Metabolic Solutions Report

Terry Chamberlin, B.Sc., C.N.C., Bioanalyst Nova Scotia, Canada [email protected] 902-584-3810

Should You Get A Biopsy Of That Lump?

by Karl Loren
http://www.karlloren.com/biopsy
Cancer & Biopsy

Many people get "lumps." Woman find them in a breast and sometimes die of worry!

Have You Ever Found A Lump?

The most common cancer for women is breast cancer.

I had a lump! It wasn't my breast, but it was on my chest.

The most common cancer for men is prostate cancer. Men don't find lumps in their prostate gland, but the older men worry about a
weak stream of urine, or having to get up several times during the night to urinate.

Lumps appear! Your first thought is often to keep it secret -- something you don't want to mention to ANYONE! What if it is
cancer! Then, perhaps, you confess to your spouse, "I have a lump!" If someone else knows about your lump, you can expect them
to tell you, "You'd better get that checked!" "You should have a biopsy!"

Probably less than 20% of people would even worry about the danger of having a biopsy. More would worry about the worry, or
the pain, or the cost, but few people realize that a biopsy, itself, can be dangerous to your health.

Why?

Check The Lump With A Biopsy? Start The Spread Of Cancer!

Because if there IS cancer there, the biopsy is likely to cause it to start spreading.

It just makes sense. The word "biopsy" comes from "bio-" which means "life," and "-psy" which is from the larger Greek word,
"opsis" meaning "vision" -- thus, a "biopsy" is a look at life, or an examination of living tissue. One way or another, a "piece" of
your flesh, or of some part of your body, is cut out so that it can be examined under a microscope.

Different parts of your body will have different rates of cell division. For instance, brain cells never divide. You got what you
got! Other cells might divide every three weeks. Different rates. The biopsy examination looks at the cells of the sample and can
detect how many of them are in the process of cell division. If the sample shows that 10% of the cells are in the process of cell
division, and that type of cell ought not to show more than 1% of them going through cell division, then that sample shows
abnormal growth -- cancer.

Even though cancer is considered abnormal and rapid growth of cells, the entire mass of a cancer is normally rather slow growing -
- because it is "encased." It grows inside a wall, or shell. The body is trying to protect itself from the cancer -- because cancer
would otherwise spread throughout the body. So, the body tries to protect itself by building a wall around the cancer to keep any
of its cells from "leaking out." (Actually, some cancers are very slow-growing [breast and prostate] while others are very fast
[liver cancer].)

When the cancer DOES leak out there is a special word -- the cancer is said to metastasize -- start spreading into other parts of the
body. It grows like an octopus -- reaching its tentacles throughout the body.

The doctors all know this, but there is a special reason why they don't tell you that a biopsy is likely to cause the cancer to start
spreading.

They will tell you that the biopsy is painless, not expensive, and that it can be done during an office visit. They will tell you that it
is covered by insurance.

They will tell you that if there is cancer in this lump, it is vital that you know about it so that you can start treating it quickly. They
will tell you that if you start treating it quickly the chances of winning the battle over cancer are tremendously improved.

Page 1 of 11
They will explain, in detail, the "fine needle biopsy," where the needle is tiny, and is inserted through the flesh into the lump, a
very small amount of material is withdrawn into the needle, and there will be no scar -- no pain.

If there is cancer there, of course, they will then tell you that you should move VERY quickly to start treatment. You may not
realize it, but there are only three legal treatments for cancer in most of the US. The laws of California make it a serious case of
"unprofessional conduct" for a doctor to diagnose cancer and then treat it with anything other than the approved methods --
chemotherapy, radiation or surgery. He can lose his license to practice medicine. He could even go to jail.

So, you discover the lump. You go to your doctor. No doctor would ever recommend AGAINST a biopsy -- he must be safe or he
can lose his license and perhaps millions of dollars in a malpractice lawsuit. So, he tells you, "You need a biopsy, right away.
They are safe and not painful. I can do it right now." or, he says, "Go see Dr. Smith, dermatologist, he can do a biopsy in his
office, immediately."

We are all hoping, at this point, that it is NOT cancer. The doctor may even say, "Well it doesn't look malignant to me, I don't
think it's cancer, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Get the biopsy to find out."

Here is what he DOES NOT tell you BEFORE the biopsy: "Once you have had the biopsy, if the doctor finds that there is cancer,
then you must start your treatment immediately."

