Add as bookmark

To the Cancer Patient: Natural Cures vs. Traditional: Part I

by Dr Tim O'Shea(more info)

listed in cancer, originally published in issue 221 - April 2015

When singer Warren Zevon was diagnosed with lung cancer, doctors gave him three months to live. He refused chemotherapy because it would have interfered with working on his last album. He said in an interview, “I didn’t want any drastic alterations in my health - other than dying.

Warren Zevon
Warren Zevon

Warren lasted a year. And he kept right on smoking, till the end. Not exactly a holistic approach, but he quadrupled their estimate without treatment. Using their logic, I guess someone could actually make a case that cigarettes are four times as effective as chemotherapy for terminal lung cancer.

Perhaps you too have finally said - No more - whatever happens will happen. You’ve refused further standard cancer treatment because you’ve found out either through research or through personal experience, that for the vast majority of cancer cases, it just doesn’t work. People’s last months are made miserable with no upside.

So there you are, without a net. Guess what? There never was one. So forget the politics of hospitals and insurance. You may feel that they ran their game on you and the required funds were transferred from one account to another in some data base somewhere, and here you are sitting at home looking out the window.

A good warrior must always assess his present position, evaluate his losses and assets, and move forward. So what have you got? Well, you’re alive. Maybe they predicted that you wouldn’t make it this long or else you’ve got X amount of time to live. Who cares? What do they know? You’re no longer on their agenda, so now your calendar’s wide open. You refuse to die on schedule.

What else have you got? Well, you still have some kind of immune system left, or else you’d be dead.

What Is Cancer?

Everybody talks about the immune system, but few can tell you what it is. Your immune system is a complicated system of cells and biological reactions which the body employs to ward off invaders and to prevent its own cells from deteriorating and mutating. The immune system is responsible for recognizing foreign proteins and cells and for triggering an attack against them.

The immune system is a never-ending second-by-second check of all your cells to see if they still look like the rest of you. If they don’t, they’re immediately attacked: the inflammatory response.

Most legitimate researchers, including Nobel prize winner Sir MacFarlane Burnet, [22] know that in the normal body hundreds of potential cancer cells appear every day. These defective, mutated cells are usually destroyed by the normal immune system and never cause a problem. Cancer only gets started when a failing immune system begins to allow abnormal cells to slip by without triggering an attack on them.

Other cancer cells do not trigger the immune response at all because the DNA is not that different from normal cells. Then they begin to proliferate, having lost the ability to specialize. De-differentiation. That’s what cancer is. Runaway tissue.

So looking at it this way, a tumour is a symptom, not a problem. A symptom of a failing immune system. (Moss, [22])

Here’s another headline: Most cancers are not found until autopsy. That’s because they never caused any noticeable symptoms. Examples abound: 30-40 times as many cases of thyroid, pancreatic, and prostate cancer are found in autopsy than ever presented to the doctor. According to a study cited in top British medical journal Lancet 13 Feb 93, early screening often leads to unnecessary treatment: 33% of autopsies show prostate cancer but only 1% die from it.

After age 75, half of males may have prostate cancer, but only 2% die from it. This means that the immune system can hold many problems in check, as long as it is not compromised by powerful procedures. The body has a powerful ability to encapsulate altered tissue areas, indefinitely.

Biopsy Vs. Encapsulation

It’s this exact natural mechanism of protective encapsulation that is vehemently disregarded by conventional medicine whenever cancer is suspected. Usually a lump. We have to biopsy it, they cry, to see whether or not it’s cancerous. And immediately! Why?

First of all, by the time any lump is big enough to be detected, it has usually been there for at least a year, maybe several. So what’s the rush? Why not see how your body handles it, unmodified by human experimentation? If it remains unchanged over time, chances are the encapsulation can eventually be resorbed, or at least permanently walled off.

The act of biopsy physically violates the body’s evolved powers of self-protection by exposing the tumour to all the other tissues the needle had to pass through both on the way in and the way out. Any protective encapsulation is thereby breached and contaminated. This virtually invites metastasis.

It is well documented that tumours can be encapsulated for an individual’s entire life, never becoming active. These common sense notions are simply not entertained, not deemed worthy of consideration by the specialists who are anxious to let the billing cycles begin as soon as possible.

