Re: The Cure Con

[Guest guest]

The only thing he will cure you of is the money required to own his book.

Cancer has been recorded as far back in history as pre-egyptian Israelites.

Hildegard von Bergen was not curing fictitious diseases in 1100 AD created for

the benefit of a corporate profit scheme. Get real.

Lifestyle is a major player, but it is not the sole cause, nor is corporate

greed the sole cause of cure searching.

Bruce Guilmette

From: Iris Atzmon

Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005

Subject: [ ] The Cure Con

http://www.newstarget.com/z009587.html

NewsTarget.com printable article

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 [Excerpts from previous post]

The Cure Con: .....Researchers have been searching for a cure for cancer since

the late 1960s, and for other diseases since at least the 1970s. At that time,

they said cures were right around the corner; it was just a matter of a few more

dollars; then they would have the cures available. Well, here we are, 30 or 40

years later, with still no cures.

.....For most chronic diseases, there are no cures. Why? Because the diseases

themselves are fictitious. Cancer is not a disease. I'll be covering this in

more detail in my book " The Illusion of Disease, " which will be published later

this year, but in brief, cancer is just a name given to a pattern of symptoms

appearing as a natural result of certain metabolic functions caused by lifestyle

decisions. It is not a disease any more than skid marks are a disease in the

Town of Allopath. Cancer can't be cured with chemicals. It's no germ.

Similarly, diabetes is just a name given to a metabolic result caused by certain

lifestyle choices. There are no pathogens that cause diabetes. You can't put

something under a microscope and say, " Aha! This is what caused diabetes, "

because type-2 diabetes is actually just a cause-and-effect result that follows

a lifetime of consumption of refined sugars, coupled with lack of exercise.

That's no disease, that's just a result.

Think of it this way: if I told you to go run up a hill, you'd get to the top of

that hill and you'd be breathing hard. Your face might be flushed. Your

respiration would be rapid. Your heart rate would be high. It wouldn't be too

difficult for me to find a doctor that might diagnose these symptoms as a

" disease. " We could even give it a name: Hyper-Respiratory Illness or HRI. And

then we could easily get a drug company to come up with a drug to mask the

symptoms of HRI -- a chemical that would forcibly slow your heart and slow your

breathing.

That drug company could claim to be doing " research " for HRI, and they could

even sponsor a fundraising run to " find the cure for Hyper-Respiratory Illness. "

But none of this makes HRI a real disease. It isn't a disease, it's a result.

It's the result of running up a hill.

Diabetes is much the same. It's just a metabolic result. There's no disease,no

infection, no virus or bacteria. There's just a result, caused by years of

incorrect food choice and lack of physical exercise. So, you see, any race to

find a " cure " for diabetes is about as silly as trying to find a cure for

breathing hard after running up a hill.

No wonder we haven't found cures for these diseases, even after 30 or 40 years

of research and billions of dollars from people giving up their money to fund

these research efforts. These diseases aren't technically diseases at all.

You can't reverse the laws of biochemistry.

You can suck the fat out of a patient with liposuction, but it doesn't make her

fit. You can pump a diabetic full of insulin, but it doesn't make his insulin

metabolism any punchier. You can scrape the plaque off the artery walls of a

heart disease patient, but it doesn't make his heart any healthier. You can

insert, remove, inject, irradiate and chemically assault patients until they

vomit and their hair falls out. But you're still not treating any real disease.

You see, western medicine can mask symptoms all day long, but it doesn't alter

the fundamental disease processes taking place in a body that's engaged in a

pattern of health destruction.

You ever wonder why a liver transplant almost always results in the patient

destroying the new, healthy liver within two years? The answer is because " liver

disease " is fictitious. It's not the liver that's the problem, it's the toxic

lifestyle of the patient. The foods, drugs and chemicals they are consuming

would destroy ANY liver, no matter how many new ones you surgically implant into

their bodies.

Liver failure isn't caused by the liver. Kidney failure isn't caused by the

kidney. Pancreatic cancer isn't caused by the pancreas. These are all systemic

failures that would be much better treated with Traditional Chinese Medicine

(TCM) or some other holistic modality that looks at the whole patient, not just

isolated organs. Western medicine consistently makes the mistake of thinking the

human body is nothing but an assembly of isolated parts.