Even if he tells you before the biopsy that you would have to start treatment immediately, he won't tell you "WHY." The reason,
he will admit if you ask, is that the biopsy, itself, can start the spread of the cancer from the inside of the casing it was in.
Remember, the body is protecting itself from having the cancer spread -- it builds a wall around the cancer. Once you penetrate
that wall, even with a very tiny needle, the cancer cells (they are certainly smaller than the needle) can leak out through the hole
and enter the body. These cancer cells can enter the blood stream and within a few seconds they have been distributed throughout
the entire body.

Perhaps your immune system is strong enough to handle these stray cancer cells. Perhaps they just won't find a good place to
"live." But, perhaps you have just allowed the doctor to cause the metastasizing of your cancer.

Obviously if the leak continues for only a day or so it is much less dangerous than if the leak of those cancer cells continues for
weeks or months. So, the doctor does the biopsy, discovers cancer, and then tells you that you must start treatment immediately. I
think it is medical malpractice for a doctor to fail to warn a patient that a biopsy can cause an immediate spreading of the cancer,
and that such "spreading" then would appear to greatly limit your choices of treatment.

What had been, possibly, a slow growing cancer with no metastasis, has in one split second become a cancer which might be
spreading throughout your body -- calling for urgent and immediate treatment. Before the biopsy it was a suspicious mass and you
had time to learn about the many alternatives to chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.

After the doctor's malpractice, you no longer have time to learn.

The minimum a doctor should do, in my opinion, before he does a biopsy, is to lay out the treatment options in great detail IF he
finds cancer. You should not expect a doctor to lay out alternative forms of treatment because it would be illegal for him to use
those -- but at least he can give you the details of the surgery, the chemotherapy and/or the radiation he would use in the event the
biopsy shows cancer.

Rush To Judgment! Rush To The Knife!

Usually the person is so frightened that he doesn't begin to question the doctor. He schedules the next possible appointment, the
doctor utters the soothing words, "Don't worry, we've caught it early, etc., etc."

You then start learning about the treatment.

I swear to God! It is not unusual for a person to learn about the forms of treatment ONLY after the biopsy. You've had the biopsy
-- the biopsy which is now causing the cancer to spread. The doctor now tells you that you must get chemotherapy, surgery or
radiation. His exact diagnosis and treatment plan will depend on the type of cancer, its location and how far it has advanced, but
your only choices are these three -- and, really, it will NOT be your choice usually -- it is the doctor who tells you that your only
choice, given your condition (and given that the cancer has now started to spread because of the biopsy) is xxx!

So, you start the XXX treatment that day, or the next.

Now I think an HONEST doctor would tell you about the radiation, chemotherapy and surgery BEFORE he does the biopsy.

Page 2 of 11
He would say something like this: "You have a lump and I think you should have a biopsy. But, I want you to know that the lump
does not appear to be growing fast and that if you took another month to think about this it would not be dangerous. But, if you
DO the biopsy, and it's cancer, then you can't afford to wait a month for anything. Oh," he should say, "if it comes up as cancer,
here are the only three legal treatments I can offer (radiation, surgery and chemotherapy) and this is what each of them would be
like for you."

He would describe how you might lose your hair, lose weight, start vomiting. He would tell you that the "cancer treatment" will
destroy your body's natural immunity to cancer. If this is a breast lump, he would tell you that there is a chance that, with the
biopsy showing cancer, you might have to lose one or both breasts, even including surgery up into your armpits to remove lymph
nodes. (Remember that the lymph nodes are important sources of the manufacture of your immune system.)

Why does the doctor not tell you this before the biopsy? Because he "knows" that the ONLY treatment that is legal, the only
treatment that can help you is one or more of these three. Why should he make you worry about these treatments -- perhaps the
biopsy will show "no cancer." He thinks, "We'll wait until after the biopsy to give the bad news on treatment, if it is necessary!"

What About Alternative Treatments?

What if you happen to believe in the power of prayer? He will think that you are foolish and that you believe in the supernatural --
that you will die if you don't get "proper" treatment.

While prayer has been proven, scientifically, to be a significant factor in healing, what God-loving person would feel that it would
just as easy to reverse metastasis with prayer as it would be a tiny lump that has not been biopsied?

What if you happen to believe in the power of some herb, or some cleansing program, or some diet, or some other "alternative
treatment." If you are foolish enough to tell your doctor about these things, he will often get angry and tell you that you will die,
and that you MUST now get the biopsy, today, and sign a consent form that it's OK for him to cut your breasts off (if they are
involved), or he will never have anything to do with you as a patient again.

Cure and Prevent Cancer -- B17

One of the earliest of alternative treatments was discovered by Dr. Ernst Krebs, using laetrile, and there are still many who claim
cure and success with it.

