Mammograms actually KILL.

The late Dr. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and author of an amazing book “The Politics of Cancer Revisited” has described the guidelines as a sham.

According to him “They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of ‘crimes against humanity.’”

Mammograms are in fact not a scientific diagnostic test but a marketing trick, to sell worthless and unnecessary treatments. Women who do not have cancer at all are subject to pointless biopsies and many of these go on to have expensive, dangerous and unneeded treatments. They have been TOLD they have cancer; “The mammogram shows it.” But mammograms are hugely inaccurate, a fact glossed over by those who support it.¹

Significantly, the American Cancer Society (ACS) promotes the dubious value of mammograms. Then we read that five radiologists have served as presidents of the ACS over the years. In its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker. It does not represent the interests of women or patients.

The mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on its advisory boards, and donates considerable funds. “DuPont also is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions touting ACS literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organization, and doctors; produces educational films; and aggressively lobbies Congress for legislation promoting the nationwide availability of mammography services, telling women to get mammograms.

No wonder the lady who complained to me firmly believed that mammograms help save lives!

Breast Self-Examination Done Properly Is More Accurate Than a Mammogram

Mammograms CAUSE Breast Cancer

Mammograms are dangerous in more ways than one:

Missed cancers are common in premenopausal women due to their dense breast structure, and also in postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy who often develop breast densities, making their mammograms difficult to read. Also, about one third of all cancers, and more of the aggressive premenopausal cancers, are diagnosed between annual screenings. Women can thus be lulled into a false sense of security by an apparently negative mammogram, when trouble is already present.

Moreover, misdiagnosed cancers are common in premenopausal women, postmenopausal women on estrogen replacement therapy, and women with a strong family history, and can reach 100% over a decade’s screening. Misdiagnoses thus result in anxiety, more mammograms, unnecessary biopsies and even wasted mastectomies.

The Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which was conducted over the course of 25 years, concluded that 106 of 484 screen-detected cancers were over-diagnosed.

The doctors explained: “This means that 106 of the 44,925 healthy women in the screening group were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, which resulted in needless surgical interventions, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these therapies.”

But it’s worse than that:

The routine practice of taking four films of each breast annually results in approximately 1 rad (radiation absorbed dose) exposure, which is about the same dose as a woman standing within one mile of the Hiroshima bomb when it went off, and 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray (remember, mass screening with chest x-rays was stopped years ago, because it caused more cancer than it detected!)

Prof. Epstein describes mammograms as an avoidable cause of breast cancer. Be warned.

Yet all the time, the ACS ignores or attacks breast self examination (BSE), following training by expert nurses or clinicians, which is the safe and effective alternative.

Swiss Medical Board Is No Longer Fooled

In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative, was requested to prepare a review of mammography screening. The team of medical professionals included a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist. ² Two of those members, Nikola Biller-Andorno, M.D. Ph. D. and Peter Juni, M.D, opened up about the project in the New England Journal of Medicine.

They said: “As we embarked on the project, we were aware of the controversies that have surrounded mammography screening for the past 10-15 years. When we received the available evidence and contemplated its implications in detail, however, we became increasingly concerned.”

These two doctors were shocked to discover that there is minimal evidence that actually indicates that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the harms.

“The relative risk reduction of approximately 20 percent in breast-cancer mortality associated with mammography that is currently described by most expert panels came at the price of a considerable diagnostic cascade, with repeat mammography, subsequent biopsies, and over-diagnosis of breast cancers — cancers that would never have become clinically apparent.”

Another review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women discovered no evidence that mammography screening was effective on overall mortality. This is remarkably at variance with the public perception of the value of mammograms, created by endless propaganda. A survey of U.S. women’s views on the mammography screenings discovered that 71.5 percent of women think that it lessened risk of death from breast cancer by half, while 72.1 percent believed that 80 deaths could be avoided per each 1,000 women screened. Their perceptions were gravely over-calculated. ³

In fact, when looking at the real numbers, mammography results in a risk reduction of 20 percent and only 1 death can be prevented per 1,000 women screened. The complications and results of the UNNECESSARY treatments more than wiped out this almost insignificant advantage.

As I said: mammograms KILL.

Due to the lack of evidence in support of mammography and the clear potential risks involved with them, the Swiss board chose to recommend cancelling mammography-screening programs altogether. The report caused a furore amongst Swiss cancer experts and organizations.

The so-called “experts” were in uproar because, of course, it questioned their competence and the lies they had been using to sell expensive treatments.

But the bottom line is: the benefits do not clearly outweigh the harms, and women’s perceptions of mammography benefits do not match reality.

Here’s a short video on YouTube you can watch.

Finally…

The sheer number of studies that have been published on breast mammography examinations and their failure to produce a benefit in screened populations is overwhelming.

A paper published in 2011 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) set out to prove that mammography created healthier populations with less breast cancer, by comparing countries that screened routinely with those that did not. They did not expect to find the complete opposite; they found a drop in breast cancer mortality among women who were not screened. They concluded that the recent downward trend in breast cancer mortality has nothing to do with screening and everything to do with improvements in treatment and service provision.⁴

A study from Norway’s breast screening program shows screening has actually increased the chance of being diagnosed with early stage breast cancer by more than 200%, as well contributing to an increased chance of receiving advanced stage breast cancer diagnosis by 35%. This is the opposite of what screening is supposed to do!⁵

As Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com points out, a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel concluded that “early stage cancers” are not cancers at all, they are benign or indolent growths. This means that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer over the past few decades and have been subjected to harmful treatment, when they would have been better off leaving it untreated or diagnosed; frighteningly, it is not uncommon for a breast cancer misdiagnosis to occur.

Another study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates. And they found no evidence to suggest that mammograms are more effective than personal breast exams at detecting cancer in the designated age group.

So I suggest you learn breast self examination (BSE) from a competent teacher (preferably a nurse, rather than a doctor!) You’ll get the same accuracy, if not better, without any of the side effects and complications.

I repeat: mammograms are a marketing trick, not a scientifically credible screening tool.

To your good health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

P.S. Please don’t write to me and tell me you had a mammogram and it found cancer and so saved your life. I would argue you the “cancer” found was fake and therefore you would survive anyway.

Current figures show that 1 in 2 men and almost that many women will get cancer at some time in their lifetime. That’s 50/50 odds. That’s why we are ALL battling cancer: either you or a loved one close to you will probably get the disease.

I will show you how to beat the 50/50 odds of cancer. I will reveal eye-opening, science-backed secrets shown to beat breast cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, and more…

>>>Get the Scientifically Proven Way to Win the Battle Against Cancer<<<

References:

1. http://www.breastcancerchoices.org/epstein.html
2. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/823781
3. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fail-another-mammography-study-finds-they-dont-save-lives
4. http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4411
5. European Journal of Public Health, Volume 24, Issue 6, 1 December 2014, Pages 1017–1022

Those of you who have been with me for some years know that one of my teachings is: ANY GOOD HEALTH MEASURE IS AN ANTI-CANCER MEASURE!

They are not separate issues at all. 

I have also said, often, that cancer need not be a death knell. BUT IT IS A WAKEUP CALL (I’ve lately seen other people steal that idea and pass it off as their own). It’s telling you that your health is in tatters. You need to answer the call and shape up. Otherwise you may be for it. But if you help your body to recover, it will help you.

Our biological selves are superb machines, designed and run by nature. Looked after, the way nature intended, bodies are well-oiled, self-correcting entities and can heal. BODIES DO HEAL.

But we mess up the process by unnatural processes, such as a sedentary lifestyle, toxic environmental chemicals, crappy and nutritionally-inadequate foods, disgusting psychological stressors (such as TV advertizing blare, “news”, porn and social media), artificial hormone disruptors and electromagnetic “pollution”.

In reverse, that means if we act to mitigate some of these poisons, we start correcting towards normality, which at its high end is a life of vitality, joy, ease and motion.

ANYTHING you do to achieve optimal is worthwhile. The more you do, the better the outcome. And, YES, the one that gets missed most often is adequate healthy exercize. The opposite tends to happen. Someone is chronically ill or in danger from cancer and they are supposed to “take it easy” and “look after themselves”!

Wrong call!

