# data[].attributes.headline
Post # 10 - Critical Thinking Step By Step Process.

# data[].attributes.subject
Post # 10 - Critical Thinking Step By Step Process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Critical Thinking Step-by-Step Process  Assignment 1 Sample (Exemplar)

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #9 - Reasons for Belief - Emotional Connection

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #9 - Reasons for Belief - Emotional Connection

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Emotional connection can fog your judgement making you vulnerable to believing things you might not always believe.

Connection: This is a video of the famous Theresa Caputo reading a women who lost her friend. The emotional connection between the women and her friend Andrew helps the women believe that Theresa is more accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theresa Caputo doing a reading | Long Island Medium

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #8 - Reasons for Belief - The Unexplained

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #8 - Reasons for Belief - The Unexplained

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Just because something can't  be explained yet, does not mean it won't be able to.  To me, it almost makes people believe MORE.

Connection: This is a fun website of some unexplained mysteries that have happened over the world. Are they aliens? Ghosts? Are there creatures that don't exist?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unexplained Mysteries - Paranormal Phenomena and the World's Greatest Unexplained Mysteries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A to Z of the unexplained, paranormal phenomena, discussion forum, sightings database, search engine and all the latest news on everything unexplained.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #7 - Reasons for Belief - Patternicity 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #7 - Reasons for Belief - Patternicity 

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: Patternicity is seeing patterns in pictures, or objects distorting your mind to thinking it looks like something else.
An example would be seeing a face in a rock.

Connection: Here is a great example of patternicity.
Can you see the duck? Can you see the rabbit?

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #6- Red Flags - Suppressed by Authority

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #6- Red Flags - Suppressed by Authority

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The Red Flag "Suppressed by Authority are statements based on conspiracy and one's own "theories". Things like the cure for cancer exists, but they make more money off treatments so the government hides it.

Connection: This website shows a great example of how people believe the cure for cancer IS out there, but instead the media says there isn't.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many people think that cancer is caused by DNA damage and that not even nature can cure cancer. Both of these assumptions are pure nonsense. Most likely everything you know about cancer was intentionally designed to deceive you so that cancer patients will choose the wrong cancer treatments.

Why would someone spread false information about cancer? That is what this article is about.

Let us start with a three-question test:

What causes a cell to be cancerous?

What is the 5-year "cure rate" of orthodox medicine, meaning what percent of their cancer patients are alive five years after diagnosis?

What is the 5-year "cure rate" of several of the best-known natural cancer treatment experts?

Most people think that cancer is caused by DNA damage and that orthodox medicine is frantically searching for a cure for cancer.

There are two problems with these beliefs. Both beliefs are complete nonsense and come from the propaganda and deceptions of television.

Cancer is not caused by DNA damage. The definition of a cancer cell is a cell with low ATP energy (i.e. a low level of adenosine triphosphate). It is difficult to imagine a cell biologist who is so stupid they think that DNA damage can cause low levels of ATP energy. Only a very, very small fraction of DNA has anything to do with the creation of ATP energy.

Yet the media glorifies all of the "cancer researchers" who are diligently trying to "fix" the DNA damage of cancer cells. It is all a scam to make sure that cures for cancer are never found.

The truth is that there are many people who know how to cure cancer. They just don't work for the pharmaceutical industry and you don't hear about them in the media and they don't win Nobel Prizes.

The low ATP level is actually caused by microbes which are inside the cancer cells, generally Helicobacter Pylori. This is an amazing microbe which can have 16 different sizes and shapes and sizes depending on the pH it is exposed to.

This microbe intercepts glucose as it enters the cancer cells and thus reduces the amount of glucose available to be converted into pyruvate. With less pyruvate, the cell will create less ATP energy (of course I am skipping many steps in this process). For a more detailed discussion read What Causes Cancer.

The ICRF has developed more than 20 cancer treatments which revert the cancer cells into normal cells. How do they revert cancer cells into normal cells? They safely target and kill the microbes inside the cancer cells.

Killing cancer cells is "old school" but there is nothing wrong with things that can safely target and kill cancer cells (such as purple grape juice), but the new approach is to kill the microbes inside the cancer cells. This was first done in the 1930s but that technology was persecuted and shut down by the FDA and AMA. It has been restored, however, by the High RF Frequency Devices (which are not their real name, which we cannot use on this website due to the FDA).

About cure rates

You probably think that orthodox medicine (e.g. the pharmaceutical industry, oncologists, the American Medical Association or AMA, etc.) has a 5-year cure rate for cancer patients of more than 50 percent. A "5-year cure rate" would mean, by definition, that 50 percent or more of their cancer patients are still alive five years after being diagnosed with cancer.

You probably think that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not only doing its best to find cures for cancer but are shutting down "quacks" who are pretending to cure cancer but in fact do not know how to cure cancer.

You probably think that the media is constantly looking for who has the best cure rates for cancer so the media's investigative journalists can keep the general public apprised of who has the most effective cancer treatments.

And so on.

Are your assumptions correct? NO.

Cure rates are not an academic issue because you, the reader, may get cancer some day or you may know someone who gets cancer, such as a spouse or relative. Your very life, or the life of a friend of loved-one, may be on the line as you decide who is telling the truth about cancer research.