Truly! People have told me that their doctor has threatened them with such! Sometimes it has been family members who
threatened a daughter, or a father, or whoever, with force. I knew a girl who had to run away from her family in order to avoid
being forced to have her breasts removed -- she got complete cure with alternatives and her family eventually forgave her for
running away to the clinic of her choice!

She was a guest on my radio show, years ago. She told the story about how she lied to her family. She told them that her friend
was picking her up that day to take her to the hospital for her cancer treatment. The friend picked her up and drove her to Mexico
where she was cured. It is a sad thing when a family feels so right, and that it has the right to impose its judgment on one person.

I believe that ONLY YOU can make these decisions about your own body!

Doctor says, "If you don't accept the proper treatment, and instead you go after some quackery, I refuse to ever see you again."

You don't believe this happens? You ask a dozen women (women seem more likely to get this message about breast cancer than
others with cancer) and you will find that at least one of them has had threat like this. It happens.

So, I say to you: If you are willing to receive the slash/burn/poison technology of modern medicine, then don't hesitate to have a
biopsy. It might turn out "good," and you don't have any more worries. If it turns out "cancer," then you were already predisposed
to accept the "approved treatments." You DO have that right! It is YOUR body!

The above description is what I have believed to be true for many years. Those years included a very intense period of working
with a cancer clinic in Mexico -- a clinic where thousands of people eliminated proven cancers, without ever using surgery,
chemotherapy or radiation. I have sat in that clinic, many times, with 20 or 30 patients around me, each getting better every day
without taking any of the conventional treatments which are all that is allowed in the US.

Many of those patients had had biopsies that showed cancer. Some of them had been declared "terminal," and given a month or so
to live!

Page 3 of 11
I know with certainty that such cures exist -- I also know that they are being suppressed by the US Government. Click here to read
the story of one man who could cure cancer, but is now in prison! I have "heard" of many such stories, but each time you "hear"
about such a story you wonder if it is really true. Well, I know one person very well, who was curing cancer in Mexico and then
was put in prison by the US Government.

The Day Of Personal Decision!

As I believe the above to be true, I finally, one day, came to my own moment of truth

I have a lump -- a bump!

Now the above story about the dangers of biopsy needed to be investigated for real! This article gives you the results of many
days of research and writing -- there are more than 1,000 pages of material connected to this article. If you have an interest in
cancer, or biopsies, you should read this article carefully. You should send it to your friends. They will find more data, and more
research material, here, than any other single place they could look. On this one page there are dozens of links that will take you to
the 1,000+ pages all prepared during my research and writing of this article.

This article deals with the subject of biopsies -- whether you should have one or not! This was a decision which I was faced with,
very personally. Because it concerns biopsies, it also has to concern cancer at least a bit. This article is NOT an exhaustive
treatment on the subject of cancer, but it does treat two "lump" problems quite thoroughly.

It is a very personal story because I have had a "lump" on my chest for more than a year -- a suspicious lump that several people
told me should be biopsied and then cut out!

So, I started this research with some considerable personal motivation. My medical situation started, as far as I can figure, with an
insect bite in Africa more than 30 years ago. This is NOT a pleasant story, but if you want to truly understand this whole story,
take the time to read about the Tumbu Fly that lays eggs in your clothing (in Africa). The eggs hatch and a larva burrows into your
body. Yes, it's ugly, but it happened and life has a bit of such realities in it! I had this very light colored spot on my chest -- left
over from one of those fly episodes in Africa. It was inactive for more than 30 years.

I am quite willing to experiment on myself. When it comes to researching a new vitamin product, or any new health product, I
figure I should be willing to use it on myself before I sell it to others. So, I had this product, called Agrisept, and one of its uses
was to remove warts or moles. I tried it on a wart. The wart went away, just like it was supposed to do!

So, I applied it to this red spot on my chest -- to see what would happen.

Well, perhaps I should not have done that? But, I did. About two years ago. At first the red spot reacted in the same way the
wart did -- and I thought I was going to be successful in removing this slightly thickened part of skin from my chest. But, instead
of healing over, as the wart had done, the red spot got bigger and didn't heal.

That was about 18 months ago.

There were periods when I would forget about it. It would mostly dry up and I would forget about it. But, there was generally
always a small scab, and sometimes some bleeding. It had turned into an unhealing wound!

So, I decided to start treating it with other things. I tried MSM and Clarks' Minerals on it, then MSM Cream. I wrote about my
use of the MSM Cream at the link, dated November 1999.

It didn't get better.