Drugs are simply not the answer to system-wide health problems. Last time I

checked, cancer wasn't caused by a lack of chemotherapy. Depression wasn't

caused by a lack of antidepressant drugs. Heart disease wasn't caused by a lack

of cholesterol drugs. So why do people think these chemicals are the solutions

to these diseases?

Drug researchers even use the word " vaccine " to describe some of their

research efforts. They claim to be working on a vaccine for cancer, and yet

there's no microbe that causes cancer in the first place. So what is the patient

being vaccinated against?

The real disease out there, by the way, is the disease of distorted language

used by the medical community to convince people that metabolic results are

" diseases. " If you stabbed your leg with an ice pick, you'd probably bleed.

That's a metabolic result that follows your actions. It's no disease, it's just

a result. Same thing with obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease,

osteoporosis, and many other so-called diseases. A person who drinks a 12-pack

of cola every day, while avoiding all exercise, is going to end up obese and

diabetic. That doesn't make obesity a disease, it just makes it a

result. Same as stabbing yourself with an ice pick, only slower.

Want a real cure? Exercise for free. No chemical, no magic-bullet drug, can

reverse your lifestyle choices involving food and physical exercise. If you want

to race for health, then race to get the cardiovascular benefits from it. You

can just walk around

for a couple of miles yourself. The benefits you receive will be worth

hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthy chemicals circulating through your

bloodstream -- chemicals that your own body created, free of charge.

Forget about the cure for cancer, the mystical cure for diabetes, or the cure

for heart disease. There are no such cures from organized medicine, folks. The

system is a sham. There is only prevention, only the reversal of disease through

nutrition, physical exercise, avoidance of chronic stress, avoidance of

environmental toxins, and participation in healing therapies, such as

vibrational nutrition, healing touch, nutritional supplements, acupuncture,

chiropractic care, and superfoods. The way to " cure " these diseases is to

prevent them. And if you already have such a " disease, " the way to cure them is

to stop treating the symptoms of that disease and, instead, treat the whole

patient (you). When your whole body is healthy, and your blood chemistry is

healthy, and your immune system is operating at peak efficiency, you simply will

not express any symptoms of disease.

You want to help find the cure for cancer? Find it in your grocery shopping

habits, in your food choice, and in your own body. Help those around you gain

the knowledge to prevent these fictitious diseases, and do your part to stop

poisoning your body with cancer-causing foods (like processed meats and most

manufactured foods) and substances (like popular personal care products that

contain cancer-causing fragrance chemicals).

If you want to find the cure for cancer, just BE the cure for cancer.

Go outside and get some sunlight. That's prevention for at least three

different types of cancers right there. Drink some water. Take some herbs,

vitamins and immune-boosting nutritional supplements. Get into natural health,

and you won't have to experience these diseases in the first place.

Source: http://www.newstarget.com/009587.html

[Guest guest]

I don't know if you wrote it as general comment or as response to me, but

since I received also a private email

in response to the article critisizing " my critique " as if I personally

wrote the article, let me make my point clear: I sent it because of the

charities point. He brings examples, and he makes a good case about the

charities that take money NOT in order to cure. That's the strong point of

this article- the politics. I don't see why the need to take him so

seriously about cancer if it's clear that he didn't go into the subject of

cancer in full depth but only hardly scrapped the surface and put forward

with his own personal philosophy.

I wrote a work on cancer in early times from the papyrus period through the

history, including avenzoar, e pallopio, fernel, Rhazes and

more, including Hildegard von Bergen, so this is not new to me.

and I wrote a book on electromagnetic pollution (mainly cellular technology)

and the link to

cancer so I am the last to tell you that it is all about " blame the victim "

mantra, I recognize

the serious corporate part in cancer.

It doesn't say that this nathuropath didn't help people who have cancer- I

don't know him,

I don't know people who went to him, but I think that it's not a bad idea to

refer/ to write the person himself-

the one who wrote it- what people think of his idea on cancer.

Iris.