Now before you back off, let me tell you that the level of exercize required to help retune your body is not arduous. I do the recommended amount each week just for pure pleasure. I enjoy doing what I’m supposed to be doing and my body responds by “singing” a kind of tune with a beat. When I stride along, there’s a kind of rhythm that feels natural, indeed harmonious!

Something about the deep down walking music is a kind of expression of living.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no exercize nerd. I NEVER go to the gymn. I don’t have fancy “kit” or a yoga mat! I recently tried to climb a mountain in the UK and had to give up! In shame, I realized that at 80 I could no longer do what I could do easily 20 years ago.

Anyway, let’s move on to the cancer connection.

A landmark international study, known as the CHALLENGE trial, provides compelling evidence on the positive impact of exercise post-cancer treatment. Involving 889 colon cancer patients across six countries, the study revealed that participants who engaged in a supervised exercise program experienced a 28% reduction in cancer recurrence and a 37% decrease in mortality over eight years compared to those receiving only standard health advice. The exercise regimen included activities like brisk walking, tailored to individual preferences, and was supported by regular coaching sessions.

As well as showing that exercise can cut the risk of death and cancer recurrence, the results of the study highlight the importance of personalized support in helping people develop the right routine for them.

“For an intervention that isn’t a drug, exercise offers remarkable benefits for patients,” said Professor Charles Swanton, chief clinician at Cancer Research UK. “For some people with colon cancer, physical activity can be a game-changer that shifts the course of their recovery.”

All 889 participants were well enough to exercise when they joined, but none of them were meeting recommended activity levels. 

Patients had already finished their cancer treatment, which included surgery and chemotherapy, but they still faced a risk that their cancer could come back. The researchers wanted to see if increasing their activity levels would help them stay well.

Half of the people who took part received standard health education materials with guidance on exercise and healthy eating, while the rest were given additional support from a trainer, pushing to help them reach a weekly exercise target.

After five years, 80% of people supported by a trainer remained cancer free, compared with 74% of those who were given the standard booklets. At eight years, 90% of people supported by a trainer were still alive, up from 83% in the health education materials group.

Professor Vicky Coyle at the University of Belfast, who led the research in the UK, said:?“During the trial, we supported people to reach their weekly exercise target in a way that worked for them. This could be a brisk walk for around 40 minutes every day, but some patients were also doing circuit classes, cycling, swimming, and many other activities.? 

“Our study gives clear, encouraging evidence that physical activity can reduce the risk of cancer returning for some people with colon cancer. We now need to work with policymakers and healthcare providers to embed exercise into treatment plans where appropriate.”¹

Well, if that means interference with the oncology industries obscene profit, I wouldn’t hold my breath Vicky! But, point taken.

In case you are wondering, this is not the only evidence of the benefits of exercize to cancer patients.

Complementing these findings, a comprehensive meta-analysis encompassing 151 cohorts and nearly 1.5 million cancer patients demonstrated that post-diagnosis physical activity is associated with significantly lower cancer-specific mortality across multiple cancer types. Notably, breast cancer patients engaging in regular exercise exhibited a 31% reduction in mortality risk, while prostate and colorectal cancer patients saw reductions of 27% and 29%, respectively.²

Reasons

The study wasn’t designed to figure out WHY exercize was helpful but if you understand my any-good-health-measure quote from above, you’ll see it doesn’t really matter.

But growing evidence suggests that physical activity may play a critical role in modulating multiple aging-related processes in general and improving cancer survival in particular. Beyond its well-documented benefits for cardiovascular and metabolic health, physical activity exerts profound anti-aging effects at the cellular and metabolic levels. 

Regular exercise has been shown to reduce chronic inflammation, prevent cellular senescence, enhance mitochondrial function, maintain genomic stability (such as the demethylation of tumor suppressor genes like L3MBTL1, so enhancing their expression), regulate hormones like insulin and estrogen (which, in excess, can promote tumor growth) and, finally, to improve immune surveillance (aiding in the detection and elimination of malignant cells)— mechanisms that are intricately linked to both aging and cancer progression. 

By interfering with these fundamental drivers of aging, physical activity may slow cancer progression and improve survival outcomes.³

All Other Health Measures Apply!

ANY good health measure is an anti-cancer measure. Learn that as a mantra.

Keep stress down, get love into your life, be content with what you have, even while wanting more.

Eat right and, from me, that means eliminating what I call bandit foods.

Take in more fiber. A high-fiber diet has been linked to improved responses to immunotherapy in melanoma patients, with 77% of those on a high-fiber diet responding positively compared to 29% on a lower-fiber diet.

Get your weight to reasonable levels. Maintaining a healthy weight through diet and exercise reduces the risk of getting various cancers. There may be an “ideal” weight for you and that may seem hard to achieve. But don’t give up altogether, as people often do.

Conclusion

Moderate exercise emerges as a powerful, non-pharmacological intervention in cancer care, offering significant improvements in survival and quality of life. As research continues to elucidate the mechanisms by which physical activity influences cancer outcomes, it becomes increasingly clear that promoting general health measures, including regular exercise, right diet and a stress-free life is essential in the fight against cancer.

Don’t forget the preventative aspect too!

To your good health,
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

Check out my book:Get your copy here.

References:

1. https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2025/06/01/structured-exercise-improves-colon-cancer-survival/
2. Ungvari, Z., Fekete, M., Varga, P. et al. Exercise and survival benefit in cancer patients: evidence from a comprehensive meta-analysis. GeroScience (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-025-01647-0
3. ibid.

In the case of cancer, this situation can be made worse by chemotherapy, surgery, hormone therapy or radiation therapy, all of which can impede normal sexual activity. Unfortunately, there is usually very little discussion of this problem among doctors and caregivers. That makes open, honest and sensitive discussions by the couple themselves even more important.

Not all patients experience changes in their urges, while others feel the loss keenly in one or more areas: desire, arousal, orgasm and resolution.

With the growing incidence of cancer, particularly among young individuals (eg, colorectal cancer), increased knowledge and awareness of the potential effects of cancer treatment on sexual health and reproductive potential among physicians and individuals is increasingly important.

Yet such matters are rarely discussed.

The most common sexual change for cancer patients is an overall loss of desire. This is usually due to fatigue but nausea from the treatment can also be an issue. Depression and anxiety, which are pretty normal in certain stages of cancer treatment and recovery, also have a notoriously negative effect on libido.¹

For men, erection problems are common. For women, vaginal dryness and pain with sexual activity are frequent. It is common for patients to need more time or stimulation to reach orgasm. This calls for affection and patience.

Breast surgery, notably mastectomy can also have a damaging effect on self image and desire, as well as all the other undesirable effects of chemo or radiation therapy. So too can hair loss be damaging to a person’s self-image.

It’s vital that the partner stand by their beloved and assure him or her, as often as it takes, they are no less attractive and no less loved!

Blissfully, most men and women are still able to have an orgasm even if cancer treatment interferes with erections or vaginal lubrication, or has involved removing some parts of the pelvic organs. Water-based lubricants, such as KY Jelly, can definitely help (avoid petroleum jelly).

It is not sufficient counselling to imply a diminishment of sexuality is par for the course and, in any case, the patient will have far more on his or her mind than mere gratification. The truth is that love and tenderness between a man and wife, or a romantic couple, can have powerful healing and nourishing qualities which should therefore be indulged and not side-lined.

There are a number of recognized side-effects following common cancer treatment that may affect your desire for sex:

• Fatigue

• Nausea

• Vomiting

• Diarrhea

• Constipation

• Hair loss

• Weight changes

• Scars

• Sensitivity to tastes and smells

While medications are available to treat many of these symptoms, some of these same drugs can decrease sexual desire or make it harder to reach orgasm. Drugs to treat drug side-effects is never a good idea.

If you are having sex during chemotherapy, you may wish to use barrier protection, such as condoms or dental dams (for oral sex), since chemotherapy chemicals can be found in saliva, semen or vaginal fluid and you don’t want to transfer these to your partner. 

Radiation therapy from an external machine will not endanger your partner in any way. If you are undergoing brachytherapy, which implants radioactive seeds in your body, you may have to stop sexual activity briefly until the strongest radiation has left the body.

Sex can be a problem if you have bleeding in the genital area following a recent surgery or if your immune system is very weakened. Sometimes a low platelet count can lead to blood clotting defects and that in turn may further any bruising, even when intercourse is very gentle.²

The good news is that most sexual side effects of chemo will disappear when therapy is completed. 