Choosing a cancer treatment is literally a life-and-death decision. The "cure rates" for different cancer treatments can range from 3 to 95 percent for the same type of cancer. So who is telling the truth and who is lying? And if they are lying, why are they lying?

So let's talk about cure rates.

First, what is the overall 5-year cure rate of the oncology profession according to their own statistics?

Second, what was the cure rate of a South African immigrant who used nothing but purple grape juice to treat cancer?

Before reading on, take a guess at the answers to both of these questions and write your answers down to see how you did.

According to Dr. Jonathon Stegall, the answer to the first question is this:

"A 2004 study in the journal Clinical Oncology evaluated the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival rates among adult cancer patients. In other words, the goal of the study was to look at how significant chemotherapy's role was in successful treatment outcomes (defined by oncologists as 5-year survival). In order to arrive at a meaningful conclusion, data from many previous studies was pooled and analyzed. The 22 most common cancer types were included in the study.

"The results were surprising. The overall contribution of chemotherapy to five-year survival in American adults was 2.1 percent. This means that approximately 98 percent of the credit for survival was attributed to all other treatments, such as surgery, radiation, nutrition, etc.

"It is important to note that this study is often misquoted. You have probably heard this statistic quoted in a way which suggests that those receiving chemotherapy only have a 2.1 percent 5-year survival rate.

"In reality, the average five-year survival rate for cancer is 69 percent. This includes all stages of cancer and makes no distinction between who received which treatments. However, given the most commonly used treatments in oncology today, it is safe to assume that many of these surviving patients received chemotherapy.

"At this point, it is important to discuss what 5-year survival means. In the oncology world, 5-year survival measures the percentage of patients who are still alive five years from the date of diagnosis. It does not mean that they are cancer-free, and it does not mean that they are completely healthy. Instead, it simply means that they have not died from cancer (or any other cause) in the five years since diagnosis.

"Survival rates can be further broken down. For example, cancer-specific survival looks at the percentage of patients with a particular type of cancer and can be further broken down to look at survival rates for each stage of cancer. Using the 5-year survival statistic with respect to breast cancer, we see that Stage 0 or Stage I breast cancer has a 5-year survival rate of nearly 100 percent.

"For Stage II breast cancer, the five-year survival rate is 93 percent, while for Stage III breast cancer, the 5-year survival rate is 72 percent.

"Stage IV breast cancer has a 5-year survival rate of approximately 22 percent. Thus, when we look at survival rates for cancer, it is important to be as specific as possible with regard to cancer type and cancer stage since some cancers have very poor survival rates while others have very good ones.

"I always tell my patients that it is important to look at survival statistics on the population level in order to know what we are dealing with, but it is equally important to realize that those statistics do not necessarily apply to them. Many factors contribute to treatment outcomes, and many of those are directly in the patient's control."

As if the battle against cancer weren't bad enough, some chemical companies seem dedicated to making you sick so that you will need prescription drugs. For example, Monsanto loves to put chemicals in your foods and loves for you to eat GMO foods. Because the average person has been brainwashed by the media, they think that nature can do nothing to help cancer.

The answer to the second question is this: Johanna Brandt's cure rate was 100 percent.

Johanna Brandt did not need to know how to cure cancer, Nature had to know how to cure cancer. And Nature had put at least 12 chemicals in purple grape juice that can kill cancer cells.

The best way to survive cancer is to figure out what Nature has already done.

Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments

Another natural medicine cancer researcher was Dr. William D. Kelley, a dentist turned natural medicine cancer researcher. He worked with more than 30,000 cancer patients using his protocol.

Dr. Kelley had a cure rate of 93 percent on his newly diagnosed cancer patients who had not had chemotherapy, radiation or surgery.

Dr. Kelley was thrown in jail and later went to Mexico to treat cancer patients.

Why did he go to jail? Because he used products to treat cancer which cannot be patented. Thus, the pharmaceutical industry and medical community had no interest in his treatments because they cannot make huge profits from treatments that cannot be patented.

So they had him thrown in jail. They did not care that he had a 93 percent cure rate, his treatments were not profitable enough to satisfy their greed.

Dr. Kelly used cancer treatments designed by Nature, such as natural enzymes. These enzymes made the cancer cells visible to the immune system and the immune system cured cancer. The enzymes were natural and could not be patented.

In other words, Dr. Kelly was not a medical doctor and he used natural medicine to achieve his 93 percent cure rate. Using Nature is an unforgivable sin according to the AMA and the media. His cure rate was irrelevant. Dr. Kelley died on January 30, 2005, at the age of 79.

His treatment is not a mystery, just buy his book on Amazon - Cancer: Curing the Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or Radiation - or the original book One Answer To Cancer
Note: The Kelley Protocol is no longer one of the major cancer treatments in natural medicine, due to newer technologies, though it is frequently added to the newer and more powerful protocol.
So let's talk about today.

Today, the instant someone hears the term "natural medicine" they immediately run out the door as fast as they can run. But they are running away from the only highly effective cancer treatments. Nature is a lot smarter than any chemist.

Many people have cured their newly diagnosed cancer by using a very healthy diet and drinking a quart of carrot juice (with a little beet juice mixed in) every day. That is all they did.

