Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Yes never give up hope. One day they will not be able to keep the cure hidden. http://althealthworks.com/7047/eight-...

I had a lump on the back of my hand. I figured it was due to sun exposure (I am a motorcyclist). The doctor said, "No, it is not cancer - yet." I had a small operation there and then and the whole thing cost less than a hundred dollars. I now wear gloves when riding.

John wrote: "I had a lump on the back of my hand. I figured it was due to sun exposure (I am a motorcyclist). The doctor said, "No, it is not cancer - yet." I had a small operation there and then and the whole ..."Wonderful glad to hear a positive result.

I trained as a biochemist, and many times over the years, I've been asked 'Why is it that a child can get cancer but someone at ninety-five dies of old age?' Why is it that a non-smoker gets lung cancer and a person who smokes 60/day doesn't get lung cancer.'

It boils down to the type of immune system a person inherits. If anyone would like to understand more about cancer and the immune system, it is explained in a small textbook I've written 'Enzymes In Industry and Medicine.' For a quick layman account, there is a short discussion between two characters in my crime/mystery fiction book 'The Black Fox'. If anyone is interested, I can cut and paste the discussion into this thread.

Gordon wrote: "I trained as a biochemist, and many times over the years, I've been asked 'Why is it that a child can get cancer but someone at ninety-five dies of old age?' Why is it that a non-smoker gets lung c..."

Yes please Gordon. Thanks.

Extract from 'The Black Fox'. Context - a character in the book challenges a biochemist as to why biochemistry has not produced a cure for cancer. The biochemist uses an analogy of a police force to explain how the immune system deals with cancer.

'I'm sorry. All right, bear with me. I think … the best option for a cure … is our own immune system.'
'Immune system?'
'The cells of our immune system can identify cancer cells and tag them to be killed, probably does that on a regular basis,' he explained.
'Why aren't they doing it to save my sister?'
'Our body has the tools. We have killer cells called phagocytes. These cells kill bacteria, viruses and recycle our own dead, damaged or dying cells. They can also kill cancer cells.'
'Brilliant, so it can be done,' Karen said, and her eyes lit up.
'Yes, but like real killers they need to be told who to kill. The cancer cells need to be tagged for destruction just as if they were bacteria,' he said.
'I understand, as always, it starts with the top brass issuing orders.'
'That's right. I often think of the immune system as a hierarchical police force. Police officers can identify and tag bacteria to be killed. Police inspectors identify viruses. Only a chief constable can identify and tag cancer cells to be killed. Problem is of course, chief constables aren't out on the streets all that often.'
'So, my sister's chief constable immune cell could tag her cancer cells and her phagocytes would kill them?' she said, and sounded excited.
'Yes. There are lots of examples around the world. People who had stage four, had prepared for the worst, and then cleared the cancer.'
'That, Mr Biochemist, is what I wanted to hear,' she said as she stretched over, placed her hand on his and squeezed it.
'Some called it a miracle, others a response to treatment, or change in a diet. Some say it's a survival mechanism. I believe in those cases, the patient's own chief constable immune cell finally got off its backside, got out and then did its job.'
'There's still hope for my sister then if her chief constable cell gets moving, like.'
'There's always hope. But don't get your hopes up too high. It may be that her chief constable cell is dead or damaged, and that's why she has cancer in the first place.'
'Could I donate my chief constable cell?'
'There's probably only dozens of these cells in your entire body. Trying to identify and find them among billions and billions of other cells is impossible,' he said.
'Nothing is impossible,' she replied, and looked deflated but not defeated.

Gordon wrote: "Extract from 'The Black Fox'. Context - a character in the book challenges a biochemist as to why biochemistry has not produced a cure for cancer. The biochemist uses an analogy of a police force t..."