The main thing to remember is that the absence of sex does not mean the absence of intimacy. Even if you are unable to achieve an erection or tolerate intercourse, intimate touching and caressing can bolster both your outlook and those all-important feelings of self-esteem.

According to the American Cancer Society, self-stimulation (masturbation) can help ease you back into sexual feelings as you are recovering from chemotherapy.

Risk of Infection

Not directly related to desire and fulfillment is the question of heightened infection risk. Many therapy drugs complicate matters by tuning down the immune system.

For example, people undergoing chemo are often at risk of developing a low white cell count (neutropenia). These immune cells are vital for fighting off infection, and, without them, we are all at risk for infections which might otherwise be harmless.

And that’s where sex can become a problem. Whether vaginal, anal, or oral, each of these activities has the potential to pass infection. If the immune system is compromized, that could be a problem, at least theoretically. In practice, not so much, because a couple who are regularly intimate already share most of each other’s microbiome. In any case, where the risk is substantial, condoms can provide adequate protection from pathogens.

Vaginal infections are common in women undergoing chemotherapy, especially those taking antibiotics or steroids. The infections can cause pain, burning, and irritation to the vagina, often accompanied by a white vaginal discharge. Avoidance of sex is generally advised until the infection clears up—but that’s normal advice for all couples in the same situation.

Genital warts or herpes flare-ups can also be a real problem. Because chemotherapy suppresses the immune system, viruses like human papillomavirus (HPV) and herpes simplex virus (HSV) are able to thrive where they might otherwise be controlled. In fact, some people who have never had an outbreak may suddenly be faced with one after starting treatment.

If your immune system is severely compromised, sexual abstinence may be the only sure way to avoid infection.

In any case, while undergoing treatment you must take care to avoid the complication of pregnancy. Chemo and radiation are both capable of mutagenesis, which could lead to birth defects.

But these are all technical points; important, yes. But nothing to compare to the magic of love and affinity! I think other people have said it well enough; I’m merely repeating it: feelings and good emotions are powerful healers of pain and suffering. It is your DUTY to show love and care when times are stressful. 

Anyone can DO love when the going is good. It’s how you measure up when it’s not easy that is the mark of your character. OK, don’t want to be preachy. You’ve got it.

To your good health,
Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. Sexual Dysfunction in Females after Cancer Treatment: an Unresolved Issue. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2017 May 1;18(5):1177-1182. doi:10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.5.1177
2. https://www.mdanderson.org/patients-family/diagnosis-treatment/emotional-physical-effects/sexuality-cancer.html

FYI, I have decided to add this essay to my book “The Psychology Of Cancer”

Click here to have your own copy.

The one place we especially do not want to stiffen up in is our arteries, specifically the lining membrane inside our blood vessels called the endothelium.

Exercise training, even initiated in late life, enhances endothelium?dependent dilatation, increases capillary flow and improves blood flow distribution and capacity in the aged lower limb.¹

Unfortunately, excercize—the main thing that will help us as we age—can easily become too demanding for older people. But fortunately, the intensity of muscle stretching is relatively light compared to aerobic exercise, such that even quite elderly individuals can perform muscle stretching with minimal risk of injury.

Fights Cancer, Too

Recent decades have seen a shift in approach to cancer biology and treatment. While cancer research originally focused on the cancerous process in the cells themselves, there is a growing interest in factors within the host that may influence cancer growth, such as angiogenesis (development of new blood vessels, which aid the cancer), fibrosis, inflammation and immune dysregulation. 

Parallel with this new interest in a more holistic overall view is the emergence of non-pharmacological treatments that could boost natural defenses against cancer and contribute to primary and secondary cancer prevention. 

Among these, exercise has received a significant amount of attention due to the well-documented positive association between physical activity and survival in many cancer types. Now, intriguing research at Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital shows that even just simple stretching may help the body’s immune system fight cancer.

This investigation – which was actually conducted on animals – indicated that stretching may reduce the size of tumors by an average of 52 percent compared to cancer in animals that don’t have their limbs stretched.

Researchers used a well-established protocol for stretching in mice in which the animals are held by the tail and gently lifted, allowing their front paws to grasp a bar. With minimal training, mice can hold this position without struggling for 10 minutes.²

The researchers believe that stretching spurs the body’s T-cells to fight more aggressively against cancer cells. They also discovered that stretching reduced levels of PD-1 (programmed death receptor-1), an immune factor that indicates that T-cells are becoming effete and unable to fight the cancer (T-cell exhaustion, as it’s known). Put the other way round, mild stretching rejuvenated T-cells and brought them back into action.

On top of those findings, the investigation showed that stretching affected how the body controls inflammation (this makes sense since inflammation is an immune system function). Specifically, even though individual group differences were not significant, overall levels of inflammatory mediators, including IL-2, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-alpha, were improved in the stretch group.

The Harvard researchers are not yet sure precisely what these discoveries signify, but they say it sheds light on the fact that stretching exerts essential influences on immune cells in ways that seem to help them respond to tumors.

“There is still so much we don’t understand in terms of how stretching reduces tumor growth,” says researcher Jean J. Zhao, PhD, who teaches biological chemistry and molecular pharmacology at Harvard. “Understanding these mechanisms could help us develop more effective therapies against breast cancer and potentially other cancer types.”

Lead author researcher Jean J. Zhao, PhD, had this to say in conclusion, “Our results demonstrate a 52% reduction of mammary tumor growth over one month in mice undergoing stretching for 10?minutes once a day without any other form of therapy. The potential clinical significance of our results lies in the possibility of developing a method of gentle stretching that could be well tolerated and testable in humans for primary or secondary cancer prevention, or in conjunction with cancer treatment. Although the mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of stretching in our mouse breast cancer model remain to be elucidated, our results point to a possible link between inflammation resolution and immune exhaustion mechanisms that could be important in basic cancer biology.”³

That this 50% improvement happened without any other form of therapy is a 8.5 on my Wow-Factor scale!

Getting Started

Here are some of the BIG benefits of stretching:

• Improves flexibility and circulation

• Increases blood flow and energy levels

• Helps maintain balance

• Reduces back pain

• Strengthens muscles

• Can reduce joint pain

• Improves posture

• Enhances mobility

• Reduces risk of injury and falling

• Relaxation

If you start a stretching program, experts recommend doing some light physical activity for five to ten minutes at each session before stretching. This is not quantitative activity, just loosening movement, which is especially helpful if you lead a sedentary lifestyle. 

Then, each stretch is usually held for 30 seconds to a minute. And you should repeat each stretch on both sides of your body.

Don’t be overly aggressive, pushing or jerking yourself into a stretch; keep your movements slow and gradual. Don’t do a stretch if it causes pain. And remember to breathe fully while you stretch.

If you need help getting started, here’s a beginner’s guide to basic stretches from the Mayo Clinic: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/in-depth/stretching/art-20546848?s=1

Video

Alternatively, you can get instructions on YouTube. Here’s a suggestion. I have no connection whatever with SilverSneakers and make no commissions. It’s just to save you a little time! Send me some feedback if you tried it. But looks useful to me.

Watch the video at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=3dkKquMiQIk&t=768s

Of course if you are still playing tennis, cycling or doing martial arts, you probably won’t want anything this trivial. Just keep going!

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. J Physiol. 2018 Apr 5;596(10):1903–1917. doi: 10.1113/JP275459
2. Stretching Reduces Tumor Growth in a Mouse Breast Cancer Model. Sci Rep. 2018 May 18;8(1):7864. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26198-7. Erratum in: Sci Rep. 2018 Nov 16;8(1):17226. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35364-w. 
3. Scientific Reports volume 8, Article number: 7864 (2018)

[echoing the lyric of Stephen Sondheim’s “Send in The Clowns”]

There’s a lot of stuff coming out to make the medical profession squirm. So what do they do? Go into denial! Hire of few shills to pick apart the science and pretend it’s no good, while their “science” is impeccable. Aw, c’mon!

First Off:
CT scans cause cancer. A LOT of cancer. It reminds me of the old days of mass chest x-rays in the 1950s and 60s, looking for TB and lung cancer. It emerged that the mass x-ray program was CAUSING more cancers than it was finding. So the program was abandoned. But that was then; we don’t abandon lucrative programs these days, just because we are killing patients, Oh no!