In fact, if all cancer patients did that instead of using chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, the "cure rate" for cancer in America would jump dramatically.

But who would make huge profits telling cancer patients to drink a quart of carrot juice, mixed with a little beet juice, every day, and eat a healthy diet? Certainly not the medical community and certainly not the pharmaceutical industry and media. Carrot juice and beet juice cannot be patented. Nor can a healthy diet be patented.

The general public is so brainwashed they think Nature is too stupid to be a medical doctor. Yet scientists only understand about 3 percent of human DNA after studying it since 1953. This means scientists still don't have a clue what 97 percent of all human DNA does.

There are many other examples of natural cancer researchers who also had very high cure rates.

Dr. Philip Binzel had an 81 percent cure rate using liquid laetrile from apricot seeds. He got liquid laetrile from Mexico. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tried to block the import of liquid laetrile into the United States. Fortunately, Dr. Binzel's son was an attorney and the FDA was defeated in court.

Dr. Royal Rife, a microbiologist, had a 100 percent cure rate using electromedicine to kill microbes inside the cancer cells. The American Medical Association (AMA) tried to buy him out. Rife refused so the FDA shut him down and destroyed his lab and inventory.

And there are many others. In fact, the best cancer researchers ever are all alive today. We have had to develop very advanced cancer protocols because many of the patients we work with are very sick due to their starting their cancer treatment with orthodox cancer treatments.

All of the above natural technologies are currently used. The "Rife Machine" is now called a High RF Frequency Generator-Contact (15 watts) or High RF Frequency Generator-Plasma (207 watts).

Well, that is not their real names. We are not allowed by the vendor to mention their real names. I will bet by now you can figure out why the vendor does not want us to use the real names of these devices. He is afraid of the FDA.

Natural medicine cancer researchers today use many of the above protocols, but newer products and newer combinations of products have made some of the above protocols obsolete if used by themselves.

A powerful combination of natural cancer treatments and electromedicine are needed by cancer patients.

That is why the experts put together protocols with names like Cellect-Budwig, Dirt Cheap Protocol, High RF Frequency Protocol, Cesium Chloride, etc.

What the media doesn't tell you about cancer

The media has conditioned the American people to believe that cancer is caused by DNA damage and that not even Nature can figure out how to cure cancer.

But surprisingly, DNA damage has absolutely nothing to do with causing cancer. But even if it did - so what? If you safely target and kill the cancer cells, what difference would it make that the cancer cells have DNA damage?

A Nobel Prize was awarded in 1930/31 for the discovery that low ATP energy was the definition of a cancer cell.

But it was a natural medicine cancer researcher (who obviously did not win a Nobel Prize) who discovered that the low ATP energy was caused by microbes inside the cancer cells which intercept glucose before it can be converted into pyruvate and then, via two chemical cycles, into ATP.

By killing these microbes, cancer cells can be reverted into normal cells. We now know it is not even necessary to kill cancer cells, they can be reverted into normal cells. The ICRF (Independent Cancer Research Foundation, Inc. - natural medicine researchers) has developed more than 25 treatments that revert cancer cells into normal cells.

The DNA damage in cancer cells has absolutely nothing to do with causing cancer. The DNA damage is caused by the same thing that causes cancer - the microbes inside the cancer cells.

There are many cures for cancer. But these cures do not come from the pharmaceutical industry. The multi-billionaires/trillionaires who own the pharmaceutical industry have zero interest in the "little people" surviving their cancer.

The politicians, of course, side with the trillionaires because they are the ones who own the media and thus they are the ones who own the minds of the American people. You cannot get elected to the White House without selling out to the super-rich.

Cures for cancer must come from cancer researchers who have integrity and do not work for the pharmaceutical industry or Food and Drug Administration (Congress has given the FDA to the pharmaceutical industry as a gift to crush anyone who can cure a highly profitable disease) or any of the large cancer charities (which are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry).

The American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen For The Cure have no interest in curing cancer. They are collecting money. In fact, the American Cancer Society was really founded by John D. Rockefeller Jr. - son of the founder of the pharmaceutical industry.

No wonder the ACS has never found a cure for cancer. They have never been looking for a cure for cancer and they never will. If the ACS hired one of the ICRF researchers they would have over 25 cures for cancer within one week. But that will never happen.

The problem with curing cancer has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and information. People are told there are no cures for cancer, over and over, so they naturally believe it.

But it is a lie.

Actually, curing cancer is easy and many people know how to cure cancer.

The battle against cancer has nothing to do with cancer and everything to do with the manipulation of information by the super-rich.

The media uses a very sophisticated brainwashing tactic that has been around for many decades. Study this brilliant quote:

"No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance." - Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives by Alan Bullock

By using the constant repetition of seeing "medical doctors" on television, people are conditioned (the "uniform pattern of public utterance") to believe that anyone who is not a "medical doctor" must be a quack (the "jarring dissonance").

Thus, people run to their medical doctor when they get cancer. The media has done their job well.

Almost every time you turn on your television set you see a medical doctor being glorified. Why? So that when people are diagnosed with cancer, by a medical doctor, they will immediately want to know which medical doctors treat cancer.

This process has been going on for many years, long before you were born or television was invented. The Big Cartel of the media, the pharmaceutical industry, the politicians, the medical industry, etc. don't want people to know that cancer can be cured.

