Frequently Asked Questions
A collection of articles with information concerning cancer and cancer research
In the nearly three years my website has been active, the public has expressed an enormous amount of interest in a wide range of subjects related to the material I present there. I have also learned that many of these subjects have become a topic of continuing discussion in chat rooms. In order to assure that such discussion is informed, I have prepared a series of "FAQ's" that address the questions participants are asking most frequently. I do this as a public service and to be certain that accurate information is available to those interested in cesium and related topics. Please note that I am not a medical doctor.
I am merely attempting to provide information that I feel is most important in the ongoing war on cancer. It is essential that you discuss this information with your health care provider.
This is by far the most frequently asked question I encounter – especially among medical professionals. So let’s address it first.
I should note that although my answer is an expression of my personal opinion, it is an informed opinion based on both personal experience and extensive research. After struggling with this issue for more than four years, I have come to the disturbing conclusion that the reason the potential of cesium as a cancer therapy has been ignored is that the Medical Establishment – i.e. Government Agencies (the FDA, NIH, CDC), medical societies like the AMA, the Multinational Pharmaceutical Industry, multi-billion dollar charitable institutions like the American Cancer Society etc. – are more interested in perpetuating their power, prestige and profits than they are in protecting the lives of me and the other estimated 1.5 million new cancer victims diagnosed each year.
The key to understanding how cesium works lies in the chemistry of a cancer cell. In 1925, German Nobel Laureate Dr. Otto Warburg published his ground-breaking paper establishing that cancer cells use a different form of chemistry to produce energy than normal cells do. In a healthy cell, oxygen can move freely across the cell membrane as can glucose. Oxygen is used in a healthy cell to “burn” glucose and create energy. This process is called respiration.
Warburg discovered that a cancer cell, however, is anaerobic – it has somehow manipulated its membrane to keep the oxygen out. In the absence of oxygen the glucose cannot “burn”; thus the cell reverts to a more primitive state and generates energy through a process called “fermentation.” During the process of fermentation, the cancer cell produces lactic acid. It is the lactic acid produced through this process that causes the often intense pain associated with cancer.
Lactic acid also breaks down the DNA and RNA in a cell that modulates its growth. As a result, the cancer cell rapidly duplicates itself, growing out of control. The lactic acid also turns the cancer cell acidic. It is this fact that is of critical importance.
The reason it is so important is that fermentation cannot take place in the alkaline environment characteristic of a healthy cell.
You may recall from your high school chemistry class that the acidity or alkalinity of a substance is expressed as a “pH” number. The “pH” of a substance is measured on a scale ranging from 0 to 14. A “pH” of 7 is considered neutral while numbers above 7 indicate a substance is alkaline and numbers below 7 indicate it is acidic. A healthy cell has a slightly alkaline “pH” of between 7.35 and 7.4 and is always maintained at this level by the body’s extensive buffering system. Since fermentation destroys the cell’s control mechanism, (i.e. DNA and RNA) the cancer cell, as a consequence of the lactic acid produced, grows acidic, resulting in a lower “pH” (initially around 6.5) than a healthy cell. The fermentation process cancer cells need to survive and multiply cannot take place in an alkaline environment. Therefore if it were possible to raise the “pH” of a cancer cell to make it alkaline, it could destroy the cell.
Initial efforts to develop a cancer therapy based on Warburg’s propitious discovery focused on attempts to put the excluded oxygen back in the cell. Methods attempted included the use of ozone and hydrogen peroxide. These efforts, however, failed because while the oxygen did enter the blood stream, it did not penetrate the cell.
Something else was needed. It was at this point that cesium entered the picture.
Cesium is a naturally occurring mineral with the atomic number 55 on the periodic table of elements. It is also nature’s most alkaline mineral. A brilliant physicist, A. Keith Brewer Ph.D., the former Director of the National Bureau of Standards Mass Spectroscopy Laboratory, discovered that cancer cells had an affinity for cesium. This fact is the reason that a radioactive isotope of cesium is commonly used as a “marker” to trace the movement of conventional chemotherapy drugs into a tumor. Introducing substantial amounts of cesium into the body, he reasoned, might cause a cancer cell to absorb enough to change its “pH” and disrupt the fermentation process it needed to stay alive.