[ ] The Cure Con

>

> http://www.newstarget.com/z009587.html

>

> NewsTarget.com printable article

> Wednesday, August 24, 2005 [Excerpts from previous post]

> The Cure Con: .....Researchers have been searching for a cure for cancer

since the late 1960s, and for other diseases since at least the 1970s. At

that time, they said cures were right around the corner; it was just a

matter of a few more dollars; then they would have the cures available.

Well, here we are, 30 or 40 years later, with still no cures.

>

> ....For most chronic diseases, there are no cures. Why? Because the

diseases themselves are fictitious. Cancer is not a disease. I'll be

covering this in more detail in my book " The Illusion of Disease, " which

will be published later this year, but in brief, cancer is just a name given

to a pattern of symptoms appearing as a natural result of certain metabolic

functions caused by lifestyle decisions. It is not a disease any more than

skid marks are a disease in the Town of Allopath. Cancer can't be cured with

chemicals. It's no germ.

>

> Similarly, diabetes is just a name given to a metabolic result caused by

certain lifestyle choices. There are no pathogens that cause diabetes. You

can't put something under a microscope and say, " Aha! This is what caused

diabetes, " because type-2 diabetes is actually just a cause-and-effect

result that follows a lifetime of consumption of refined sugars, coupled

with lack of exercise. That's no disease, that's just a result.

>

> Think of it this way: if I told you to go run up a hill, you'd get to the

top of that hill and you'd be breathing hard. Your face might be flushed.

Your respiration would be rapid. Your heart rate would be high. It wouldn't

be too difficult for me to find a doctor that might diagnose these symptoms

as a " disease. " We could even give it a name: Hyper-Respiratory Illness or

HRI. And then we could easily get a drug company to come up with a drug to

mask the symptoms of HRI -- a chemical that would forcibly slow your heart

and slow your breathing.

>

> That drug company could claim to be doing " research " for HRI, and they

could even sponsor a fundraising run to " find the cure for Hyper-Respiratory

Illness. " But none of this makes HRI a real disease. It isn't a disease,

it's a result. It's the result of running up a hill.

>

> Diabetes is much the same. It's just a metabolic result. There's no

disease,no infection, no virus or bacteria. There's just a result, caused by

years of incorrect food choice and lack of physical exercise. So, you see,

any race to find a " cure " for diabetes is about as silly as trying to find a

cure for breathing hard after running up a hill.

>

> No wonder we haven't found cures for these diseases, even after 30 or 40

years of research and billions of dollars from people giving up their money

to fund these research efforts. These diseases aren't technically diseases

at all.

>

> You can't reverse the laws of biochemistry.

> You can suck the fat out of a patient with liposuction, but it doesn't

make her fit. You can pump a diabetic full of insulin, but it doesn't make

his insulin metabolism any punchier. You can scrape the plaque off the

artery walls of a heart disease patient, but it doesn't make his heart any

healthier. You can insert, remove, inject, irradiate and chemically assault

patients until they vomit and their hair falls out. But you're still not

treating any real disease. You see, western medicine can mask symptoms all

day long, but it doesn't alter the fundamental disease processes taking

place in a body that's engaged in a pattern of health destruction.

>

> You ever wonder why a liver transplant almost always results in the

patient destroying the new, healthy liver within two years? The answer is

because " liver disease " is fictitious. It's not the liver that's the

problem, it's the toxic lifestyle of the patient. The foods, drugs and

chemicals they are consuming would destroy ANY liver, no matter how many new

ones you surgically implant into their bodies.

>

> Liver failure isn't caused by the liver. Kidney failure isn't caused by

the kidney. Pancreatic cancer isn't caused by the pancreas. These are all

systemic failures that would be much better treated with Traditional Chinese

Medicine (TCM) or some other holistic modality that looks at the whole

patient, not just isolated organs. Western medicine consistently makes the

mistake of thinking the human body is nothing but an assembly of isolated

parts.

>

> Drugs are simply not the answer to system-wide health problems. Last time

I checked, cancer wasn't caused by a lack of chemotherapy. Depression wasn't

caused by a lack of antidepressant drugs. Heart disease wasn't caused by a

lack of cholesterol drugs. So why do people think these chemicals are the

solutions to these diseases?

