Monday, February 7, 2011

Cancer Article Dr. Tim O'Shea



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 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 from this 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.


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 or 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. That’s what cancer is. Runaway tissue.

So looking at it this way, a tumor 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.


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 tumor 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 tumors 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 doubletalking, 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 tumors, despite what the histology and physiology texts have stated 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 provide them 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 well being? 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 only; 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. Now 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. That’s what the word cytotoxic means. As we will see, most people don’t die of cancer; they die from cancer treatment.

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 the statistics would be any different today since the recommended procedures have not substantially changed.


An astounding feature of the standard high pressure sales job for cancer treatment is when the doctor in his 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… 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 …

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.

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.


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 tumors?

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
  • processed foods
  • Genetically Modified foods
  • prescription drugs
  • over-the-counter medications
  • tobacco
  • air pollution
  • fluoridated water
  • pesticides on produce
  • herbicides on produce
  • chlorine
  • other contaminants in our water

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? And this is what we feed our kids, and all this is legal. These poisons alter human DNA.

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!


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 U.S. 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 U.S.

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
. source: Vital Statistics of the United States vol.II 1967-1992 [26]

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

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.


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!

What is going on here??


As we saw, a hundred years ago, cancer was virtually unknown in the U.S. 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.


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 favorable 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 favorable environment in which cancer can grow. Please look at the cited chapters for the whole story.


Industry. Politics. Big money. Health care. Buying and selling. You know – life. More people living off cancer than ever died from it.

As we saw above, throughout the 1980s, working through Nixon’s illusory War on Cancer, we were spending less than $50 billion per year on cancer.

By 2009 the total spent on cancer care, treatment and research exceeded $305 billion per year, according to the British Medical Journal, 28 August 2009, [49]

At present there are more than 569,000 cancer deaths per year in the U.S. [CDC: Leading causes of death] [50] – now second only to heart disease on the list of killer diseases. Yet all this money has not improved the overall chances of survival from cancer during the past 25 years even slightly.

Many cancer patients will tell you they eventually feel that they’re just a mark, a number, an insurance account. The goal of every visit seems to be selling them on new drugs, new procedures, running up the bill, not just not improving their overall health, but ignoring it altogether.

An industry this immense has one goal – self preservation. A cure for cancer would mean its demise. This is a pivotal fact one should learn at the beginning of any honest look at the cancer industry, which most sources will vehemently deny, by that cleverest of techniques – misdirection.

The American Cancer Society, for example, collects hundreds of millions per year. Very little of this money ever finds its way to research. The majority of the money goes into investments and towards administration – lavish salaries and perqs for the Society’s officers and employees. A funny thing is that written into the charter of the American Cancer Society is the clause that states that if a cure for cancer is ever found, on that day, the Society will disband. (The Cancer Industry [5]) So is this an organization that is going to be motivated to find a cure for cancer?

This is the underlying reality, but what do we hear on the surface, coming at us every day from the TV newsreaders, and scripted online health blurbs, or from the lips of the oncologists making their reassuring pronouncements on the outlook for our loved ones’ chances of survival? We’re “making progress.” “Early detection” is giving us a much better chance of “getting it all” by means of immediate surgery or by chemotherapy and radiation. Then after surgery they tell us we need to do chemo to put “the icing on the cake,” “just to make sure”… etc, and other slick closing phrases. Phrases which have not changed much in 25 years.

Frightened to death, uninformed, and having nowhere else to turn, people keep buying this same line year after year. Your grandparents bought it, maybe your parents bought it, and perhaps now your siblings are buying it. As a result, people keep dying on schedule. And the figures go up and up.

But there’s a limit to everything. More and more of us have watched our family or our friends die wretched deaths, as all the ‘big guns’ were pompously wheeled out, with the hospitals happily billing the insurance until coverage runs out. And some of us are saying Wait a minute, this isn’t about money – this is about my life. And people are deciding to take their chances without standard slash-and-burn protocols, either by just staying home and doing nothing, or else by experimentation with alternative therapies, which have always been there all this time, just below the surface.

But in order to have the confidence to make such a courageous stand, a little self-education is required. And here is the onion.


