This essay is built on the investigative research of Jamie Andrews, whose July 2026 piece “The Metastasis Hoax,” published at the Virology Controls Studies Project, assembled the primary evidence examined here. Andrews surfaced the Tarin shunt studies, the PulMiCC trial, the Padera angiogenic failure, and the Paget–Hart–Fidler line. He identified the metastatic cascade as a component of establishment oncology that has never been rigorously tested, and framed the woman with the shunt as the perfect control experiment medicine designed against itself. The credit for the research file belongs to him. What follows organizes his findings within the terrain framework developed in What Is Cancer and extends the containment reading into systemic containment. Readers interested in the full case, including Andrews’ broader dismantling of the somatic mutation theory and his examination of oncogenesis, should read the original piece here. His work is well worth following and supporting.
The Woman with the Shunt
A woman with advanced cancer lived twenty-seven months with a device pumping viable, clonogenic tumor cells continuously into her jugular vein. At autopsy: no established metastases in any organ.¹
The device is a peritoneovenous shunt. It was designed in the 1970s to relieve malignant ascites, the fluid buildup that accompanies late-stage cancer. Fluid drains from the peritoneal cavity through a subcutaneous catheter and returns to the venous circulation. In patients with cancer, that fluid contains large numbers of live tumor cells. The shunt runs those cells directly into the bloodstream, continuously, for as long as the device is in place.
If the metastatic cascade is a real biological process, this is the most efficient method ever devised for producing distant metastases. Live cancer cells enter the blood at rates that dwarf any biological shedding from a primary tumor. There is no need to explain intravasation (the cell’s supposed entry into a blood vessel); the shunt performs it mechanically. Every step of what medicine calls the cascade, after entry into the circulation, is available for study, in humans, over months.
D.M. Tarin and colleagues followed twenty-nine such patients and performed autopsies on fifteen. Findings were published in two 1984 papers, one in the British Medical Journal and one in Cancer Research.¹,² The results have never been meaningfully addressed by the field they undermine.
Fourteen patients in the BMJ report died from cancer. Eight had no hematogenous metastases at autopsy. In the six who did have secondary tumors, no debilitating large lesions could be attributed to the shunt. All fourteen died from the consequences of local abdominal tumor growth. The authors’ own summary: “peritoneovenous shunting does not result in the establishment of clinically important haematogenous metastases and... metastases do not necessarily develop even when large numbers of viable tumour cells regularly enter the blood.”²
One case is especially difficult to reconcile with the cascade model. A patient in the fourteen-person cohort had extensive hepatic and spinal metastases at the time of shunt insertion. Those tumors continued to grow. But despite months of viable cancer cells being infused directly into her jugular vein, “no secondary tumour deposits or even isolated tumour cells were found in the lungs or in any organ other than those colonised before the shunt was inserted.”²
Cells in blood. New tumors: none.
The standard response to this data is dormancy: cells arrive but remain quiescent, waiting for a later trigger to reactivate them. Dormancy is a post-hoc rescue proposed to explain why cells reaching distant sites so rarely produce tumors. It cannot explain the shunt data. Mechanical infusion for twenty-seven months should saturate any dormancy mechanism operating on individual cells. The tumors still do not appear.
This work stays free because paid subscribers make it possible. They get the full book library, the Deep Dive Audio Library, and the Questions for Your Doctor, Before You Consent, and Package Insert series. No grants, no gatekeepers — your subscription is what keeps it that way.
What the Cascade Model Requires
The standard account of metastasis describes a sequence. A cancer cell in a primary tumor undergoes a phenotypic shift, acquiring the ability to detach from its neighbors. It secretes enzymes that dissolve the basement membrane. It migrates through the extracellular matrix and enters a blood vessel or a lymphatic. It survives shear stress in circulation. It arrests in a distant capillary bed, extravasates through the vessel wall, and colonizes the new tissue. When enough cells complete this sequence, secondary tumors form at distant sites.
Each step is presented as a discrete biological event with molecular machinery attached. Each step is described as well-characterized. The whole model rests on a single premise: cells detaching from the primary tumor, entering the blood, and reaching a distant site is what causes secondary tumors to appear there.
The shunt data falsifies that premise directly. What the model requires is cells detaching from the primary tumor, entering the blood, and reaching distant sites. That is precisely what the shunt achieves, mechanically, continuously, in humans. The shunt does not produce secondary tumors. Therefore secondary tumors are not caused by cells reaching distant sites.