After extensive testing, Brewer determined that cesium or rubidium, which is the next most alkaline mineral, could raise the “pH” of cancer cells. Ultimately he focused on cesium because it was the more alkaline of the two. The question, however, was how to get enough cesium into the cancer cell to change its “pH.” Brewer determined that there were a number of vitamins and minerals that greatly enhanced the absorption of these elements by malignant tissue. By administering these substances in conjunction with the cesium, the level of the mineral absorbed was sufficient to kill the cancer cell. This occurred because the cesium – now present in the cancer cell – proceeded to alkalize it. This happens to be the equivalent of oxygenating the cell, as there is a relationship between alkalinity and oxygenation. In practical terms, the cesium raises the “pH” of the “unprotected” cell to 8.0 at which level cell mitosis ceases and the life of the cell is at most a few days. This protocol became the basis for the “High pH Therapy.”
Beginning in 1979, Dr. Brewer began a series of experiments to prove his theory. He had already directly observed the effects on cells in vitro. The next stage was to demonstrate it worked in animals. The first animal experiments to establish the efficacy of Dr. Brewer’s High pH Therapy were conducted at three universities using mice as test animals. As noted earlier, Dr. Brewer had considered both cesium and rubidium as candidates for this treatment. The initial experiment employed rubidium.
The first animal study was conducted at the American University in Washington, D.C. in 1979. In this trial mice were implanted with 2mm cubes of mammary tumor.
The resultant tumors were allowed to grow for eight days. The test animals were divided into two groups and fed a normal diet. Half of them, however, were also given 1.1 mg of rubidium carbonate by mouth. After thirteen days, the mice were killed and measurements were taken of the tumor growth. Researchers found that the tumors in the mice that had been given rubidium carbonate were only 9 percent as large as those animals that had not been given the mineral. In addition, the mice who had been administered the rubidium showed none of the ravages normally associated with cancer.
Dr. Marilyn Tufte of the Department of Biology at the University of Wisconsin in Platteville conducted a second series of tests in which mice received subcutaneous implants of colon carcinoma. After the tumors were established, cesium carbonate, zinc gluconate and vitamin A were administered to the test animals. Dr. Tufte observed a 97 percent reduction in tumor growth using this approach.
Dr. A. Messiha and Dr F.S. El Domeiri of the Texas Tech University Medical School at Lubbock conducted a series of experiments in 1981 in which mice were implanted with Sarcoma-I tumors and then administered cesium salts. Their research demonstrated that this form of the mineral was the most effective for both suppressing the growth of tumors and shrinking them.
Despite their encouraging results, the animal experiments, however, were only a start. Therapies that show promise in animal tests do not always prove effective in humans. The next step, therefore, was to test the High pH Therapy in humans.
A series of U.S. clinical trials of the High pH Therapy were initiated in 1981. Dr. Brewer described the results of one of these trials in a 1984 article published in the journal, Pharmacological Biochemistry and Behavior. They were, to say the least, astounding.
In the abstract of the article, Dr. Brewer writes:
“Tests have been carried out on over 30 humans. In each case the tumor masses disappeared. Also all pains and effects associated with cancer disappeared within 12 to 36 hours; the more chemotherapy and morphine the patient had taken, the longer the withdrawal period.”
Another human trial had similar results. That U.S. trial involved 50 cancer patients. All but three of the patients suffered from generalized metastatic disease, and all but three had received various standard cancer therapies such as surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. All of the patients were considered terminal.
Due to their poor condition at the time the High pH Therapy was initiated, thirteen of the initial group died within 14 days – some only two days after arrival. Since these patients had exhausted all other avenues of treatment prior to initiating the High pH Therapy, this result was not particularly surprising. Yet even among the patients for whom the High pH Therapy simply came too late, post-mortem examinations revealed that a substantial shrinkage of tumor mass had occurred. Further, all patients demonstrated a significant reduction in pain within 12 to 24 hours of initiating the therapy.
What was remarkable, however, is what happened to the rest of the subjects. Again, and I cannot emphasize this too strongly, these were all patients who were supposed to die. They had exhausted every other alternative. Some were even comatose. They had no hope, no chance for survival. But, despite the dire prognosis, half of them did in fact survive.
Although further formal research in the United States was halted shortly after the second human trial was concluded, thousands of individuals, including this author, have employed the High pH Therapy to fight their cancers. They provide a powerful testimony to its effectiveness as well as a compelling rationale for further formal research.