Then I left it alone for some months. Then, a few months ago I started again, this time with a mixture of four different powders,
products I sell and think highly of. I mixed equal parts of MSM, Taheebo Life Tea, Transfer Factor and Microhydrin -- sprinkled
them on the spot and covered it with a Band-Aid. It really has never gotten healed, now, in several months.

I finally agreed to see a doctor -- one I trusted. He gave me the diagnosis: "I don't think there is any chance of cancer. I would
say that there is an 80% chance that it is 'Granuloma' and a 20% chance that it is "basal cell carcinoma."

Basic Information On Two Very Common Problems

I had no idea what these terms meant. It was time to do my research!

Page 4 of 11
GRANULOMA

The "-oma" part of the word means "swollen." The "granul-" part of the word relates to "granule" or small piece. Many words
related to cancer include the ending "-oma." Granuloma is the only word in this usage where the "-oma" is NOT related to cancer.
Granuloma is NOT a cancer, but the affected area can spread to adjoining tissue. It cannot spread by moving through the blood
stream, as a cancer can.

A special type of INFLAMMATION characterized by accumulations of macrophages, some of which coalesce into "giant cells."
Granulomatous inflammation is especially characteristic of tuberculosis, some deep fungal infections (like histoplasmosis and
coccidioidomycosis), sarcoidosis (a disease of unknown cause), and reaction to foreign bodies.
BASAL-CELL CARCINOMA

Basal cell carcinoma is the most common type of skin cancer. It is so-named because it originates in the deeper (basal) cells in the
skin. It is usually not dangerous if it is diagnosed and properly treated in its early stages when the cure rate is in the range of 95
percent. It rarely spreads (metastasizes) to lymph nodes or remote locations. If neglected, however, basal cell tumors may invade
adjacent tissues and produce large ulcers or require extensive and sometimes disfiguring surgery in an attempt to remove all of the
tumor. In some instances when the cancer has spread deep into vital areas, it may not be curable.

Basal-cell carcinoma (BCC) is humankind's most common malignancy or cancer. Nearly one million Americans will develop a
BCC this year alone. Amazingly, one out of every three new cancers in America is a skin cancer. Although anyone with a history
of sun exposure can develop BCC, people who are at highest risk have fair skin, light hair and blue, green or gray eyes. Those who
work or enjoy the outdoors are also susceptible. In fact, sun-induced mutations are found in over 90% of BCC's studied.

I'm not trying to cover every type of cancer in this article. But, you can follow my research protocol and find out for yourself
about any other type of cancer. Nonetheless, much of the information in this Article, and in the linked pages, will apply to any
type of cancer.

The doctor suggested I get a biopsy, and then get a simple laser surgery to remove the "bump."

I was not eager.

The Terrible Dangers Of The Biopsy!

I felt that if it WERE cancer, under no circumstances would I accept radiation, chemotherapy or surgery. I felt that I had too much
experience with the success of alternatives to accept the slash/burn/poison methods.

So, knowing what I believed to be true, I argued with the doctor about the biopsy. He said, "Get the lightest possible type of
biopsy -- called a 'shaved tissue sample,' and if, as I expect, it turns out to be non-malignant, go ahead with the full laser surgery to
get rid of the problem."

I might be willing to do that -- and might, yet, but I decided to do some research first -- thus this article.

I wanted to come up with my own assessment of the chance that there could possibly be any cancer there. I thought it was time to
judge the information available. I figured that if there were any significant chance of cancer, then I would not want the biopsy, and
would start a more aggressive plan of alternative treatments.

So, my main frame of reference was that biopsies were dangerous and that I could find an alternative form of treatment for my
bump.

One of my first findings, on my research quest, was when I did a search among the scientific studies relating to biopsy,
"spreading" and cancer.

I found the following report:

Abstract
The risk of tumour spread at aspiration biopsy of pulmonary tumours through the needle track has been analyzed by reviewing the
case histories of 1,264 patients with a malignant tumour demonstrated by needle biopsy. Only in one case did metastatic tumour
growth develop at the site of the biopsy. The history of this case is presented and the available literature on the subject discussed.

This report was ONE of one hundred, and came on a search for what I considered the relevant words. I figured that if NONE of
the 100 reports described the spreading of cancer because of a biopsy, perhaps my opinion was wrong. I found only similar reports
among these 100 scientific studies.

Page 5 of 11
A famous biopsy specialist who I contacted told me the same:

Original Message-----
From: Ed Uthman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 5:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Your article on biopsies

Hi, Karl,

The danger of a biopsy spreading a cancer is not known and can never be known with certainty. This is because no one can be
diagnosed with cancer until they have had a biopsy that shows it. Well-documented cases of so-called "needle-track metastasis" are
very rare, and in practice the risk is thought to be very small and is therefore ignored. The risk of morbidity and mortality from
doing major cancer surgery on a patient who actually has something other than cancer is considered much, much greater.