Considering chemotherapy? Consider this:

“chemotherapy is basically ineffective in the vast of majority of cases in which it is given.” – Ralph Moss, PhD [22]

“Cancer researchers, medical journals, and the popular media all have contributed to a situation in which many people with common malignancies are being treated with drugs not known to be effective.” – Dr. Martin Shapiro UCLA [21]

“despite widespread use of chemotherapies, breast cancer mortality has not changed in the last 70 years” – David Greenberg, MD NEJM Mar 1975 [31]

“Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.”
- Albert Braverman MD Lancet 1991 [32]

“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.” – Allen Levin, MD UCSF The Healing of Cancer [51]

Let’s say you get cancer – in America it’s 1 in 3. Your doctor says you need chemo and sends you to an office in the hospital. You have no symptoms yet, no pain, and you feel fine. But you’re very frightened. You walk into the office and everyone else there is in obvious pain, with their hair falling out, etc, and most of them are dying. It’s like a scene from a horror movie. Your first instinct is to run: I’m not like them! I’m alive! What am I doing here?

Then ask yourself this: in your entire life, how often have your true instincts been wrong?


How can that be true of the #1 cancer treatment in the U.S. for the past 50 years? The plain fact is, no legitimate scientific studies or clinical trials independent of the companies selling chemo drugs have ever proven chemotherapy’s effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy simply doesn’t work.

If one is going to even begin to look at the legitimate research regarding the failure of mainstream cancer therapies, all that initial research was done by Ralph Moss, and elaborated very clearly in his two books The Cancer Industry and Questioning Chemotherapy. Even though they were written in the 90s, the fundamental objections to the philosophy behind chemotherapy are timeless. Cancer therapy has simply not advanced in the past 20 years enough to make Moss’ work anything but essential reading for learning about the ongoing problems with mainstream cancer treatment. Moss didn’t really continue his research at that level after that initial effort, but these two books remain as landmarks in the field.

When he was researching his first book, Dr Moss uncovered the shocking research of a German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, named Dr. Ulrich Abel. This Dr Abel did a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.

The analysis took Abel two years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was “appalling” because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can “extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers.”

Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as “a scientific wasteland” and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the “emperor’s new clothes” – neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! – Lancet 10 Aug 91 [35]

No mainstream media even mentioned this comprehensive study: it was totally buried.

Similar are the conclusions of most medical researchers who actually try to work their way past the smoke and mirrors to get to the real statistics. In evaluating a therapeutic regimen, the only thing that really matters is death rate – will a treatment significantly extend a patient’s life? Not life as a vegetable, but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a human being.

Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to great lengths to hide the true numbers of people dying from cancer, by talking about other issues. In Questioning Chemotherapy, Moss talks about several of the ways they do it:

Response rate is a favorite.

If a dying patient’s condition changes even for a week or a month, especially if the tumor shrinks temporarily, the patient is listed as having “responded to” chemotherapy. No joke! The fact that the tumor comes back stronger soon after chemo is stopped, is not figured into the equation. The fact that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order to temporarily shrink the tumor is not considered. That fact that the patient soon dies is not figured into the equation. The idea is to sell, sell, and sell. Sell chemotherapy.

Also in the media we find the loud successes chemotherapy has had on certain rare types of cancer, like childhood leukemia, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. But for the vast majority of cancer cases, chemo is a failure. Worse yet, a toxic one.

Even with Hodgkins, one of chemo’s much-trumpeted triumphs, the cure is frequently a success, but the patient dies. He just doesn’t die of Hodgkins disease, that’s all. In the 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, [38] they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000 patients with Hodgkins lymphoma, who were treated with chemotherapy. Even though there was success with the Hodgkins itself, these patients encountered an incidence of leukemia that was six times the normal rate. This is a very common type of reported success within the cancer industry – again, the life of the patient is not taken into account.

Another thing is, in evaluating any treatment, there must be a risk/ benefit analysis. a carefully standardized protocol for measuring the actual risks vs. the proven, unvarnished positive outcomes from the procedure being studied. A very fundamental part of the scientific method.

Due to gigantic economic pressures fearful of the results, such evaluation has been systematically put aside in the U.S. chemotherapy industry for the past 40 years. Primarily because a favorable report would be impossible, considering the toxic nature of the drugs involved.


Every time we put a drug in our body, two things happen:

1. what the drug initially does to the body
2. how the body adapts to the drug

Any example will do. Antibiotics? First, the drug kills all bacteria in the body. Then the body responds by growing them back, often with the bad bacteria out of balance, which come back in more powerful, mutated forms.

Steroids? First, muscles are built because testosterone has been mimicked. Then the body responds by cutting production of natural testosterone, which eventually feminizes the athlete by shrinking the gonads.