In the end, in my opinion, it gets down to a question of power, prestige and profits. The medical establishment, multi-national pharmaceutical companies and government regulators have little interest in promoting a therapy that is inexpensive, simple to administer and essentially non-toxic. Cesium is a naturally occurring, abundant mineral. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates world reserves of cesium are around 100 million tons, 70 percent of which are found in Canada. A typical course of therapy employing cesium would cost at most several thousand dollars, a mere fraction of the $300,000 to $600,000 price tag for a course of conventional chemotherapy.
Also, it is not necessary for a patient to undergo lengthy and expensive hospitalization to employ the High pH Therapy. Depending on the severity of the disease, it can either be taken orally at home, or administered intravenously in a doctor’s office. Intravenous administration, however, is not available in the United States.
The High pH Therapy’s lower cost, though, is not the only reason it is so vehemently opposed by Big Medicine.
The medical establishment has long opposed the use of any therapy they could not control. This opposition even extended to well-researched treatments such as Krebiozon and most recently, Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s antineoplastons. Indeed, the past century is replete with examples of Big Medicine crushing anyone who refused to submit to their control. (For more information, read Cancer Cover-Up available from Cassandra Books at www.cassandrabooks.com)
It is also important to recognize that the basic premise of the High pH Therapy – to attack the cancer, not the whole body – runs counter to the concept underlying most chemotherapy. Although recently there have been some efforts to “target” cancer cells, most chemotherapy drugs act indiscriminately, attacking the whole body. This is why they are normally accompanied by such terrible side effects. For many patients the treatment is worse than the disease! In demonstrating that it is possible to destroy cancer cells selectively, the High pH Therapy reveals the fatal flaw that has been an integral part of most cancer treatment and research for the past three decades.
A final point is that the regulatory establishment has an enormous interest in maintaining the status quo. Fees from multi-national pharmaceutical companies comprise a substantial portion of the FDA budget. Senior FDA officials routinely leave government for lucrative jobs with the huge multi-national drug companies. These same multi-national drug companies are among the largest contributors to the political campaigns of politicians who set the nation’s health care agenda. It is small wonder that regulators are loath to do anything that might threaten the existence of their cash cow.
In short, by providing a lower cost, non-toxic and uncontrollable alternative to conventional cancer treatments, the High pH Therapy threatens the stranglehold that the medical establishment, the huge multi-national drug companies and government regulatory agencies has over your medical care. This is a threat they cannot ignore.
I have never been convicted of a crime. The Maryland Attorney General, J. Joseph Curran, in an effort to advance his political career, has used his power to slander and smear my name; and the press has been all too willing to grab a sensational headline. But little of what has been published resembles the truth. The facts are as follow:
No case of fraud was ever brought against me. What occurred was a dispute over some of the promotional material distributed in connection with an aloe vera product by a company in which I had invested. Normally such disputes are resolved through consultation between the State and the concerned parties. In this instance, however, rather than following normal procedure, the Attorney General instead immediately initiated an administrative proceeding charging that the literature was deceptive.
As a brief summary will show, the Attorney General’s blatant disregard of normal practice and precedent clearly demonstrates his bias.
First of all, when the Attorney General brought his action there were no – I repeat – no complaints about our product on file with his office. Rather, they were brought in response to a newspaper story concerning another matter in which I had no interest.
Secondly, as soon as we were notified that there was some question about the promotional material it was immediately and voluntarily withdrawn from circulation and has not been distributed since.
Third, because in an administrative proceeding the rules of evidence and constitutional guarantees available in a court of law do not apply, my ability to mount a defense and answer the spurious allegations brought by the Attorney General was essentially nullified. As an attorney who has been a member of the Bar for more than forty years, the lack of due process and denial of basic constitutional rights I experienced was a stunning revelation. For example, the administrative law judge refused to allow the majority of our witnesses to testify, including our experts. At the same time, she allowed the State’s “experts” to hold forth even though they admitted to having no knowledge about the subject about which they were testifying. It is interesting to note that the Attorney General has never lost a case of this kind before this forum.
Fourth, during the course of the hearing no mention was made of cesium. Given that there are more than 770,000 licensed physicians in the United States and hundreds of thousands of Ph.D. scientists, the Attorney General could not find ONE to dispute the efficacy of the High pH Therapy!
Fifth, if cesium is so ineffective and even dangerous, why hasn’t the Attorney General used his broad powers to ban its sale and use in Maryland?
Sixth, the regulation of dietary supplements is the responsibility of the Food and Drug Administration. The regulation of interstate advertising is the responsibility of the Federal Trade Commission. Yet, neither of these agencies brought an action!