Best regards,

Ed

I erred in my search technique, however, because the word "spread" was not the right word to search for. "Spread" was used in
these scientific reports to describe how a biopsy could be used to detect the spreading of cancer. This was quite different from a
biopsy causing the spread of cancer.

I then sent another eMail message to this prominent biopsy specialist -- one who had written many articles. He would probably
qualify as an "expert" on the subject of biopsies.

I was amazed when he replied, and then continued to respond as I asked more questions. You might enjoy reading this extensive
exchange of letters – Look on my website. I've already quoted him above, but, his most interesting message is presented below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 5, 2000

Dear Ed,

Thanks.

I don't want to intrude, but consider:

IF, IF, IF, a person would not be willing to accept traditional chemo, radiation or surgery, under any circumstances, and if such a
person discovers a "lump" or whatever, the biopsy, finding cancer, and not followed by traditional treatment, would surely increase
chances of spread compared to "no biopsy?"

If someone, for whatever reason, would only consider "alternative" treatments, no matter how much you might disagree with that
choice, would the biopsy be useful?

Perhaps some "alternative" treatments could be guided by an accurate diagnosis -- but many would claim that such a diagnosis is
not necessary -- that a "lump," whether malignant or not, can be "treated" with some alternative approach, while the biopsied lump,
with cancer found, is harder to treat with that same alternative approach because of the now-spreading problem?

Typically "traditional doctors" don't much want to engage in such a dialogue, but if you are willing to pursue this a bit, I would
find it useful and interesting.

Karl Loren
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 5, 2000
Dear Karl Loren,

Yes, I agree that it would make no sense to do a biopsy on an individual who would not under any circumstances agree to have any
subsequently discovered cancer treated. One may as well wait until the autopsy to document the disease.

Page 6 of 11
Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, this Doctor felt that if you didn't get a biopsy on some suspicious lump, your family would next be getting an
autopsy!

Notice that Dr. Ed did NOT duplicate my question. He repeats it back to me by alluding to a person not being willing to have
ANY treatment. I certainly did not say that. It is hard for these doctors to admit that something "else" you might do, not chemo,
radiation or surgery, could be termed "treatment."

Finally, Dr. Ed came up with this view of "alternative" medicine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 6, 2000

To Karl Loren

There is no sense in arguing this. Alternative medicine by its nature is a non-empirical belief system. It makes no more sense to
argue against alternative medicine than against some particular religious creed. If alternativists do not require rigorous scientific
demonstration of their assertions, then we have no common language.

Cancer is a difficult challenge; still, even in the time I have been in medicine, there have been great strides in treating and
preventing it. It is only human nature that people grasp at the supernatural when the natural world fails them.

Alternative medicine is just another manifestation of the need to believe in something. My job is not to eliminate alt med, but to
distinguish it from science-based medicine, which it is often erroneously portrayed as.

Ed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I finished this series of exchanges by asking Dr. Ed to read an article about the only double blind study that I know of that dealt
with patients in an intensive care ward for heart patients -- where the alternative treatment was statistically proven to be effective.
He acknowledged that this was an interesting study.

So, I set about doing more research on this point.

First I thought that I could search for "spreading cancer through biopsy" in the search engines. To help you avoid the several days
I wasted, you need to know that the special word is "seeding." In other words if you use a search engine and search under "biopsy
and cancer" and any of several other phrases, you won't find much, but if you search using the phrase "biopsy and seeding," you
will suddenly find lots of medical opinions and studies -- studies and opinions that suggest that it is very dangerous to get a biopsy
-- despite what many other doctors might say.

Here is an example:

Additionally, doctors and researchers have noted that biopsy of a cancerous tumor can cause spreading or "seeding" of cancer cells
along the path or track made by the biopsy needle. This could cause a cancerous condition which had been confined solely to the
prostate capsule to spread into surrounding tissues, making a serious health concern even more problematical. (This quote comes
from this source.)

[Note the use of the phrase, "prostate capsule." This is a reference to the fact that the body will try to "encase" or "wall off" a
cancer. Here the term is "capsule."]

But, then I found many, many more reports of cancer spreading because of biopsy.

Final Judgment!
Then I found several individual doctors, or reports, on the web, describing the dangers of biopsy. The decision is final! Biopsies
are often dangerous -- despite what your doctor might tell you!