The autopsy findings from the Tarin cohorts do not require sophisticated interpretation. Pathologists cataloged what they saw. They found individual tumor cells and small clumps of three to five cells in the lung capillaries and interstitial tissue of the shunt patients. The cells were identified as neoplastic by the presence of psammoma bodies, laminated calcospherites characteristic of the ovarian carcinomas the patients carried. The cells had arrived, they had extravasated, and they had lodged in the tissue.² Then nothing happened. New cells replaced them. No secondary tumors formed.
The modern defense of the cascade points to circulating tumor cells. Liquid biopsies detect them, CTC counts correlate with disease progression, and the counts are used prognostically. The observation is real. The interpretation medicine places on it is not. Cells shed from primary tumors are a correlate of established cancer, indicating that the terrain in the primary site has already failed. They are a marker of what has already happened, not a mechanism of what happens next. The shunt data settles the direction of the arrow. Cells in the blood do not produce tumors at distant sites, regardless of concentration. The correlation between rising CTC counts and worsening disease tracks damage in the primary tumor, not seeding at other sites.
The Trial
If cells reaching distant sites do not cause tumors at those sites, then surgically removing tumors at those sites should not affect survival. The only randomized trial ever conducted on the surgical practice tested this directly.
Pulmonary metastasectomy is the surgical removal of tumors that have appeared in the lung after treatment of a primary tumor elsewhere. It is a major operation performed hundreds of thousands of times annually worldwide. The justification for the procedure is that untreated five-year survival for patients with lung metastases is “less than five percent.” Cutting the tumors out, the argument runs, is life-saving.
That justification had never been tested against a control group. It rested on retrospective comparisons: patients selected for surgery had better outcomes than patients not selected for surgery. The selected patients were younger, had fewer metastases, and better overall health. Comparing their outcomes was like comparing marathon runners to hospital inpatients and concluding that running shoes extend life.
In 2019, Treasure and colleagues published PulMiCC, the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer trial.³ Sixty-five patients with lung metastases from colorectal cancer, randomized to either metastasectomy or active monitoring.
The trial’s numbers:³
Five-year survival, metastasectomy: 38%
Five-year survival, control: 29%
Median survival, metastasectomy: 3.5 years
Median survival, control: 3.8 years
Hazard ratio for death within five years: 0.82 (95% CI 0.43–1.56)
The control group had longer median survival. The confidence interval on the hazard ratio spans one in both directions. The authors’ own summary: “there was no hint of a difference in survival.”³
The belief that untreated survival is less than five percent had produced a generation of surgeons willing to cut tumors out of the lungs of thousands of patients per year. When those patients were finally studied against a control group, they lived about as long either way, and slightly longer without the surgery.
Recruitment for the trial collapsed. Surgeons refused to randomize their patients because they knew, with the certainty of established practice, that surgery worked. Final enrollment fell short of the original power calculation, and the study closed early. Critics have cited that as reason to dismiss the findings. The arithmetic answers them. If untreated five-year survival were five percent, and treated survival were forty percent, the results at sixty-five patients would have been overwhelming and unambiguous. They were not. The five percent claim on which the entire surgical practice rested was the product of selection bias, sustained by never testing it.
The Angiogenic Failure
The third finding came from a drug that was designed around the cascade model and did not work at the site where the model insisted it should.
Bevacizumab is marketed as an anti-angiogenesis agent. It binds VEGF-A, one of the signaling molecules involved in the growth of new blood vessels. The theoretical basis of the drug is that tumors cannot grow beyond a few millimeters without recruiting new vessels to supply oxygen and nutrients. Cut off vessel growth in tumors that have already established at secondary sites, and further growth is prevented.
The theoretical basis is coherent provided the model of tumor growth it depends on is correct.
Padera and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital tested it directly against lymph node metastases.⁴ They compared samples from patients treated with bevacizumab against samples from patients who received no anti-angiogenesis therapy. Their finding: “no difference in blood vessel density within the metastatic nodes.”⁴ The drug did nothing.
