about cancer at the time, hearing that doctors had detected it early and were going to rush her in for surgery and radiation made me feel hopeful.

Then our father told us it was too much for him to run a business and be a father and a mother to us at the same time, so he was flying in our aunt Kim from Alberta to help out for a number of months while mom recovered. My sister and I were both big fans of our aunt Kim and uncle Bob from out west, so we felt like we had just won the lottery.

Following surgery and radiation treatments, doctors assured us they ‘got it all’ and that my mother was cancer-free. My father wanted to make sure the cancer wasn’t going to return so he took her to the best naturopathic doctor he knew, who put her on a number of dietary supplements. My father also did some research of his own and discovered Essiac—the famous 4-herb tea blend that nurse Renee Caisse of Bracebridge, Ontario had used to allegedly cure cancer patients for about 50 years until her death in 1978. He ordered the herbs and brewed them carefully, following the instructions, and administered it to my mother a number of times.

Unfortunately, after my mother’s surgical and radiation therapy treatments, cutbacks at the hospital prevented us from having further testing done to assess her health. Eight months later, when we were finally able to have doctors run some follow-up tests, they encountered an aggressive cancer in her hip area: doctors recommended chemotherapy and more radiation. Feeling afraid and out of options, we rushed her in for treatment once again.

The dramatic decline of her health following chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments was obvious. I remember lying in bed late at night at the age of 11, hearing her pace back and forth in the living room below, struggling not to cry so we could sleep undisturbed. I don’t think she knew it at the time but I could hear every sob, every whimper, and every call out to God to put an end to her suffering.

Why was my mother in pain?
I thought we had some of the best doctors in the country using the best treatments available to heal her, yet everything the doctors had done just seemed to make things worse. I felt angry and confused.

After a few long and difficult months, I woke up one morning to a scene in my living room that I will never forget: with tears rolling down his cheeks, my father sat my sister and me down on the couch next to aunt Kim and told us our mother was gone. I felt shocked and overwhelmed. I remember holding my breath to try and avoid feeling the intense emotions welling up inside me.

Dad spoke about the scene in the hospital earlier that morning right before our mother had died. Together with her mother and father, her five brothers and sisters, and a priest from our local church, they formed a circle around her hospital bed and prayed. Aunt Kim told us the presence she felt in the room during those last moments was unlike anything she had experienced before. Dad agreed. While laying on the hospital bed, the very last thing my mother did—just seconds before exhaling her final breath—was lift her arms straight up towards the heavens above to be received by God.

Losing my mother was like losing my biggest fan; it was the ultimate setback in my development growing up, and it happened at the worst possible time—right before starting high school. What’s worse, every time I was around people I felt like my emotions needed to be kept secret; like I needed to pretend that I was okay, and that if anybody ever truly understood how I felt, they wouldn’t want to be around me because it would be too uncomfortable for them.

My family and I tried counseling, but I knew the therapist was only there because he was getting paid, so it ended up making me feel even angrier. I needed my mother—not some imposter pretending to care. My bottled-up emotions had no place to go, so inside they remained. I accepted an award for diligence and determination at grade 8 graduation and moved on to high school.

At high school, I spent most of my time in the weight room; every lunch, every break, and sometimes I would even skip class to work out. I loved it in there! I felt like once again I had a group of friends I could trust; friends who shared a similar interest in fitness and were striving to become something better. Strength training provided me with the opportunity to continually challenge myself and break through my own limitations. It was in the gym where I first discovered that although there were plenty of guys who were bigger than me, none of them could outwork me. I remember in grade 11, weighing just 160 lbs, my record shoulder press was 110 lbs in each hand for 8 reps.

But far more than any muscle or strength I happened to gain, the weight room was the first place I had known where it was both safe and beneficial for me to express my anger. Finally, I had found a way to channel the throbbing stockpile of emotions inside me into something useful; something that would benefit me and perhaps inspire others.

After graduating high school, I went on to college and earned a diploma in Fire Sciences. Along the way, I learned a few things: First, very little of what was taught in the course was actually useful for preparing me to work as a firefighter. Somehow, going into a 100% concrete structure with fire gear on and spraying water onto a steel crate of burning wood doesn’t quite capture the reality of a fire scene. Secondly, even though I had the fastest time running up and down stairs with a hose on my back during tryouts for the Firefighter Combat Challenge, I learned that firefighting is a political man’s game—and since I don’t play games, someone slower got the spot on the team instead. Last but not least, the most valuable lessons in college are learned outside of class. In my final year, one of my roommates showed me a documentary that made me question my entire reality and the world around me. I wasn’t sure if the information was true or not, but I knew I had to find out.

From an early age, I had been drawn towards books on self-help and nutrition. I loved the fact that I could read about different theories and then test them myself to see what worked and what didn’t. Constant and never-ending improvement was the path I was on from the beginning, and I never had any doubt that I could change the world or accomplish whatever I wanted to in life.

