I would say that cancer could be looked at as a survival mechanism in that it usually develops as a cellular response to inflammation (as well as certain fast acting carcinogens such as some highly carcinogenic viruses and toxins and very high doses of radiation).  Where I differ from Moritiz is that I do not consider cancer to be a response by the overall body, but rather by individual cells.

Inflammation in not necessarily a bad thing. It is actually a major part of the healing process. And here we have a chicken and egg question. Which came first? Did the inflammation cause the cancer or is a result of the cancer, which causes tissue damage? And is it the damage to the cells that allows the cancer pathogens to take hold?

Cancer can be considered a disease as well, but not in the sense that it is an illness which can be caught from someone else. Someone may catch a disease or virus from someone else that utlimately creates conditions that lead to cancer, but they don't directly catch cancer. If such were the case, the friends, family members and health care workers would be coming down with cancer left and right.

Been over this before. We are exposed to microbes, including viruses all the time, yet we do not all get sick from these microbes. In fact about 80% of the population is infected with pneumocystic carinii pneumonia bacteria and cytomegalovirus, but we do not show symptoms to these pathogens unless severely immunosuppressed such as in AIDS cases.

So can cancer be "caught"? The answer is YES!!! The Rous sarcoma virus that infects chickens was shown to be an airborne cancer virus. In humans the best evidence of this was seen with David the "Bubble Boy". David died from B cell lymphoma from the Epstein Barre' Virus (EBV) he contracted from a bone marrow transplant he got from his sister who was infected, asymptomatically, with EBV. Other  known contagious cancer viruses include hepatitis viruses and human papilloma viruses. So are you really saying that these viruses are not contagious? If so then how do they end up in our body?

But again exposure to a virus DOES NOT mean guaranteed active infection. If the immune system is sufficiently strong it can fight off the pathogen successfully. If this were not the case then our medical personnel would be ill.

Whatever it is that comes out as "stones" from a liver flush, the value of cleansing, protecting and helping regenerate the liver, and keeping the bile ducts open and flowing, is of paramount importance in beating and avoiding cancer - and doubly so when there is cancer in the liver itself.  The late great cancer pioneer Max Gerson observed that he never found a single cancer patient who did not also have an impaired liver.

First of all the term "liver flush" is misleading. The olive oil stimulates gallbladder contractions. It does not affect or detox the liver. And the bile does not play a role in preventing cancer. In fact it has been shown that due to the caustic nature of bile that when people have their gallbladders removed that their risk of intestinal cancer rises significantly.

So what was Gerson basing his "impaired liver" hypothesis on? In other words what basis did he use to consider the patient's liver impaired and what is he considering impaired? The reason I ask is because people FREQUENTLY mistake liver enzyme tests as an indicator of liver function.

I would suppose that the Hulda Clark parasite protocol might be successful for the same reason that treating for viral infections might help some people beat cancer.  Though such treatments may be intended for parasites and viruses, they also may be beneficial against cancer, which is neither a parasite or a virus.

Actually if you think about it many cancers can be considered parasitic in nature. Malignant tumors tap in to our own blood supply and feed off that nutrition source.

Regardless, Hulda Clark's protocol does have anti-tumor properties, but not for the reason she claimed. Cloves contain eugenol, which is one of the strongest antivirals known. It can also kill other cancer pathogens. Black walnut hull is rich iodine, which also kills cancer pathogens. In addition black walnut hull also contains juglone, which is a mitosis inhibitor. Therefore it can inhibit cancer cell division. Wormwood is also antimicrobial, and I believe is also a mitosis inhibitor.

 Just a brief summary of the book's contents to help explain its title:
Cancer is not attacked by the immune system,

Actually they are. They are attacked and destroyed by T-killer cells that inject peroxide in to the cancer cells to kill them. But cancer cells are hard for the immune system to detect because the cancer cells use the same principle as the fetus to hide from the immune system Both use human chorionic gonadotropic hormone coatings as a shield from the immune system.

cells turn malignant because of oxygen deprivation and return to normal when the lymphatic and other congestions dissolve. Even the medical establishment now agree that cancer is caused by oxygen deprivation.

Again not true. The development of cancer has NOTHING to do with oxygen deprivation. This is a common myth based on the misquoting of Warburg. What Warburg really said was that the cancer cells will ferment REGARDLESS of the amount of oxygen present.