The reason it did nothing turned out to be structural. Lymph node metastases do not grow by recruiting new blood vessels. They use the pre-existing vasculature of the node. The angiogenic step is not part of what actually happens when a tumor appears in a lymph node. Padera’s conclusion: “since lymph node metastases do not require the development of new blood vessels, antiangiogenic therapy will not inhibit lymphatic metastasis.”⁴
The drug was designed around a theoretical requirement of the cascade model. That requirement is not real. The drug fails at the specific site where its mechanism was supposed to apply.
Bevacizumab remains in wide use in oncology. Its regulatory approvals are not being revisited. The theoretical model that produced it continues to guide drug design. Padera’s finding demonstrates that the model’s predictions do not hold, even in the presence of a drug specifically designed to test them.
Paget, 1889
The pattern was visible in 1889. Stephen Paget saw it in the case records of London hospitals.
Paget was a surgeon and a careful reader of autopsy data. He collected records from 735 fatal cases of breast cancer and asked a simple question. If tumor cells travel through the blood and lodge wherever they arrive, what should the distribution of secondary tumors look like? It should approximate the distribution of blood flow. Organs receiving similar blood should show similar rates of secondary involvement.
The numbers in his data:⁵
Liver involved: 241 cases
Spleen involved: 17 cases
Lungs: approximately 70 cases
Kidneys or suprarenals: 30 cases
The spleen has an artery larger than the hepatic artery. It cannot avoid embolic material in the circulation. Yet the liver was involved in secondary tumor formation fourteen times more often than the spleen.
Paget checked his reasoning against a different disease. He tabulated 340 autopsies of patients who had died of pyaemia, the blood-poisoning condition that produces abscesses seeded through the circulation. In pyaemia the liver was involved in 66 cases and the spleen in 39. The ratio was 1.7 to 1. The ratio in breast cancer secondary tumors was 14 to 1.
Whatever was distributing tumors around the body was not doing so by embolic mechanics. Something in the tissue was determining whether tumors would grow.
Paget concluded that different organs must have different susceptibilities. He proposed the seed and soil metaphor: cancer cells might travel everywhere, but they could only grow where the soil supported them. The metaphor became famous. The point Paget was actually making has been steadily blunted in the century since.
He was not arguing that some organs are congenial to cancer and others hostile in some fixed way. He was arguing that circulation alone cannot account for the distribution of secondary tumors. Something about the tissues themselves selects where tumors will form.
In 1980, Hart and Fidler tested the metaphor experimentally.⁶ They injected radioactively labeled B16 melanoma cells intravenously into mice that had been implanted with fragments of different tissues (lung, kidney, ovary) in ectopic locations. The labeled cells arrived in every implanted tissue at roughly equal rates. Tumors grew only in the lung and ovary implants. The kidney implants and the sites of surgical trauma showed cell arrest but no tumor growth.
Same cells. Same circulation. Same arrest rates. Different outcomes. What decided the outcome was the tissue.
Paget was right about what he saw. The metaphor he chose has misled the field ever since. Take away the seed and hold the soil, and the tumors still appear in the compromised tissues. It is soil all the way down.
The Cascade in the Metabolic Library
The metabolic dissidents of the last two decades have done real work. Thomas Seyfried spent years dismantling the somatic mutation theory. Nasha Winters brought Warburg’s findings to a general audience. Jane McLelland made a serious case for repurposed metabolic drugs against her own diagnosis. Paul Marik built a rigorous protocol around mitochondrial biochemistry. Their contribution to a field captured by a false paradigm has been substantial.
All four inherited the metastatic cascade without examining it.
Seyfried’s Cancer as a Metabolic Disease devotes its thirteenth chapter to metastasis.⁷ He describes the standard cascade in detail: cells detach from the primary tumor, intravasate into the circulatory and lymphatic systems, evade destruction, extravasate at distant capillary beds, and colonize new organs. Seyfried offers a variant hypothesis (that metastatic cells arise from macrophage fusion with neoplastic cells), but he does not question the cascade itself. The Tarin studies do not appear. The PulMiCC trial post-dates his book. The shunt data predates his work by more than two decades and does not appear either.
Winters’s Metabolic Approach to Cancer describes tumor cells as “explorers hungry to discover new lands,” with “pioneer cells” hacking through the extracellular matrix “like swordsmen through the jungle” on their way to distant tissues.⁸ The metaphor is vivid. It is also a picture of a process the shunt data shows does not occur.