Heroin? First it blocks the pain receptors and sends happy hormones called endorphins through the body, giving an overall feeling of wonderfulness. The body responds, by getting so used to this euphoria that when the heroin is stopped, the reality of pain receptors going back to work again is unbearable.

Obviously these are simplifications, but you get the idea.

The Bi-Phasic Effect is well-explained by Dr Dean Black [39] and many other researchers who were trying to figure out why tumors seemed to come back with such a vengeance after chemotherapy. Some original work was done by American Cancer Society researcher Robert Schimke in 1985, who discovered that the way cancer cells resist chemotherapy is to replicate even harder and faster. [36]

Chemo drugs are lethal to all cells; so the cancer cells are stimulated to try and survive any way they can, which means faster growth. In the presence of any toxin, cells will resist it to stay alive. The more they resist, the stronger they get.

Black sees cancer itself as just such an adaptation; a normal response to an abnormal poison. Chemotherapy simply provokes adaptation. (Black, p. 45) This is why we all know people who have had chemotherapy and experienced temporary remission. But when the tumor came back, it did so with a vengeance, and the patient was quickly overwhelmed. All too common.

Schimke talks about the possible effects on a tumor that otherwise may have been self-limiting:

“Might such treatments convert relatively benign tumors into more lethal forms?” – Robert Schimke p. 1915 [36]

Think about this the next time you hear an oncologist talk about “mopping up” with powerful chemo drugs just to be sure we “got it all.” Or prescribing powerful chemotherapy for a “pre-cancerous” or even a benign situation. You don’t introduce cell-killers unless you absolutely have to. These drugs kills normal cells, by definition.

The Bi-Phasic Effect is also called the Rebound Phenomenon. The drugs attack the tumor cells, which then resist and rebound twice as strong, often mutating in the process.

In the above study, Robert Schimke noted that with chemo combos the rebound effect may bring about a tumor cell proliferation rate which may be 100 times faster than before.


is the word that describes chemotherapeutic drugs. It means “cell-killing.”

Chemo-therapy kills all the cells of the body, not just the cancer cells. The risk is that chemo will kill the patient before it kills the cancer. Which often happens. Therefore the only question that should be asked when deciding whether or not to begin chemo is this: will this drug prolong the patient’s natural lifespan? Not his drugged ICU horror-movie lifespan – his natural lifespan.

The unadorned data say no.


which today 1 in 8 American women may expect, is an obvious area of confusion and misinformation. A professor at Northwestern U School of Medicine, Dr. Edward Scanlon stated:

“over a period of 100 years, breast cancer treatment has evolved from no treatment to radical treatment and back again with more conservative management, without having affected mortality.”Journal of the American Medical Association. [17]

In their next mood swing, the medical consensus, whatever that means, reverted toward more radical mastectomy again. In an article from the New York Times, [30] a new Mayo Clinic study being published in the New England Journal of Medicine, backtracked to a former position. Bilateral radical mastectomy of healthy breasts supposedly “reduces the risk of getting breast cancer” by 90%! I am not making this up. Obviously, if a woman doesn’t have breasts, how can she get breast cancer? This type of insanity – a recommendation to remove healthy breasts with the idea to prevent a disease a woman doesn’t have – makes you wonder what’s next. How about euthanasia? – that way the patient will have a zero percent chance of ever getting any disease again.

What effects are these fickle, intellectualized medical opinions having on death rate? None. Actually it’s worse than ever. From the same hard data sources cited above, Vital Statistics, [26] we can look up the actual death rate for breast cancer:

year — deaths/ 100,000

1958— 13.1
1970— 14.3
1979— 15.4
1989— 17.4
1991— 17.4

By 2005, the figure had climbed to 24 deaths per 100,000, according to CDC. [] [52] Yet virtually all articles on breast cancer for the past 2 years have headlines of death rate down from breast cancer.

How does that work?

Early mammograms: no effect. [43]
Chemotherapy: no effect.
Surgery: no effect.

Figures like the above are extremely well hidden and can only be unearthed with great effort.

A netsearch can instantly turn up 100 articles on the latest chemotherapy drugs and their anticipated “breakthroughs” and “response rates” that have always been “just around the corner” since 1971. Every week shows dozens of magazine and newspaper articles spouting the “latest thing” in chemotherapy. This is world class dog-wagging.