The secret cartels use the media to turn people into zombies. Thus, when a person is diagnosed with cancer they head for an oncologist like a robot.

Because there are many cures for cancer in Nature, the super rich, who own the pharmaceutical industry and the media, make sure that no human being in America or in any other country, knows or believes that there are, in fact, scores of ways to cure cancer using natural medicine, meaning medicine from Nature.

Safely targeting cancer cells and killing cancer cells, or safely reverting cancer cells into normal cells, is not even remotely on the agenda of Big Pharma or Big Medicine or Big Media or Big Corrupt Politicians or Big Charities. But suppressing these cures is one of their highest priorities.

So what is on the radar of Big Pharma, ad nauseum? Profits, and lots of them. Curing cancer patients is literally the last thing on their radar.

But natural medicine cancer researchers have been curing cancer for many decades.

For example, Dr. Royal Rife, a microbiologist, had a 100 percent cure rate on cancer by reverting cancer cells into normal cells. He did this in the 1930s by using gentle electrical currents (which is one form of "electromedicine") to kill the microbes which are inside the cancer cells.

It is microbes inside the cancer cells that are blocking the production of ATP energy. Killing these microbes is what allows cancer cells to be reverted into normal cells.

The American Medical Association (AMA) tried to "buy out Rife" so they could destroy his machines. Rife refused their "offer" so the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shut him down and destroyed all of his lab and his machines that had not already been sold.

You probably didn't know about Dr. Rife because the media has never told you about his 100 percent cure rate. The media has also not told you that his device has been replicated using modern technology and that you can buy these devices over the Internet.

But Dr. Rife is just the tip of the iceberg of things you don't know ...

The media iceberg

So why hasn't the media told you about Dr. Rife and Dr. Kelley and many others? Why haven't all of the media's high-powered "investigative journalists" told their viewers about Dr. Kelley? Do these "journalists" not know how to read or search the Internet? What are they looking for - lost cats? Maybe someone should tell them about Google.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the "investigative journalists" are not allowed to investigate the media because they work for the media? If the media is part of a cover-up, how are people going to find out? And who is going to believe there is a cover-up?

The media is like an iceberg. They tell you 10 percent of the truth and they bury they other 90 percent of the truth. You need a scuba tank to find the truth. The media tells you what they want you to hear, not what you need to hear.

Consider the words to this well-known song:

And when you trust your television
What you get is what you got
Cause when they own the information
Oh, they can bend it all they want

- Waiting on the World to Change by John Mayer

When someone comes along and tells something truthful about what is beneath the water, you won't believe it. In fact, if you have read this far on this web page, pat yourself on the back because you are a rare person.

Why hasn't the American Medical Association forced their members to use Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments? The AMA certainly knows about Dr. Kelly's treatments because they, along with the Food and Drug Administration, had Kelley thrown in jail because he was curing cancer, cutting into their profits and making them look bad.

Why hasn't the American Cancer Society and the Susan G. Komen Foundation, ad nausea, used their massive contributions and their clout in the media to tell the world about Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments?

In fact, there are only two cancer research organizations on this planet which teach about and research Dr. Rife's and Dr. Kelley's protocols: the Independent Cancer Research Foundation (which runs this website) and the American Anti-Cancer Institute in Washington state.

Obviously, both of these cancer research organizations are very, very small because the media never talks about them because they refuse to jump in bed with the pharmaceutical industry. Contributions to these cancer research organizations are measured in hundreds of dollars a month, not millions of dollars a month.

Why haven't the state medical boards forced the doctors in their states to use Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments?

Why don't the health insurance companies pay for the medical expenses of the cancer patients who use Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments? It would save their members billions of dollars a year.

Why hasn't Congress passed a law forcing all medical professionals to use the cancer treatments of Dr. Kelley?

Why hasn't the President of the United States ordered the Veteran's Administration hospitals to use Dr. Kelley's cancer treatments?

The reason is that everyone is looking for the most profitable cancer treatments, not the most effective cancer treatments. And the pharmaceutical industry has the most profitable cancer treatments. And everyone wants to be fed by Big Pharma.

Is there anybody on this planet who hasn't sold out to the pharmaceutical industry?

Those who have sold out to the pharmaceutical industry include the media (which may largely be owned by the owners of the pharmaceutical industry), the movie companies, Congress, the White House, the American Cancer Society, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the state medical boards, the American Medical Association, the health insurance companies, etc. etc. etc.

The health insurance companies are not allowed by the state insurance departments to write health insurance policies that pay the same percent for natural medicine cancer treatments as they allow to pay for orthodox cancer treatments. That is how deep the corruption and stupidity goes in the U.S.

High society clubs

The most important group in the above list is the media. They have the power to expose the corruption in medicine, politics, etc. But they don't because they also want a piece of the pie and they are owned by the multi-billionaires.

The media receives many millions of dollars every year from the drug companies in advertising revenue.

How are people going to hear that fact? Ponder that carefully.

Need I even tell you that the media doesn't make a dime to promote or talk about the cancer treatments that Dr. Kelley used? So the media doesn't talk about Dr. Kelley and his cancer treatments.

People trust the media, Congress, the FDA, the AMA, the ACS, Big Pharma, etc. etc. with their lives, but these organizations have betrayed the general public for the sake of great riches.