McLelland’s Great Fire of London analogy in How to Starve Cancer treats cancer spreading as fire jumping from house to house through the tissue.⁹ Her proposed interventions target matrix metalloproteinases and growth factors whose supposed role is to enable cellular travel and colonization. If cellular travel and colonization is not what actually happens, the mechanism she attributes to her protocol is not the mechanism through which any benefit occurs.
Marik’s FLCCC Cancer Care protocol reproduces the cascade in detail: detachment, intravasation, circulation, extravasation, invasion.¹⁰ His treatment recommendations include agents targeted at each step.
The pattern is the same in each case. These are thinkers who broke with the establishment on the causal question (genetics versus metabolism) but adopted the establishment’s mechanism for the downstream phenomenon (metastasis). They rejected the genetic story of tumor formation. They kept the establishment’s story of tumor spread.
Paradigms rarely fail all at once. What happens is that one component is challenged, its critics gather evidence, an alternative account is constructed for that component, and the surrounding framework continues as if nothing had changed. The metabolic dissidents challenged the causal claim of the genetic story. They did not challenge the cascade because the cascade appeared to be a separable question about mechanics rather than a claim about causation. The cascade is a component of the same broken framework. Its foundational studies are the studies the shunt work, PulMiCC, and Padera all show to be wrong.
A more consistent application of the same skepticism the metabolic dissidents applied to the genetic story would have caught the cascade. The genetic theory of cancer was mistaken about causation because it treated a downstream correlate as an upstream cause: present-day mutations in tumor cells were taken as the origin of the tumor rather than as its consequence. The cascade model of metastasis makes the same error at a different level. Cells in the blood are the consequence of terrain failure at the primary site, not the cause of terrain failure at other sites.
Systemic Containment
If cells reaching distant sites is not the cause of secondary tumors, what is?
Cancer, in the terrain framing, is a containment response. The primary tumor is the body walling off a region of tissue whose cellular machinery has failed and cannot be repaired while the causal insult persists. Structured water in the cytoplasm has broken down. This is the organized gel phase that runs cellular chemistry, and its collapse strips the cell of the medium in which its machinery operates. Zeta potential in the local capillary bed has collapsed alongside it. This is the electrical charge that keeps blood cells separated from each other and from vessel walls. Its loss produces capillary sludging that starves the surrounding cells of oxygen and forces them into fermentation. Respiration in the mitochondria of the affected cells has been overwhelmed. Cells have shifted into fermentation as a survival response. The body cannot restore the tissue while whatever damaged it continues to arrive, so it walls the region off. That is what medicine sees on the scan and calls a tumor.
The framing was developed at length in a prior essay.¹¹ The extension it forces here is straightforward.
The causal input that produced the primary tumor is not local. Metallic particle contamination from injectable products reaches every capillary bed. Ionic burden loads the whole circulation. Electromagnetic exposure permeates the entire body. Nutritional depletion is systemic by definition. Whatever compromised the first tissue is working through the rest.
Different tissues have different thresholds. A tissue with less structured water to lose, a tissue with higher metabolic demand, a tissue that has been previously injured, a tissue whose capillary bed carries more of the toxic load: each fails at its own rate. When one of them fails past its threshold, the body walls it off. Another tumor appears. Medicine calls it a metastasis.
The reading accounts for Paget’s data. The liver receives an enormous portion of the venous return from the abdomen. It processes everything that comes in from the digestive tract. It is the primary site of detoxification. When systemic toxic burden overwhelms the terrain, the liver is the tissue most likely to fail next, because it is the tissue carrying the largest load. The spleen has a different functional profile. It fails less often not because seeds cannot land there but because its terrain does not collapse under the same insult.
The reading accounts for the shunt data. Cells being pumped into venous return do nothing because it was never cells that produced tumors. It was terrain failure. The terrain of the woman with the shunt was collapsing in her abdomen. It had not yet collapsed in her lungs or her liver. Pumping cells into her blood did not accelerate the collapse of tissues whose terrain was still holding.
The reading accounts for PulMiCC. Removing lung metastases surgically does nothing for survival because the metastases are not what is killing the patient. What is killing the patient is the terrain condition that produced them. Surgically excising the containment wall in the lung does not repair the underlying damage that made the wall necessary. The damage continues. Other tissues continue to fail. The patient dies at about the same rate whether the visible containment structures are removed or not.