Page 7 of 11
Now that I was re-confirmed in my opinion that biopsies are dangerous, I still had to better understand what type of "lump" or
"bump" I had. After all, it was not healing. That is a bad sign. And, if I could be assured that it was NOT cancer, I wouldn't
object to using laser surgery to remove it. (You see, I am not at all opposed to laser surgery, but if the lump is cancer, I don't trust
laser surgery to "get it all," and I would avoid the surgery and go, still, for the aggressive alternative treatment).

The first doctor I visited, one I trust, told me that he was sure my bump was not cancer, that it was 80% likely to be Granuloma
and 20% likely to be basal cell carcinoma. I certainly didn't know what those words meant. Granuloma is never malignant, and
95% of all Basal Cell Carcinomas are NOT seriously dangerous -- so it looks like I am almost 100% sure that a biopsy would not
be dangerous.

What is cancer, anyway?

Normal cells in our bodies have a predetermined life span, They grow, they give rise to new cells and they die. Our bodies
continually replace dead cells with new ones. With millions of new cells being made everyday, mistakes can and do happen,
causing abnormal cells. Normally cells have ways of checking and identifying problems. Defective or abnormal cells are
destroyed. If something goes wrong with this detection system, the abnormal cells are permitted to grow. Cells grow by first
increasing in size and then splitting into two. One cell becomes two, two become four and so forth. Normally, new cells are created
at the same rate as old cells die. Cancer cells do not maintain this normal balance. They divide at a faster rate than cells die,
causing the cancer to grow.

The above quote is common -- you'll notice that the actual "cause" of cancer is not really shown. The author refers to "mistakes"
causing abnormal cells. It is not very good science to suggest that we try to prevent "mistakes" in the body. On this web site you'll
find "experts" claiming that viruses cause cancer. That is so superficial that it is not useful. It is free radicals that cause mutations,
and mutations that lead to cancer -- free radicals that affect the genes in a cell.

One of the most authoritative books in all of medicine is Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology, used in virtually EVERY
medical school. In that Book the author makes the simple, and profound statement, that:

Cancer is caused in all or almost all instances by mutation or abnormal activation of cellular genes that control cell growth and cell
mitosis. [Page 38]

What Are The Traditional Treatments?

Well, for one thing, the "traditional treatments" are what the drug companies decide. Lately they are making those decisions more
and more based on marketing and profits than they are based on cure or help for the patient.

An article in the Wall Street Journal blows the whistle! Drug companies are spending less and less on research and more and more
on marketing and advertising to convince you to use their existing drugs for new purposes. When Prozac can be used,
indiscriminately, as a diet drug, you know the drug companies have reached the bottom of the ethics pit!

Drug Companies Spend More And More On Advertising -- Even To Consumers -- And More and More on Free Samples To
Doctors -- Promotion Has Taken The Place Of Research!

Not only are drug companies spending more money on advertising and less money on research, but the "new" drugs they are
introducing are more and more really old drugs with new claims -- so they can continue selling them past the normal life of their
patents. Here is a quote from a Wall Street Journal article on July 24, 2000:

The report, to be released Monday, also found that, over the past decade, only 36% of new-drug applications approved by the FDA
were for compounds never sold on the U.S. market. The rest were for drugs whose active ingredients already were on the market,
to be marketed in new dosages and combinations, or by new manufacturers.

So, "traditional cancer treatment" is what the drug companies decide it should be. You would hope that they are doing research on
this subject? They are doing less of that and more money is now being spent to convince you that the old drugs are really useful.
These people are NOT on your side!

More technically, the most common treatment for serious cancer starts with surgery, followed by chemotherapy, and moves to
radiation as deemed necessary.

Here is a simple, and quite conventional, description of how chemotherapy works:

A very important scientific issue that has to be considered in this discussion is the chemosensitivity of a growing tumor. Most
chemotherapeutic drugs interfere with cell division processes and are thus most effective on growing tumors and in general the
faster tumors grow, the more effective is the drug.

Page 8 of 11
The logic used in chemotherapy of breast cancer patients is intimately tied to growth patterns of breast cancer. According to the
1991 American Cancer Society Textbook of Clinical Oncology (2), Gompertzian growth accurately describe the growth of breast
cancer. When cancer is found in a patient, the tumor lies high on the growth phase of the Gompertz curve and is thus relatively
slowly growing.

Debulking the tumor by surgical removal and radiation puts any residual tumor in the smaller thus faster growing section of the
Gompertz curve and makes it more chemosensitive.

This reasoning is valid in animal models. Since human breast cancer is assumed to grow similarly, intensive chemotherapy is
given shortly after surgery with the hope of eradicating all residual breast cancer cells.