Way back in 1976, the American Cancer Society itself and its colleague the National Cancer Institute terminated the routine use of mammography for women under the age of 50 because of its “detrimental” (carcinogenic) effects. A large study done in Canada in 1992 found that women who had routine mammograms before the age of 50 also had increased death rates from breast cancer, by 36%. (Miller) [27]

John McDougall MD made a thorough review of mammograms. He points out that the $13 billion per year generated by mammograms controls the information that women get. Fear and incomplete data are the tools commonly used to persuade women to get routine mammograms. What is clear is that mammography cannot prevent breast cancer or even the spread of breast cancer. By the time a tumor is large enough to be detected by mammography, it has been there as long as 12 years! It is therefore ridiculous to advertise mammography as “early detection.” (McDougall p. 114 [28])

McDougall’s paper Early Detection is a must read for anyone considering mammogram. [43]

The other unsupportable illusion is that mammograms prevent breast cancer, which they don’t. On the contrary, the painful compression of breast tissue during the procedure itself can increase the possibility of metastasis by as much as 80%! Dr. McDougall notes that a between 10 and 17% of the time, breast cancer is a self-limiting non-life-threatening type called ductal carcinoma in situ. This harmless cancer can be made active by the compressive force of routine mammography. (McDougall, p. 105 [28])

More recent data on mammograms was brought to light through the research of Samuel Epstein MD. [3] In a 2009 interview, Epstein reminds us that 5 radiologists have been recent presidents of the American Cancer Society. This might help to explain why routine annual mammograms have been their standard recommendation for years, despite any proven upside. The mammogram business is extremely lucrative and very competitive. ACS ads consistently make unsupported claims of 100% detection, with no clinical studies whatsoever to back it up.

Without question, the biggest danger of mammograms is ionizing radiation. That means the mammogram itself can be the cause of cancer. A woman who gets a yearly mammogram for 10 years would get the same cumulative radiation as a woman standing one mile away from Ground Zero at Hiroshima, according to Epstein and others. [44]


is one of the worst areas of chemotherapy abuse, according to Norman Zinner, MD. He states:

“Most men with prostate cancer will die from other illnesses never knowing they had the problem.”

Early detection of prostate cancer has resulted in thousands of men being treated for a condition that would have been self-limiting. No figures are available for those who have died from the side effects of treatment when the condition would never have caused any problems or symptoms during the patient’s entire lifetime.

Composer Frank Zappa, now decomposing, found out this fact before he died at 52, but it was too late. Some studies show rates as high as 40% in autopsies of men over 70 in which prostate cancer was discovered which the patient never knew about, and which was not the cause of death. (American Cancer Society, 1995). [33]

There are no randomized clinical trials proving that chemotherapy for prostate cancer increases long term survival. Au contraire, a 1992 study published in JAMA demonstrated that there was no difference in 10 year survival rate between the men who did nothing at all and those who had treatment. (Johansson) [41]

Irrepressible in the dog-and-pony show for prostate cancer:palladium implants.

A couple hundred radioactive implants each about the size of a grain of rice are sewn into the scrotum with the unproven claim that the radioactive grains will kill the cancer cells! Many undiscriminating men buy this unproven method every year, ignoring the fact that radioactivity from the implants is also delivering ionizing radiation to the normal prostate and generative cells in that area, thus acting as a powerful carcinogen.

This preposterous and still experimental procedure harks back to the days of radium implants in the blood, a very popular procedure in the 1950s, when the Big Three were surgery, radiation, and radium implants. To see what radium implants looked like, rent Jack Nicholson’s The Two Jakes. No cancer was ever cured from radium. Even though it was finally replaced by chemotherapy, which has roughly the same success, these implants continue to be hawked today.

Here’s why palladium implants are unlikely to work: it’s not the prostate that has cancer; it’s the man himself. Cancer is systemic – it’s all through you.


It’s already a word game. Drugs don’t really have side effects. They just have effects.

When you say Side Effects you’re acquiescing to the illusion that we can direct the action of these wildly reactive pharmacological agents to the exact systems of the body we want, and make them bring about the exact results we desire. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Even more so in the case of chemotherapy where there’s almost never any upside.