Watch what happens. I bet you NOTHING happens. Or some shill will crawl out of the woodwork, to play around with the figures and prove it was all nonsense.

Truth is, according to a paper published in JAMA, CT scans could be causing up to 100,000 cancers a year, in the USA alone! That would be about 5% of cancers  per year CAUSED by this diagnostic method.

True it was not a population study as such but a “risk assessment”. That doesn’t make it invalid. These forecasts have to be taken seriously and the approach to medicine reviewed. We don’t NEED that many CT scans and that’s a fact.

A risk model suggested that radiation from CT exams in 2023 were projected to lead to over 100,000 future cancers over the lifetime of the patients exposed that year.

Previous projections published in 2009 had estimated that approximately 29,000 future cancers would result from routine CT exposures.

These projections, and the frightening new 2023 figures, were reported by Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, of the University of California San Francisco, and her colleagues. 

Risks were higher in children and adolescents, but higher CT utilization in adults accounted for most (91%) radiation-induced cancers.

See, CT scans use ionizing radiation (like x-rays). MRI scans and ultra-sound are much safer and don’t use radiation. But it’s going to be a tough sell, getting doctors to go back to using their skills and training, instead of just sending the patient off for a CT scan.

Worse still is that patients can be very demanding and insist on the CT scan. They believe that is the “best” available and won’t be fobbed off with something else.

Try explaining the concept of “low-value testing” to a distraught Mom!

And—you guessed it—the shills speak up on behalf of the very lucrative CT scan “industry”. They dismiss these projections as a “theoretical risk” and insist that modeling studies “are not based on actual patient outcomes.” Which of course mean they are defending their turf and are not going to budge.

“There are no published studies directly linking CT scans (even multiple CT scans) to cancer,” the American College of Radiology (ACR) claimed in response. “Americans should not forgo necessary, life-saving medical imaging and continue to discuss the benefits and risks of these exams with their healthcare providers.”

Smith-Bindman and colleagues acknowledged that the study had several limitations, including the fact that their risk estimated model parameters were based on Japanese survivor outcomes “…and questions remain about the transfer of radiation risks from the mid-20th century Japanese population to the current U.S. population.”¹

Oh well, that’s it then. It’s only the Japanese. We can’t apply those figures to US human beings (please don’t write me, I’m being sarcastic, not a racist pig!)

Flu Vaccine Seems to INCREASE Disease!

Whoops, what a HUGE embarrassment. We’ve known for decades, of course, that the flu vaccine is useless. They never get the strains right for the year and, in any case, over 95% of flu cases don’t have flu (fact), they have an influenza-like illness ILI (not caused by one of the flu viruses). 

So, to show that it’s not only not working but INCREASES your chances of an ILI is doubly humiliating. It shows up not only the shoddy science behind the flu vaccines but makes a fool out of all the doctors who support the nonsense and keep spouting that everyone must have a flu shot!

Call in the shills! Quick!

One of the first to rally to the cry was Jeremy Faust, editor-in-chief of MedPage Today, an emergency medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a public health researcher.

“Of course, people who are anti-vax, love to jump all over this,” he says. “It’s a stunning Cleveland Clinic… negative effectiveness study. What’s stunning about it is how bad it is. So if you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be in this space. Go back to writing fiction.”²

Arrogant little bastard.

But Faust fails to make his point convincingly. He waffles about susceptible depletion bias, bad science and the study authors who “aught to know better” but in the end, the unvaccinated group had a lower incidence of flu. Period.

In any case, even if specious tweaking of figures managed to bring the vaccinated group back on top, it means the two groups are very close. They shouldn’t be. According accepted wisdom there should be lots of cases in the unvaxxed group and NONE in the vaxxed group!

And of course this overlooks the actual patients harmed by the vaccine. Oh yes, there are none, I remember now… Vaccines are 100% safe! (now I’m being really sarcastic, get it?)

Now Comes The Worst Of It:

This one is too difficult to waffle and blur the pitch. This one will have to be retracted and it won’t be long before that happens, I predict; a matter of weeks I should say. Pfizer will bring immense pressure to bear to force the journal to “retract” the paper, so they can pretend it never happened.

But the secret is out. In a press conference on March 11, 2025, Dr. Peter Kotlár, a Slovak physician, government commissioner, and MP, dropped a bombshell: all analyzed Pfizer and Moderna vaccine batches contain dangerously high levels of DNA, potentially transforming recipients into “genetically modified organisms.”

“In every single vial tested, there is an extremely high amount of DNA… stable compared to mRNA, can integrate into human DNA,” Kotlár asserted. “Theoretically, DNA fragments can integrate into the host genome, increasing the risk of genetic mutations.” Remember this guy is an MD, as well as a politician.³

Not just any old fragments of DNA but that from the SV40 virus. This finding raises urgent safety concerns, particularly due to the well-documented role of SV40 as a potential carcinogen.

This discovery not only highlights serious lapses in regulatory oversight for mRNA vaccines but also revives disturbing parallels to the polio vaccine scandal of the 1960s, where millions were unknowingly exposed to SV40. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) formerly hosted a page acknowledging this connection, but they have now taken it down. Tara! It never happened!  It was just “misinformation” ahead of its time.

So authorities carry on blithely, as if nothing is wrong. They are STILL recommending old folks and the vulnerable get their COVID shots! No care or caution on view, anywhere…

Doesn’t it make you sick the way they protect their Pharma buddies and are quite prepared to kill or risk killing humans in the process?

The connection cannot be shrugged off because of the huge surge in cancers we are seeing, particularly very aggressive and rapidly-fatal cancers, which have been nicknamed “turbo-cancers”.

Instead of exercizing caution and putting a hold on these vaccines, official sites are quick to criticize detractors. BUT THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE NONSENSE.

The Australian TGA (equivalent of the FDA) waded in with the arguments that the samples are small (3 phials only in one of the labs). But just one phial is enough to establish contamination. Some samples were past their expiry date (so what? DNA is either present or not). Some may not have been stored “correctly” (so what? even kept at room temperature they would not articifically “grow” DNA!)

Finally, they try and discredit these labs by saying they are not properly authenticated for testing vaccines. They were not “testing vaccines”, they were looking for contaminants. Even college kids could do that, given the necessary equipment.⁴

These are the guys who whine about those who spread “misinformation”? The public should trust the science, they say? I don’t think so, not this kind of “science”.

This page was on CDC.gov, now deleted. But you can read the cached (archived) version here: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/historical-concerns/index.html

You’ll find this para:

Simian Virus 40 (SV40): 1955 – 1963

“Because of research done with SV40 in animal models, there has been some concern that the virus could cause cancer in humans. However, most studies looking at the relationship between SV40 and cancers are reassuring, finding no causal association between receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine and development of cancer.”

The key word there is “most”. It’s a sin that ANY SV40 virus particles should be in a polio vaccine! The argument “It’s OK, it doesn’t cause cancer,” is irrelevant. It’s also NOT TRUE. There is a known oncogenic (tumor causing) mechanism connected with the SV40 virus, which is that it suppresses the p53 gene, which is protective against cancer. As an example, SV40 definitely causes cancer in hamsters.⁵

Moreover, pleural mesotheliomas and osteosarcomas develop in hamsters injected intracardially with SV40.6

Is that important? Yes. We use hamsters in lab testing because their immune systems reespond quite like ours! So claims that it doesn’t apply to humans is disingenuous at best, outright lying more likely.

I’m really angry, as you can see. This is supposed to be the great calling of medicine. Yet these crooks are playing with human lives, just to protect their profits.

Look after yourself—and I mean that advisedly,

To your good health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References:

1. 1. Smith-Bindman R, et al “Projected lifetime cancer risks from current computed tomography imaging” JAMA Intern Med 2025; DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.0505.
   2. https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/faustfiles/115110
   3. https://www.aussie17.com/p/breaking-news-slovak-government-official
   4. https://www.tga.gov.au/news/media-releases/addressing-misinformation-about-excessive-dna-mrna-vaccines.
   5. M Carbone, R Stach, I Di Resta, H I Pass, P Rizzo. Simian virus 40 oncogenesis in hamsters. Dev Biol Stand. 1998 ;94:273-9. PMID: 
   6. Cicala, C., Pompetti, F., & Carbone, M. (1993). SV40 induces mesotheliomas in hamsters. The American Journal of Pathology, 142(5), 1524–1533. PMID: 8388174; PMCID: PMC1886912.