>

> Drug researchers even use the word " vaccine " to describe some of their

> research efforts. They claim to be working on a vaccine for cancer, and

yet there's no microbe that causes cancer in the first place. So what is the

patient being vaccinated against?

>

> The real disease out there, by the way, is the disease of distorted

language used by the medical community to convince people that metabolic

results are " diseases. " If you stabbed your leg with an ice pick, you'd

probably bleed. That's a metabolic result that follows your actions. It's no

disease, it's just a result. Same thing with obesity, diabetes, cancer,

heart disease, osteoporosis, and many other so-called diseases. A person who

drinks a 12-pack of cola every day, while avoiding all exercise, is going to

end up obese and diabetic. That doesn't make obesity a disease, it just

makes it a

> result. Same as stabbing yourself with an ice pick, only slower.

>

> Want a real cure? Exercise for free. No chemical, no magic-bullet drug,

can reverse your lifestyle choices involving food and physical exercise. If

you want to race for health, then race to get the cardiovascular benefits

from it. You can just walk around

> for a couple of miles yourself. The benefits you receive will be worth

> hundreds of thousands of dollars in healthy chemicals circulating through

your bloodstream -- chemicals that your own body created, free of charge.

>

> Forget about the cure for cancer, the mystical cure for diabetes, or the

cure for heart disease. There are no such cures from organized medicine,

folks. The system is a sham. There is only prevention, only the reversal of

disease through nutrition, physical exercise, avoidance of chronic stress,

avoidance of environmental toxins, and participation in healing therapies,

such as vibrational nutrition, healing touch, nutritional supplements,

acupuncture, chiropractic care, and superfoods. The way to " cure " these

diseases is to prevent them. And if you already have such a " disease, " the

way to cure them is to stop treating the symptoms of that disease and,

instead, treat the whole patient (you). When your whole body is healthy, and

your blood chemistry is healthy, and your immune system is operating at peak

efficiency, you simply will not express any symptoms of disease.

>

>

> You want to help find the cure for cancer? Find it in your grocery

shopping habits, in your food choice, and in your own body. Help those

around you gain the knowledge to prevent these fictitious diseases, and do

your part to stop poisoning your body with cancer-causing foods (like

processed meats and most manufactured foods) and substances (like popular

personal care products that contain cancer-causing fragrance chemicals).

>

> If you want to find the cure for cancer, just BE the cure for cancer.

> Go outside and get some sunlight. That's prevention for at least three

> different types of cancers right there. Drink some water. Take some herbs,

vitamins and immune-boosting nutritional supplements. Get into natural

health, and you won't have to experience these diseases in the first place.

>

>

> Source: http://www.newstarget.com/009587.html

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bruce, I'm surprised by your strong reaction to the article that Iris

posted and especially that anyone would send her a critical private

email, which, by the way, is against the rules of this group.

Bruce, you state in your message that lifestyle IS a MAJOR player in

cancer and other diseases mentioned in the piece. There is plenty of

research to support that. The author of the article is trying to

educate people to that fact, not " blame the victim. " The more each of

us takes responsibility for our diet and lifestyle choices, the

better. It's true that some cancers are the result of viruses or

toxins over which we have little control, but the author of " The Cure

Con, " makes a good point that for the most part, cancer, heart

disease, diabetes and other conditions can be prevented or reversed

by diet and lifestyle change.

When charities ignore that truth and emphasize giving billions of

dollars to pharmaceutical companies, they ARE conning and confusing

people. When the government and the AMA shut down doctors who heal

patients by alternative means, they ARE practising and promoting " The

Cure Con. " They don't want the general public to know the natural

ways to avoid and reverse these diseases and purposely suppress the

truth. If, on the other hand, charities and the government supported

healthy lifestyle choices and ran TV ads educating people so that it

became common knowledge that there is a strong link between diet,

lifestyle and deadly diseases, I believe it would make a very big

difference in the choices people make. I once read that in Sweden, the

government wouldn't allow Kentucky Fried Chicken into their country

because the product was so unhealthy. I recall reading that the French

people rose up in protest when American chocolate companies with their

products filled with wax, preservatives and unhealthy fats wanted

to sell in France where there are laws about using only natural

ingredients in the chocolate. Most Americans have no idea about the

dangers of the chemicals, additives, and cancer-causing pesticides

they are getting with the foods they buy. In the meantime, rates of

cancer and other deadly diseases keep rising.

