top of page


The only way to succeed in getting healthy and curing disease is to ESCAPE THE TRAP of the conventional medical paradigm.

Most cancer-progress statistics are stated in terms of 5 or 10 year survival, and are therefore arbitrarily and fraudulently optimistic.  But no matter how long you live after your diagnosis, if you die of cancer eventually, before the end of your natural lifespan, you were never a "cancer survivor," you were a cancer victim.  And the VAST MAJORITY of those diagnosed with metastatic cancer are in this category.  No matter what treatment they receive, they eventually die of cancer.  Maybe the treatment extended life, and maybe that was worth it.  But make no mistake, THE VAST MAJORITY of the time, treatment of metastatic cancer DOES NOT CURE CANCER.  For example, the track record of chemotherapy is HORRIBLY DISMAL; it has a 97% long-term non-cure rate; that is what the actual data shows, absent the hype.  If you really want a cure, if you really want a treatment regimen that is not toxic, or if you simply want to live longer than the conventional statistics, you will have to use a method that actually offers such potential, and it is NOT the popular, conventional medical pathway.  The method with the better track record, with the legitimate chance of actual cure, is RADICAL NUTRITION.

If you're going to make the switch to a healthy lifestyle to cure or prevent disease, the only way to really make the transition reliably is to realize that the conventional paradigm is fundamentally misguided.  Otherwise you'll have difficulty staying motivated to stick with the new paradigm, and you'll be looking for ways to blend the old and the new in arbitrary ways, which doesn't really work.

The problem is, the conventional medical world has such universally accepted credibility that it's hard to believe it really is fundamentally misguided.  But you have to break that stranglehold on your belief, you have to open your mind to the reality that there really are forces at work, externally and internally, that encourage error.  Here are the factors I've found:

1.  Doctors only know what they've been taught, and medical schools don't teach any significant amount on the subject of nutrition, instead they focus on treating disease with drugs.  Medical schools are in bed with pharmaceutical companies (sad but true, and no secret), so drug therapy dominates medical training.  But drugs only treat symptoms; this approach WHOLLY ignores the essential factor of what CAUSES disease.  In the real world, nutrition really is the bedrock of health, YOU REALLY ARE WHAT YOU EAT, and diet really is the cause, and cure, of most diseases.  So neglecting this powerful subject compels fundamental misguidedness.  Doctors are believed to be experts on anything health-related, when in fact they are UNQUALIFIED on the essential subject of nutrition, unless they have taken the initiative to research the mountain of existing science on the subject of nutrition and natural healing and learn the truth on their own.  Expertise, no matter how high-level, good intentions, no matter how sincere, and a good bedside manner, no matter how comforting, are useless inside a failed method.  (Also see my page on "Malpractice?")  What seems to be extremely, tragically rare across the medical universe, from education to research to practice, is the following simple, true maxim I've coined:  "If you remove the factors that promote disease, and abundantly add in the factors that promote health and healing, YOU GET BETTER." 

2.  Government regulations are woefully unreliable.  Governments on every level are incompetently micromanaging health care, and the result is misguidedness.  Government officials have political and ideological agendas, gross conflicts of interest, flawed competency standards encouraging systemic apathy, incompetence, and corruption, and recklessly frolic in an environment of zero accountability.  Government regulations on food production are too lenient when it comes to toxic chemicals and practices.  Doctors won't tell you this because they don't know (or don't care).

3.  Food producers are producing toxic products, because of #2 above.  Those products are UBIQUITOUS, which leads us to believe they are normal, when they are far from it.  Doctors won't tell you this because they don't know.

4.  Incompetence is common.  Doctors and other "experts" are human beings, subject to all the biases and bad habits of any other person.  Just like in any profession, only a small proportion of the practitioners are exceptionally competent.  Despite their education or experience, it's difficult to discern an expert's competency level until it's too late.  It is safe to ALWAYS ASSUME incompetence until your personal experience with an expert proves otherwise.