Since chemo drugs are some of the most toxic substances ever designed, their effects are very serious, and are often the direct cause of death. Like the case of Jackie Kennedy, who underwent chemo for one of the rare diseases in which it generally has some beneficial results: non-Hodgkins lymphoma. She went into the hospital on Friday and was dead by Tuesday. What happened? Most of that type patients survive, but even the ones that don’t usually won’t die for a year or so. Some sources imagined that since this was such a high profile patient, they’d given her an “extra strong” dose to “kill the cancer” faster. Unfortunately they miscalculated: there was a patient attached.

Remember this: Cancer is a general condition that localizes rather than a local condition which generalizes. That’s the main reason chemotherapy – and radiation – don’t work.

Aside from the standard hair loss, nausea, vomiting, headache, dizziness, and digestive trauma, many chemotherapy drugs have other specific severe effects.

Most have an immediate suppressive effect on bone marrow. This is where new blood cells are normally being produced all the time. This is the #1 way chemo knocks out the immune system, at the one time in your life you need it the most. And that is precisely the strongest argument against chemotherapy: immune annihilation just when the body is struggling to marshall all its resources in order to survive.

Chemotherapy drugs have an entire array of effects, possibly the worst being immediate destruction of the gastric mucosa, which explains loss of appetite, which means the patient cannot heal since starvation is being set up.

Other effects include accelerated osteoporosis, kidney damage, liver fibrosis, psychosis, arteritis, blood disease, and cartilage destruction in the joints.

This is just a partial list of some of the more common side effects, but it really makes you wonder: are these effects really worth the possible benefit of temporary tumor shrinkage with no proven increase in survival? People rarely ‘get better’ with chemotherapy. If they recover, it’s in spite of it.

All chemo drugs are extremely hard on the liver, because that’s the organ whose job is to try and break down toxins that have made it past the digestive tract. Liver fibrosis is a very common sequella of methotrexate.


The beginning of the hype that promised to cure all cancer by means of chemo drugs, came as an offshoot of the postwar excitement with the success of antibiotics and the sulfa drugs. Caught up in the heady atmosphere of visions of money and power in vanquishing cancer, Memorial Sloan-Kettering began to make extravagant claims that to this day have never been realized. Some 400,000 “cytotoxins” were tested by Sloan-Kettering and the National Cancer Institute. The criterion in order to be tested were: will the toxin kill some of the tumor cells before it kills the patient. That’s it! Many were brand new synthetic compounds. But thousands of others were existing poisons which were simply refined. Finally about 50 drugs made the cut, and are still the basis of today’s chemotherapy medicine cabinet.


It is startling to discover what chemotherapy drugs are made from. The first ones were made from mustard gas contained in the weapons that killed so many soldiers in WW I, eventually outlawed by the Geneva Convention. In the 1930s, Memorial Sloan-Kettering quietly began to treat breast cancer with these mustard gas derivatives. No one was cured. More Nitrogen mustard chemotherapy trials were conducted at Yale around 1943. 160 patients were treated. No one was cured. Despite this track record, the major derivative – methotrexate gradually gained popularity over the decades.

Methotrexate has been one of the most common chemotherapy drugs for the past 25 years. The fact that it’s still at the top of the list and that cancer survival has not improved during that period tells the story.

As Methotrexate begins to kill the body’s cells, it causes bleeding ulcers, bone marrow suppression, lung damage, and kidney damage. (HSI Newsletter Apr 1999 p. 5) [37] It also causes “severe anemia, and has triggered or intensified cancerous tumors.” (Ruesch, p. 18)

Other common effects are permanent sclerosing (hardening) of the veins, blood clotting, and destruction of skin and mucous membranes.

Cytoxan is another of the most common chemo drugs. Besides the “normal” side effects, it causes urinary bleeding, lung disease, and heart damage.

This preposterous sentence actually appears at as a rationale for Cytoxan:

“Cytoxan also works by decreasing your immune system’s response to various diseases.”

And decreasing response to disease is going to benefit any patient exactly how..??? They can print ridiculous sentences like this largely because nobody reads them. Most patients sheepishly accept whatever drugs the doctor dreams up, without question. It’s truly marketing from heaven – unquestioned compliance, even if ordered to suicide.


Appearing in the 1980s, one of the newer chemo agents isCisplatin, which has as its base one of the most toxic heavy metals known to man: platinum. The way this horror works is that the platinum rings clog up the cell DNA so forcefully that the cell initiates its own early death sequence (apoptosis.) Despite this level of toxicity and long term side effects from the permanent bioaccumulation of the heavy metal, cisplatin remains the drug of choice for most cases of sarcoma, small cell lung cancer, germ cell tumors, lymphoma, and ovarian cancer. Cisplatin all but destroys the immune system.