For years I have been writing about my 3 principles of anti-cancer health:

Rule #1. Any good health measure is an anti-cancer measure!

Rule #2. Any good health measure is an anti-cancer measure!

Rule #3. Any good health measure is an anti-cancer measure!

No kidding: this is writ LARGE in my famous anti-cancer book CANCER RESEARCH SECRETS. Truth is, it’s simply not possible to separate cancer tendencies from general health issues.

In fact I have 3 easy-to-remember pillars of health: 

1. Diet and nutrition

2. Chemical unburdening

3. Emotional detox

4. (these days I would add EMFs)

As usual, the medical profession as a whole eventually catches up with what I am telling you about! And so it is again. They have decided that “comorbidities” (other health conditions) have a profound influence on cancer vulnerability! So what I have known for decades is gradually creeping into the orthodox medical canon (as it must).

CANCER DOES NOT JUST HAPPEN! It does not drop out of the sky into your poor innocent body! Cancer is a signal that your general health is a wreck! As I have written often, cancer is not a death sentence. BUT IT IS A WAKE-UP CALL. You better listen, or else!

Face it, cancer is not a challenge that any of us want to face. It’s scary. Treatment is questionable, to say the least. Indeed, I have suspected that most people die of cancer treatment, not the disease! 

[Ooops, am I allowed to say that? Oh yes, RFK is in there, fighting for the truth! Haha!]

The statistics are pretty grim. One in every two men and nearly that many women will get cancer at some stage in their life. 50/50 chance! Meaning you or a loved will almost certainly contract the disease. In effect, it means that we are all fighting cancer. An unpleasant thought.

BUT WE ARE NOT HELPLESS. General health is a gift and open to you to claim. If you already have heart disease, diabetes, you’re obese, gut issues, fatty liver or indeed if you are taking meds for any reason, then you have left things a bit late! But still, you can put that into reverse. If you don’t do that you’re back to 50/50 (the toss of a coin in effect) that the Big C will come visiting you.

Now there is a new study to put even more figures around this issue and maybe it will help you be mindful of the risks of doing “nothing”. [Of course nobody is doing nothing. The majority of citizens are daily dosing themselves with death in what they eat and drink—not you of course, dear reader! But they believe, or are told, that exercize and nutrition are irrelevant to their health]

It is clear that there is a strong correlation between existing health conditions (so-called comorbidities) and the likelihood of cancer, meaning specific risks for specific types of cancer. The study came from the prospective Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) screening trial.

For purposes of the current study, comorbidities were classified into five specific combinations: cardiovascular conditions (coronary heart disease or heart attack, stroke, and hypertension); gastrointestinal conditions (ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, diverticulitis or diverticulosis, etc. and gallbladder stones or inflammation); respiratory conditions (chronic bronchitis or emphysema); liver conditions (hepatitis or cirrhosis); and metabolic conditions (obesity and type 2 diabetes).

Among nearly 130,000 participants without a history of cancer, the risk of any incident cancer was significantly higher for adults with a history of respiratory  and cardiovascular conditions. Not so with gastrointestinal, liver, and metabolic disease.  However, it was a complex multiple risk assessment meaning, for example, there was a very definite link between a history of liver conditions and risk of liver cancer, but otherwise liver conditions were associated with a significantly REDUCED risk of endometrial cancer (womb lining).

Meanwhile, metabolic conditions (obesity and type 2 diabetes) were associated with an increased risk of liver, endometrial, kidney, biliary, thyroid, rectal, colon, pancreas, and hematopoietic cancers (leukemias), with a DECREASED risk of melanoma, lung, head and neck, and prostate cancers.

“The strong positive associations together with the high global prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes further underscores the public health importance of efforts to curtail these conditions,” was the obvious conclusion.

Additionally, cardiovascular conditions were associated with an increased risk of four cancers: prostate, biliary, upper gastrointestinal, and kidney. Plus a DECREASED RISK of breast cancer. 

Gastrointestinal conditions were also associated with an increased risk of four cancers: thyroid, breast, kidney, and ovarian and AGAIN, a decreased risk of prostate cancer, while respiratory conditions were associated with an INCREASED risk of lung and pancreatic cancers, and a REDUCED risk of prostate cancer.

Quite a complicated picture, as you will see. But little comfort. If you are a man and at risk of demise from lung cancer, it is hardly reassuring to think “Well, at least I won’t get prostate cancer!” Doesn’t really work, does it?

In fact only one position “works”, which is to do your very best to remain in good health overall.

And let’s not be coy; I’m talking also about death here.

For individual cancer types, metabolic conditions mean you are more likely to die following a diagnosis of endometrial cancer, upper gastrointestinal cancer, and leukemias, and prostate cancer, while cardiovascular conditions were associated with a higher hazard of death following a diagnosis of leukemia-type cancers and lung cancer.

[I have used the word leukemias here, to simplify. There are of course several leukemias but there are other “cancers” of blood, bone marrow, lymph, and lymphatic system, such as Hodgkin’s, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma. 

Having assembled all this good data, the authors of the study appear to have then turned daft and hypothesized that the reason for the higher-risk connections is that not enough of the right “treatment” (suboptimal was their word) was used to combat the cancers, because of concern over the patient’s overall health!

What? Death by cancer is NOT a deficiency of chemo or radiation, we all know that. It’s lack of health!

But then, thank goodness, they slip in that these results create a strong concern for “individualized primary prevention among individuals.” That is correct and is the ONLY way to do battle with the Big C. It’s back to my dictum: any good health measure is an anti-cancer measure.

And nothing I have written here overrides my main teaching, which is that YOU are responsible for your own health and cancer risk. To leave it to the medical profession has the same outcome as suicide!

To your good health,Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

Source Reference: 

Lavery JA, et al “Comorbidity in midlife and cancer outcomes” JAMA Netw Open 2025; DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.3469.

Secondary Source

Koroukian SM, et al “Moving closer to personalized cancer prevention strategies by assessing comorbidity and multimorbidity” JAMA Netw Open 2025; DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.3476.

I first learned of the ability of dogs to sniff out cancers from a letter published in the prestigious Lancet. It cited a story of a woman whose dog constantly sniffed at a mole on her leg. On one occasion, the dog even tried to bite the lesion off. The constant attention from the dog prompted her to seek medical advice and when the path lab report came back, it was found to be a malignant melanoma!

Since it was caught early, the patient recovered fully from this very dangerous cancer and has remained well, with no sign of recurrence. The dog saved her life.

In another instance, a man aged 66 years developed a patch of eczema on the outer side of his left thigh, which grew slowly over 18 years, to about 1–2 cm in diameter. When dry, the lesion would become scabby, and it caused occasional itching. Various doctors tried treating it with steroids and antifungal creams, without any benefit.

Then a pet Labrador arrived in the home and the dog began to persistently push his nose against his owner’s trouser leg, sniffing the skin lesion beneath it. This prompted the patient to return to his family physician for review. An excision biopsy (removal) showed it to be a basal cell carcinoma. After it was gone, the dog showed no further interest in the area, so the animal was definitely reacting because of the pathology.¹

Naturally, the idea of a pet detecting dangerous cancers and saving the owner’s life generated a lot of media interest. It makes sense: with about 220 million scent receptors (humans only have 5 million) dogs can be expected to smell things that could not possibly be detected by humans. Dogs have smell receptors 10,000 times more accurate than ours, which means their nose is powerful enough to detect substances at concentrations of one part per trillion – a single drop of liquid in 20 Olympic-size swimming pools!

Subsequently, a dermatologist in Florida teamed up with a retired police-dog handler with 33 years’ experience in training dogs, including service in Vietnam. They used conventional sniffer-dog techniques to train George, a schnauzer, to recognize pathological specimens of malignant melanoma and set him to work on humans.

George was introduced to a patient with several moles thought to be cancer-free. However one mole caused George to get very excited, and excision of the lesion confirmed early malignant disease.