The medical philosophy behind biopsy is classic Kragen thinking: the body is a car, made up of unrelated, non-living, inert parts. What we do here will have no effect on anything else.

If a lump is discovered, anywhere, your phone will ring off the hook day and night until you agree to get the biopsy. The patient is not allowed to get too comfortable with the notion that the more time goes by without treatment, the better he feels. Or that the body actually has powerful resources of healing all its own, encapsulation being one of them.

You want to see some fancy double-talking, bring this subject up with your oncologists. They’ll be very worried you even thought of it, and will go to extreme lengths to convince you that your body does not have this power of walling off invaders and tumours, despite what conventional science has maintained for the past 100 years.

Always remember, if you suddenly find yourself labelled as a cancer patient - is the result of every single decision by your doctors going to saddle you with the highest number of billable drugs and procedures in the shortest amount of time? Always ask that question first. Is it a coincidence? Just try looking at it from that perspective and see if you can put the pieces together. Your health, comfort, safety, overall long-term wellbeing? Not usually factored in.

Then consider delaying biopsy until some visible perceptible health change warrants such an invasive and potentially carcinogenic procedure. What’s the worst that could happen by doing that? Few people die of cancer; most die of cancer treatment. That’s the far greater danger, statistically.

If you have cancer, guess which system is the most important to you at this time, more than it’s ever been before in your whole life. Right - your immune system. Guess which system suffers the most from chemotherapy and radiation. Right again. So the one time in your life you most need it, your immune system will be weakened by those therapies. Billions of free radicals. That’s what the word cytotoxic means.

A study in Journal of the American Medical Association of 223 patients concluded that no treatment at all for prostate cancer actually was better than any standard chemotherapy, radiation or surgical procedure. (Johansson [41]) Unlikely that the statistics would be any different today since the recommended procedures have not substantially changed.

Dying on Schedule

An astounding feature of the standard high pressure sales job for cancer treatment is when the doctor in godlike fashion delivers that Wagnerian pronouncement that the patient has X years to live. ‘Very sorry to have to tell you this but you probably have less than a year… ‘

It is hard to understand why most people would still want to follow any advice from someone who has just told them that. Because what the doctor is saying here is that according to our best estimates, using our best available technology, drugs and procedures, our experience with patients who have what you have puts your life expectancy at…

It defies belief that most people just roll over and comply without any objections whatsoever. Social Darwinism at work again.

What a more logical, thoughtful individual might perceive from such a death sentence is that hey, this guy is telling me what will likely happen if I stick around and do what he says. Time to roll. Time for me to start looking around for a second opinion and see if I can’t find out about some other solutions to my situation that have a little sunnier outlook. Like a cure for example. Or survival. Somebody somewhere must have some better information than this for my little problem - it’s a big world out there.

And this is the type of initiative that leads people to investigate natural cures, programs that don’t include words like terminal and palliative and side effects and expiration date and cell death. 

The Alternative: the standard sheeplike compliance usually ends up as a self-fulfilling prophecy - they die on schedule.

Try this one. Best advice for someone who just been told how long he has to live: ask the doctors to put it in writing. Just ask them. They’ll never do it. Try and think about why not.

What Causes Cancer In The First Place?

Here’s where the dog and pony show comes in. The traditional cover story is that we don’t know what causes cancer so therefore we have to keep spending $100 billion per year to look for the cause.

In reality the opposite is true. The true causes of cancer are well known, well documented and have been for decades.

What alters normal DNA? How do normal cells become persistent mutant cells, which grow tumours?