Another popular chemo drug is a sheep-deworming agent known asLevamisole.

It has been around for 60 years. With no major clinical trial ever showing significant increased long term survival with Levamisole, it is still a standard chemotherapy agent even today! The weirdness is, Levamisole was included for its “immune system modulation” properties. However, its major actions include:

- decreased white cell count (!)
- flu symptoms
- nausea
- abdominal cramps
- dizziness

Some immune booster!

A 1994 major study of Levamisole written up in the British Journal of Cancer [53] showed almost double the survival rate using a placebo instead of Levamisole! The utter mystification over why this poison continues to be used as a standard component of chemo cocktails can be cleared up by considering one simple fact: when Levamisole was still a sheep de-wormer, it cost $1 per year. When the same amount was suddenly relabeled as a cancer drug given to humans, it cost $1200 per year. (Los Angeles Times 11 Sep 93.) [24]

Today Levamisole is also used to cut cocaine, as much as 70% of the US supply. (SF Chronicle 29 Dec 09 [54]). It is still used as a veterinary deworming drug for sheep and horses, and continues to be one of the most popular chemotherapy drugs, especially with colon cancer.

You say you’d rather try the coke?


is another colossal failure. When the oncologist starts talking about interleukin-2, it’s usually time to start thinking about where you put all those Neptune Society papers, because by then the big stuff has been pretty much tried and met with its usual failure.

The brilliant sales job behind interleukin-2 and other ‘vaccine’-type cytokine agents is that now we’re gonna transform the patient’s lymphocytes into an army of killer T-cells, which will then descend on those troublesome cancer cells and “root them out of there.”

Just one problem with this theory: no foreign antigens have ever been identified in tumor cells.

And that’s the only way that lymphocytes work – destroying foreign antigens – the not-self cells. So even if the T-cell count can be boosted, there is simply no way these lymphocytes can be directed at cancer cells, because the cancer cells don’t appear that different from normal cells. That’s why they were able to grow in the first place.

The other vexatious feature of interleukin-2 therapy is that because of its last-ditch status, the patient’s immune system is generally so depressed there’s simply not much of it left to work with. Once your immune system’s gone, so are you. And interleukin’s side effects are often the worst of any cancer drug. The list is too long to include here.

Professor George Annas, a medical ethicist, who analyzed the original controlled clinical trails done at the National Cancer Institute on interleukin-2 was slightly less than festive about interleukin-2 for patients:

“more than 80% of the patients did not do any better and they actually did worse. They died harder. That’s not irrelevant. We always tend to concentrate on the survivors, but we’ve got to make the point that 80 per cent had terrific side effects and didn’t get any measurable increase in longevity.”
- New York Times 3 Mar 94

Dr. Martin Shapiro agreed:

“revelations about the apparent ineffectiveness of the experimental cancer drug interleukin-2 are but the tip of an iceberg of misrepresentation and misunderstanding about cancer drug treatments in general.” [21]
- Los Angeles Times 9 Jan 87

The same interleukin-2 is still used today, all over the country.


In a desperate attempt for new revenues, a brilliant new marketing technique for chemo emerged in the 2000s: prescribing chemo drugs for non-cancer cases. This off-label prescribing is now so rampant that it is impossible to track or even estimate its extent. By virtue of his license, any MD can prescribe most drugs for any diagnosis he chooses. Laws absolutely protect him from being sued, no matter what happens to the patient. So for the past 10 years we are now seeing these very expensive chemotherapy drugs being routinely prescribed for many other untested unrelated conditions. To list just a few:

  • endometriosis
  • infertility
  • benign prostatic hypertrophy
  • pneumonitis
  • vasculitis
  • lupus
  • dermatomyositis

    (Intravenous Cyclophosphamide for Non-Cancer [7])


Very difficult to count how many patients are receiving chemotherapy per year. If the real focus were health care, and monitoring the effectiveness of a cure, why wouldn’t there be extensive inter-hospital data bases to follow up on successful treatment? That doesn’t exist.

What can be tracked is the amount of cytotoxic drugs sold by the pharmaceutical companies. This amount grew from $3 billion in 1989 to over $13 billion in 1998. (Moss p. 75) [5] By 2008 the figure was $48 billion, projected to reach $80 billion by 2011. (Berkrot) [8]

These figures are chemotherapy drugs sales only, not taking into account professional or hospital fees associated with treatment.