That's because cancer is the last, desperate attempt by body cells to survive in a hostile -oxygen deprived- environment, they have no choice but to mutate in order to live without oxygen. Their intent is not to kill the body as is commonly assumed, but to maintain the body alive for as long as conditions would allow it. Without this emergency measure by the body, death would be certain and come much sooner and suddenly.

Again cancer has NOTHING to do with oxygen deprivation. It is a disease, not some type of defense mechanism. Lack of oxygen does not convert cells to a malignant form. When cells are deprived of oxygen the only thing that happens is that their ATP production is decreased. If the oxygen supply is cut off for a short time the cells can die.

Powerful cleansing crises like fevers have been known to dissolve cancer tissue and even remove tumors completely.

I would like to see proof of this. Hyperthermia has been used to cure cancer, but it has nothing to do with detoxing. Cancer cells cannot dissipate heat as effectively as healthy cells. So they have used radiofrequency to literally cook tumors to death. But a fever does not generate enough heat to do this. On the other hand the fever is caused from increased levels of interferon, which happens stimulate superoxide dismutase to generate peroxide, which activates white blood cells that can kill cancer cells or cancer pathogens.

That this reversion also occurs by thoroughly cleansing the main cleansing organs -liver, kidneys, colon- means cancer is a crisis of toxicity. In fact cancers of these organs are the most responsive to cleansing therapies. A noted oncologist is quoted as saying that most people have had tumors all throughout their lives without knowing it and then disappearing spontaneously. It's widely known by now that millions of cancerous cells are formed everyday without it ever posing a crisis.

This is another common myth. The people making this claim do not understand the difference between between cell overgrowth, which they are talking about, and true malignancy (cancer). A wart is tumor, which is an overgrowth of cells, but this does not make it malignant. Malignancies have completely different morphology than benign tumors or healthy cells.

In addition you stated earlier that the immune system does not destroy cancer cells. If that were the case and everyone has millions of cancer cells being produced everyday then we would all be dead within days being born. So the claims are obviously wrong.

Spontaneous remission being the norm and a more common occurrence than previously thought as long as the overall congestion and toxicity don't reach certain proportions. Once cancer cells have accomplished their temporary mission they return to normal.

Cancer cells do not return to normal. They are either destroyed by the immune system, die on their own, or aptosis can be induced in cancer cells.

But if the process get violently halted by chemotherapy, immunity is dangerously deleted. Alternative healers who have been successful against cancer focus on cleansing, the best way to support these natural processes. But the medical establishment unleashes its heavy artillery on these mutated cells as if they were the real enemies, when they are actually helping to avert a catastrophic event for the time being.
The wisdom of the body and its healing abilities are given a thorough blow by the orthodox medical misguided attempts at destroying cancer cells, which are not the enemy. These "therapies" don't resolve the real disease underlying cancer, and also leave the immune system virtually destroyed, so when the condition returns -because the underlying congestion was not resolved- there might be no chance to "heal" again. Chemotherapy is a misleading, poisonous, dangerous approach. Congestion is mainly caused by degenerate proteins and other waste that the body has to accomodate somewhere, e.g. arteries.

Also incorrect, but that would be about arteriosclerosis, not cancer so I will skip explaining why this is wrong for now.

Thus, strokes, hearts attacks, and cancer are only the last event in a long history of the liver being congested by fat deposits

Again this is way off. Hart attacks and strokes have many causes and have nothing to do with toxicity  unless you are talking about acute poisoning leading to these problems.

and therefore weakened and unable to send the necessary amounts of bile to the intestines, which is the body's main way of cleansing and preventing waste toxicity.

Again wrong. And as I pointed out in my last post people who have their gallbladders removed run a higher risk of intestinal cancer. The reason is the bile, which is very caustic, is dumped in to the intestines leading to bile burns of the intestinal wall.

Bile's decreasing levels are to blame for almost every condition, especially osteoporosis.

Again wrong. The most common causes of osteoporosis are hyperparathyroidism, excessive thyroid hormone silica and vitamin D deficiencies, lack of exercise and high phosphorus intake. Decreased bile levels have absolutely NOTHING to do with the development of osteoporosis.

The orthodox medical approach of just prescribing calcium being but a shot in the dark.