Thanks Gordon. A well received book by the looks. Here's the link for interested members... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

Sounds like an interesting read. I am signed up for a series of four docuseries, it originally came from Natural News, it caught my attention it is called the Sacred Plant and they are doctors and biochemists, the testimonies are really something amazing. The reason I signed up is Natural News always seems straight up with good tips. If anyone is interested in checking this out here is the link The first one airs Nov.2nd.
http://www.thesacredplant.com/docuseries
I one hundred percent believe there is a natural cure out there but cancer is big business, lots of adversaries to finding a cure.

There are multiple cures that have been squashed already, but not all of them. I'm currently working toward one that is ten thousand years old but not forgotten...

Christopher wrote: "There are multiple cures that have been squashed already, but not all of them. I'm currently working toward one that is ten thousand years old but not forgotten..."

Yes I agree, I think it won't be long before society demands the cure that big pharma has through different measures kept from the public.

I BELIEVE (just my opinion) there are millions of cancer cures that generally work but are not patentable or profitable to market...Every second of every day around the world, people are naturally curing themselves of cancer, including Stage IV cancers, via various alternative/traditional/unorthodox healing methods that Western medicine does not recognize to be valid or possible...

Cannabis is probably one such natural medicine, I would assume...

The Sacred Plant Secrets Exposed: Episode 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqcDf...

What does patentable or profitable have to do with curing cancer?

Christopher wrote: "What does patentable or profitable have to do with curing cancer?"

It has everything to do with it if you want the treatment to be legally obtainable in most developed countries.
If you haven't seen it, I recommend watching Dallas Buyers Club.

You are wrong sir. It can be made by anyone, is not a drug and legality has nothing to do with it.

Christopher wrote: "What does patentable or profitable have to do with curing cancer?"

Nothing in that it shouldn't matter...
But unfortunately, corporations can make a shitload of money out of patentable medicines that either cure or soften certain diseases.
That's the sad reality.

I think it should be emphasized there will not be "a cure for cancer" because there is no single cancer. Cancer is a term given to a whole lot of diseases resulting from misbehaving DNA, and it has a huge range of ways of misbehaving. We can cure a number of these now, but other ones remain stubbornly resistant to treatment, and the cures that work invariably only work for small number of cancers. The cures for different cancers seldom have much in common. If there is to be a single cure, it would come from stem cells being persuaded to generate a means of recognizing deviant cells, but it would not surprise me if once they succeeded in doing that, there would be more aberrant behaviour arising from those cells.

Ian wrote: "I think it should be emphasized there will not be "a cure for cancer" because there is no single cancer. Cancer is a term given to a whole lot of diseases resulting from misbehaving DNA, and it has..."

That's why I specifically wrote "including Stage IV cancers" (note the plural i.e. all the different diseases you refer to that we all lazily call "cancer").

Also, if we are to apply honest journalistic methods to this discussion, then I think we need to add a caveat to this statement of yours: "We can cure a number of these now, but other ones remain stubbornly resistant to treatment,"

And that caveat would probably be something like: At least that's the official statement within the context of Western medicine. There are claimed cures, reported every second of every day around the world, for EVERY single disease ever known to Mankind (everything from cures to leprosy, AIDS and all the most aggressive cancers). That does not mean those claims are all valid, however it does need to be acknowledged that there are many types of healing methods that Western scientists will not ever test for or research or even consider as valid healing methods. Each medical system is kinda like a belief structure or even akin to a religion in that way, where some things just will not be considered...

And as we know, Western medicine is aligned with Big Pharma, insurance companies, special interest groups, etc, etc. I think more and more people are coming around to the idea every day that some of these corporations/entities within our medical sector are potentially evil enough to suppress, stifle or otherwise ignore certain cures that would not be profitable. Hence, some healthcare researchers have stated in their assessment the industry is as much a sickness industry as it is a health one....