Treatment is given until limited by toxicity and then stopped. Then we hope for the best. Compelling though this model is, only
modest improvements in survival rates have been made over the years.

You see the bankruptcy of this position? Your breast lump is "large" and thus not very sensitive to chemotherapy. So, we can't
use chemotherapy first! We cut it out, leaving a much smaller amount of cancer (they never get it all). Now that the cancer is
"returned" to an earlier size (very small), it returns to the much higher previous growth rate and chemotherapy will NOW work!

So this treatment deliberately causes the cancer to change from a slow-growing mass to a much faster growing mass! Hurray for
drug logic!

What else may shock you is that the cells of the immune system grow much more rapidly than do cancer cells -- thus the
chemotherapy may kill the fast-growing cancer cells, but it surely, first, kills the very defence mechanism the body has against
cancer -- the immune system.

Dr. Arthur C. Guyton's Book, Textbook of Medical Physiology is one of the most widely studied books in medical history. It is
required reading for almost all first-year medical students. In THAT Book, Dr. Guyton describes how the various different cells
of the immune system are among the most rapidly multiplying of all cells.

According to Dr. Guyton, some of the immune system cells live only a few hours -- meaning that the creation and cell division
within the immune system is more rapid than virtually any other type of cell:

The life of the granulocytes once released from the bone marrow is normally 4 to 8 hours circulating in the blood and another 4 to
5 days in the tissues. In times of serious tissue infection, this total life span is often shortened to only a few hours because the
granulocytes then proceed rapidly to the infected area, perform their function, and in the process are themselves destroyed. [Page
436]

Is it any wonder that people are upset at chemotherapy -- the drug that kills fast-multiplying cells. Doctors don't believe in the
body's own healing system anyway, and figure you have an inherent deficiency of their drugs. If the doctor doesn't expect your
own body to do anything about cancer, why would HE worry that some of the immune system cells would be killed. After all,
they are worthless anyway (they failed to protect you from the cancer, didn't they?) and his job is to kill the cancer cells that are
multiplying.

Radiation works the same way -- radiation is most effective on cells during their cell-division stage -- and since the doctors "know"
that immune system cells are worthless, they are willing to kill them off, first, just to get a chance to kill off those cancer cells.

I could write more about traditional cancer treatment, about loss of hair, sex drive, life itself, but those horrors are already well-
documented in the ample coverage by alternative health authors.

If you want this type of treatment, that is your right. Your insurance will cover it. But I think you have a right to have a full
explanation of what it is and how it works.

What Are Some Of The

Alternative Treatments?

It's a long reference, but worth glancing through. Click here for a 200+ page book, all on this web site, on alternative treatments
for cancer, and along the way scathing attack on the traditional.

I made reference to prayer above. If you missed it, click here to read how prayer has been proven to be statistically successful in
the case of serious heart disease. The world abounds in individual stories of cancer being cured by prayer, but it is not something
that the drug companies will finance, so it is not taught in medical schools, and so your doctors' call it "supernatural."

Page 9 of 11
Also there is a book soon to be published:

Benor, Daniel J., M.D. Healing Research Volume I (Rev. ed), Southfield, MI: Vision Publications (in press - 2000). A
comprehensive summary of scientific literature on spiritual healing from around the world. Over 1,500 references are surveyed.
Vision Publishers, Southfield, MI. (Daniel J. Benor, MD P.O. Box 502, Medford, NJ 08055, USA. < [email protected] > " If
we take a broad view, out of 198 controlled experiments of healing, 88 (49.7 per cent) demonstrate effects at statistically
significant levels that could occur by chance only one time in a hundred or less (p < .01); and another 41 (23.2 per cent) at levels
that could occur between two and five times out of a hundred (p < .02-.05). In other words, close to three quarters (72.9 percent) of
all the experiments demonstrate significant effects. "

There is also something the doctors like to refer to as "spontaneous remission." These are cases where cancer was found, by
proven biopsy, and the patient did NOT get the usual treatment, but returned to another medical test only to have the finding -- "no
more cancer." Gone! The instances where doctors cannot explain why a cure took place are conveniently lumped into this
apparently acceptable category: "Spontaneous Remission."

I, personally, witnessed "spontaneous remission" in the cancer clinic in Mexico where I visited every month. When a doctor uses
the term "spontaneous remission," he is saying that he doesn't know what caused the cancer to disappear.

What I saw, several times, in Mexico, was a patient in the cancer clinic. The patient would get some specific treatment, many
times involving live cell therapy, and there was a cancer protruding from the *body. In these cases the cancer could be large or
small, but it was obvious to the eye -- just protruding from the body.