The truth is that the media and our politicians are gladly controlled by the owners of the pharmaceutical industry; who are multi-billionaires who couldn't care less about the health, well-being or lives of the "little people."

It seems like everyone on earth wants a piece of the multi-billionaire's pies. Except for people like the late Dr. Kelley.

Well, there is more to it than that. Both the media, the pharmaceutical industry, the major banks, etc. are owned by multi-billionaires (and in at least one case - multi-trillionaires) who are all buddy-buddy with each other. They all know each other. They even have their own very exclusive clubs (e.g. the Bilderbergers). They are totally loyal to each other, which is precisely why the media is loyal to Big Pharma but not the common people.

Now let's dig deeper into the tactics of the media to understand why the media is so successful at controlling the minds of the general public to the point that the general public won't believe the truth even when they hear it. Their tactics are highly sophisticated.

The answer will take some explanation.

Sophistication of the media

So why do people run to their medical doctor, instead of to the Internet or their local health food store, when they are first diagnosed with cancer? Think about that for a moment before reading on.

The media controls the minds of the American people by showing "medical doctors" on television every chance they get, as already mentioned. Whether you are watching a movie, a drama, a sitcom, a news program, a comedy or whatever, there will likely be a medical doctor on the show at one time or another. Think about the Star Trek movies, for example. Was there a medical doctor in those movies? Yes.

It is tit-for-tat. The pharmaceutical industry gives money to the media for advertising and the media gives patients to the medical community by glorifying medical doctors on television and movies.

Furthermore, the general public thinks that Dr. Kelley, who had the 93 percent cure rate, was a quack because he did not use pharmaceutical industry drugs and he was not a medical doctor. It doesn't take a medical degree to tell cancer patients to take purple grape juice, a quart of carrot juice (with a little beet juice mixed in) or some other equally effective natural cancer treatment.

My point is that people trust their television to tell them what to do when they get sick. When people get sick they run to their doctor's office because that is what television has conditioned them to do.

Christ described this level of brainwashing in Matt. 23:27 in two words: "whited sepulcher." The media paints the whitewash on the sepulcher (the general public only sees the whitewash) and thus the general public has no idea what is inside the sepulcher or that the sepulcher even exists. They can't see the bodies behind the television screen.

Running to their medical doctor in many cases is the right thing to do. But in other cases (i.e. in the case of nearly all diseases), it is the wrong thing to do. Your doctor has no clue how to cure cancer, AIDS, Alzheimers, Multiple Sclerosis, ALS, and many other diseases. But there are people who do know how to deal with all of these diseases using natural medicine.

What all of this means is that many, many people intentionally promote and glorify ineffective treatments for cancer in order to share in the massive wealth of the owners of the pharmaceutical industry.

But to be very fair, most of the people who preach chemotherapy and radiation have been fooled themselves and they don't know the truth.

The nurses, the newscasters, the politicians. etc., like everyone else, also get their information from the media and their doctors.

The American Medical Association (AMA) is really nothing but a labor union. The AMA jumped in bed with the new pharmaceutical industry in 1907 and agreed to use the treatments that were most profitable for them, without any regard to the survival of their patients.

This may sound harsh, but the evidence is overwhelming that that is exactly what happened. The AMA had been corrupt long before 1907 and John D. Rockefeller, Sr., who started the drug companies to make more money from his oil, was already known to be a ruthless businessman who had a fantastic public relations department which existed to make him look like a respectable citizen.

In fact, the father of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. advertised himself as a "cancer doctor." What did his father use to "cure cancer?" Raw crude oil which obviously did not cure cancer.

There is no "war on cancer." What there is is a bottomless pit of money into which many people put their hands to grab money.

Foundation for the Advancement of Cancer Therapy

The Foundation for the Advancement of Cancer Therapy is pointing to a quarter century of research that brings into question the decision cancer patients often make to undergo conventional treatments, including radiation [1] and chemotherapy, in hopes of prolonging life.

Drug company controlled news reports and popular thinking has led cancer patients to believe that decades of research have resulted in treatment practices that have improved cancer survival rates.

But, FACT points to work by credible cancer researchers that seem to fly in the face of this commonly held belief. The late Dr. Hardin B. Jones, professor of medical physics and physiology at Berkeley, Calif., conducted research spanning 25 years in the life of cancer patients that led him to conclude that untreated cancer patients [2] did not die sooner.

In fact, in many instances, they lived longer than those undergoing conventional cancer treatments, such as surgery, chemotherapy [3] and radiation.

Professor Jones first presented his shocking research results at the American Cancer Society's Science Writers' Seminar in 1969. His findings confirmed an earlier paper he wrote in 1955 that shed doubt that common forms of treatment truly extended patient life.

In his earlier paper, Dr. Jones illustrated how cancer study results were skewed to conclude that treated patients fared better. For example, patients who died while receiving treatment were not included in results, giving an unrealistically rosier picture of the survival rate of treated patients.

In his 1969 presentation, the professor pointed out that research continued to shift results in favor of treatment. For example, patients whose cancer was extremely advanced were routinely placed in the group not receiving treatment. This left more patients who were less seriously impacted in the treated group, resulting in a higher survival rate for that group.