With the age of the internet in full swing, suddenly I found myself on a quest for truth; broadening my horizons and obsessively exploring all avenues of research I could find—in books, articles, and documentaries—for 8, 10, sometimes 12 hours or more per day. I also spent a lot of time integrating this newfound knowledge into my own articles and documentaries, then sharing my work with whoever was interested through my website and the power of social media. Almost 10 years after my search for truth began—it hit me.

I realized that my mother’s death was not a tragedy, but an opportunity. She gave me a story to tell that could move people and a mind that could find the answers the world was literally dying to know; I realized that my mother died so my life could have purpose.

In return for this gift, I made a promise to her in my heart that I would find the cause and cure for cancer so that no child would have to go through what my sister and I did, ever again. I knew that once I found the answers and shared them with the world, the legacy of my mother would transform from a victim of cancer to a hero who inspired her son to save lives and change the world.

40 Questions & Answers

Question 1: How do surgical procedures for cancer impact the body's immune system and overall healing capacity?

Surgical intervention triggers a complex cascade of physiological responses that significantly compromise the immune system. When the body undergoes surgical trauma, it releases stress hormones like cortisol and adrenaline, which suppress immune function and create an environment conducive to cancer spread. The surgical stress response affects multiple systems simultaneously - decreasing blood albumin, causing bone loss, impairing wound healing, and reducing the body's ability to fight infection.

More concernically, surgery releases substances within the tumor microenvironment that actively promote cancer growth and metastasis. These include increased free radicals, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, various interleukins, and other inflammatory mediators. Research has shown that manipulation of tumors during surgery, including biopsy and palpation, results in a sudden increase of tumor cells released into blood circulation, potentially seeding new cancer sites throughout the body.

Question 2: What is the historical origin of chemotherapy and how does this reflect on its use as a cancer treatment?

Chemotherapy originated as a derivative of mustard gas, a chemical weapon used in World War II. After observing that soldiers exposed to mustard gas showed damaged bone marrow and lymph tissues in autopsies, researchers began investigating its potential medical applications. The US government had conducted secret tests on 60,000 troops with mustard gas, leading to illnesses including skin cancer, leukemia and chronic breathing problems. Rather than disposing of this devastating poison, the government funded research to study its effects on cancer patients.

The decision to pursue chemotherapy over nutritional approaches marks a pivotal moment in cancer treatment history. While Dr. Gerson was presenting cases to Congress of cancer patients cured through nutrition, the medical establishment chose to develop synthetic drug treatments instead, largely due to a single lymphoma patient showing temporary tumor regression with mustard gas derivatives before dying within months. This choice to pursue highly toxic treatments despite their devastating effects on healthy tissue reflects an aggressive pharmaceutical approach that continues to dominate cancer care.

Question 3: What evidence exists regarding survival rates for patients who undergo conventional cancer treatments versus those who don't?

The most comprehensive study on cancer surgery efficacy was conducted in 1844 by Dr. Leroy d'Etoilles, examining 2,781 cancer patients over 30 years. He found that patients who refused both surgery and caustics had a 50% higher survival rate at two years compared to treated patients. The average survival following surgery was just one year and five months. Recent research has validated these findings, showing that surgical removal of tumors either provides no benefit or increases mortality.

Dr. Hardin B. Jones, professor of medical physics and leading cancer statistician, conducted a 25-year study comparing treated versus untreated cancer patients. He concluded that untreated cancer patients lived up to four times longer than treated individuals and experienced better quality of life. Similar findings were reported by Dr. Maurice Fox in JAMA, showing lower mortality rates among those who refused medical procedures compared to those who submitted to treatment.

Question 4: How do radiation treatments affect healthy cells and what are the long-term consequences?

Radiation damage extends far beyond the targeted tumor cells through a phenomenon called the "bystander effect." When any cell is irradiated, it emits chemical messengers that transfer the same damage to non-irradiated cells throughout the body. This effect is primarily mediated by nitric oxide and can cause genomic instability, genetic errors, DNA breaks, cell death, and inflammation in tissues far from the treatment site. These effects can persist for decades after exposure.

The long-term consequences of radiation exposure are severe and wide-ranging. Studies show radiation causes permanent damage to the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, thyroid, and immune system. Cancer patients who receive radiation therapy have significantly increased mortality from cardiovascular disease more than 15 years later. Young patients treated with radiation are at high risk of developing secondary cancers, with risks greatest for those exposed early in life. These risks persist throughout life and can manifest up to 50 years after treatment.

Question 5: Why do surgeons continue performing cancer surgeries despite evidence suggesting they might promote metastasis?

The continued use of cancer surgery despite its poor outcomes reflects both financial incentives and institutional inertia within the medical system. Surgical procedures generate substantial revenue for hospitals and physicians, creating a powerful economic motivation to maintain the status quo. Additionally, surgeons undergo extensive training based on the paradigm that tumor removal is beneficial, making it difficult to challenge these deeply ingrained practices despite contrary evidence.

