The two forbidden C words.
Can you have both?
Well, it depends. Where are you seeking treatment? Today, as more and more cancer types are invented, we move further and further away from the causes, and the whole human body and focus instead on the laboratory and cleverly formulated wordsmanship of the mighty spindoctors.
If your mechanic had a record of less than 10% success rate at being able to fix your car, would you go back? If your weekly grocery bill fed you for only a day and then you were left for the other 6 days of the week to 'see if it works' would you continue to buy and eat this way?
How can people sacrifice their lives and that of their children, to an industry which is based on a 1939 Act, to which now all oncology adheres (even if they try and make it look otherwise)? An act that makes it illegal to cure? An act which sees any cure as a mere coincidence, so long as the industry continues to be funded and heavily supported? And why does the current cancer industry choose to follow the act in one way but goes against it by flaunting advertising constantly in the media? For an industry that has such a small success rate, one would be forgiven for thinking all these exciting new discoveries were actually curing people.
Meanwhile, those who go away quietly and find natural cures are treated like lepers. If a family chooses to treat their afflicted child using natural therapies they can lose custody and the child forced to endure 'treatment' that eventually kills them - and the parents will still be blamed. This is going on all around the western world today.
And anyone who tries to share the myriad cures with the world are dismissed as snake oil peddlers? What is more snake oil than injecting poisons and aborted baby stem cells?
Today, advertising wordage is so strong that people now actually believe that to donate to a cancer charity equates to a cure, when all you are doing is donating to an ideal - one which, despite decades and billions of dollars, still fails to come up with that ideal. More is donated to cancer 'research' than any other arena yet more suffer today than ever before. But they are not researching the causes. They are not researching the existing cures in natural health. On the odd occasion they find out that one or another herb is effective, between media propaganda (paid) and governing bodies, it will be condemned (with fear planted) and banned it outright, researched and then released as the new wonder drug, albeit synthesized 'but do not use the whole drug as it is dangerous'.
Today, we are so far away from the cause and known cures, or even treating the person as a whole that we have the audacity to cut, poison and burn an already compromised individual - and when that fails and the person is left a shell of their former self, so long as they have lived the customary 5 years which is the description of 'cure' they go on record as a success.
But wait, there's more. Stem cells taken from aborted babies are now being used to treat cancer. If that is not the most audacious idea, I don't know what is.
All before considering what made Mrs X better after doctors gave her weeks to live. Or why Mr X is alive 30 years after doctors said he would die. No, they must be coincidence. Anecdotal if you will. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with non toxic living or diets, making the whole body pure again, or, God forbid, using a range of natural therapies to bring about a natural cure. Don't forget, that is illegal...
Thankfully people are waking up. People are learning that in order to be healthy they need to heal the whole body, to change old habits to new ones, to do all they can to rebuild a body that has already had enough. Hopefully they decide to do it before the cut, poison and burn industry has caused irreversible damage.
There are many, many brilliant experts who are not only successful in treating cancer, but they do so without all the fanfare, without all the funding.
And guess what? Many are successfully treating their cancer AT HOME.