Once this bias was statistically corrected, Dr. Jones found that survival rate among untreated patients was actually greater than among the patients undergoing treatment.

Dr. Jones was able to determine that survival among breast cancer [4] sufferers were four times longer when conventional treatment was refused. Such patients typically lived an average of 12 1/2 years, compared with those undergoing treatment who lived only three years on average, leading the cancer researcher to conclude that without a doubt, radical surgery did more harm to cancer patients than it did good.

Meanwhile, FACT points out, there has been no published work refuting the evidence presented by Dr. Jones. On the contrary, his conclusions have been supported by the work of other recognized researchers. Among them was Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Dr. Maurice Fox who published his paper in 1979 stating that radical mastectomy did not bring about better survival rates than simple lump removal.

He also wrote that patients opting out of medical procedures actually had a lower mortality rate than those who chose to undergo treatment. Further, patients who received early diagnoses died even sooner, likely due to duration and intensity of treatment.

Even those advocating conventional treatment as the best choice for cancer patients cannot dismiss the toll such procedures take on the body. Cancer patients opting to undergo such treatment plans must cope with greater pain and suffering, often to the point where it greatly impacts the quality of life.

Patients undergoing conventional treatment can expect to cope with an often horrific list of serious side effects, including cancer growth and death. For example, as a known cancer-causing agent, radiation can actually spread cancer and lead to deadly metastases. Left untreated, however, the original cancerous tumor can often slow cancer's spread.

Other common conditions that develop as a result of treatment include hemorrhage, tissue death, compromised immunity, liver failure [5], kidney dysfunction, blistering, prolonged vomiting, disorientation, anorexia, enteritis, and bone marrow depression, among other serious ills.

Bringing these researchers' conclusions to light leaves cancer patients with a more difficult decision-making process, but one that may offer renewed choices. As always, patients ought to consult with a trusted medical doctor and loved ones in formulating the decision of whether or not to undergo treatments like radiation or chemotherapy.

As with many decisions they face, cancer patients will need to review all information available to determine the best course of action. Choosing a path that includes conventional treatment should be done based on available scientifically-grounded evidence and personal preference, not out of pressure or fear that avoiding treatment will surely condemn the patient to a shorter life expectancy.

References:
http://www.rethinkingcancer.org/resources/magazine-articles/8_11-12/the-untreated-live-longer.php
http://www.naturalnews.com/012727_chemotherapy_cancer_treatments.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070409164224.htm
http://www.nj.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2014/07/rutgers_study_concludes_popular_prostate_cancer_treatment_largely_ineffective_in_elderly_patients.htm

See more at:
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/cancer_treatments/cancer-survival-rates-1124.html#sthash.BNH7GR69.dpuf

Learn about Liberty & Power, and finding liberty in today's world, especially in these most interesting times. Or here for something 'new'
http://excitingnewdirections.blogspot.com

Try this: http://libertypreservationcustercounty.wordpress.com/
"This fortress built by nature for herself..." Westcliffe...facing Coming Hard Times

Interested in freedom & Liberty?
http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-index.html

Links:
[1] http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vitamin_c/radiation_exposure.html
[2] http://www.naturalhealth365.com/cancer_treatments/natural_cure.html
[3] http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vitamin_c/kills_cancer_cells.html
[4] http://www.naturalhealth365.com/cancer_treatments/nbcam_events.html
[5] http://www.naturalhealth365.com/nutrition_news/ala_liver.html

The last link explains how an ALA (Alpha Lipoic Acid) I.V. can cure liver failure. Here is Dr. Berkson's website for more information:
Dr. Berkson's Website

Here is the protocol (subject to change):
300 mg of alpha-lipoic acid twice a day
300 mg of milk thistle or ' silymarin' twice a day
200 mcg of selenium twice a day

It also was recommended not to eat more than four (4) ounces of meat per day - and to consume some branched-chain amino acids each day.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and American Medical Association (AMA) have jointly or individually "legally" shut down many clinics of cancer researchers who knew how to cure cancer. They have also shut down vendors of products which were highly effective against cancer. They also scare other vendors who pretty-much have to go into hiding.

What if the FDA opened a cancer treatment center that used all of the natural cancer treatments they have shut down and some that are common knowledge which they did not shut down? What would the cure rate of this clinic be for newly diagnosed cancer patients?

The cure rate would be 100 percent.

Thus, both the FDA and AMA CANNOT CLAIM they do not know how to cure cancer. If they make such a claim they are lying, which is what they seem to do best.

Both the FDA and AMA KNOW how to cure cancer. They just choose not to cure cancer and they choose to sit by and do nothing (except persecute or murder people who know how to cure cancer) while hundreds of thousands of Americans die every year because they trusted the medical associations, pharmaceutical industry, media, Congress, corrupt charities, ad nauseum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why everything you know about cancer is wrong - Cancer Tutor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many people think that cancer is caused by DNA damage and that not even nature can cure cancer. Both of these assumptions are pure nonsense. Most likely everything you know about cancer was intentionally designed to deceive you so that cancer patients will choose the wrong cancer treatments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #5 - Red Flags - Appeal To Authority

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #5 - Red Flags - Appeal To Authority

# data[].attributes.body
Defintion: The Red Flag "Appeal to Authority"  uses important people like doctors, people in lab coats, and celebrities to make the product more appealing to consumers. If Kim Kardashian is using it... it must be good !