The reading accounts for Padera. Lymph node metastases do not require new blood vessels because a lymph node containment is not the same tissue architecture as a solid organ containment. It uses the existing lymphatic vasculature because that is what the local tissue provides. Blocking new vessel formation cannot inhibit a process that never depended on new vessel formation.
Paget’s seed-and-soil formulation is a hundred-and-thirty-seven-year-old approximation of something more direct. There are no seeds. There is only soil, in varying stages of failure, producing containment walls in the tissues whose terrain has collapsed. The word metastasis, as medicine uses it, describes a sequence of events that has not been observed to occur. What the word labels is a real phenomenon: additional tumors appear at additional sites over time. But the mechanism medicine assigns to the phenomenon is not the mechanism at work.
The Autopsy
Return to the woman with the shunt.
Twenty-seven months of viable, clonogenic tumor cells pumped continuously into her jugular vein. At autopsy: no established metastases in any organ. She did not die because of what was in her blood. She died because the terrain in her abdomen had collapsed past the body’s capacity to contain it.
If the cascade were real, she would have died of metastases at distant sites, seeded by the cells the shunt was delivering to her circulation. Instead she died of what she was going to die of anyway. The shunt made no difference to how she died because the shunt was pumping something that was never the cause.
That single autopsy report, replicated across the twenty-nine patients in the Tarin cohorts, is the falsification of the cascade model. It is the falsification that PulMiCC confirms at the level of the randomized trial and that Padera confirms at the level of drug design. Paget saw the shape of the answer in 1889. Hart and Fidler confirmed it experimentally in 1980. The field carried on describing metastasis as cellular travel because the alternative account required abandoning too much of the surrounding framework.
The metabolic dissidents came close. They rejected the causal claim of the genetic story but kept the cascade. The cascade is the same category of error applied to a different phenomenon. Cells in the blood are not the cause of secondary tumors. The tissues in which secondary tumors appear are tissues whose terrain has been damaged by the same systemic insult that damaged the first tissue. What medicine calls metastasis is the body building multiple containment walls in multiple failing tissues, produced by the same insult that produced the first.
The process medicine calls metastasis does not occur. Something else occurs, and it is worth understanding what.
The evidence has been in the autopsy reports for forty years.
How to Explain It to a Six-Year-Old
Sometimes when you eat too much sugar, you get a cavity. A cavity is a little hole in a tooth. If you keep eating sugar, you might get another cavity in a different tooth. And then maybe one more.
The first cavity did not send a piece of itself over to the second tooth to start a new cavity. That is not what happened. The sugar you ate went into your blood and traveled all around your body. It reached every tooth from the inside. Some teeth were stronger, so they held on longer. Some were weaker, so they gave way first. That is why the cavities did not all show up at the same time.
Doctors say cancer works another way. They say a lump grows somewhere in the body, and then little bits break off and travel through the blood, and they grow into new lumps in other places. That story is not what really happens.
There was a lady whose doctors put a small machine inside her that pushed tiny cancer pieces straight into her blood, every day, for more than two years. If the story were true, she would have grown new lumps in lots of places. When the doctors looked, they did not find any new lumps anywhere else in her body.
So cancer is more like the cavities. Something is hurting the body from the inside, and it reaches lots of parts at the same time. The weakest part gets a lump first. If the hurting keeps going, another part gets a lump. And another. The first lump is not making the second one. The same hurt is reaching different places from the inside.
In Print
The Unbekoming library is available in paperback, printed to order through Lulu and shipped worldwide. The shelf begins with the paradigm question underneath everything else — No Virus, the isolation problem, the collapse of virology’s foundational claims, and a disease-by-disease reappraisal — and moves through the suppressed compounds mainstream medicine set aside: The DMSO Book, Chlorine Dioxide: The Forbidden Remedy, The Iodine Book, and The Hydrogen Peroxide Book. Two more recover what’s still on the kitchen shelf: Baking Soda and The Castor Oil Book. Two more recover the minerals modern soil, water, and processing quietly stripped from the diet: The Magnesium Handbook and The Boron Book. Sitting alongside these is No Contagion, co-authored with Jamie Andrews — the case against germ theory itself, catalogued through 258 failed contagion experiments.