Another important thing I feel we must acknowledge is "Science", including medical science, is usually not universally agreed upon worldwide, or even remotely agreed upon...What scientists say in Harvard Medical School can be in stark contrast to those in say Beijing...For example, Traditional Chinese Medicine in China and Ayurveda in India (two of the oldest medical systems on Earth and older than Western allopathic/pharmacological medicine) are both recognized sciences in China and India, but total bunk in the West and said to be quasiscience or quackery within the framework of Western medicine...
Go figure!

Anyway, I'm not pretending to have any answers to all this...But I do feel all these things need to be considered and that we in the West naively or even arrogantly assume our medical systems and scientific evidence to support them is all that exists...

Bravo James,

I've finally heard some words of reason. The truth is that we all walk the path alone and must choose what to believe and what to discard. Western medicine is nothing more than the treatment of symptoms (no cure involved). Chinese medicine has kept their culture alive for more than five thousand years, how long do you think we have?

I think the best healthcare system, Christopher, would be one where the patient can select any form of treatment, or a combination of treatments, including Western medicine which is very good at some things (e.g. Pain management). But right now many ill-informed people believe that's the West's pharmacological/surgery-orientated approach is the only medical system available or else the only one that has scientific evidence to support it...

Western medicine is far more than just treating symptoms. Apart from the general stupidity of people using them as prophylactics, and thus breeding resistant strains, antibiotics have made a huge difference to medicine, and until stupidity has bred resistant bugs, bacterial infections are easily cured. A year ago I had a hip replacement. A hundred years ago, that would have been sheer stupidity to attempt. Further, the scientific method is clear - make a hypothesis and test it - it either works or it does not.

Of course big Pharma is more interested in making money than curing the world. That is the whole principle of capitalism, but that is what the people want (or seem to). On the other hand, I do not believe that Western medicine would reject a treatment that worked just because it came from somewhere else. Specific examples might help the discussion, but just assertions don't.

deleted user wrote: "I have only read a few of these posts...I'll come back to them...but my theory is...if thy find a "cure" they'll be out of business so to speak...they need to keep promoting their therapies and tes..."

Lance wrote: "Excerpt from MEDICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: The $ickness Industry, Big Pharma and Suppressed Cures:



“The cancer industry world wide is estimated at a 200 billion dollar a year indus..."

Hey guys! I have really enjoyed recently reading a book about breast cancer prevention and how a virus could be a potential cause of breast cancer. If scientists can determine the viral cause and create a preventive vaccine, a whole lot of lives could be saved. The book is called "The End of Breast Cancer: A Virus and the Hope for a Vaccine" written by Dr. Kathleen Ruddy.

You can check out a blog about the book here: http://www.breasthealthandhealing.org...

Sounds good except the part about another vaccine.

James wrote: "Ian wrote: "I think it should be emphasized there will not be "a cure for cancer" because there is no single cancer. Cancer is a term given to a whole lot of diseases resulting from misbehaving DNA..."

If big Pharma is in the drivers seat most likely there will be no cure. I believe they know and understand much more than they allow to be public knowledge. How often we see that someone who is sick has a shopping bag full of pills. One pill creates a problem so another is given to treat that problem and so on and so forth. It is disgraceful considering the technology today and the many breakthrough's in medical science. I believe the following article gives us something to think about. Out of fear those diagnosed with a disease swallow whatever the doctor orders and common sense is thrown out the window. I believe that many cures for many things are available if we don't lose hope and have the courage to investigate. http://allnewspipeline.com/Holistic_D...

The other side of the coin described by Laurette is a lot of people go to doctors with ill-defined "don't feel well" and either demand the doctor do something or alternatively the doctor merely wants to get rid of the patient (who might also b described as impatient) so in either case prescribes a pill and hopes for the best. The end effect is a waste of money and a patient addicted to pills, often needing more to counter the effects of the others. It is awful.

Yes Ian...that's another problem: neurotic patients!

Laurette wrote: "James wrote: "Ian wrote: "I think it should be emphasized there will not be "a cure for cancer" because there is no single cancer. Cancer is a term given to a whole lot of diseases resulting from m..."