The phenomenon of surgically-induced metastasis has been known for over 100 years, yet this research has been largely ignored by the medical profession. As German professor Dr. Ernst Krokowski noted, it was "too awful to contemplate" that cancer surgery could be the main cause of metastasis. This cognitive dissonance, combined with professional and financial pressures, helps explain why surgeons continue performing procedures that may accelerate disease progression rather than cure it.

Question 6: What are the documented problems with PSA testing for prostate cancer?

The PSA test fundamentally fails as a cancer screening tool because prostate-specific antigen is not cancer-specific - it is produced by all prostates, both healthy and cancerous. Dr. Richard Ablin, who discovered PSA in 1970, calls its widespread use "a public health disaster." PSA levels fluctuate naturally due to exercise, ejaculation, and everyday stress, making the test no more reliable than a coin toss for detecting cancer.

The consequences of PSA testing have been devastating - an estimated 1.3 million men were overdiagnosed with prostate cancer between 1986 and 2005 due to PSA screening. Studies show PSA testing provides no reduction in prostate cancer mortality, yet leads to widespread overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Up to 85% of men diagnosed through PSA testing have conditions that would never harm them, yet many undergo unnecessary procedures resulting in impotence and incontinence.

Question 7: How accurate is mammography in detecting genuine threats to patient health?

Mammography's accuracy in detecting life-threatening breast cancer is extremely poor, with false positive rates between 58-77% over the course of 10 mammograms. For women with multiple breast cancer risk factors, studies show the 10-year cumulative risk of false diagnosis approaches 100%. This leads to extensive overdiagnosis - research indicates one in three women diagnosed with breast cancer through mammography are misdiagnosed.

The largest and most meticulous studies on mammography screening, including the Canadian National Breast Screening Study's 25-year follow-up of 90,000 women, have found no reduction in breast cancer mortality from mammography screening compared to physical examination alone. Rather than saving lives, mammography exposes women to harmful radiation while generating large numbers of false positives that lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments.

Question 8: What is the relationship between early detection and patient survival rates?

The mantra that "early detection saves lives" represents a marketing strategy rather than medical reality. For early detection to be beneficial, the early treatment that follows must be effective. However, research shows that early aggressive treatment often accelerates disease progression. The idea that detecting cancer early improves outcomes is contradicted by studies showing that untreated patients frequently survive longer than those receiving early intervention.

This disconnect between early detection and survival benefit is illustrated by historical data - in 1975, twice as many women were diagnosed with breast cancer than in 1935, and twice as many women died. Cancer deaths have increased in parallel to the number of people treated, suggesting that aggressive early treatment may be counterproductive. The focus on early detection serves primarily to generate patients for the cancer industry rather than improve outcomes.

Question 9: How has cancer screening led to overdiagnosis and overtreatment?

Cancer screening has created an epidemic of overdiagnosis by detecting large numbers of non-threatening conditions that get labeled as cancer. For example, studies show that 60,000 women annually in the US are diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), yet only 3.3% of these women will die of breast cancer whether treated or not. Similarly, prostate cancer screening leads to treating many men for conditions that would never have caused symptoms or death.

The human cost of this overdiagnosis is severe - patients who would have remained healthy become cancer patients subjected to disfiguring surgeries, toxic treatments, and devastating side effects. Research indicates that 1.3 million women were overdiagnosed with breast cancer in the past 30 years due to mammography screening. For prostate cancer, up to 85% of men diagnosed through PSA testing have conditions that would never have harmed them, yet many undergo treatments leaving them impotent and incontinent.

Question 10: What are the physical risks associated with cancer screening procedures?

Cancer screening procedures carry significant physical risks beyond the psychological trauma of false positives. Mammography involves painful breast compression that can promote metastasis if cancer is present, while delivering radiation doses 1000 times greater than chest x-rays. Even these low doses of radiation have been linked to increased cancer risk, with some research suggesting low doses may be more carcinogenic than higher doses by damaging cells without killing them outright.

Prostate cancer screening typically leads to biopsies that suppress the immune system and can promote cancer spread. The biopsy procedure, which involves multiple needle punctures through the rectal wall, carries risks of pain, bleeding, erectile dysfunction, and life-threatening infections. The physical trauma and subsequent treatments initiated by screening often cause more harm than the conditions being screened for would have caused if left undetected.

Question 11: How did the medical establishment transition from viewing cancer surgery as forbidden to standard practice?

The transformation from prohibiting cancer surgery to embracing it reflects a dramatic shift in medical philosophy during the 19th century. Initially, renowned physicians like Paracelsus declared that removing cancer through surgery should be "forbidden and severely punished" as a form of "fiendish torture." This view was based on observations that surgical intervention often accelerated death and increased suffering. The transition began with J. Marion Sims, who developed his surgical techniques by performing experimental procedures on enslaved women, conducting dozens of operations on individual patients over four-year periods.