Seventh, during the proceeding the Attorney General’s prosecutor admitted that he didn’t care whether or not the treatments worked. He was only concerned with whether we had followed the bureaucratic rules!
A final question is why the Attorney General chose to include me in the action to begin with. I had invested in the company to help it get started because I believed that its products could help people. Once I recouped my initial investment I withdrew from participation. In other words, I never made a nickel from that investment. Moreover, I never had an active role in its management. Including me in the action was the equivalent of including stockholders in Ford Motor Company as liable for suits resulting from the problems their SUVs experienced with Firestone tires!
Government approval is no guarantee of safety. Recent provisions for “fast-track” approval of new medicines have compounded the problem. A few examples of the experience with “fast-track” approved drugs makes this all too clear.
Duract: Within a year of its introduction, Weyth-Ayerst voluntarily withdrew Duract from the market after 13 reports of liver failure among patients who had taken the drug. Ultimately Duract would be suspect in at least 68 deaths, 17 of which involved liver failure.
Posicor: In early trials of Posicor, it was found that the drug would interact with other drugs posing severe risks of serious side effects. Most disturbing, though, was the fact that 143 of the 2,400 patients participating in clinical trials died suddenly.
Despite the disturbing evidence of sudden deaths among their clinical study participants, Hoffman-La Roche officials insisted that Posicor was not to blame, stating that “There is no signal that there is arrhythmic or potentially arrhythmic risk with this drug.”
Raxar: Two years after its introduction, Glaxo-Wellcome, Raxar’s manufacturer would voluntarily pull it off the market following seven fatalities linked to the drug. It has also been cited as suspect in some 18 deaths in the U.S. and abroad.
Dr. Raymond L. Woolsey, who is chairman of Georgetown University’s pharmacology department and has served as a member of an FDA advisory panel, believes drugs with potential problems like Raxar should not be approved. He summarized his rationale succinctly “[Raxar] goes on the market, kills people and has to come off. “
Relenza: By a vote of 13 to 8 an FDA advisory panel rejected Relenza. Why? Because it didn’t work and had potentially fatal side effects. In a rare move, the agency overruled the panel’s decision. The result? As many as 50 deaths have been linked to Relenza to date. Given the fact that the FDA cited Relenza’s manufacturer on three occasions for false and misleading advertising, and the fact that the FDA advisory panel said flatly it didn’t work, why hasn’t the Maryland Attorney General moved to ban its sale in his state?
Propulsid: When the drug Propulsid was undergoing review in 1993, FDA medical officers knew of 48 patients participating in clinical trials who had experienced changes in their heart rates and rhythms. The reviewers did not, however, consider the problems important. As a result, on July 29, 1993 Propulsid was approved for general use. Buy the time Propulsid was ordered off the market on March 23, 2000, some 301 deaths including those of several infants had been linked to the drug.
Redux: Promoted by the Weyth-Ayerst division of the pharmaceutical giant American Home Products for weight loss, Redux soon became wildly popular in combination with another Weyth-Ayerst product Pondimin. Together they were known by the name “Fen-Phen.” After a year, Redux and Pondimin were removed from the market following a flood of reports that they had caused at least 123 fatal heart injuries or respiratory problems among patients taking the drugs.
Lotronex: While the “fast-track” approval process for drugs is supposed to be reserved for those intended to treat “life-threatening” or “serious” conditions, where the pharmaceutical industry is concerned, “serious” is largely in the eye of the beholder. Lotronex was used to treat irritable bowel syndrome. While this condition is unpleasant and inconvenient, it is rarely life threatening. More important, there are a number of existing medications that can be used to treat it. Nonetheless, Lotronex was still given the “fast-track” approval. On July 17, 2000, less than a month after that decision, the first fatality linked to Lotronex was reported. Glaxo, however, denied the connection. By the time Lotronex was pulled from the market on November 28,2000, 93 patients had been hospitalized with complications related to the drug, 49 of whom suffered the most serious complication, ischemic colitis. Five of the patients died.
Trovan: In December of 1997, the FDA announced its approval of Trovan, the latest addition to the family of powerful fluoroquinolone antibiotics – super-drugs that are often the only effective treatment for life threatening infections.