Then the answer is simple. Cure fear and you've put them out of business.

In this week's podcast episode of Underground Knowledge, I chat with Medical Laboratory Scientist, Lisa Norris, who shares her observations on potential suppression of cancer cures and Big Pharma, among other interrelated healthcare topics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLPoU...

Actually vaccines have cured dozens and dozens of diseases. Lots of childhood diseases aren't around anymore because of vaccines. Let's hope that vaccination can become part of preventing diseases in adults as well. In my opinion, it's a surefire way to get toward cancer prevention. http://www.breasthealthandhealing.org...

I still like Darwinism, if a species doesn't adapt to it's changing environment, it finds extinction faster than the ones that do.

The works of Professor Konstantin Meyl might be worth considering re potentially suppressed or overlooked cancer cures.



Scalar Waves Kill Cancer Cells https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AFY3...

Prof. Konstantin Meyl is the worlds leading physicist in the research on scalar waves, both in theory and practice. There are three kinds of waves:

1. electromagnetic waves (Heinrich Hertz), well known to everybody

2. electric scalar waves (Nikola Tesla), only known by secret services and enlightened people, even called Tesla waves, and

3. magnetic scalar wave (Konstantin Meyl), unknown

Meyl figured out, that the magnetic scalar wave is biological relevant, not the electromagnetic wave. Therefore cell communication is done by magnetic scalar waves. It was detected, that cancer cells mostly communicate with their own kind, not with healthy cells. So Meyl poisoned cancer cells and while dying, they send a special signal received only by other cancer cells, which causes them to die also. Healthy cells do not receive this signal, which is transmitted by magnetic scalar waves.
With this method only cancer cells are targeted. That is a huge difference to the chemotherapy from today, which target almost the whole body and often kill the patients slowly.

White TV wants to point out, that the killing of cancer cells with scalar waves is better than chemo, but not the optimum, because to attack cancer cells and tumours is only to attack the symptoms but not the cause of cancer. Here other methods must be used.

HEMP OIL VS. CBD OIL: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
http://www.chronictherapy.co/hemp-oil...

WHAT IS CBD OIL?
CBD oil is the short form of the term cannabidiol oil. Cannabidiol is a natural component of industrial cannabis or hemp. CBD oil is cannabis oil that has a significant content of cannabidiol. It is made from the flowers, leaves and stalks of hemp and not from its seeds like hemp oil. CBD oil has become very popular in the medical marijuana industry, because it can be helpful in the treatment of various conditions without the typical intoxicating effects of marijuana use.

(Reported/Potential) USAGES OF CBD OIL:
Can be used in the treatment of cancer .
It is used in the treatment of inflammatory disorders, anxiety, depression, seizures and neurodegenerative disorders.
Can be used in the treatment of epilepsy.

I am under the impression it reduces the effect of the adverse symptoms tat go with cancer, but I have not seen evidence that it actually treats the cancer. Pain relief, of course, is good.

CBD Hemp Oil is currently legal in all 50 states in the US (and in the UK I believe)...But possibly not for long as Big Pharma is attempting to put a ban on this in the US by lobbying government (rumour has it Big Pharma want to create a SYNTHETIC patented version)...

The Benefits of CBD Oil - Hemp vs. Marijuana https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-oGE...

Basics of CBD - What you need to know about cannabidiol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnf2k...

p.s. I'm not necessarily promoting CBD Oil here for cancer or the various other diseases it's been (positively) connected with as a potential treatment...I'm simply indicating there are numerous cancer survivors around the planet who claim to have survived because of this natural product...And the numbers are growing as it becomes more popular, hence why you're hearing so much in the news at present about the medical cannabis industry.

CBD certainly seems to provide relief for cancer sufferers, but I think the evidence is fairly slight that it does much of significance in the cure regime. Note that "survivor" usually means lives for five years, and that may be because of the primary treatment, but the secondaries will still be a problem later.