The establishment of the New York Cancer Hospital (now Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center) marked the institutionalization of surgical approaches to cancer treatment. Despite early Lady Managers of the hospital becoming convinced that "the lives of all patients were being threatened by mysterious experiments," surgical intervention became increasingly normalized. This shift occurred not because of improved outcomes, but rather through the growing influence of surgeons in medical institutions and the development of more aggressive surgical procedures.

Question 12: What role did World War II play in the development of current cancer treatments?

World War II fundamentally shaped modern cancer treatment through the repurposing of chemical weapons. The observation that mustard gas damaged bone marrow and lymph tissues in exposed soldiers led to its investigation as a potential cancer treatment. The U.S. government conducted secret tests on 60,000 of its own troops with mustard gas, resulting in numerous cases of cancer, leukemia, and chronic health problems. Instead of abandoning these toxic compounds after witnessing their devastating effects, researchers modified them into chemotherapy drugs that continue to be used today.

This wartime influence created a lasting military mindset in cancer treatment, where aggressive "warfare" against cancer cells became the dominant paradigm. When Yale researchers observed tumor regression in a lymphoma patient treated with modified mustard gas (despite the patient's death within months), the entire field of cancer treatment shifted toward chemical interventions. This occurred despite simultaneous evidence from Dr. Gerson showing successful treatment of cancer patients using nutritional approaches, representing a crucial turning point where medicine chose synthetic, militaristic solutions over natural healing approaches.

Question 13: How have cancer treatment mortality statistics been historically manipulated?

The manipulation of cancer mortality statistics operates through a sophisticated system of death certificate classification. When patients die from treatment complications - such as heart failure from radiation therapy or organ failure from chemotherapy - these deaths are recorded as non-cancer deaths, artificially improving cancer survival statistics. This practice was exposed in a 1993 study from the Anderson Cancer Center, which found that 27% of patients reported dead from non-cancer causes had died within a year of diagnosis, suggesting treatment-related mortality.

The deception extends to clinical trials, where studies often report decreased cancer deaths while simultaneously showing increased non-cancer deaths following treatment. This statistical sleight-of-hand creates the illusion of treatment success while masking the true toll of conventional cancer therapies. By reclassifying deaths caused by treatment complications as deaths from other causes, the cancer industry has successfully hidden the actual failure rate of its interventions and maintained the appearance of progress in the "war on cancer."

Question 14: What were the earliest documented observations about cancer treatment effectiveness?

The earliest comprehensive study of cancer treatment outcomes was conducted by Dr. Leroy d'Etoilles in 1844, examining 2,781 cancer patients over three decades. His findings were stark - patients who refused both surgery and caustics showed 50% higher survival rates at two years compared to treated patients. These observations aligned with statements from prominent early physicians like surgeon Alfred-Armand-Louis-Marie Velpeau, who noted that "the disease always returns after removal, and operation only accelerates its growth and fatal termination."

Similarly, Dr. Hayes Agnew concluded in the 19th century that while cancer might someday be curable, "this blessed achievement will never be wrought by the knife of the surgeon." These early clinical observations, based on careful documentation of patient outcomes, provided clear evidence that aggressive intervention often accelerated disease progression rather than curing it. This historical wisdom was largely ignored as surgical and chemical interventions became institutionalized within the growing cancer treatment industry.

Question 15: What do large-scale studies reveal about chemotherapy's effectiveness?

The most comprehensive review of chemotherapy's efficacy was conducted by German epidemiologist Dr. Ulrich Abel, who analyzed thousands of studies from over 350 medical centers worldwide. His two-year investigation revealed "appalling" worldwide success rates, concluding that for most internal cancers, no proof exists that chemotherapy increases life expectancy or improves quality of life. Dr. Abel estimated that at least 80% of chemotherapy administered throughout the world was completely worthless.

This assessment was further supported by a 2004 Australian study examining five-year survival rates after chemotherapy. The research determined that only 2.1% of patients in the US and 2.3% in Australia were still alive five years after receiving chemotherapy - revealing a staggering 98% failure rate. Additionally, Harvard Medical School researchers found that chemotherapy actually accelerated cancer stem cell production, explaining why initial tumor shrinkage is often followed by more aggressive disease progression.

Question 16: How do radiation bystander effects impact treatment outcomes?

When cells are exposed to radiation, they emit chemical messengers that transfer damage to non-irradiated cells throughout the body - a phenomenon called the bystander effect. This process is primarily mediated by nitric oxide, which triggers genomic instability, DNA breaks, inflammation, and cell death in tissues far from the treatment site. Research from McMaster University demonstrated this effect dramatically when irradiated fish placed in water with non-irradiated fish transferred radiation damage to the untreated fish within two days.

The implications for cancer treatment are profound. Even when radiation is precisely targeted at tumors, the bystander effect causes system-wide damage that can persist for decades. Studies show radiation damage appears in shielded organs and can even affect developing fetuses despite mothers wearing protective lead aprons during dental x-rays. This explains why radiation exposure during cancer treatment significantly increases the risk of secondary cancers up to 50 years later, particularly in patients treated during childhood.

Question 17: What evidence exists for spontaneous cancer regression?