Total spending for cancer treatment just in the US was reported at over $90 billion by 2008, but today is obviously much higher. [Szabo, USA Today] [9]


A funny phrase that doctors use when talking about chemotherapy is “dose-limiting” treatment. All that means is that if the dose is not limited, the patient dies.

It is inexplicable when patients tell me their family’s chemotherapy stories, usually involving a family member, in which they talk about toward the end, where the doctors gave the patient “5 times” or “20 times” the lethal dose! We hear this all the time, and when you really get what they’re saying, the level of barbarity is appalling. The doctors are saying at the end, Well it’s hopeless – so we may as well give him 5 or 20 times the normal dose of an already poisonous drug, what difference will it make? We tried our best. Totally forgetting that the patient even while dying is a human being, and the goal wasn’t to kill the tumor; it was to save the patient.

Or are they saying, quick this guy is dying, the insurance is still running…?

When any chemotherapeutic drug is spilled in the hospital or anywhere en route, it is classified as a major biohazard, requiring the specialists to come and clean it up with their space-suits and all their HazMat protocols. Yet this same agent is going to be put into the human body and is expected to cure it of disease? What’s wrong with this picture?


From its inception, mainstream cancer theory has always used military terms:

the war on cancer
killing the tumor cells
killer T cells
stopping the advance
powerful drugs as weapons
fighting the cancer
nuke the tumor

This type of thinking is so pervasive that it’s become second nature for most of us. The very failure of the entire cancer industry to slow the death rate over the past fifty years, despite the cooked figures, may indicate that perhaps it’s time to look for another paradigm.

It’s imponderable that doctors continue to prescribe volatile poisons which they know will not prolong their lives, may well kill the patient, and the only way they can convince the patients is by devious high pressure sales techniques completely misrepresentative of actual expectations…all this simply because it’s their only tool? This can’t be an acceptable excuse. You don’t want to believe that things are really this perverse, but in most cases due diligence will bear it out.


The American Cancer Society and the FDA have a list of “Unproven Methods” for cancer, which they attack with their full measure of invective both directly and using their many covers. As you might expect, the criteria for getting on this list are predictable:

- a natural form
- non-toxic
- not produced by the Drug Industry
- easily available without a prescription
- inexpensive
- non-patentable

Even though chemotherapy and radiation and palladium implants are completely unproven themselves, and frequently are the cause of death themselves, they are not on the Unproven List. Why not? Because they’re expensive, can be completely controlled, and are patentable. This last deserves some explanation.

In order for a drug to be approved by the FDA, the manufacturer must do years of clinical trials, which may cost anywhere between 100 – 300 million dollars. Now if a company is going to spend that kind of money, they don’t want some other company stealing their formula after they’ve gone to all that trouble developing it. Their guarantee is called a patent – legally it’s their drug and no one can copy it for 17 years.

Do you think after all that trouble, a drug company wants somebody to come along with a totally cheap, available, and natural product which has the same effect as their drug, yet with none of the side effects? Of course not! And do you think they’ll do everything they can both legally and politically to prevent natural products from reaching the market? You better believe it.


Many of the effective natural cures for cancer which have come along in the past 75 years have faced a tidal wave of opposition from the FDA/AMA/Drug Trust. (Richard Walters’s Options. [11]) Some of these natural cures are still around in the US, though they are under attack. Others can only be obtained in Mexico or Europe. And still others have been crushed out of existence for good – disappeared without a trace, in the Age of Repressed Technology.

You can do the historical research yourself on some of the following products and innovators:

William Kelley, Hoxsey, Gaston Naessens, Max Gerson, Kurt Donsbach, William Koch, Lawrence Burton, Dr. Stan Burzynski, Dr Stan Bynum, enzyme therapy, Patrick Flanagan, 714x, Haelan, antineoplastins, raw foods, live cell therapy, ozone, peroxide, EDTA chelation, Laetrile, Coley vaccines, DCA, Hydrazine sulfate, Hans Nieper, JH Tilden, the Rife machine, the black box, Black Magic, avemar, etc.

This is a partial list. Many names have been lost forever. Separately or in combination, these methods and these healers in all likelihood have resolved cancer in thousands of cases during the past 75 years. Some of the technology is gone – other methods can still be located. What they have in common is that they are non-patentable generally natural methods which have no significant side effects, and work with one common goal: strengthen the immune system.