STOPPNow: (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now Well James you know my complete and utter disdain for Big Pharma. More harm than good.

Suzanne Somers shares some of the methods she used to overcome breast cancer naturally...

Dr. Mercola Interviews Suzanne Somers (Full Interview) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tzs2i...

Natural health expert and Mercola.com founder Dr. Joseph Mercola interviews Suzanne Somers about toxic overload.

The Cancer Cure Cover-Up (Conspiracy Documentary) - Real Stories https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQKaC...

It would help if we stopped using pesticides, fluoride, gm'd soy and corn. Gm'd soy and corn are in almost ALL processed foods and condiments. For that matter stop allowing chemical companies to attempt to make nature more perfect. Rick Simpson Oil or, as it is now known, FECO (fully extracted cannabis oil) can cure most cancers. My husband was diagnosed with chrons and given 6 months to live. He is 6 ft. and had lost down to 134 lbs. We changed to a completely organic diet and within a few months all of his symptoms were completely gone. We also gave up meat so that may have also contributed to his success.

Caseyruth, I was sorry to hear of your husband, and I wish him well for his future. However, I assure you there is no known sure-fire cure for cancer. If we stopped using pesticides, for example, there would be mass hunger. If fluoride was removed from persons' intake, the inability to make fluorapatite would mean much more tooth decay. Further, a large number of people get through life without getting cancer. Unfortunately, cancer is an extremely difficult disease to get to grips with, and there is a lot of well-meaning but irrelevant "information" out there based on anecdotal evidence, but that does not work. To try to get a cause from observations you effectively have to solve, or at least go through the process of getting to grips with, a very large number of partial differential equations. Most people simply do not know how to go through the process of separating the variables.

As for the dreaded food industry, I agree that it is not totally responsible, and the widespread use of unnecessary sugar is bad, but they do do the occasional good thing. Vegans, for example, have a real problem getting sufficient vitamin B12 (absence of which leads to death by pernicious anaemia). In this country, there is a product called Marmite - a spread derived from yeast. It has, provided you use it generously, sufficient B12 for the daily dose, but it was put there by the manufacturer.

Finally, regarding anecdotes, my wife got hold of these anti-cancer anecdotes, and gave up all sorts of food, including all dairy products, and became close to Vegan, as she carefully followed a couple of these books that assured her it was a sure-fire way to avoid cancer. This made our meals awkward - effectively two meals because I refused to go along with this. She died of cancer a few years ago, so that did not work.

I am sorry for your loss Ian. I only want to say that I agree there is not one thing that cures everyone's cancer but cannabis is one of the things that shows the most promise. Lifestyle changes and dietary changes have to be made as well and even then it is sometimes not enough. I believe when we are to leave here then we will leave here.

In my opinion, there is plenty of flourine in the soil and that is fine. The fluoride in the U.S. water supply is hydrofluosilicic acid and is an industrial waste product. The CDC even admits that fluoride causes dental fluorosis in children under 8 just from using toothpaste and drinking public water. I have been on a private well for 20 years and make my own toothpaste. My teeth are great and I'm over 60.

As far as pesticides are concerned I am not a conventional farmer but we do have a pretty big garden all year and have used nothing more than neem oil, apple cider vinegar, and a little dishwashing detergent. It's quite interesting that I am typing this today because yesterday I had a mouse on the loose in my house. I mixed peanut butter and baking soda, 50/50. He ate an amount equal to about 1/2 teaspoon and we found him behind the dishwasher dead this morning. Sometimes you don't need poisons.

We need to rethink everything before we destroy all life on this planet. I apologize if my comments seem irrelevant but I think they are valid. Thanks for responding. :)

Caseyruth wrote: "We need to rethink everything before we destroy all life on this planet. I apologize if my comments seem irrelevant but I think they are valid...."