Major changes occurred when " Mothers Against Drunk Driving " started a

grassroots educational campaign that eventually changed laws and the

thinking of a nation. The same happened when a grassroots effort began

against smoking, as well as second hand smoke. Charities and the

government could change the thinking of this nation if they wanted to

and save thousands of lives each year, instead they support the

pharmaceutical industry and the AMA. That is a major and deadly " con "

against the American people and should be talked about and written

about as much as possible.

I found " The Cure Con " article very interesting and in line with a

great deal of research. Thanks, Iris, for posting it.

Iris Atzmon wrote:

> I don't know if you wrote it as general comment or as response to

me, but since I received also a private email in response to the

article critisizing " my critique " as if I personally wrote the

article...

....I am the last to tell you that it is all about " blame the victim "

> mantra...

> It doesn't say that this nathuropath didn't help people who have

cancer- I don't know him, I don't know people who went to him, but I

think that it's not a bad idea to refer/ to write the person himself-

> the one who wrote it- what people think of his idea on cancer.

> RE: [ ] The Cure Con

>

> >The only thing he will cure you of is the money required to own

his book.

> >Cancer has been recorded as far back in history as pre-egyptian

> Israelites. Hildegard von Bergen was not curing fictitious diseases

in 1100 AD created for the benefit of a corporate profit scheme. Get

real.

> > Lifestyle is a major player, but it is not the sole cause, nor is

> corporate greed the sole cause of cure searching.

[Guest guest]

Iris:

Thanks for this article. It's very interesting and right in line with

what I believe regarding the state of our collective un-health.

With 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women in the US developing cancer in their

lifetimes we've reached epidemic proportions. This is despite the

massive spending and the " war " that was declared against cancer by

Nixon in 1971. This is a catastrophic failure. The economic

implications of cleaning up our society are staggering to consider

whereas continuing along the path we are on clearly benefits

industry. The percentages of benefit that many of the charities pass

along to the patients was unbelievably low and supports the main

thrust of the article.

Toxins, while profilerating to almost unimaginable levels now, are

not strictly a modern phenomenon. Several come to mind that people

exposed themselves to in the past. One is mercury and the other lead.

Wealthy people in Rome drank from lead cups and created many health

problems as a result. Mercury has been used in dental amalgams since

the mid-nineteenth century and it was used as an oral purgative

called calomel. Also, stress and things like overeating have always

been part of the human condition and could have contributed to

incidences of cancer in the past. The difference is the cancer rates.

" Iris Atzmon " wrote:

> http://www.newstarget.com/z009587.html

> NewsTarget.com printable article

> Wednesday, August 24, 2005

> The Cure Con: how you're being deceived by charities that claim to

be racing for the cure for cancer and other chronic diseases

> Everywhere you go, someone asks you for money to help find the cure

for some disease. It's the race for the cure! It's the telethon for

the cure! It's the walk or run for a cure! At grocery stores,

cashiers ask if you want to donate a dollar to help find the cure.

Other retailers want to sell you fashion-minded colored bracelets

that raise money to find the cure. There's always someone who wants

your money in exchange for the hope that your dollar will somehow

help them " find a cure " for some awful disease.

> I have a very big question to ask about all of this. This has

literally been going on for decades. Researchers have been searching

for a cure for cancer since the late 1960s, and for other diseases

since at least the 1970s. At that time, they said cures were right

around the corner; it was just a matter of a few more dollars; then

they would have the cures available. Well, here we are, 30 or 40

years later, with still no cures. We've been running this race for

decades, funding it with literally billions of dollars. If all this

money has gone to the race to find cures for these diseases, then

where are the cures?

>

> You've been lied to

> I have shocking news for all those who have been running in circles

to help find a cure: you've been conned. For most chronic diseases,

there are no cures. Why? Because the diseases themselves are

fictitious. Cancer is not a disease. I'll be covering this in more

detail in my book " The Illusion of Disease, " which will be published

later this year, but in brief, cancer is just a name given to a

pattern of symptoms appearing as a natural result of certain

metabolic functions caused by lifestyle decisions. It is not a

disease any more than skid marks are a disease in the Town of

Allopath. Cancer can't be cured with chemicals. It's no germ.