Six months before Trovan was approved for general use, reviewers at the FDA had noted disturbing findings in animal studies of the drug. Human studies of Trovan had equally disturbing results. In one study, Trovan was given to 140 patients suffering from prostatitis: 10 percent or 14 of the patients experienced liver abnormalities. Five had reactions serious enough to be dropped from the study prematurely.
Despite these facts, the FDA approved Trovan for general use in December of 1997. Almost immediately, adverse event reports began to stream in. Within a year and a half, 140 adverse events, including five deaths had been reported to the FDA. As a result, on June 9, 1999, the FDA issued an “advisory” withdrawing the drug from general sales so that it could only be obtained from hospital pharmacies. The advisory also severely restricted the use of Trovan limiting it to patients who had “life or life threatening” infections which did not respond to other alternatives.
To date 140 people have become ill, five have died and three have needed liver transplants because of the rush to approve Trovan.
Yes, I took a form of aloe vera high in long-chain polysaccharides along with the cesium. The reason I did so was to boost my immune function. Aloe vera has been used for thousands of years. It is a component of many cosmetics and burn creams. In fact, Alexander the Great instructed his soldiers to bring aloe vera with them to treat wounds. There is extensive scientific literature concerning the properties of aloe vera, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved at least one aloe vera product for the treatment of feline leukemia in animals. This is of particular interest since the feline leukemia virus is often used as an experimental model for chemotherapy drugs in development for human use. I believe an aloe vera product with a high long-chain polysaccharide content can be a useful adjunct to the High pH Therapy.
There is one particularly disturbing aspect to the government’s actions towards aloe vera: the FDA’s continued resistance to permitting its intravenous administration. Consider the facts:
- There has been a Phase I safety study of IV aloe vera that has established its safety.
- Aloe vera has been administered intravenously in a Phase II clinical trial in Canada.
- Aloe vera is approved for by the USDA for intravenous administration to both dogs and cats for the treatment of cancer. This is important, because it represents a “multi-species” use.
- Intravenously administered aloe vera was included in a human drug trial (circa 1993) in the United States.
- Despite the clear evidence that aloe vera is safe and efficacious when administered intravenously, the FDA continues to refuse to permit it to be administered by IV. Why?
I will discuss aloe in detail in a future newsletter.
No. Cesium will not interfere with any other treatment you may be taking. This is one of its advantages. There is no need to forego conventional therapy, should it be your choice to make use of it, while taking cesium.
It is vitally important to begin the protocol as soon as possible. A basic fact about all forms of cancer is that early detection and treatment greatly improve the prospect of survival. As cancer cells multiply, a number of things occur. First, they deprive healthy cells of vital nutrients weakening the patient and reducing their ability to fight the disease. The more cancer cells, the less able the body is to fight off the invader. Secondly, as the cancer spreads it damages the organs and tissues it has attacked.
Therefore, the longer the delay, the more extensive the damage. If left untreated, this can ultimately lead to organ failure or other life-threatening complications.
The minimum dosage for cesium is three grams per day. However, the amount of cesium required for a specific case is largely a function of the extent of the disease. The more extensive the cancer, the more cesium required to fight it. It is also important to be sure to balance the intake of cesium with appropriate amounts of the other supplements included in the protocol, especially potassium.
It is always advisable to consult a physician prior to starting any program. In the case of cancer, this is doubly important so that the patient can be properly monitored to measure the progress of the disease. It is important to understand that cancer is a disease that can wax and wane with periods of remission followed by an aggressive relapse. Fortunately, unlike other therapies, cancer cells do not appear to become resistant to cesium. Therefore proper monitoring can detect any relapse and another course of cesium can be employed.
It appears that 3-4 months is a good length of time for the cesium. However, the length of time required is related to the extent of the disease. In some instances, where there is extensive malignancy present, it may be necessary to undergo several courses of the cesium protocol interspersed with “rest” periods in order to destroy all of the cancer cells.
I do not believe that the term “cure” should be used in association with cancer because we do not know its cause. Even with so-called “cures” (usually defined as five years without symptoms), utilizing conventional therapies, cancer often returns, even 10 or 15 years later. This can happen with cesium as well. What is possible, however, is to destroy cancerous cells and stop its progress.
Remember unlike chemotherapy drugs which cancer cells eventually learn to outwit, cesium, a natural mineral, can be used again and again. Also, it is important to remember that further medical procedures may be required to correct organ damage caused by the cancer before the cesium therapy was initiated. Still, there are no guarantees, although many people have been extremely happy with the program. We are just offering information that has come from personal experience.