Spontaneous regression of cancer was first documented in 1742 and has since been recorded in virtually every type of cancer, including breast, prostate, melanoma, leukemia, and brain tumors. While historically thought to be extremely rare (1 in 80,000-100,000 cases), modern research shows spontaneous regression is much more common when patients aren't rushed into treatment. Studies have documented regression rates of up to 7% in renal carcinoma, 15% in melanoma, and 20% in low-grade lymphoma patients who avoided immediate intervention.

A 2008 study examining breast cancer incidence in 100,000 women found that 22% of cancers detected by repeated mammographic screening had spontaneously regressed in women who avoided screening. Similarly, research on skin tumors showed spontaneous regression in 25% of melanomas and 50% of basal cell carcinomas, with nearly all keratoacanthomas and epitheliomas regressing completely without treatment. These findings suggest the body's natural healing capacity is far greater than commonly acknowledged.

Question 18: How do tumor microenvironment changes affect cancer progression during treatment?

The tumor microenvironment undergoes dramatic changes in response to conventional treatments, creating conditions that often promote cancer growth and spread. Surgery triggers the release of growth factors, inflammatory molecules, and stress hormones that stimulate tumor progression. These include increased levels of nitric oxide, vascular endothelial growth factor, and various interleukins that promote angiogenesis and metastasis. The surgical stress response also elevates cortisol, which suppresses immune function and increases estrogen production.

Chemotherapy and radiation similarly disrupt the delicate balance of the tumor microenvironment. Both treatments increase free radical production, inflammatory mediators, and stress hormones while suppressing the immune system's anti-tumor responses. The resulting environment becomes increasingly hospitable to cancer growth, explaining why initial tumor responses to treatment are often followed by more aggressive disease progression. This understanding challenges the traditional view that tumor shrinkage necessarily indicates treatment success.

Question 19: How does the cancer industry maintain its profitable business model?

The cancer industry maintains profitability through several key mechanisms. First, cancer screening programs create a steady stream of patients through overdiagnosis - labeling many non-threatening conditions as cancer requiring immediate treatment. Second, the industry continuously increases treatment costs, with new cancer drugs rising by an average of $8,500 (10%) per year between 1995 and 2013, despite no improvement in effectiveness. Some newer drugs cost over $150,000 per year of treatment.

Additional profit-generating strategies include selling oversized single-dose vials of chemotherapy drugs, generating an extra $3 billion annually from wasted medicine. The industry also manipulates mortality statistics to make treatments appear more effective than they are, while suppressing information about alternative approaches. Through aggressive marketing campaigns and financial incentives for healthcare providers, the industry maintains a system where profitable but ineffective treatments remain standard practice.

Question 20: What mechanisms are used to suppress alternative treatment approaches?

The suppression of alternative cancer treatments involves multiple coordinated strategies. Historical examples include armed raids on clinics offering non-conventional treatments, political action to shut down successful alternative cancer centers, and systematic dismissal of documented cases of cancer reversal through nutritional approaches. The Fitzgerald Report, presented to the U.S. Senate in 1953 but kept hidden for over 50 years, documented "a conspiracy to stop the free flow and use of drugs in interstate commerce which allegedly has solid therapeutic value."

Public and private funds are routinely used to "close up and destroy clinics, hospitals, and scientific research laboratories which do not conform to the viewpoint of medical associations." Additionally, the medical establishment maintains control through professional sanctions, with doctors risking their licenses if they deviate from standard protocols. This creates an environment where even physicians who recognize the limitations of conventional treatments feel compelled to continue recommending them.

Question 21: How do financial incentives influence cancer treatment recommendations?

Financial incentives permeate every level of cancer care decision-making. Doctors receive higher reimbursements for administering chemotherapy than for spending time consulting with patients about treatment options. Hospitals generate substantial revenue from cancer surgeries and radiation treatments, creating institutional pressure to maintain high patient volumes. These economic motivations help explain why doctors continue recommending treatments that studies show they would refuse for themselves.

The influence extends to research funding and drug development. Pharmaceutical companies focus on developing expensive new drugs rather than investigating potentially more effective but less profitable approaches. Clinical trials are often designed and interpreted to support profitable treatments while minimizing evidence of harm. This system creates what the Fitzgerald Report described as "the weirdest conglomeration of corrupt motives, intrigue, selfishness, jealousy, obstruction and conspiracy" in medical history.

Question 22: Why do doctors continue recommending treatments they wouldn't choose for themselves?

Nearly 90% of doctors have indicated they would refuse chemotherapy if diagnosed with terminal cancer, yet they continue prescribing it to their patients. This paradox reflects both institutional pressures and cognitive dissonance within the medical profession. As one brain cancer specialist candidly admitted, "I'd be drummed out of the hospital if I didn't" recommend radiation, despite personally believing he would never accept such treatment for himself.