So the idea of dogs being able to sniff out disease, often before any overt pathological changes have taken place, has begun to take hold of the medical community. They’ll be looking for ways to make money at it. But what the heck, if a few dogs acquire the skills, I foresee queues of worried people lined up outside the kennels for a walk past!

Better than oncologists by far!

Further investigation has showed that dogs are astonishingly accurate (far more accurate than oncologists with all their paraphernalia). Dogs were 97% successful at detecting lung cancer* and scored an impressive 88% at detecting breast cancer, regardless of attempts to mask the smell through food or cigarettes.

Other scientific studies have documented the abilities of dogs to identify chemicals that are diluted as low as parts per trillion.

Already dogs are used to warn of epileptic seizures, low blood sugar and heart attacks, although whether they are detecting changes in smell or physical behavior is still unknown. Some canines know how to call 911 in an emergency.

A 2006 study, led by Michael McCulloch of the Pine Street Foundation in San Anselmo, California, and Tadeusz Jezierski of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Genetics and Animal Breeding, investigated whether dogs could detect cancers only by sniffing the exhaled breath of cancer patients.²

In this study, five household dogs were trained within a short 3-week period to detect lung or breast cancer by sniffing the breath of cancer participants. The trial itself consisted of 86 cancer patients (55 with lung cancer and 31 with breast cancer) and a control sample of 83 healthy patients. All cancer patients had recently been diagnosed with cancer through biopsy-confirmed conventional methods such as a mammogram, or CAT scan and had not yet undergone any chemotherapy treatment.

During the study, the dogs were presented with breath samples from the cancer patients and the controls, captured in a special tube. The results of the study showed that dogs can detect breast and lung cancer with sensitivity and specificity between 88% and 97%.

The high accuracy persisted even after results were adjusted to take into account whether the lung cancer patients were currently smokers. Moreover, the study also confirmed that the trained dogs could even detect the early stages of lung cancer, as well as early breast cancer. The researchers concluded that breath analysis by trained dogs has the potential to provide a substantial reduction in the uncertainty currently seen in cancer diagnosis.

Breath Testing

The presence of chemicals in exhaled breath indicative of disease is itself nothing new. One of the critical tests for the presence of Helicobacter pylori, the stomach bug frequency associated with peptic ulcer (and therefore the “cause” of peptic ulcers to modern reductionist thinking), is the amount of hydrogen in exhaled breath from the patient.

In my book One Diet For Life I pointed out the value of this breath test in detecting dysbiosis. Inadequate digestion and malabsorption allows a test sugar load to reach the colon and there cause fermentation by bacteria.

Martin Gotteland and colleagues at the Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology in Santiago, Chile have shown conclusively that effective probiotic administration in humans significantly reduces hydrogen gas in excreted breath.

Where Next?

The next stage is to explore more fully the possible uses of dogs in early detection. Could dogs pick up Ebola, TB or AIDS in travelers returning from high risk areas? We don’t know. But we do know that a dog’s sense of smell is very complex and has “layers”, unlike our ability to focus on just one chemical at a time.

Since I originally wrote this article, canines proved to be able to correctly pick out the scent of a number of troubling conditions. For example, children infected with malaria parasites were correctly picked out 70 percent of the time, from socks they had worn all night!³

A study published in 2013, found that two trained dogs detected 11 out of 12 narcolepsy patients using sweat samples, demonstrating that dogs can detect a distinct scent for the disorder. The dogs pick up on biochemical changes in the body that lead to an attack and help with different tasks to avoid injury. But most importantly, they can provide a warning up to 5 minutes before an attack comes on, giving their handler a chance to get to a safe place or a safe position.⁴

A small 2019 study published in the prestigious Nature journal found that dogs were able to clearly discriminate a general epileptic “seizure odour.”⁵

The latest example of dogs detecting disease is with coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

In a pilot study at the University of Helsinki, dogs were taught to recognize the previously unknown signature odor of COVID-19. And in only a few weeks, the first dogs were able to accurately distinguish urine samples from COVID-19 patients from urine samples of healthy individuals, almost as reliably as a standard PCR test.⁶

It is still unclear which substances in urine produce the apparently characteristic COVID-19 scent. Since SARS-CoV-2 not only attacks the lungs, but also causes damage to blood vessels, kidneys and other organs, it is assumed that the patients’ urine odor also changes. Researchers have high hopes it is the case since respiratory diseases like COVID-19 change our body scent, so there is a very high chance that dogs will be able to detect it.

Another project focused specifically on detecting ovarian cancer through analysis of exhaled breath has been awarded a federal research grant by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. Epithelial ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women. Early diagnosis is the most important step toward reducing morbidity and mortality from epithelial ovarian cancer. If found early, even in the hands of conventional oncologists the (5-year) survival rate is over 90%.

The existing best current method to test for ovarian cancer, a combination of a blood marker called CA-125 and ultrasound of the lower abdomen, is really not an accurate indicator of early-stage disease.

Preliminary tests, under careful double-blinded conditions, showed the ability of trained dogs to distinguish ovarian cancer cases from controls using samples of exhaled breath condensate with accuracy of over 97%. Their hit rate was compared to that of a method involving a super-accurate instrument called a Gas Chromatography/Fourier transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometer (GC/FT-ICR MS). I have already explained the principle of cyclotron resonance in the book Medicine Beyond and predicted its growing place in modern medicine as a “virtual diagnostic” tool.⁷

Knowing more precisely what the dogs are noticing would allow their training to be standardized, but even then the skepticism of the medical community might prevail. Not all doctors would want to rely on a dog to make a diagnosis. Further studies may help convince reluctant doctors to use them as part of the preliminary screening process—but don’t hold your breath.

Of course if the relevant breath marker chemicals are identified, it may be possible to dispense with the doggies altogether.

But personally I think I’ll take the dog for a walk and if it yaps excitedly at a neighbor’s gate I might feel inclined to ring the bell and ask if everyone inside is OK!

To your good health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby

The Official Alternative Doctor

UPDATE: As I predicted in 2014, “Dr. Fido” is being challenged by a fake nose, the “Na-Nose” (nano nose, get it?) It was developed by a team of Israeli, American, and British cancer researchers and appears to have a high accuracy rate in detecting lung cancer, just by “sniff”. It can even identify what stage the cancer has progressed to.

The NaNose was able to detect lung cancer pretty well, even when the lung nodule was tiny and hard to sample. It was even able to discriminate between subtypes of cancer, which was unexpected.

Inventor and boffin Prof. Hossam Haick has been working on what he calls “Na-Nose” since 2007, and the device has been proven in numerous international clinical trials to differentiate between different types and classifications of cancer with up to 95 percent accuracy.⁸

Na-Nose’s detection device can be used at three different stages: 

1. The first, and most critical, is advanced screening. The earlier cancer is detected, the better the survival rate. 

2. The second stage is detailed diagnosis and monitoring during the cancer treatment: a simple breath analysis could mean less radiation or fewer biopsies. 

3. And finally, the Na-Nose can be used following successful treatment, to stay on top of any signs that the cancer may be recurring.

References:

1. Williams H, Pembroke A. Sniffer dogs in the melanoma clinic?. Lancet 1989; 1: 734

2. McCulloch M., Jezierski T., Broffman M., Hubbard A., Turner K., Janecki T. 2006.Diagnostic accuracy of canine scent detection in early- and late-stage lung and breast cancers. Integrative Cancer Therapies 5, 1: 1-10.

3. https://www.wired.com/story/a-malaria-breathalyzer-its-closer-than-you-think/

4. Semergen. 2013 Oct;39(7):e41-6, 348-53.  doi: 10.1016/j.semerg.2013.06.002.  Epub 2013 Jul 5.

5. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-40721-4

6. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/healthier-world/finnish-covid-dogs-nose-knows

7. March 2006 issue of the Journal of Integrative Cancer Therapies published by SAGE Publications;  European Lung Foundation, news release, Aug. 17, 2011.

8. Open Biomed Eng J. 2015 Aug 31;9:228–233. doi: 10.2174/1874120701509010228

Medical science (legit medical science) continues to move apace. About 15 years ago I wrote a book called Cancer Confidential, now Cancer Research Secrets. At the time, orthodox oncology was stuck in a really bad rut, killing and maiming, rather than healing and comforting. 