I agree your comments have validity and are worthy of consideration. Many health researchers believe many of the same things you do. More and more, in fact. Re fluoride, here's a thread on that:

Fluoride - is it safe for consumption? https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I agree there shouldn't be effluent of fluosilicic acid, however, the argument that soils have enough fluoride depends on where you are. If there is enough in the soils, of course you should not add it. I may be a bit biased because NZ soils are really short of all sorts of things, and in many places fluoride is one of them. Iodine is another - we have iodised salt. Selenium is in short supply, and in some places they add cobalt to the fertiliser or animals simply cannot survive. So it depends on where you are.

I have no idea whether cannabis does anything or not to cancer - I would need a proper study to determine that.

As for rodents, your means of killing them would not work where I am. Traps don't work either - you get the first one, the rest seem to come along and inspect the situation and then avoid that sort of trap. They learn! My place also tends to gt infested with them, being next to a bush reserve. Accordingly, I find the only real way to get rid of them is through Horatio. His method is to catch and eat - and it also saves a bit on cat biscuits.

Ian wrote: "I agree there shouldn't be effluent of fluosilicic acid, however, the argument that soils have enough fluoride depends on where you are. If there is enough in the soils, of course you should not ad..."

According to what I've read in recent years, most scientists disagree with you now, although yours was the certainly the prevailing view/theory up until about a decade or two ago (in fact, anti-fluoride campaigners were called tinfoil hat freaks for over half a century, before research began confirming their theories). Pretty sure you'll now find the governments representing the majority of nations on Earth have removed fluoride due to recommendations from scientists.

You can check this Wikipedia page to see just how many nations have now removed fluoride from water supplies (again, mostly due to health concerns in the latest research):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorid...

Also, here are some Quick Facts:

Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In Western Europe, for example, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water.

While 25 countries still have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%).
Only 11 countries in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%).

In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population.
There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.

If you still feel your scientific analysis of fluoride is correct, Ian, then please add your thoughts in this group's fluoride thread (and who knows, maybe the scientific community will eventually agree again that we all need fluoridated water!) https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

James, maybe these countries are the ones with deficient fluoride in their soils. I know NZ is.

Ian wrote: "James, maybe these countries are the ones with deficient fluoride in their soils. I know NZ is."

It's weird how NZ soils are low in various things. I never understood that as I thought volcanic areas normally have good soil. Maybe I heard wrong.

James, I am not sure why this is. The North Island soils, in the middle, are probably mainly derived from rhyolite, which is mainly just silica, and a lot of the other soils are broken-down greywacke, which tends to be recycled mud that leaves plagioclase and the mud, and maybe the mud has had the nutrients leached out of it.

Ian wrote: "James, I am not sure why this is. The North Island soils, in the middle, are probably mainly derived from rhyolite, which is mainly just silica, and a lot of the other soils are broken-down greywac..."

Recycled mud? Okay, just the concept of that seems to indicate it'd be lacking a few nutrients.

I heard Iceland is lacking selenium too, so maybe there's something lacking in the soil of volcanic lands?

It probably depends on what sort of volcano it is. The more basaltic it is, probably the more nutrients. In the North Island of New Zealand, the volcanoes are due to the rocks from the Pacific plate being squeezed down under the Australian plate, the rocks at the top are the sort that make up feldspar so they have a high silica content, and as they get squeezed down, if something melts, it forms the volcanic stuff. Unfortunately, silica is the lightest and most easily melted component, so silica-rich stuff comes out, and it is really bad at dissolving the some of the trace elements - and all that comes out is this grey ash which is not particularly nutritious to plants. Some volcanic stuff is quite rich in trace elements - I think the hot-spot volcanoes in Hawaii form good soil.

I live in the U.S. which has now become the sickest (per capita) developed nation in the world hence obesity is now considered normal here. We also have the pleasure of watching pharmaceutical commercials during every television show. It's crazy here. The land of indoctrination where education equals ignorance. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/ar...

Not good.