This disconnect between personal knowledge and professional practice stems from several factors: fear of legal liability for deviating from standard protocols, financial incentives that reward aggressive treatment, and the psychological difficulty of acknowledging that years of administering harmful treatments may have been misguided. Additionally, medical training and career advancement depend on conforming to established practices, creating powerful institutional pressure to maintain the status quo regardless of personal beliefs about treatment efficacy.

Question 23: What are the documented quality-of-life impacts of conventional cancer treatments?

Conventional cancer treatments have devastating effects on patients' quality of life, often persisting long after treatment ends. Studies show that one year after chemotherapy, 20% of breast cancer patients over 65 are so debilitated they cannot perform basic daily tasks like walking across a room or showering. Surgical treatments frequently result in permanent impairment - for instance, up to 94% of men treated for prostate cancer experience complete erectile dysfunction, and many require diapers for ongoing urinary incontinence.

The psychological impacts are equally severe. Women who undergo mastectomy experience dramatically reduced self-esteem and sexual wellbeing, with studies showing increased suicide risk among those who receive breast implants after surgery. Radiation therapy patients report significantly worse mental health before, during, and up to a year after treatment compared to the general population. Many develop post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression that persist long after treatment ends.

Question 24: How do standard treatments affect patients' long-term organ function?

Standard cancer treatments cause widespread, permanent damage to multiple organ systems. Radiation therapy increases cardiovascular death risk for more than 15 years after treatment, causes permanent salivary gland dysfunction, and leads to chronic bone and joint degeneration. Chemotherapy results in long-term immune system damage that makes patients as immunologically compromised as the elderly, while also causing permanent nerve damage, hearing loss, and cognitive impairment termed "chemobrain."

The combined effects of these treatments create cascading health problems that often prove fatal. When cancer patients die from heart failure, kidney failure, or other organ dysfunction caused by treatment, these deaths are typically recorded as non-cancer mortality, masking the true toll of conventional therapies. The accumulated damage to multiple organ systems helps explain why treated patients generally have shorter survival times than those who decline standard treatments.

Question 25: What are the psychological effects of cancer diagnoses and treatments?

The psychological impact of cancer diagnosis and treatment creates profound trauma that often goes unaddressed by the medical system. Patients report feeling pressured to make immediate treatment decisions while in a state of shock and fear, without being given time to fully understand their options. The rush to begin aggressive treatment creates additional psychological stress, particularly when patients are not properly informed about treatment risks and alternatives.

The trauma extends beyond the initial diagnosis and treatment period. Many patients develop severe anxiety about routine medical check-ups, fearing discovery of new tumors or treatment complications. Those who survive aggressive treatments often struggle with survivor's guilt, body image issues, and depression related to permanent physical impairments. The psychological burden affects entire families, as evidenced by the author's personal account of childhood trauma from witnessing his mother's suffering during cancer treatment.

Question 26: How do treatment costs impact patient decision-making and outcomes?

Treatment costs create enormous financial pressure that distorts medical decision-making and often leads to bankruptcy. With some newer cancer drugs costing over $150,000 per year and total treatment costs frequently exceeding several hundred thousand dollars, many patients face impossible choices between potentially life-saving care and financial ruin. This financial toxicity forces some patients to discontinue treatment or choose less expensive options regardless of medical considerations.

The stress of medical debt itself impacts treatment outcomes by elevating cortisol levels and suppressing immune function - precisely the opposite of what cancer patients need for recovery. Additionally, the high cost of conventional treatments makes many patients unable to afford complementary therapies or lifestyle changes that might support healing. The financial burden often continues long after treatment ends, as ongoing complications require continued medical care while employment opportunities may be limited by treatment-related disabilities.

Question 27: What evidence supports watching and waiting versus aggressive treatment?

Multiple studies demonstrate better outcomes for patients who adopt a watching and waiting approach rather than rushing into aggressive treatment. Research on prostate cancer shows that only 2.4% of men with early-stage prostate cancer die from the disease within 10 years, whether treated or not. Similar findings exist for breast cancer - studies show only 3.3% of women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) die from breast cancer within 20 years, regardless of treatment choice.

This evidence aligns with historical observations dating back to Hippocrates, who noted "it is better not to apply any treatment in cases of occult cancer; for if treated, the patients die quickly; but if not treated, they hold out for a long time." Modern research continues to validate this ancient wisdom, showing that aggressive intervention often accelerates disease progression while watching and waiting allows the body's natural healing mechanisms to function.

Question 28: How do untreated cancer patients fare compared to those receiving standard treatments?

Studies comparing treated versus untreated cancer patients consistently show better survival rates among those who decline conventional treatments. Dr. Hardin B. Jones's 25-year study concluded that untreated cancer patients live up to four times longer than treated individuals. Similarly, Dr. Maurice Fox's research published in JAMA found lower mortality rates among those who refused medical procedures compared to those who submitted to treatment.

Beyond survival time, untreated patients generally report better quality of life. They avoid the debilitating side effects of conventional treatments and often maintain normal activities much longer than treated patients. This advantage appears particularly pronounced in slow-growing cancers, where aggressive intervention frequently converts a manageable condition into a medical crisis. These findings suggest that in many cases, standard treatments may do more to accelerate death than prevent it.

