Orthodox oncologist’s have it wrong in their choice of the type of rays they use for radiation therapy to treat cancer. They picked the dangerous killing type of radiation that causes cancer as opposed to far infrared life generating rays that offer healing and dramatically increased immune system strength. In the future oncologists, hopefully, instead of using dangerous radiation will come to their senses and start using positive forms of radiation that add to life instead of destroying it. There is nothing more helpful, medically speaking, than an infrared heating pad. Alone it can bring comfort, support and hope and a quicker recovery from whatever one is suffering from.
Scientists have found more than enough evidence that elevated body temperature helps certain types of immune cells to work better. This research was reported in the November 2011 issue of the Journal of Leukocyte Biology. John Wherry, Ph.D., Deputy Editor of the Journal of Leukocyte Biology says, "This research report and several others are showing that having a fever is part of an effective immune response. "An increase in body temperature has been known since ancient times to be associated with infection and inflammation," said Elizabeth A. Repasky, Ph.D., a researcher involved in the work from the Department of Immunology at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York.
Low body temperature and low immune system strength go hand in hand. It is almost impossible to recover from chronic disease and cancer if one’s body temperature is too low. Increasing temperature increases the activity of the immune system and there is no better way of doing that than with infrared mattresses one can sleep on and use during the day.
Though doctors have used live bacteria to stimulate a fever to beat cancer there are safer ways to increase core body temperature to stimulate the immune system to defeat cancer. Using infrared heat therapy is safe and easily done in the comfort of one’s own bedroom and is much less expensive than using shortwave hyperthermia in a clinic to do thermotherapy.
The history of oncological hyperthermia started from some evidences of cancer cure by concomitant febrile diseases described in XVIII-XIX centuries. It seems that the inhibition of tumor growth by high fever caused by malaria was for the first time described by de Kizowitz (France) in 1779. In 1866, Busch (Germany) described the complete remission of histologically confirmed face sarcoma after two erysipelas infections with subsequent 2-year disease-free survival. He then used the intentional contact with erysipelas infection to treat several patients. Apparently, in the second half of XIX century, the practice of infectious febrile therapy was quite common not only in Germany and France but also in Russia, and it was used to treat a wide range of diseases including mental diseases. In 1882, Fehleisen discovered Erysipelas agent—Streptococcus pyogenes. He inoculated live bacteria to seven cancer patients and achieved complete remission in 3 cases. Bruns in 1887 reported a case of complete remission in a patient with multiple recurrent melanoma after Erysipelas with temperature over 40°C for several days, with 8-year disease-free survival. He also collected 14 reported cases of erysipelas in proven malignant disease: in most cases there was complete and stable remission. The method was called febrile therapy and hyperthermia per se was only one component of the complex body reaction, and it was not considered as a separate treatment modality.
The Healing Light Returns
Here is someone who is taking infrared radiation to its fullest potential. Though not to be used at night like this, during the day one can make a sandwich out of oneself by using a big infrared mat and a smaller one. Together they concentrate the heat and because the rays penetrate deeply all the tissues sandwiched in between are effected. This technique raises temperatures to levels that cancer cells do not enjoy.
I am not suggesting that infrared heat therapy is a cure for cancer. Oncologists, if they were honest, would not say that radiation or chemotherapy cures cancer either. Both radiation and chemotherapy cause cancer meaning they increase the chances of getting more cancer in the future, besides bringing a whole range of serious side effects that are tough to live with.
There is no doubt that infrared heat therapy increases core body temperature if used aggressively enough. There is no doubt that increased body temperature is correlated mathematically with increased immune system strength. Draw your own conclusions. Medical scientists and pharmaceutical companies believe enough in the immune system to have patients spend a hundred thousand dollars or more to use drugs to treat cancer to do what infrared heat therapy can do. These are all cancer facts!
Infrared light therapy will alleviate pain, detoxify the body, strengthen cardiovascular system, devitalize, and clear pathogens from the body. Infrared therapy produces potent antioxidants, neurotransmitters and artery wall relaxers. Infrared therapy helps regulate muscle tone of the arteries and prevents arteriosclerosis and is anti-inflammatory preventing injury to vessel walls and normalizing blood pressure in the process.
Infrared mats are a wonderfully safe and easy-to-use means of achieving ever-accelerating levels of health, wellness and more efficient, natural regeneration and rejuvenation. They provide "noticeable" and "comprehensive" health benefits to make your body feel well and be the best it can be.
Death Star Medicine
Some people just cannot get themselves away from the deadly nature of modern medicine.
Radiation therapy is taken to an extreme with focused proton beams that deliver precisely targeted blasts of radiation. The particle beams are delivered by 500-ton machines in facilities that cost from $100 million to $200 million, and can require a football- field sized building to house. A typical treatment costs about $50,000, twice as much as traditional radiation therapy.
A COURSE IN NATUROPATHIC ONCOLOGY
Special Offer: My 100 lesson course on cancer at eighty percent off the regular price of 500 dollars. So your cost will be only 99 dollars. The course is part of a doctoral program at Da Vinci University and, when taken for credit, costs 1,000 Euros for both parts.I WANT!
“Proton-beam therapy is like the death star of American medical technology; nothing so big and complicated has ever been confronted by the system,” said Amitabh Chandra, a health economist at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. “It’s a metaphor for all the problems we have in American medicine.”
One machine can generate as much as $50 million in annual revenue and new facilities are sprouting up around the country. “It’s like a nuclear arms race now, everyone wants one,” said Anthony Zietman, a radiation oncologist at Boston’s Massachusetts General Hospital, which has had a proton-beam accelerator since 2001.
Data suggest only a small population of men with intermediate-risk of prostate cancer will benefit in terms of cost effectiveness using proton therapy. Even when based on the unproven assumption that protons will permit a 10-GY escalation of prostate dose compared with IMRT photons, proton beam therapy is not cost effective for most patients with prostate cancer says research published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
A report posted in Cancer Today states:
A study of nearly 13,000 men published in the April 18, 2012,Journal of the American Medical Association indicated that prostate cancer patients treated with proton therapy were more likely to face gastrointestinal side effects than those treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)—a form of X-ray radiotherapy. Results published in the Jan. 2Journal of the National Cancer Institute “found no difference [in these side effects] between proton radiation and IMRT.”
 T. A. Mace, L. Zhong, C. Kilpatrick, E. Zynda, C.-T. Lee, M. Capitano, H. Minderman, E. A. Repasky.Differentiation of CD8+ T cells into effector cells is enhanced by physiological range hyperthermia.Journal of Leukocyte Biology, 2011; 90 (5): 951 DOI:10.1189/jlb.0511229