The critique books cover what medicine, dentistry, psychiatry, and veterinary practice have become. The Unvaccinated treats the completely unvaccinated as a comparison group across twenty chapters and five appendices. Medicalized Motherhood follows a woman through 123 documented interventions from teenage pill to postpartum discharge. Drilling for Profit treats cavities, gum disease, and crooked teeth as the dietary problem they are. What Your Vet Can’t Tell You applies the same critique to pets. Escape from Psychiatry documents the fabrication of the DSM and the specific damage of every major psychiatric drug class. The Vitamin K Injection covers what happens in the first hours of a newborn’s life.
The full shelf is at lulu.com/spotlight/unbekoming. A physical book reaches the person a Substack post never will — the skeptical relative, the friend who won’t click a link but might open a book, the visitor whose eye lands on a coffee table. Buy one to keep, and one to give away.
References
Principal source
Andrews J. The Metastasis Hoax: The Oncogenesis Myth. The Virology Controls Studies Project. July 8, 2026. virologycontrolstudies.substack.com.
Primary literature and referenced works
Tarin D, Price JE, Kettlewell MGW, Souter RG, Vass ACR, Crossley B. Clinicopathological observations on metastasis in man studied in patients treated with peritoneovenous shunts. Cancer Research. 1984;44:3584–3592.
Tarin D, Price JE, Kettlewell MGW, Souter RG, Vass ACR, Crossley B. Mechanisms of human tumor metastasis studied in patients with peritoneovenous shunts. British Medical Journal. 1984;288:749–751.
Treasure T, Farewell V, Macbeth F, Monson K, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Lees B, Grigg O, Fallowfield L. Pulmonary Metastasectomy versus Continued Active Monitoring in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC): a multicentre randomised clinical trial. Trials. 2019;20:718.
Jeong HS, Jones D, Liao S, Wattson DA, Cui CH, Duda DG, Willett CG, Jain RK, Padera TP. Investigation of the lack of angiogenesis in the formation of lymph node metastases. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2015;107(9):djv155.
Paget S. The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. The Lancet. 1889;133:571–573.
Hart IR, Fidler IJ. Role of organ selectivity in the determination of metastatic patterns of B16 melanoma. Cancer Research. 1980;40:2281–2287.
Seyfried TN. Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer. Wiley; 2012. Chapter 13.
Winters N, Kelley JH. The Metabolic Approach to Cancer. Chelsea Green; 2017. Chapter 9.
McLelland J. How to Starve Cancer... Without Starving Yourself. Agenor Publishing; 2018.
Marik PE. Cancer Care Protocol, version 2.2. FLCCC Alliance; 2024.
Unbekoming. What Is Cancer: An Essay on the Warburg Shift, the Cytoplasm, and the Particle in the Vial. Lies are Unbekoming. Available at unbekoming.substack.com.
The Unvaccinated — Live This Thursday
Truth Be Told airs this Thursday, September 17th. It’s a six-hour livestream. My one-hour presentation, The Unvaccinated, opens it.
About forty-five minutes on the question the medical establishment has treated as settled for a century, and never actually asked: are the vaccinated healthier than the unvaccinated?
Vaccination is the subject closest to my heart, and this is another chance to spread the word. The format preserves the pen name.
Five parts. The four studies that have quietly demolished the mainstream story. Why the question was avoided for a hundred years. What is actually in the vials. A different way of seeing cancer. And why the vitamin K shot — the first injection most children ever receive — matters more than any single argument I can make.
Start times: 12pm EST / 11am CT / 10am MDT / 9am PST / 6am HST / 4pm UTC — use timeanddate.com if you need to convert to your local time.
Tickets are here. Use code UNBEKOMING for $5 off (applies automatically at the link). Replay available afterwards, so timing isn’t a barrier.
If you already have a ticket, log in at that same link on the day to watch.
See you Thursday.
Medical Science today is about designing expensive gadgets to treat simple problems. It is not about finding a cause...and simply eliminating it. NO money to be made in curing people. 50 years ago, two doctors urged me to have surgery immediately or they would offer me 'no guarantees." I opted for prayer and a book came into my hands on raw fruit and vegetables, and I eliminated dairy,. The tumor was gone in less than three months. I went back to the second doctor and paid for the visit, just to show him the tumor was gone. He examined me, but was not one bit interested in how I got rid of it. I learned something. Doctors don't want to know the truth. It doesn't pay!
Thanks for your information. I would like to suggest looking into Dr. Gerhard Hamers's work at www.learningGNM.com for explanation why metastasis doesn't happen as mainstream medicine believes.