There are thousands of everyday DNA-altering, carcinogenic situations, well researched. Let’s list just a few:

  • 60,000 chemicals in our air, food, and water
  • Vaccines, tobacco
  • Processed foods, Genetically Modified foods
  • Prescription drugs
  • Over-the-counter medications
  • Air pollution, chlorine
  • Fluoridated water, other contaminants in our water
  • Pesticides on produce , herbicides on produce

If fruits and vegetables are not marked organic, they are sprayed. What do you think happens with all those tons of military-grade commercial pesticides sprayed onto the crops, poisons which cling to the plant? When it rains, the poison washes down into the soil, is taken up by the plant and becomes part of the plant. And they tell you just wash the fruit before you eat it and it’ll be fine? Come on! And this is what we feed our kids, and all this is legal. These poisons alter human DNA. [Smith, 55]

With vaccines, it’s deliberate cell invasion: attenuated or mutated antigens injected into the child’s blood. Sixty-eight vaccines before age 18 [Vaccination Is Not Immunization [4] ]

Looking for a cure for cancer - who are we kidding? A cure for cancer that will enable us to continue defiling our blood with all the above carcinogenic substances, right?

Cure for cancer? Step one: stop poisoning your blood with the causes!

Cancer Incidence

In 1900, cancer was practically unheard of in this country. By 1950, there were about 150 cases of cancer per 100,000 population.

In 1971, Nixon introduced his War on Cancer, opening the floodgates of massive research funding backed by the government. This situation escalated until by the 1980s, over $50 billion per year was being spent to “find the cure.” A pittance, compared to the $300 billion today. [9]

We’re hit with endless media stories about progress in this war on cancer with new ‘breakthrough’ drugs and miracle procedures being right around the corner… And of course the ever-present ‘new’ experimental drugs offered to almost every cancer patient. It’s astounding how each new generation of cancer patients keeps falling for the same lame rap, year after year. A combination of fear and ignorance is what keeps this train rolling.

What is the real story behind the story here?

From the US government’s own statistical abstracts we find the disconcerting truth.

The simplest thing is to look at actual deaths from cancer. In epidemiology, deaths from disease are always measured in deaths per 100,000 population.

So let’s start back in 1967:

Mortality from Cancer in the US

   Year - Deaths/ 100,000

            1967: 157.2
            1970: 162.9
            1982: 187.3
            1987: 198.2
            1988: 198.4
            1989: 201.0
            1990: 203.2
            1991: 204.1
            1992: 204.1
            2011: 191.4
  Source: Vital Statistics of the United States vol.II 1967-1992 [26]

  National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 61, No. 6, October 10,2012

Don’t get too excited about the 2011 figure. In the government numbers game, it’s anything but pure science. The objective here is often to obscure reality, not necessarily to reflect it.

Independent analysis by the CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 97, [16] put the 1993 death rate at 220 per 100,000. Does that sound like progress? Yeah, progress for the disease.

Jumping ahead now to 2000, the overall rate had climbed to 321 per 100,000 [45] OECD Health Data 2010

All this is quite different from what the CDC now claims: overall 178 per 100,000 as of 2007. [56] Perhaps that’s because CDC figures are strictly controlled by their inventors from the drug industry, now more than ever before.

Why does nobody know this? Bet you never saw these charts before. Because they are forbidden in mainstream media.

Numbers can be twisted and made to do tricks. This chart is the raw data, not age adjusted or divided by race, or type of cancer. It will take you hours to find the simple data by internet searches, because the uncomfortable truth is deliberately obscured by overcomplicating it into dozens of useless categories. Standard Edward L Bernays misdirection - the science of epidemiology.

Try finding a medical reference or journal article or a URL that admits these figures. Try finding a newspaper or magazine article in the last 15 years that uses the raw data.

And this data says one thing: more people are dying of cancer now per capita than ever before, and nothing is slowing the increase. Not early detection, not better screenings, not new high tech machines, not radiation, not surgery, and definitely not chemotherapy.

All the journal articles will say the opposite - that cancer rates are falling. But when you look closely at the data they cite, it never stands up to scrutiny, because they twisted the numbers by selecting only those groups who showed the assigned outcome.

Unfortunately the general population continues to have more deaths from cancer, not less.

Cancer In Children

Before the 1960s, cancer in children was virtually unheard of. With the skyrocketing number of vaccines and drugs given to children, and the proliferation of snack foods and processed foods in the child diet, by the year 2000 we have the astounding figure of 89.5 deaths per 100,000 population, for all types of cancer combined, below age 19. ([46] CDC website 2010).

Cancer is now the second highest cause of death in children, second only to accidents! [2]

What is going on here??