I do give myself credit however, for predicting future successes would come from working with Nature, not against her. About that time photodynamic therapy made an appearance. That’s a technique where chemo is activated by light but only where it is needed.

Then (at last!) came the start of immune therapies… persuading the body to produce competent antibodies against cancer cells. That would be the ultimate treatment, wouldn’t it? And the end to the problem of chemo resistance. The body itself could mop up the last of the rogue cells, from every nook and cranny, which is what chemo really fails to do. That’s why the tumor comes back.

One of the big successes has been the immune method against skin melanoma, a pretty gloomy cancer. But, according to a Feb 2023 article in the journal Cancers, we have entered a “new era” of treatment for melanoma. The use of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced and high-risk melanoma has led to a striking improvement in outcomes. Although the incidence of melanoma has continued to rise, median survival has improved from approximately 6 months to nearly 6 years for patients with advanced inoperable stage IV disease.¹

One of the greatest triumphs is against childhood leukemia of the acute lymphoblastic type (ALL), which is now the most common malignancy of childhood, accounting for approximately 25% of all childhood cancers.

In 1960, the survival rate was horrible: less than 20% lived 5 years. Using nature’s own natural anti-inflammatories, corticosteroids, that rate has now increased to 90% survival overall. The great thing in this case is that if the child survives disease-free for 5 years, they are effectively cured. It is very rare for leukemia to come back after that length of time.²

But there is another cancer treatment I want to tell you about… You may not have noticed this major breakthrough a few years ago. It doesn’t help all cancers. In fact only a very narrow band: notably chronic myeloid leukemias (CML).

It’s so effective, this treatment has dropped the mortality rate dramatically. From having, at best, just 3 to 5 years of survival from diagnosis, CML sufferers now enjoy the same life expectancy as someone who has never had CML!

What is it? This treatment is called tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). A modern oncologist describes it as “one of the greatest, most effective cancer drug interventions over the past 25 years.”³

Obviously TKIs need a bit of explaining.

Protein kinases are fundamental to the mischief caused by cancers. They send out “growth signals”, leading to tumor spread! If we could block their evil properties, we could hold back or even terminate cancers; at least render them relatively harmless, so that the body has a chance to fight back naturally. 

Around 1 in every 40 human genes codes for a protein kinase.⁴

Interest in protein kinase inhibitors began with the FDA approval of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) imatinib in 2001. Since then, the application of TKIs has been ever-expanding, particularly for cancer treatment, due to tyrosine kinases’ critical roles in cellular signaling.

These really are miracle drugs. Of course the pharmaceutical industry is sitting on the patents, charging astronomical prices. And they abuse their income and play tricks to extend their monopoly and block the timely emergence of generics, once the patent expires. That’s business as usual. But we’ll get there in the end, thanks to help from those criminal Indian pharmacies! (please don’t wrote to me from India, I’m being sarcastic)

The world of cancer treatments really is changing. Not that cancer isn’t scary as hell. Or that obscene profits are being made by exploiting terrified patients (I nearly wrote customers!) But that, in the end, Nature has the wisdom and controls ALL the shots. If only Big Pharma would listen to Her, or doctors would break free of the corporate stranglehold over clinical choices…

Anyway, back to TKIs… according to Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, there has been one study which showed that life expectancy in successfully treated leukemia patients is now similar to the age-matched population as a whole who never had a diagnosis of leukemia. The average survival for these patients used to be 3-5 years.⁵

Mind you, for the patient, treatment is no walk in the park — unless that parkwas set in a bleak, Road Warrior-like post-apocalyptic landscape, says Sekeres. Blood counts quickly became devastated, with all the consequent vulnerabilities. 

But that may be because the dose is simply too high. Sekeres comes up with the radical, not to say heretical, idea that maybe a lower dose would work just as well for some patients. Of course that would be blocked by Big Pharma, who want top dollar for their drugs.

One can only wait hopefully.

But since (statistically) one in two of us will get cancer, these humble markers of progress are comforting. It is possible to believe that we WILL beat cancer someday, not with the kack-handed, clumsy smash-everything-patient-will-die-but-who-cares? approach of standard chemo but with cunning and subtlety, totally alien to the drug industry!

Maybe chemo will be beaten in my lifetime! Haha!

To Your Good Health,

Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

References

1. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Feb; 15(4): 1106. Published online 2023 Feb 9. doi: 10.3390/cancers15041106
2. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/leukemia-in-children/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html
3. Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of the Division of Hematology and professor of medicine at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami. He is author of the books When Blood Breaks Down: Life Lessons from Leukemia (The MIT Press 2020), and Drugs and the FDA: Safety, Efficacy, and the Public’s Trust (The MIT Press 2022)
4. Roskoski R. Properties of FDA-approved small molecule protein kinase inhibitors: A 2020 update. Pharmacol Res. 2020 Feb;152:104609 
5. Ibid.

All these dudes care about is grabbing maximum attention and recognition. They know almost NOTHING but are good at positioning themselves high up on Google and keep showing up on searches. From there they just spout the same old same olds. None of it is backed by clinical experience; they don’t have any.

Eventually of course the orthodox scientists and doctors get onto it. They are always late for the party. You probably know the old saw, I think it’s modified from a saying by French philosopher Michele de Montaigne (1533 – 1592):

1. It’s nonsense; you’re crazy

2. There might be something in it but where’s the proof?

3. We’ve known that all along, of course!

Montaigne was very funny. He said “On the highest throne in the world, we still sit on our own ass!

So with some reluctance I turn to the dangers of sugar. This is something where citizen science comes into play, so listen up. YOU can save lives!

Recently we have been seeing a huge uptick in cancers in young people. No, not COVID and the vaccines. This surge started long before 2019 and the cause, I’m sorry to say, is obvious.

Sweeties, candies and sodas, especially so-called energy drinks. The younger generation seem to have gone crazy for ridiculously-priced drinks that contain only sugar and caffeine.

As of March 2024, 32 percent of adults ages 18 to 29 consume energy drinks regularly, and energy drinks are the second-most popular ‘dietary supplement’ among adults in that age group behind multivitamins.

A can of Red Bull, one of the most popular of genre, costs 9 cents to make ($0.09) and sells for an average of $1.79. That’s over 98% profit and most of “cost” goes on the can, not the contents! Red Bull’s energy drinks are sold in over 171 countries, which equates to over 7.5 billion cans sold per year.

Yet it’s junk…

As a result, the number of people under 50 being diagnosed with cancer in the UK has risen by 24 per cent in two decades, a sharper increase than any other age group, and doctors trying to work out what’s behind the rapid rise have suspected for some time that modern diets are to blame in some way. 

Earlier this week, UK cancer expert Professor Charles Swanton expressed concern over the rise in younger cancer diagnoses.¹

He said: ‘Over recent decades, there has been a clear increase in cancer incidence rates in young adults in the UK. 

‘Evidence suggests that more adults under 50 may be getting cancer than ever before.

BUT THAT’S NOT ALL

This was an interesting study. They surveyed kids eating habits and looked also at fiber (can’t stand the American way of spelling that word!)

I used to think that if fiber was healthy, we could all just chop up the carpets and eat those! That was till I met with Denis Burkitt back in the 1960s. He was a rock-star physician/researcher/maverick. His name is now forever attached to a lymphoma (a form of cancer) which is now known to be transmissible by a virus. It was the first story in the long saga of viruses and cancer. There will be MANY more before the end.

But that wasn’t the theme of Burkitt’s lecture that day; it was fiber. He joked with us all (as old-time professors used to do). He ran the figures on the massive upsurge in cancers, diabetes, obesity and heart disease among native Africans and then proposed that the “cause” was plastic buckets!

Plastic buckets must have been a godsend for women, who had to carry water on their head in a clay jar.

See, since the wild tribes became Westernized and took on the trimmings of civilization, they had all sorts of modern gadgets, including cup-and-saucers, food whisks and plastic buckets. Burkitt showed us pictures of bands of individuals and there was a plastic bucket in every pictures. Case closed! Haha!

Well we knew it wasn’t that. Then he showed us several pictures of human poop (outdoors, by the road, etc.) They were spreads of fecal splat, quite frankly. This he said, is at the heart of the problem. Natives on a traditional diet ate lots of fiber, they pooped cow-pat sized deposits. But they never got cancer, diabetes, overweight or heart disease.