Many people have tried both. There is no indication that the use of cesium interferes with other conventional therapies. Remember cesium works by directly attacking and killing cancer cells – and only cancer cells. This is markedly different from most conventional cancer therapies. In fact, using cesium may help make conventional therapies more effective by reducing tumor masses more quickly.
Normally, all supplements should be discontinued prior to surgery. This is especially true of any vitamin supplements or other products that may have blood thinning qualities. For example vitamin E and Garlic both have significant blood thinning properties. Although none of the supplements used in the cesium protocol have such properties, it is still judicious to avoid any supplements prior to surgery. It is also very important to be sure that your doctor is aware of any supplements you have been taking prior to undergoing any surgical procedure.
Generally, it is wise to avoid cesium if you have a history of cardiac arrhythmias, simply because arrhythmias have the potential to be fatal. You do not want to take anything that could have even the slightest possibility of triggering one, and no human studies have been run regarding cesium and that problem.
No. One animal study that is sometimes used to suggest that cesium can cause cardiac arrhythmias actually involved the administration of massive doses of the mineral to canine subjects for the express purpose of inducing an arrhythmia. Ironically, at lower doses, cesium has been used to control cardiac arrhythmia. You may note that this fact is mentioned in the last paragraph of Dr. Brewer’s paper.
Although the side effects of cesium are not as severe as those associated with more conventional treatments such as chemotherapy or radiation, you may experience some minor reactions to the protocol. Note that the cesium is a nerve stimulant. Accordingly, among the most common side effects are a tingling or numbness around the mouth and nose as well as in the tongue and fingertips, and possibly diarrhea. In addition nausea or stomach pain may be experienced. The nausea results from the fact that cesium, as nature’s most alkaline mineral reacts with anything that is highly acidic (i.e. a malignant cell). Since your stomach is also highly acidic (with a pH of between 1 and 2) due to the presence of hydrochloric acid the cesium can react with your stomach acid to cause nausea. In addition, as the cancer cells are killed, the toxins they release into the patient’s system can cause symptoms similar to a mild case of the flu. Some individuals also report becoming anxious. For some people, taking large amounts of vitamin C can irritate the stomach lining. To avoid this we recommend that individuals take a buffered version of vitamin C. It is also possible, in rare cases, to experience heart palpitations. It should be noted that there is now an improved version of cesium, which does not appear to cause the most common side effects of nausea and diarrhea.
If you do experience heart palpitations you should discontinue use immediately. You should then have your potassium level checked. Cesium will leach potassium from your system. This is why it is necessary to take a potassium supplement. The palpitations may be associated with a potassium deficiency and require an adjustment in the amount of potassium supplement you take. It is extremely important, however, to stop taking cesium until you know if you have become potassium deficient. I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of potassium supplementation – 300 milligrams per day plus bananas, potatoes, etc.
There are other supplements that could possibly help, and there is no reason to avoid anything that might help. It is important, however, to be sure to thoroughly research any supplement before deciding to use it. This is important for two reasons. First, to be sure that the supplement really does what it says it does. Although the cesium protocol is based on sound science, clinical research and actual experience show that not all supplements are legitimate. There are unscrupulous individuals marketing products that make impressive claims but with little basis in science or experience. Secondly, you want to be sure that any supplement you take does not interact with some other medication or supplement you are taking. For example, if you are taking Garlic, vitamin E and Gingko Baloba, each of these supplements has blood-thinning properties. Depending on the dose, these could make you more prone to bleeding.
It is not normal, but stomach upsets sometimes occur with cesium or with other supplements that are included in the protocol. This is particularly true of vitamin C.
It is advisable to check potassium levels about 2 weeks after beginning cesium, and then repeat it every two to four weeks. It is imperative that if you experience heart palpitations you have your potassium checked immediately.
For most people, the dosage is the same and is based on a person weighing about 150 pounds. For children or pets, it should be scaled proportionately to their size. For heavier individuals the 3 grams per day minimum should still prove sufficient. The reason for this is that the amount of cesium required is mostly determined by the extent of the malignancy, not the size of the individual. It will also be determined to some degree by the amount of cesium the individual can tolerate. Some people have taken as much as six to twelve grams per day by mouth. The effectiveness of cesium, like most medications, is dose related. Therefore six grams a day is likely to be more effective sooner than three.