New Diet - New Disease

As we saw, a hundred years ago, cancer was virtually unknown in the US. At that time people relied more on whole foods, unrefined and generally in their original form.

Suddenly, processed foods became a greater and greater proportion of the American diet right after the First World War, first in the canning industry, which later developed into the food processing industry. This was when pasteurization, chemical additives, bleaching, and other adulterating processes were introduced into mass food production. The idea was to make food last on the shelves as long as possible, thereby increasing overall profits. The way this was done was by removing the natural enzymes contained in the food, resulting in adulterated de-vitalized non-foods becoming the new standard.

Enzymes are what determines a food’s value. [See Enzymes chapter]

As more and more sophisticated methods of removing enzymes from food were discovered, shelf life increased, and food value decreased. What does all this have to do with cancer? I’m getting to that.

Critical Value Of Enzymes

When food that is difficult to digest is forced into the body, month after month, year after year, our own digestive system struggles valiantly to try to break down all these weird, manmade foods that have only this century appeared on the human scene.

But eventually the system gets overtaxed, and wears out. The sludge accumulates in the digestive tract. Before long, we start absorbing the indigestible foods into the bloodstream, intact. Big problem.

One of the first signs of the chronic absorption of processed foods into the blood is clumping together of red blood cells. In normal blood, the red cells should be freely movable, and unattached, in order to carry oxygen to all the cells of the body. But the accumulation of undigested protein in the blood makes these red blood cells stick together, like stacks of coins, or like globs of motor oil. 

Once it gets like this, the blood tends to stay aggregated. Imagine the difficulty, for the blood to circulate. The smallest blood vessels through which the blood has to pass each time around are the capillaries. Unfortunately, the diameter of a capillary is only the same as one of the red blood cells - they’re supposed to circulate in single file. So what happens in a body whose red cells are all stuck together for a few years? The tissues of the body become oxygen-deprived.


Are we talking about cancer yet? We sure are. Nobel laureate Dr Otto Warburg discovered in the 1920s[5] what all researchers now know: most cancers cannot exist well in an oxygen-rich environment. Why is it that people don’t die of cancer of the heart? Just doesn’t happen. Why not? Because that’s where the most highly oxygenated blood is, and cancer doesn’t like oxygen. The more anaerobic the environment, the more favourable to cancer growth.

Even more conducive to cancer is a setting of fermentation. That means half-digested carbohydrates. Every bootlegger knows that as sugars ferment, they bubble. The bubbles are the oxygen leaving. Cancer doesn’t like oxygen too well, but it loves sugar. Starting to get the picture here? Fermentation means half-digested, oxygen-poor. This oxygen-deprived environment is perfect for cancer - it thrives in it. Fermentation creates an acidic environment and keeps oxygen away.

Remember we talked about all that undigested food accumulating in the gut and in the bloodstream because of not enough enzymes? Well, a lot of that food was carbohydrate - you know, donuts, beer, candy, ice cream, Pepsi, bread, dairy, pastries, etc.

Worse yet, the white cells, which are supposed to circulate as the immune system, become trapped in all this congestion. Their job? Right, to identify and attack foreign proteins immediately. A cancer cell is foreign protein, disguised as a local.

This is why taking enzymes 3x a day is absolutely fundamental in any holistic approach to cancer.


Another factor is pH.

 Acid-forming foods, such as the above, make the blood more acidic. To sustain life, human blood pH must be in the range of 7.3 -7.45 (Guyton [19] ). Outside that range, we’re dead. Remember, the lower the number, the more acidity. The more acid the blood is, the less oxygen it contains, and the faster a person ages and degenerates. See the chapter called The Three Attributes of Water.

There’s a major difference in oxygen even within the narrow range of “normal’ blood pH: blood that is pH 7.3 actually has 69.4% less oxygen than 7.45 blood, according to Whang’s classic book, Reverse Aging. [47]

On a practical level, this means we should do everything to keep the pH on the high side of the range, as close as possible to 7.45, by eating as many alkaline foods as possible. That would be, you guessed it - live, raw foods, especially green foods. As well as drinking alkalyzed water, of course. See Hydration and Dehydration chapter. [48]

It’s not about raising blood pH; it’s about conserving the metabolic energy of the body for more important tasks than the burden of this constant buffering it is forced to maintain due to all the acid forming processed foods.