Connection: This picture shows a great example how the company Proactive used one of the biggest pop stars - Justin Bieber to endorse and sell their product having more teens buying it.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The Red Flag "All Natural" is a very popular and big red flag on the market. Just because something is "all natural" does NOT mean its safe!!

Connection: This website gives you a great insight on what red flags you can look for in your foods- just because something says "organic" doesn't always mean its better. A lot of these on the list you wouldn't even think of.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Story at-a-glance -

Many companies will use deceptive but legal loopholes to hide the unhealthy nature of the foods they want you to purchase.

Words like "pure" and "fat-free" may sound healthful, but due to lack of standard definitions and outright creative application of these words, they're oftentimes far from what you'd consider truthful.

Labels like "all-natural" and "organic" can also be sorely misleading. The first means virtually nothing when it comes to processed foods, and the only organic label worth paying attention to is the USDA Organic seal.

Nutritional facts can be off by up to 20 percent before breaking any regulations, and currently you have no way of knowing if a food contains genetically modified ingredients as labeling is not required.

The best way to avoid being misled is to limit or eliminate foods that require a listing of its ingredients in the first place, which leaves you with fresh (preferably organic) WHOLE foods.

By Dr. Mercola

Are the words written on food packaging honest?

Many corporations hire lawyers to carefully craft words that are just barely on the side of being legal. The Yahoo health site has collected eight common package proclamations that are red flags of "crafty" advertising.

These include:

Flavored Pure: Nectar: Fat free: Some cooking sprays are "fat free" only if they are sprayed for a fraction of a second to produce a microscopic "serving".While 'nectar' may sound particularly wholesome, it's really just a fancy name for "not completely juice." These "diluted juice beverages" may contain more high fructose corn syrup and other sweeteners than fruit puree."100 percent pure" products such as orange juice can be doctored with flavor packs for aroma and taste.: Both artificial and natural flavors are actually made in laboratories, and natural flavors are not necessarily healthier than artificial ones.

The Importance of Deciphering Food Labels

It's unfortunate, but reading food labels isn't as easy as you might think. In addition to determining what ingredients are in the food, you also need to have the foundational knowledge of how to decipher certain verbiage used to describe them. The words listed above are just a few of the words that can be used to mislead you.

Below, I'll review a few more label items that are often used in deceptive ways, or that may lead you to buy a product you'd otherwise avoid:

1. Vitamin and mineral claims

2. The "All Natural" label

3. The "Organic" label

4. Misleading nutritional facts

5. Dangerous ingredients not required to be listed on any food label

Beware of Vitamin and Mineral Claims

In an effort to optimize your diet, you may reach for so-called fortified foods; products that proclaim to be more healthful due to their vitamin or mineral content. Unfortunately, foods fortified with "extra" nutrients are nearly always processed, and the nutrients added are typically synthetic; neither of which will promote your health.

Likewise, most commercial vitamin supplements are synthetic vitamins that have been robbed of all of the co-factors and accessory micronutrients that they naturally associated with. In turn, just like refined foods, they can create numerous problems and imbalances in your body if taken for long periods of time. They can also act more like drugs in your body. At the very least, they won't be as beneficial as high quality food and whole food-based supplements are.

When it comes to foods fortified with minerals, matters can get even worse. Be particularly wary of foods fortified with iron, such as many breakfast cereals, as some of these have been shown to contain actual iron filings, which is not the ideal way to supplement your body with iron.

What Does the "All Natural" Label Really Mean?

When it comes to processed food bearing this label, it means virtually nothing... This is because there's no standard definition for the term "all natural" when used on processed foods, which leaves it wide open for creative interpretation. The term is only regulated on meat and poultry, for which an item labeled "natural" may not contain any:

Artificial flavors

Colors

Chemical preservatives

But in the processed food arena, a "natural" product can be virtually anything; it can be genetically modified, full of pesticides, made with corn syrup, additives, preservatives and artificial ingredients...

If You Want Organic, There's Only One Label that Can Assure it

Similar problems pester the organic label. There's really only one organic label out there that means anything as far as organic food is concerned, and that's the USDA Certified Organic label.

This seal, which is governed by the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP), is your BEST assurance of organic food quality. (As a side note, it's also the international gold standard for personal care products that contain organic agricultural ingredients, because the ingredients in USDA certified beauty products are certified organic for food, adhering to much stricter standards as they are intended specifically for human consumption.)

There are three "tiers" within the USDA organic label:

Products labeled "100% Organic" must contain only organically produced materials

Products labeled simply "Organic" must contain at least 95 percent organic ingredients

The label "Made with organic ingredients" can contain anywhere between 70 to 95 percent organic ingredients

Farmers and growers of organic produce bearing the USDA seal have to meet the strictest standards of any organic label. USDA certified organic livestock must have access to the outdoors and cannot be given antibiotics or growth hormones. And in order to qualify as an organic crop, it must be grown and processed using organic farming methods that recycle resources and promote biodiversity.