The typical Westerner, on the other hand, ate badly and pooped rocks. To this day I remember Burkitt’s slide of a telephone in the can in an hotel! That says it all.

The difference… you guessed it… is fiber in the diet. Now, in the West, nobody bothers with fiber. Factually nobody bothers much with food! It’s all ultra-processed nonsense. The calories are there but not any of the characteristics of food for which we evolved.

95 percent of Americans don’t get enough fiber, according to the USDA, which recommends that adults get between 25 and 30 grams of fiber daily. However, most Americans consume only about 10 to 15 grams of fiber a day. In the UK it’s worse: only 9% of Brits consume the recommended 30g of fibre per day. 

But Why?

Dysbiosis is a problem and leads to overgrowth of pathogenic microbes which induce inflammation, leading to accelerated aging in [early-onset colorectal cancer],’ the researchers wrote. 

The team noted that the findings align with other recent data, suggesting that low-fiber, processed diets throw off the gut microbiome balance in a process called intestinal dysbiosis. 

Additionally, researchers at the University of Florida introduced a trial this weekend which will aim to evaluate the effect of energy drinks on young colorectal cancer patients.

The team is recruiting 60 colorectal cancer patients ages 18 to 40 with no family history of the disease to see if taurine, an ingredient in energy drinks like Red Bull, feeds H2S-metabolizing bacteria (hydrogen sulfide), which has been linked to increased incidences of colorectal cancer.²

‘These bacteria preferentially use taurine, an essential amino acid, as a primary energy source. Energy drinks represent one of the largest dietary sources (6-16x normal daily intake) of taurine in contemporary diet,’ the team wrote.

So what with the toxicity of taurine, excess sugar and lack of fiber in their diet, leading to dangerous cancer-forming dysbiosis, the kids are in trouble. This could make them more susceptible to mutations that leads to cancer and less likely to be able to fight off the growth of tumor cells.

If you have youngsters (and under-50 is a pretty liberal definition of “young”!), you need to berate, bully or outright threaten them, to stop them eating and drinking ultra-processed garbage. You MUST do this.

To Your Good Health,Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor

Sources:

1. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-13487377/deadly-diet-combos-colon-cancer-young-people.html
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8861923/

But, of course, they didn’t miss the chance to lash out at those guilty of “misinformation”! Oh no! Even though they were the ones that screwed up…

“The rise of the anti-vaccine movement has made it difficult for scientists, in and out of government, to candidly address potential side effects,” some experts said. So it’s all OUR fault, for criticizing them, so they ignored the side-effects issue is it?

“Much of the narrative on the purported dangers of COVID vaccines is patently false, or at least exaggerated, cooked up by savvy anti-vaccine campaigns,” the article went on. For “savvy anti-vaccine campaigns, read the wailing and misery from the huge army of distressed patients, parents, family members, offspring and elderly who got caught in the political, corporate crossfire that we had to endure, being told it was all in everyone’s best interest (who said that? Oh yes, Hitler)

Questions about COVID vaccine safety are core to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. Citing debunked theories about altered DNA, Florida’s surgeon general has called for a halt to COVID vaccination in the state.”

Debunked theories, is it? I think it is “COVID science” (self-serving Big Pharma propaganda), that has been soundly debunked. The profession just isn’t admitting it.

“The sheer nature of misinformation, the scale of misinformation, is staggering, and anything will be twisted to make it seem like it’s not just a devastating side effect but proof of a massive cover-up,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University.

Mr. Sharfstein, did you ever try to get something published, against the overwhelming tide of censorship, criticism, slander, hatred, de-banking and de-platforming? No, I thought not.

And I suppose you think the Jewish complaints about Herr Hitler and the damage he caused were merely “misinformation” and “conspiracy theory”, yes?

Here’s the story lead in NYT:

Within minutes of getting the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Michelle Zimmerman felt pain racing from her left arm up to her ear and down to her fingertips. Within days, she was unbearably sensitive to light and struggled to remember simple facts.

She was 37, with a PhD in neuroscience, and until then could ride her bicycle 20 miles, teach a dance class and give a lecture on artificial intelligence, all in the same day. Now, more than three years later, she lives with her parents. Eventually diagnosed with brain damage, she cannot work, drive or even stand for long periods of time.

“When I let myself think about the devastation of what this has done to my life, and how much I’ve lost, sometimes it feels even too hard to comprehend,” said Dr. Zimmerman, who believes her injury is due to a contaminated vaccine batch. No science, not testing, no proof, just opinion. A single batch. Huh! That’s what passes for “science” these days.

“The COVID vaccines, a triumph of science and public health…” 

Sorry, I nearly choked just then! 

“Are estimated to have prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths.” Estimates are NOT science! Depends who does the estimating, of course. Norman Fenton Professor of Risk Information Management at the Queen Mary University of London, UK, states categorically :

Anybody who has followed our writings over the last 3 years will know that we believe there is overwhelming evidence that the COVID vaccines are neither effective nor safe. Contrary to ludicrous claims made by official Government sources there is no evidence the vaccines have saved any lives (let alone the millions claimed), but rather evidence that all-cause mortality in the vaccinated is now higher than that in the unvaccinated.³

[https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-new-zealand-vaccine-data-what]

Dr. Zimmerman’s account is among the more harrowing, but thousands of Americans believe they suffered serious side effects following COVID vaccination. Notice that their opinions and estimates are accurate but what a patient felt and experienced after a shot is just a “belief”.

As of April, just over 13,000 vaccine-injury compensation claims have been filed with the federal government — but to little avail. Only 19 percent have been reviewed. Only 47 of those were deemed eligible for compensation, and only 12 have been paid out, at an average of about $3,600.

Some scientists fear that patients with real injuries are being denied help and believe that more needs to be done to clarify the possible risks.

“At least LONG COVID has been somewhat recognized,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist and vaccine expert at Yale University. But people who say they have post-vaccination injuries are “just completely ignored and dismissed and gaslighted,” she added.

In interviews and email exchanges conducted over several months, federal health officials insisted that serious side effects were extremely rare and that their surveillance efforts were more than sufficient to detect patterns of adverse events.

“Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have safely received COVID vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history,” Jeff Nesbit, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in an emailed statement.

But in a recent interview, Dr. Janet Woodcock, a longtime leader of the Food and Drug Administration, who retired in February, said she believed that some recipients had experienced uncommon but “serious” and “life-changing” reactions beyond those described by federal agencies.

“I feel bad for those people,” said Dr. Woodcock, who became the FDA’s acting commissioner in January 2021 as the vaccines were rolling out. “I believe their suffering should be acknowledged, that they have real problems, and they should be taken seriously.”

“I’m disappointed in myself,” she added. “I did a lot of things I feel very good about, but this is one of the few things I feel I just didn’t bring it home.”

“Federal officials and independent scientists face a number of challenges in identifying potential vaccine side effects,” said the article. The chief problem, obviously, is that they are not looking! Their minds are closed to the enormity of what happened, BECAUSE THEY CAUSED IT! “What elephant. I see no elephant!”

Big Pharma could not have raped and pillaged the public coffers to the tune of $BILLIONS without the full complicity of the FDA.

On May 22, 2021, news broke that the CDC was investigating a “relatively few” cases of myocarditis. By June 23, the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS had risen to more than 1,200 — a hint that it is important to tell doctors and patients what to look for. It is well-known that VAERS has less than 1% of injuries reported. That means the known 1,200 would be well over a million serious cases.

But the torrent of lies continues… Side-effects are very rare (ignoring all evidence to the contrary). The real problem is not the vaccines and so-called side-effects; it’s those damned anti-vaxxers causing trouble with their “misinformation.”

What a world we live in!

Later analyses showed that the risk for myocarditis and pericarditis, a related condition, is highest after a second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine in adolescent males aged 12 to 17 years. Huh, that couldn’t be true, could it, because the vaccine does not, can not, cause injury.

The CDC has said there were no confirmed deaths related to myocarditis (because they WON’T confirm any case: “Couldn’t happen, so it didn’t).” In fact there have been several accounts of deaths reported post-vaccination. They are just tripping over themselves with lies!

To Your Good Health,Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby
The Official Alternative Doctor