Question 29: What factors contribute to natural cancer regression?

Research indicates that spontaneous cancer regression is mediated primarily through immune system function. Studies of regressing tumors show heavy infiltration by T lymphocytes compared to non-regressing tumors, suggesting that maintaining immune system integrity is crucial for natural healing. This helps explain why aggressive treatments that suppress immune function may interfere with the body's innate capacity for cancer regression.

Environmental and psychological factors also play important roles in natural regression. Studies have documented cases of regression associated with fever (suggesting immune activation), stress reduction, and improved nutrition. The fact that spontaneous regression occurs more frequently when patients avoid immediate aggressive intervention suggests that giving the body time and supporting its natural healing mechanisms may be more effective than rushing to suppress symptoms through toxic treatments.

Question 30: How do conventional treatments affect the body's natural healing processes?

Standard cancer treatments systematically disrupt the body's natural healing mechanisms. Surgery triggers a stress response that suppresses immune function and releases growth factors promoting cancer spread. Chemotherapy damages the bone marrow where immune cells are produced, while radiation causes systemic inflammation and oxidative stress that can persist for decades. These treatments effectively disable the very systems the body needs to fight cancer.

The disruption of natural healing extends beyond the immune system. Both chemotherapy and radiation damage the body's stem cells, reducing tissue repair capacity. They also create a pro-inflammatory environment that promotes cancer growth while simultaneously reducing the body's ability to clear damaged cells. This helps explain why aggressive treatments often lead to more aggressive cancers - they eliminate the body's natural defense mechanisms while creating conditions that favor disease progression.

Question 31: What role does the immune system play in cancer progression and regression?

The immune system serves as the body's primary defense against cancer, continuously identifying and eliminating abnormal cells before they can develop into tumors. Research on spontaneous cancer regression consistently shows heavy infiltration of T lymphocytes in regressing tumors, demonstrating the immune system's central role in natural cancer control. This natural defense mechanism explains why immunosuppressed patients have significantly higher cancer rates and worse outcomes compared to those with intact immune function.

Conventional cancer treatments severely compromise this crucial defense system. Surgery suppresses immune function through stress hormone release, while chemotherapy directly damages immune cells and their production in bone marrow. Radiation therapy creates systemic inflammation that overwhelms immune resources. Studies show that cancer patients who receive chemotherapy and radiation develop immune systems similar to elderly individuals, regardless of their actual age, leaving them vulnerable to both cancer progression and other health threats.

Question 32: How do hormonal changes from treatments impact cancer development?

Cancer treatments trigger a cascade of hormonal disruptions that can accelerate disease progression. Surgical stress elevates cortisol levels, which in turn increases estrogen production - a known promoter of various cancers. This stress response also raises adrenaline and prolactin levels, creating an internal environment that favors tumor growth. The body's effort to heal from surgical trauma further increases growth factors and inflammatory mediators that can stimulate cancer cell proliferation.

Radiation and chemotherapy compound these hormonal imbalances by damaging endocrine organs, particularly the thyroid and reproductive glands. Studies show that radiation commonly causes hypothyroidism, while chemotherapy frequently triggers premature menopause and testosterone deficiency. These treatment-induced hormonal disruptions can persist for years, creating ongoing conditions that support cancer development while compromising the body's natural healing capacity.

Question 33: What is the true cost of cancer treatments versus their claimed benefits?

The financial cost of cancer treatment has skyrocketed, with new drugs increasing by an average of $8,500 per year since 1995, now often exceeding $150,000 annually per patient. This dramatic price inflation occurs despite no corresponding improvement in treatment effectiveness - studies show newer drugs provide no survival benefit over older options. The industry generates additional profits through practices like selling oversized drug vials, resulting in billions of dollars of waste that patients still pay for.

Beyond monetary costs, treatments exact a devastating toll on patients' health and quality of life. Many survivors face permanent disabilities, ongoing medical complications, and inability to work, creating financial hardship that extends far beyond initial treatment costs. When weighed against the documented poor outcomes of conventional treatments - such as chemotherapy's 98% failure rate at five years - the cost-benefit ratio appears indefensible from both economic and medical perspectives.

Question 34: How does the cancer industry generate its substantial profits?

The cancer industry maintains profitability through several key mechanisms. Cancer screening programs create a steady stream of patients through overdiagnosis, converting healthy people into cancer patients requiring expensive treatments. The industry systematically increases treatment costs while manipulating statistics to make treatments appear more effective than they are. Additionally, pharmaceutical companies design drug packaging to require waste, generating billions in extra revenue from unused medication that patients must still purchase.

Marketing strategies play a crucial role in maintaining profits despite poor treatment outcomes. Celebrity endorsements promote cancer screening despite evidence it provides no mortality benefit. The industry exploits fear to rush patients into immediate treatment, limiting their ability to research alternatives or question recommended procedures. Professional organizations and research funding maintain this profitable system by suppressing information about treatment risks and alternative approaches.