For example, crops must be grown without:

Synthetic pesticides

Bioengineered genes

Petroleum-based fertilizers

Sewage sludge-based fertilizers

Organic products also cannot be irradiated, are not allowed to contain preservatives or flavor enhancing chemicals, nor can they contain traces of heavy metals or other contaminants in excess of tolerances set by the FDA. The pesticide residue level cannot be higher than 5 percent of the maximum EPA pesticide tolerance. (For the complete National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under the USDA organic label, see this link.) So remember, if you see anything that says it's "organic," it must specify "USDA Certified Organic" to be meaningful.

What You Need to Know about Nutrition Labels

Other factors that can make labels less than helpful include the nutrition facts and the stated serving size.

It's important to understand that while the FDA does check food labels, they only check to see whether or not the Nutrition Facts panel is present. They rarely ever verify that the nutrition facts are true and accurate. Furthermore, the government allows foods to contain 20 percent more diet-damaging ingredients than the label lists before taking enforcement action. So while certainly a useful and important start, reading the Nutrition Facts panels on foods may not be as reliable an indicator of a food's nutrients as you may think.

The FDA also allows processed food manufacturers to use absurdly tiny serving sizes on their labels, which can lull you into a false sense of security when it comes to determining how much of each stated nutrient or toxin, like trans-fat, you're actually consuming. If the serving size is small enough then trans-fats can fall under the minimum requirement for labeling them, meaning they are left off the label entirely despite the fact they are present in the product. Needless to say, this tactic is intentionally employed, to make the product appear more healthful than it actually is

It is deceptive labeling tricks like these that can leave you eating things you would rather avoid.

Another example well worth mentioning here is the lack of any requirement to label genetically modified components in packaged foods, even though this is mandated law in the entire European Union. In the US, you simply will never know if GM foods are present in your processed food, but more than likely they are-especially if the product contains soy or corn, or any derivative thereof...

Fortunately, we now have a practical plan to end this disaster. By educating the public about the risks of GM foods through a massive education campaign, and launching a ballot initiative in California for 2012 that will require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients, the plan is to generate a tipping point of consumer rejection to make GMOs a thing of the past. To learn how you can be part of this important movement, please see The California Ballot Initiative: Taking Down Monsanto.

How to Choose High-Quality Foods for Yourself and Your Family

While reading labels on everything you buy is important, when it comes to food, you're far better off limiting or eliminating foods that require a listing of its ingredients in the first place. What are you left with? Fresh (preferably organic) WHOLE foods!

Remember, virtually ALL processed foods contain cheap, chemical-laden ingredients that will eventually take their toll on your health. By educating yourself on what 'healthy food' really is, and how not to be led astray by label claims that toe the line in terms of being truthful, you'll be well on your way toward a healthier you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are These Red Flag Words on Your Food's Nutrition Label?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many companies will use deceptive but legal loopholes to hide the unhealthy nature of the foods they want you to purchase. Words like "pure" and "fat-free" may sound healthful, but due to lack of standard definitions and outright creative application of these words, they're oftentimes far from what you'd consider truthful.

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The Red Flag called the Red Herring is a distraction attempt by mentioning something irrelevant to distract the person from the original problem. Over all, it's a distraction to divert your attention somewhere else.

Connection: This video is a great example of how a red herring can be used, of course with a little bit of humor- especially in political ways.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #2 - Red Flags - Celebrity Endorsements 

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #2 - Red Flags - Celebrity Endorsements 

# data[].attributes.body
Definition: The Red Flag Celebrity Endorsements uses celebrities to distract the consumers from any hazards of the actual product. People are so brainwashed by social media and celebrities that they think "if they use it, it must be good."

Connection: This video tells you how to debunk those "celebrity endorsements" and if they are actually even REAL or not.  The video shows Dr. Oz bringing in an internet security expert and gives you some pointers on how to tell the real from fake posts that circulate the internet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Celebrity endorsement scams are on the rise. Companies are taking images of celebrities and attaching their faces and names to certain products to increase sales. Most of the time, these ads are scams that are trying to get you to buy a product based on the celebrity that is endorsing it. You buy the product in good faith because you like the celebrity it is attached to, when in real life you just got scammed into buying a product that doesn't work or enrolling in a subscription service you didn't intend to pay for. Follow the two tips below from Internet security expert Christine Durst to make sure you don't fall victim to online scams.

1. Watch Out for News Sites

News and media sites do not publish promotional articles and sell products. So if you see a news site selling a product that is endorsed by a celebrity, double check the site. Look at the link to make sure it is actually the website you think it is and don't buy the product until you research it more thoroughly.

2. Look at the Advertisement

Take a good look at the advertisement to determine if it's real. Is the celebrity actually holding the product being endorsed? This is a huge red flag. In real celebrity ads, the photos and videos used have the celebrity holding the product and mentioning the product by name. In fake celebrity ads, the product is usually placed near the celebrity, indicating the picture has been edited for the scam.

Related:

How to Spot Fake News on Social Media Feeds

The Best of Oz Investigations

6 Ways You Can Curb Online Shopping

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Spot a Fake Celebrity Endorsement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Celebrity endorsement scams are on the rise. Companies are taking images of celebrities and attaching their faces and names to certain products to increase sales. Most of the time, these ads are scams that are trying to get you to buy a product based on the celebrity that is endorsing it.

# data[].attributes.body
Made By: Tori Reddick