5.  On the spectrum of the reliability of conventional medical care, I'd rank emergency care as the most reliable, and oncology as the least.  Oncology is PARTICULARLY misguided because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of cancer, in many ways.  For example, it assumes cancer is caused by a congenital or spontaneous genetic mutation, which is false.  In reality, it is a latent potential enabled by the combination of carcinogenic environmental/dietary/lifestyle factors plus a sub-optimal immune system.  This distinction steers the conventional approach to leave the causes intact, and futilely try to artificially murder cancer cells, which will only be replaced by new ones, in contrast to the natural approach which eliminates the causes and equips the body to use its powerful innate abilities to HEAL.

6.  With very few exceptions, chemotherapy does not cure cancer.  Its short-term remission effects come at the cost of long-term enhancement of enablement of cancer; the cancer virtually ALWAYS comes back, and more aggressively.  The track record of chemotherapy is undeniably ABYSMAL, so it is touted with exaggerations and propaganda.  It is prescribed simply because (a) the misguided oncology paradigm HAS NOTHING ELSE TO OFFER; (b) doctors feel compelled to "do something", and patients expect that, even though the "something" is misguided; and (c) the established standard of care misguidedly mandates it and forbids alternatives.  When all they have is a hammer, they tend to view everything as a nail.  And oh yeah, it's EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY lucrative, not just for the drug companies, but also for the oncologists as well, who typically get kickbacks on the chemotherapy drugs they prescribe, so there is a natural, virtually irresistible incentive to keep the gravy train rolling.  (Don't bother throwing your money away donating to cancer research; the drug companies are SWIMMING in profits and government grants, laughing all the way to the bank.)

7.  You have to love life more than cheese.  I use cheese as the example because it's such a commonly loved food that people don't think they can give up to switch to a healthy diet.  But the tempting food could be whatever you like and don't want to give up, such as sweet and sour chicken, french bread, steak, Dr. Pepper, fish and chips, Doritos, ice cream, Skippy peanut butter, etc.  Such a controlling preference for unhealthy comfort foods reveals several issues:  (a) a misunderstanding of the variety of healthy foods, which offer a large universe of delicious and satisfying choices; (b) ignorance of the fact that on a healthy diet, your tastes change and adapt over time, and you come to enjoy the taste of healthy foods more than you did before, and to lose interest in the taste of unhealthy foods; and (c) it is better to take the perspective of the larger context, the long-term view over the immediate gratification, and the maturity of doing what is most beneficial to save or extend your life, and make you feel better in EVERY WAY (very soon in the process), rather than let your "need" for certain tastes poison you.  Here's a test of your objectivity and mature (adult) perspective:  try an experiment of a strict, radically healthy diet for a set period of 60 days, and see what it's really like, and how you feel as a result.  Anybody can do a temporary experiment for 60 days, it requires no life-altering commitment.  If you actually do it, and faithfully, I guarantee you, you will feel TANGIBLY better in many ways, and you will lose a meaningful amount of unwanted weight, even before you reach the 60th day.  If you're not willing to try this even experimentally, you're just not serious.

So to save your own life, you have to exit the trap of believing the conventional medical paradigm is what it claims to be.  You have to wake up to the unpopular reality that it is FUNDAMENTALLY MISGUIDED for neglecting the fundamental basis of health:  NUTRITION.  You have to dethrone the "experts" in the white coats, the pharmaceutical companies, the government, and the food industry.  You have to take charge of your own health, your own understanding of health care, and your own responsibility to sift through the crowd of voices to segregate which medical concepts and professionals are reliable and which are not.  But it all starts with accepting the shock that you've been misled, ignoring the temptation to believe what is conventional or popular simply because it is conventional or popular, retracting your respect for the conventional medical paradigm, discarding everything you thought you knew, and starting over in researching what is reliable.

bottom of page