> Similarly, diabetes is just a name given to a metabolic result

caused by certain lifestyle choices. There are no pathogens that

cause diabetes. You can't put something under a microscope and

say, " Aha! This is what caused diabetes, " because type-2 diabetes is

actually just a cause-and-effect result that follows a lifetime of

consumption of refined sugars, coupled with lack of exercise. That's

no disease, that's just a result. ...............<snip>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree that most charities are only charitable to those running them. Have

no problem with that. ly the only charity I give to is Salvation Army

because they return over 90% of what is donated to their work. I know of no

one who gives more back than them and in the general sense of the word helps

people more that are in need.

I personally take things serious about how people address " cures " for

cancer. I am working with some terminal people that have many

issues primarily based upon believing in someone's ability to " cure " . They

suffer from not only the throws of modern medical practice but also from

those promising great miracles from naturopathic treatments and provide

every bit as much of a con, just from a different point of view. Every day

I get emails and phone calls from people looking for the " magic bullet " and

every day I respond to those people the same way, " IT DOES NOT EXIST! YOU

CAN QUITE POSSIBLY PUT IT IN REMISSION AND KEEP IT THERE, BUT YOU CAN'T

CLAIM A CURE. " They have been led to believe that getting rid of cancer is

not all that hard. They have been led to believe that whatever they take

will always work. That is just not true. Nothing works all the time for

everyone for a myriad of reasons.

I also have no problem with corporate greed in medicine today as far as

acknowledging that it exists. It is one of the primary driving forces. I

cannot and will not lay the blame at corporate doorsteps for all the ills of

modern medicine. That is neither fair nor accurate either. Many, many well

intentioned people are working to try and stop disease. That does not mean

they are all greedy. Nor does that mean they are correct in what they do.

Natural treatments are what big pharma sprung from. Unfortunately for us,

the money is made by synthesizing compounds. The terrible expense for this

is not dollars, but thousands of people's lives. Therein is the tragedy. I

do not believe that there is a " cure " hiding in a box of papers in someone's

safety deposit box just waiting for the moment when untold profits can be

made.

The way you wrote your review sounded very wrong for what you were driving

at. If that is the case, then I apologize. It was not meant as an attack

upon you, but the slant given certainly left me with a very mislead opinion.

Bruce Guilmette

From: Iris Atzmon

Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005

Subject: Re: [ ] The Cure Con

I don't know if you wrote it as general comment or as response to me, but

since I received also a private email

in response to the article critisizing " my critique " as if I personally

wrote the article, let me make my point clear: I sent it because of the

charities point. He brings examples, and he makes a good case about the

charities that take money NOT in order to cure. That's the strong point of

this article- the politics. I don't see why the need to take him so

seriously about cancer if it's clear that he didn't go into the subject of

cancer in full depth but only hardly scrapped the surface and put forward

with his own personal philosophy.

I wrote a work on cancer in early times from the papyrus period through the

history, including avenzoar, e pallopio, fernel, Rhazes and

more, including Hildegard von Bergen, so this is not new to me.

and I wrote a book on electromagnetic pollution (mainly cellular technology)

and the link to

cancer so I am the last to tell you that it is all about " blame the victim "

mantra, I recognize

the serious corporate part in cancer.

It doesn't say that this nathuropath didn't help people who have cancer- I

don't know him,

I don't know people who went to him, but I think that it's not a bad idea to

refer/ to write the person himself-

the one who wrote it- what people think of his idea on cancer.

Iris.

----- Original Message -----

From: " Bruce Guilmette

Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005

> The only thing he will cure you of is the money required to own his book.

> Cancer has been recorded as far back in history as pre-egyptian

Israelites. Hildegard von Bergen was not curing fictitious diseases in 1100

AD created for the benefit of a corporate profit scheme. Get real.

>Lifestyle is a major player, but it is not the sole cause, nor is

corporate greed the sole cause of cure searching.