Question 35: What economic factors drive cancer treatment recommendations?

Treatment recommendations are heavily influenced by financial incentives throughout the medical system. Doctors receive higher reimbursements for administering chemotherapy than for spending time consulting with patients about treatment options. Hospitals generate substantial revenue from cancer surgeries and radiation treatments, creating institutional pressure to maintain high patient volumes. These economic motivations help explain why doctors continue recommending treatments that studies show they would refuse for themselves.

The influence of economic factors extends to research and drug development. Pharmaceutical companies focus resources on developing expensive new treatments rather than investigating potentially more effective but less profitable approaches. Clinical trials are designed and interpreted to support profitable treatments while minimizing evidence of harm. This system creates what investigators have described as "a conspiracy" to maintain profitable but ineffective treatments as standard practice.

Question 36: How many cancers are misdiagnosed or overtreated?

Research indicates massive levels of cancer misdiagnosis and overtreatment. Studies show that up to 85% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer through PSA testing have conditions that would never harm them. Similarly, one in three women diagnosed with breast cancer through mammography screening are misdiagnosed. These high rates of overdiagnosis have led to an estimated 1.3 million women being overtreated for breast cancer in the past 30 years.

The problem extends beyond breast and prostate cancer. Many thyroid cancers previously treated aggressively have recently been reclassified as non-cancerous after research showed they never cause problems if left untreated. This pattern of overdiagnosis and overtreatment reflects fundamental flaws in cancer screening and classification systems that convert many healthy people into cancer patients requiring expensive, potentially harmful treatments for conditions that would never threaten their health.

Question 37: What percentage of detected cancers would never cause harm if left untreated?

Studies across multiple cancer types reveal that a large percentage of detected cancers pose no threat to patient health. Research shows that only 3.3% of women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) die from breast cancer within 20 years, whether treated or not. For prostate cancer, studies indicate that 97% of men diagnosed will not die from the disease even without treatment. These findings suggest the vast majority of detected cancers would never cause harm if left alone.

The extent of non-threatening cancers becomes even clearer in autopsy studies, which show that most middle-aged adults have small cancers that never caused symptoms during their lifetime. This reveals that cancer presence itself does not necessarily indicate a health threat requiring intervention. The current aggressive approach to cancer screening and treatment effectively converts many of these harmless conditions into medical emergencies, subjecting patients to unnecessary procedures that often cause more harm than the original condition.

Question 38: How do biopsy procedures potentially impact cancer spread?

Biopsy procedures can promote cancer spread through several mechanisms that have been documented for over 100 years. When a needle punctures a tumor during biopsy, it can release cancer cells into the bloodstream and create pathways for cancer to spread. Studies show that even tumor palpation during examination can increase the number of circulating tumor cells. This mechanical disruption of tumors helps explain why cancer often spreads more aggressively following diagnostic procedures.

Beyond the physical release of cancer cells, biopsies trigger local inflammation and immune suppression that can promote cancer progression. The trauma of repeated needle punctures through healthy tissue creates inflammatory responses that stimulate tumor growth. Additionally, prostate biopsies commonly introduce bacteria from the rectum into the prostate, leading to infections that further compromise immune function. These effects help explain why more aggressive cancers often develop following biopsy procedures.

Question 39: What information are patients typically not told about their cancer treatments?

Patients are rarely informed that many standard cancer treatments have never been proven to extend life. They aren't told that chemotherapy has a 98% failure rate at five years, or that radiation therapy can cause cancer spread through bystander effects. Doctors typically don't disclose that surgery often promotes metastasis, or that many detected cancers would never cause harm if left untreated. The financial motivations behind treatment recommendations and the manipulation of statistics to make treatments appear more effective than they are remain hidden from patients.

Perhaps most critically, patients aren't informed that less aggressive approaches often result in better outcomes. They aren't told about documented cases of spontaneous cancer regression or studies showing untreated patients often live longer than those receiving standard treatments. The extensive research demonstrating that many cancers are best left alone is typically withheld, leaving patients unable to make truly informed decisions about their care.

Question 40: How do actual survival rates compare with statistics presented to patients?

The survival statistics presented to patients are systematically manipulated to make treatments appear more effective than they are. When patients die from treatment complications - such as heart failure from radiation or organ failure from chemotherapy - these deaths are recorded as non-cancer mortality, artificially improving cancer survival statistics. A 1993 study found that 27% of patients reported as dying from non-cancer causes had died within a year of diagnosis, suggesting these deaths were actually treatment-related.

The most comprehensive studies show dramatically worse outcomes than commonly reported figures. Research following cancer patients for 25 years found that untreated patients lived up to four times longer than those receiving standard treatments. Similarly, Australian research revealed only 2.3% of chemotherapy patients survived five years, demonstrating a 98% failure rate. These actual survival rates stand in stark contrast to the optimistic statistics typically presented to patients when recommending treatment.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.