Once the immune system has created a very specific "anti-germ" just for one particular bug, you then have at least a few of those
anti-germs in your body for the rest of your life. Your body is capable of recognizing an astonishing 100,000,000 different types
of bugs!

The immune system can be improved within minutes with the right technique. Soon I expect to offer something more specific on
this!

I have seen those masses of cancer get smaller within hours! That was NOT spontaneous remission, although some doctor might
make such a claim. Those results were directly caused by a treatment that is very common in Europe, but illegal within the United
States. The most common source of those changes, often within hours, was live cell therapy.

There are other ways. Note that these "other ways" cannot generally ever be described as "cures" for cancer -- since that is illegal,
but they CAN be described as "immune system boosters," since it is not illegal to help the body's immune system get better!

Taheebo Life Tea has proven to me, personally, to be very effective in many cases reported to me. This includes a very rare
remission of one of the most fatal of all cancers -- pancreatic cancer.

Many years ago I wrote a book about "germanium" and how it was useful in preventing (and curing) cancer. In that book I
predicted that the FDA would find a way to ban the import of germanium. I was right on both claims. The FDA now makes it
illegal to import germanium, and it is not made in the US. I have a current research project going on about germanium and will be
announcing that in due course.

There is no question in my mind that the immune system, improvement of, would be the area of greatest potential for
PREVENTING cancer. In this field I don't think anything comes close to Transfer Factor, about which I have written a lengthy
and detailed article.

There is a "saying" in this "alternative world:" "When the student is ready the teacher will appear!" For literally thousands of
people, students all, I have appeared in their lives as a teacher. It is the most rewarding role a person can ever have in life -- all the
more rewarding when, as a teacher, you touch the life and death decisions a person has to make. I offer this article in hope that
you, the student, will find it useful in reaching what MUST be a very personal decision for you.

You have a lump? Should you listen to 99% of your family and friends -- "Get a biopsy immediately!" Or, is there another way?

I have my own lump or bump about which to decide. As the future unravels, you'll know what I did and what results I have had!

I am willing to talk to doctors about these things. At this writing, July 25, 2000, I am scheduled to see a dermatologist and get an
opinion there. I am certainly a very informed patient now, as you can see from the research, study and writing I've done. It
happens, also, that on July 25, 2000, I am spending more than two hours learning about, and receiving, an exhaustive "ultra sound"

Page 10 of 11
diagnostic test of my whole body for cancer and heart disease problems. That will be the subject of another article. I do believe in
testing of this sort -- at least when you can be assured of the honesty of the technology involved.

Here is another type of test for cancer:

Stunning proof of this claim is readily available. All trophoblast cells produce a unique hormone called the chorionic
gonadotrophic (CGH) which is easily detected in urine. Thus if a person is either pregnant or has cancer, a simple CGH pregnancy
test should confirm either or both. It does, with an accuracy of better than 92% in all cases. If the urine sample shows positive it
means either normal pregnancy or abnormal malignant cancer. Griffin notes: "If the patient is a woman, she either is pregnant or
has cancer. If he is a man, cancer can be the only cause." So why all of the expensive, dangerous biopsies carried to 'detect'
cancerous growths? One can only assume that medicare pays doctors a larger fee for biopsies than pregnancy tests.

Pending seeing that dermatologist, I have started on one of my old treatment programs, but doing it in a more aggressive manner. I
have concluded that my bump is "granuloma," and that the problem is my wound won't heal because the edges of the wound are
"necrotic" (unhealthy). The unhealthy cells keep damaging their adjoining cells, so the wound spreads in size. This is not a
cancer, because the cells are not multiplying -- but the toxin that was locked away more than 30 years ago has now, I think,
become exposed to the body's fluids and systems. The body is fighting this "infection" if you will, but as the definition of
Granuloma indicates, there can be a "foreign body" inside your own human body -- some foreign substance which is not
susceptible to removal by the immune system, or any combination of vitamins.

I am using a substance that has worked successfully to remove warts, by dissolving the unnatural tissue. I'll certainly let you know
what happens as this moves along. I am using MSM cream at the same time -- but more later.

I'll keep this page updated as this moves along. This page was published as the August 2000 edition of The Wednesday Letter.
As I continue my research and writing on this subject, the new material will be published HERE only, not on the version published
as The Wednesday Letter.

As of August 7, 2000, the lump is definitely getting smaller and starting to heal. But, also, a much larger area is now involved
with a rash similar to one I had when I first used MSM. Write to ask me how I've done this.

As of October 7, 2000, I would say this is much better, but still very slow in healing.

Sincerely,

Karl Loren

Page 11 of 11