That’s the faintest sketch about enzyme deficiency and acid-forming foods as primary causes of creating a favourable environment in which cancer can grow. Please look at the cited chapters for the whole story.



2. Lipski, L PhD, Moss R.  New Approaches to Fighting Cancer Teleseminar. 2006.

3. Epstein, S, R. Bertell. “The Dangers and Unreliability of Mammography” International Journal of Health Services. 2001.

4. O’Shea, T. Vaccination Is Not Immunization 2010.

5. Moss, Ralph PhD.  The Cancer Industry 1995.

7. Intravenous Cyclophosphamide for Non-Cancer

8. Bill Berkrot. Cancer drug sales could hit $80B by 2011 Reuters. 15 May 2008.

9. Szabo, L. Patients bear brunt as cancer care hits $90 billion USA Today 18 Mar 2010.

10. Allday, E.  Most cocaine diluted with unsafe livestock drug San Francisco Chronicle 29 Dec 2009.

11. Walters, Richard. Options. Avery. 1993.

12. Carter, James, MD.  Racketeering in Medicine.

13. Howell, Edward, MD.  Enzyme Nutrition, Avery

14. DeCava, Judith.  The Real Truth About Vitamins and Antioxidants. 1996.

15. Tilden, JH, MD.  Toxemia Explained. Kessinger. 1926.

16. CA Journal for Cancer Clinicians, Jan 1997.

17. Scanlon, Edward, MD. Journal of the American Medical Association Sept. 4, 1991.

18. American Cancer Society “Founding Charter”.

19. Guyton, Arthur, MD. Textbook of Medical Physiology, 1996.

20. New England Journal of Medicine, vol 314, 1986.

21. Shapiro, M, MD. “Chemotherapy: Snake Oil Remedy?” Los Angeles Times 9 Jan 1987.

22. Moss, Ralph, PhD. Questioning Chemotherapy. 1995.

23. Chopra, Deepak, MD.  Quantum Healing.

24. Los Angeles Times 11 Sep 1993.

25. New York Times 3 Mar 1994.

26. Vital Statistics of the United States vol II 1967-1992. National Vital statistics: Table B. Deaths and death rates for  2011.

27. Miller, A et al. Canadian national breast screening study. Canadian Med Assn Jour 147:1477. 1992.

28. McDougall, J, MD. The McDougall Program for Women, Penguin Books. 1999.

29. Wright, C, MD.  Screening mammography and public health policy. Lancet 346: p29, 1995.

30. Kolata, G “Breast cancer screening under 50″ New York Times, Dr. Edward Sondik. 14 Dec 1997.

31. Greenberg, David, MD “Medicine and Public Affairs” NEJM 292 p. 707. Mar 1975.

32. Braverman, Albert, MD “Medical Oncology in the 90s” Lancet  337 p. 901. 1991.

33. American Cancer Society “Cancer Facts and Figures” Atlanta 1995.

34. Jones, Hardin, PhD “Report on Cancer” Bancroft Library, Cal State U Berkeley. 1969.

35. Abel, Ulrich, PhD “Cytostatic Therapy of Advanced Epithelial Tumors – A Critique” Lancet 10 Aug 1991. A Dull Weapon: Chemotherapy Almost Useless in Treating Advanced Organic Cancer - Provocative Theses at the Hamburg Cancer Congress. Article from Der Spiegel, 33: 174-176 (Translation provided by People Against Cancer, Otho, Iowa)  1990.

Abel U. Biomed Pharmacother. Chemotherapy of advanced epithelial cancer - a critical review. 46(10):439-52.  1992.

36. Schimke, Robert “Methotrexate Resistance And Gene Amplification” Cancer 57 p. 1915. May 1986.

37. Milner, M. HSI Newsletter p. 5. Apr 1999.

38. Travis, Lois. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol 86 no. 19. 5 Oct 1994.

39. Black, Dean, PhD.  Health at the Crossroads, Tapestry Press. 1988.

40. Bealle, Morris A. The Drug Story, 1948.

41. Johansson, J, MD “High 10 Year Survival Rate in Patients With Early Untreated Prostate Cancer” JAMA vol 257, p. 2191. Apr 22 1992.