The above names were not people whose first goal was to make personal fortunes and lock their discoveries away from those who wanted to copy them. The pharmaceutical industry has what can only be described as a de facto monopoly on cancer treatment in this country. Their stated goal is not curing cancer or helping people die with dignity, or trying to discover a cure, or relieving pain, or giving Americans a better life. Their stated goal is return on investment for their stockholders. Certainly no secret, and they have proven for the past century that there are no limits they will observe to secure their control of what has become a $100 billion per year industry. If this sounds harsh or paranoid, start perusing the appended reference list and you’ll notice how unfamiliar it looks.

Try and find one single treatment on the FDA’s “Unproven Methods” list that is patentable as a drug.


A reasonable alternative would focus on wholeness, on health, on only giving the body something that will immediately improve its healing capabilities. Support the immune system and the body’s natural healing powers. The body’s resistance is already run down; so let’s only introduce substances and nutrients which will have a direct healing and immuno-enhancing effect.

Here are four self-evident lines of action, all of which will nourish and support whatever immune system you’re still in possession of.


Simple. Clean it up. You know what’s bad by now. Probably that’s what got you into this mess. If you’re still smoking, stop reading and go back to the drug sites. Sayonara.

Over 3000 studies in mainstream medical journals document successful treatment of cancer with nutritional supplementation. But the medical profession continues to pretend that nutrition is a “feel-good adjunct” to the “real treatment” – chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, even though these procedures have not significantly improved survival rates since the time of our grandparents.

If you’re serious, here’s your new diet. Got it all worked out. It’s been the nucleus of the 60 Day Program for the last 15 years. Nothing extreme, or religious about it: just the common sense traditional natural diet with no refined carbohydrates, no hydrogenated oils, no pasteurized dairy.


Avoid negative people and negative input. Such a constantly degrading social pattern is causative of abnormal changes at the cellular level. Physically remove yourself from negative people, especially if they be family members. Disconnect your cable and your satellite. Getting stupider is not a healing mode. Unplug your phone unless it brings happy news. This step #2 is definitely not optional, as many can tell you from personal experience. Optimum would be to move into as natural an environment as possible. Like a forest, or desert, or ocean, or mountain top. Affording it? Can you afford to be dead?

If you’re going to try a program like this, don’t be disingenuous enough to expect people’s approval. Expect ridicule. Expect threats. Then avoid those people. No matter who they are. Selfish? You bet. Time to be selfish.


Do something. Assist the lymphatics. Breathe. Walk. Swim. Bicycle. Run. Work out.

Do something.


The 60 Day Program is a very specific, classic regimen of nutrition and detoxification whose purpose is to restore the body to normal equilibrium by removing years of toxic buildup in the tract and in the blood, restoring normal blood oxygen, by providing the body only what is absolutely nourishing to the cells, adding nothing more to the toxic load.

For 60 Days, nothing but best nutrients in, wastes out.

Supplements are kept to a bare minimum, but sufficient to give the body everything it needs to nourish its cells, clear out the tract and re-balance the blood.

The Program is simple, it has decades of clinical success, and there are few health imbalances which will not show a favorable response.

In today’s world more than 60,000 chemicals have some degree of access to the food, air, and water of every country. Most of us have been vaccinated and have dental amalgams. We have seen the bio-accumulation of mercury described in the vaccine text and in the Dentistry chapters. Most of us have taken in significant amounts of processed foods during our lifetime, much of which remains locked in our tract and in our cells because it is unmetabolizable.

By themselves, these DNA-altering poisons cannot escape the tissues in which they are trapped. Most people die with an enormous toxic load locked within their tissues. In cancer survival we will strive to chelate and detox as many residual carcinogens as possible.

Comments by Donna Roth

This is a very impressive article by Dr. O'Shea who follows the same protocal as the Paw Paw program except he is not familiar with Paw Paw and its 20 year study for cleaning out cancer cells. The recommended foods to eliminate are sugars, grains, legumes, and dairy.

  • Dr. O'Shea Protocol
  • Enzymes
  • Expel
  • Total Florabiotics
  • Antioxidants
  • Chelated Minerals
  • Oral chelation
  • Collagen
  • 2 litres water per day

  • Paw Paw Program
  • Protease Plus
  • Paw Paw and All Cell Detox
  • Probiotic 11
  • Zambroza
  • Mineral Chi Tonic
  • MC
  • Collatrim Plus
  • Flax Hull Lignans