It is better to wait for a definitive diagnosis before beginning cesium. It is true that in certain regions of the world where the food and water supplies have high levels of cesium and rubidium cancer is virtually unknown, suggesting that at some level smaller doses of these minerals might prevent cancer. There has not, however, been any research to determine what level of mineral content in the diet would be necessary to provide such protection, or how long a period of time would elapse before the protective qualities took hold. Clearly, the appropriate level would be significantly lower than the therapeutic level required to fight active cancer, but we simply do not know what it is. Therefore, we cannot recommend taking cesium as a preventative measure at this time.
Yes. In fact, it is fairly common for cancer surgery to be followed up with some additional treatment, usually either radiation or chemotherapy. The reason for this is that in many instances, a small number of cancer cells may have been missed or even gravitated to another site, as yet undetected. This follow-up treatment is based in the notion that it is better to be safe than sorry. Cesium is particularly well suited to this purpose because it does not distinguish between types of cancer cells – it attacks any cancer cell wherever it is in the body without harming healthy (i.e. alkaline) cells.
If a person has finished the 4 month period, it should be taken again only if the problem still exists, and in that instance, it is advisable to take a break of 4 to 6 months to allow the cesium to complete its half-life cycle.
NOT ONE PENNY!!! I was initially approached by Allen Hoffman to fund his work on using highly concentrated aloe vera to treat AIDS as well as a host of other immune and autoimmune disorders. I invested $200,000 in a company we formed called T-Up, Inc. I drew a salary until I had recovered my $200,000 investment and then I left the company in April of 1998. I did this because I firmly believe that in the United States people have a right to know what is out there. I don’t insist that you take aloe vera or cesium; I don’t advise taking it to the exclusion of conventional therapy. I just feel that as a physicist I have an obligation to bring this very sound science to everyone’s attention.
In spite of deliberate, malicious accusations by the Attorney General’s staff, I have never made one penny from the sale of cesium and/or aloe.
In fact, I have spent a small fortune in legal fees in a vain attempt to protect my name and reputation. Although the details are discussed elsewhere on this site, some pertinent facts warrant your attention:
- When the Attorney General first approached us alleging deficiencies in our promotional literature, we immediately and voluntarily withdrew it from distribution. It has not been distributed since.
- We were prepared to make any adjustments necessary to comply with the State’s requirements, but the Attorney General never tried to settle the case.
- The Attorney General sued us in before an administrative magistrate – in other words in his court, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Remember the OAH is not a court of law with normal constitutional protections. It is an administrative forum that normally hears motor vehicle cases (94%). There is no real judge, just an Administrative Law Judge (an attorney) who essentially reports to the Attorney General.
- There is no jury in an OAH proceeding. Worse, the Attorney General is able to prevent me from ever receiving a trial before my peers. It is any wonder that he has never lost a case in his Kangaroo Court?I have been a member of the New York State Bar for over 40 years and have never witnessed as outrageous a violation of basic constitutional protections in my life!
If you are as outraged as I am write to your elected Maryland officials and insist that it’s time that they changed the OAH law and curbed the essentially unbridled power of the Attorney General!
In view of the ongoing litigation, it is obviously difficult for me to answer this question. But allow me to point out some pertinent facts and observations:
First, as I have mentioned elsewhere, the Attorney General of Maryland has never taken action (which, with his broad discretionary injunctive power would be easy to do) to remove the products from the market. This well may be because, despite his self-appointed mantle as arbiter of consumer health, he has not found one witness out of the hundreds of thousands of medical experts in the United States to challenge the fact that cesium kills cancer cells.
Second, many people who had been given a death sentence by conventional medicine and were subsequently saved by cesium, have told us that they are afraid to come forward and talk about their
experience out of fear of reprisal by the State. We are certain that many other people have not contacted us out of a similar fear.
This fear as well as the pernicious lies promulgated by the Attorney General’s staff have likely had tragic results. Let me cite one example.
Within the past year, our local NBC TV affiliate ran the heart-breaking story of a beautiful young woman – a former Miss Teen USA – who was dying of cancer despite the best efforts of the doctors at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center. I was advised after her death that her family had been contacted via email by someone who had referred them to my web page. Needless to say, they never contacted me. I can only assume that the widespread publicity given to the Attorney General’s false and misleading statements dissuaded them from even investigating the possibility that cesium might help her.
The lies persist to this day.
In a recent press release trumpeting his Appellate Court “victory” the Maryland Attorney General made reference to the “unconscionable” $12,000 or more you charged for the cesium therapy. I know you addressed this issue elsewhere on your web site in your letter to Senator Breaux, but could you address it again.