42. Grady, D “Extreme Cancer Surgery Backed” San Jose Mercury News  p. 1. 14 Jan 1999.

43. McDougall, J, MD – Early Detection Testing? Chance of Harm Is 100%, Newsletter  Feb 2010.

44. Heyes, GJ. Mammography-oncogenecity at low doses. J Radiol Prot. 29(2A):A123-32. Jun 2009.

45. OECD Health Data. Deaths from Cancer by Country  2010.

46. CDC website:   2010.

47. Whang, S – Reverse Aging, 1990.

48. O’Shea, T – Hydration and dehydration.  2010.

49. McColl, K – Billions of dollars needed to close global spending gap on cancer care BMJ 2009; 339:b3499 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3499. 28 August 2009. BMJ 339:b3499. 2009.

50. CDC website - Leading Causes of Death US.  2009.

51. Levin, A, MD.  The Healing of Cancer 1990.

52. CDC website - Breast Cancer Trends

53. Chlebowski, RT.  Late mortality and levamisole adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer British Journal of Cancer (1994) 69, 1094–1097

54. Allday, E. Most cocaine diluted with unsafe livestock drug San Francisco Chronicle 29 Dec 2010.

55. Smith, J Genetic roulette 2007.

56. Centers for Disease Control Cancer – 2010 Final Review

57. Death among children and adolescents —

Copyright Acknowledgement Citation

Republished with permission from

This article to be published in 3 parts in Positive Health PH Online is Copyright 2014 Dr Tim O’Shea  


  1. Midi Fairgrieve said..

    Brilliant article and one every cancer patient should read before making any decisions about their treatment. Modern medicine never asks WHY someone becomes ill, and seeks simply to damped down the symptoms. I completely agree with the author, 'we know why people get cancer' and this knowledge lights the way for the lifestyle changes needed to effect a cure.

  2. Carol P. said..

    Very good article! Another verified but not mentioned cause of cancer is medical x-rays.

    It had been known for decades that low dose x-rays, even the lowest possible dose, causes cancer especially breast cancer and that x-rays are a main cause of breast cancer (read "The Mammogram Myth" by Rolf Hefti --- see an outline at ).

    Yet the cancer industry, the pink ribbon groups, regular doctors, the American Cancer Society, dentists, and their assistants (nurses, etc) say that the risk of harm from a mammogram or any medical/dental x-ray is inconsequential. Often they "educate" the worried patients or the public with claims that the radiation exposure from an x-ray is similar to taking a flight in an airplane or sunbathing for a day, all of which are deceptive tricks and scientifically misleading or false (see reference above).

    Dr. O'Shea mentions that "Before the 1960s, cancer in children was virtually unheard of." Well, besides "the skyrocketing number of vaccines and drugs given to children" and increase in junk food consumption, solid evidence generated in the 1950s proved that low dose x-rays causes childhood cancer. Conventional doctors ignored, denied, ridiculed, or suppressed this fact. Despite the full knowledge of the ugly fact about cancer-causing x-rays, the criminal medical establishment has been using low dose x-rays much more often over the last two decades, contributing to the increased cancer incidence, including among children (see The Mammogram Myth), maiming and killing huge numbers of unwitting adults and kids in the process and the years to come.

« Prev Next »

Post Your Comments:

About Dr Tim O'Shea

Dr Tim O'Shea DC works in the areas of Health, Nutrition, Vaccine education. He is the author of Vaccination Is Not Immunization published 2013 and Founder of He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area and may be contacted via

  • Flower essences online

    Fine quality flower essences international ranges to help promote vitality and emotional well-being.

  • Super Patch Wellbeing

    Super Patches – a most revolutionary advance in wellbeing strategies in the history of medicine

  • nutrition and cancer

    by Sandra Goodman PhD The latest scientific research regarding Nutrition and Cancer. Full details at

  • mycology research MRL

    MRL markets mushroom products food grade US & Netherlands GMP standards. Health Professional Videos

  • Liposomal Nutrients

    Optimum system for nutrient delivery to cells - fully bioavailable vitamins absorbed and metabolised

top of the page