The reason calcium alone does not work is because most calcium sources are poorly absorbed. And calcium does not work alone. Silica, vitamin C, sulfur, boron, copper and zinc are more important than calcium. In addition you need magnesium, phosphorus, strontium, natural fluoride, manganese, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin K and essential fatty acids. And none of these will help if the bones are not stressed from exercise, which is needed to create the piezoelectric effect that causes bone mineralization.

Another thing is that there are always viruses present in cancer which do not come from outside the body. Scientists haven't explained their origin.

Yes they have, they are from OUTSIDE the body. We are not born with hepatitis viruses, herpes viruses or human papilloma viruses that cause cancer. And we were not born with simian virus type 40 that came from the polio vaccines we were given in the 60s that cause a number of human cancers. And we were not born with human T-cell leukemia/lymphoma viruses 1 through 4 including HTLV III, also known as HIV.  We contract these viruses. In other words they come from external sources.

They develop for a specific purpose and come from within. The immune system isn't dumb.

No, again they are derived from external sources.

Remember that even medical researchers now believe cancer occurs because of oxygen deprivation.

No they do not believe this fallacy.  It is known though that hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which supersaturates the tissues with oxygen DOES NOT cure cancer. This is because cancer DOES NOT result from a lack of oxygen.

This deprivation comes to a halt when lymphatic and other congestions stop, as with the liver flush.

Liver flushes cause the gallbladder to contract. This does not really flush the liver, nor does it have an effect on the lymphatic system.

Another thing is that there are always psychological issues involved, cancer reflecting a person's life crisis and a life that's become stagnant or paralyzed, its development paralleling a person's dead-end point in real life. Relatives think they should be strong for the patient, but sharing their fears and pain is what will help everybody the most.

Again unproven nonsense. Some of the cancer patients I have known are the happiest and most optimistic people you could ever meet.

As such cancer is the alarm bell to make a person confront what's gone awry with their life. The bell sound is too loud but it's a necessary shake-up, people only moved to change by such things as pain. It's documented that confronting the stuff in their stunted lives and making profound changes they've been able to reverse cancer. This requires a definite will to live and to beat the defeatist attitude. One has to be grateful for the precious work done by cancer cells in having kept the body alive.

The cancer cells are not keeping the body alive. They feed off the body and lead to cachexia, tissue damage and eventual death if not addressed properly.

They've never meant to kill you. Disease, in the wider view, is a form of searching.

See above, cancer does not benefit us in any way.

Clark's research concluded that the most dangerous thing to initiate cancer was strong solvents. She saw that they made the colon permeable thus flooding the liver with a myriad of parasites. She observed and documented these parasites attached to the liver.

I am not going to go in to depth in to Hulda Clark's nonsense. But she also claimed that these same parasites would cause AIDS if they went to the thymus and diabetes if they went to the pancreas. But none of this is true. First of all AIDS is not a disease but rather a syndrome with several causes. And the most common form of diabetes is type 2, which is nothing more than a chromium deficiency leading to a closing of the insulin receptors. Therefore in the early stages there is NO pancreatic failure involved. It is only in the late stages where the islet cells are destroyed by the medications or elevated glucose. Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease triggered off by viruses. Alloxan induced diabetes is from oxidized uric acid. Chemical induced diabetes is caused from chemicals such as surgical anesthesias. And there is gestational diabetes, which is normally a temporary form of diabetes caused from hormone fluctuations. NONE of these have anything to do with parasites.

Sutter was a heavy handler of isopropyl alcohol in the jungles of Vietnam. The difference between Moritz and Clark is that Moritz doesn't see the need for parasite killing as he's seen most body irregularities take care of themselves once all liver stones are removed.

Being that liver flushes DO NOT remove any stones how does he accomplish this supposedly? And how would this address the cancer microbes or radiation induced cancers?

This includes cancer. With so many methods out there having been successful for cancer, Gerson, Budwig, Ozone therapy, and others mentioned in the book, the conclusion is that these theories are not as novel or unexpected as they once might have been.

So let's take ozone for example. Ozone has nothing to do with cleansing the liver or stone removal yet it is the most effective cancer therapy available. So how do you explain that since it has no effect on liver or gallstones? By the way, ozone does not cure cancer by raising oxygen levels either. I have discussed the mechanisms by which ozone kills cancer cells numerous times. And again it has nothing to do with liver stones or parasites.