The remarks referenced above are either a flagrant, deliberate lie on the part of the Attorney General, or evidence of his total incompetence. If he really is aware of the facts in the case, then he must know that the $12,000 plus fee he refers to was charged by a doctor in Virginia for a two to three week intravenous cesium and aloe vera treatment. The doctor, who had 35 years experience as an orthopedic surgeon, included all costs in this figure.
The company I financed, T-Up, Inc., provided the doctor with sterile aloe vera at a cost somewhat above the $75 per bottle charged for the oral form of aloe vera. Any minimal profit T-Up., Inc. made was exclusively from the sale of the sterile product. What he doesn’t say, of course, is that many late-stage cancer patients are still alive 4 to 5 years later because of the intravenous procedure performed by the doctor in Virginia.
Compare this, if you will, with the 1% to 3% success rate of most conventional forms of chemotherapy in treating metastasized cancer at a cost of $300,000 to $600,000 for their barbaric treatment!
This is a good question with an easy answer. Cesium is a naturally occurring mineral that cannot be patented. Therefore, the multinational pharmaceutical industry would be unable to make their customary bloated, unconscionable profits from its sale. If your doubt my thoughts on this matter, I would refer you to any of a number of excellent books on this subject. (For a broad overview of the problem and a historic perspective read Cancer Cover-Up from Cassandra Books at www.cassandrabooks.com)
Again, good question, easy answer. Today it is estimated that the cost of running a full complete series of Phase I, II and III clinical trials to obtain FDA approval for a new drug is between
$600,000,000 and $800,000,000. This is clearly beyond the financial capabilities of most people and institutions. As mentioned above, no company would spend such a vast sum without the assurance of obtaining a patent to protect their investment. I would, however, like to also address the broader issue of the manner in which drug trials are currently being conducted.
How often have you seen a headline touting the latest clinical trial results for a new cancer drug, claiming a “cure” is just around the corner? How many of these miracle “cures” are still being touted a year or two later? Indeed, if so many “cures” are being found, why are age adjusted cancer rates continuing to rise? The answer is simple: there is little substance behind the hype.
Despite organized medicine’s insistence on placebo-controlled, double blind studies as the “Gold Standard” for medical research, such studies are NEVER conducted for cancer drugs. The reason for this is obvious – it would be unethical to deny treatment to a patient suffering from a lethal disease. As a result, clinical trials for cancer drugs are always comparative – measuring the effect of the new drug against an existing alternative.
On the surface, this seems a reasonable approach. After all, it would be unconscionable to allow a patient to die just to test a new drug. But what goes unsaid, however, is that even a marginal improvement in results (as little as 5%), without consideration of other aspects such as more serious side effects, is enough to get a cancer drug approved.
A specific example will illustrate this point.
In 1997, two new drugs, Anastrozole and Letrozole were hailed as a major breakthrough in treating breast cancer. Both were members of a family of drugs that inhibited the production of estrogen. Estrogen has been shown to accelerate the growth of some types of breast cancer. Ads for Anastrozole bragged that it had a 56.1% survival rate – an impressive result for late-stage breast cancer. But claims about cancer drugs are often not what they seem.
The claim of a 56.1% survival rate, of course, implied that more than half of the patients taking the drug benefited significantly from taking it. But, the actual source of the claim was a study comparing the two-year survival rates of patients taking Anastrozole with those taking Megestrol Acetate, an older drug that also inhibited estrogen production. What the study actually showed was that women treated with Anastrozole had a median time of 26.5 months to death, while those treated with Megestrol Acetate had a median time of 22.5 months. Although this difference was not statistically significant, it was heralded as a “breakthrough.”
But there was something else the ads did not reveal.
Anastrozole could cause more than fifty different side effects including such potentially fatal complications as blood clots. It also could cause congestive heart failure. In contrast, Megestrol Acetate had far fewer side effects.
In the case of Letrozole, it too, had over fifty serious potential side effects, and only one in five patients even responded to the drug!
Despite these dismal results, both Anastrozole and Letrozole are now among the accepted chemotherapy drugs used to treat advanced breast cancer!
The Book Washington Does Not Want You To Read!
An indictment of Big Medicine and Their Suppression of the Cesium Cancer Therapy.
Millions of cancer sufferers are being denied their First Amendment right to learn the full truth about alternative therapies!