The thyroid supplements are intended to continue to supply the body with the compounds that the thyroid used too,
but obviously no longer can.
On other threads on this board, I have been discussing with others the possibility that the DNA might not be at fault
for the causation of all this non requested cell growth we call cancer. I am of the opinion that this work is being
performed by the ‘repair’ aspect of the immune system. I hold that all cancer is a result of our modern (and western)
tendency to employ pharmaceuticals to aid in our day to day activities, and the bi-product of this is a weakened
immune system, which is being sidestepped.
It would seem foreign, or perhaps even absurd to introduce infectious contaminants into the human body. It would be
compoundingly ludicrous to do this to someone who is already ill. Yet it could be that it is this inverse line of
thinking that would help to explain why a successful cure has eluded so many, for so long. This principle is perhaps
why acupuncture has been employed as a health practitioners tool for nearly as long as medicines has. Yet
acupuncture is completely outside of the western scientific world’s way of thinking. Acupuncture is an ancient art of
inflicting minor wounds onto the body which places an increased workload on the immune system that must now
repair the damaged tissues at the puncture site, even though with modern clinical practices with sterile needles and
skin preparation, the immune system would be spared the additional workout of any infection that would no doubt
have been included in earlier acupuncture procedures. This newly ‘exercised’ immune system would then be superior
to its non exercised counterpart, and hence be supplying the positive results that is presently being credited to the
practice of acupuncture.
I am not writing this to promote acupuncture, but rather to promote the concept of exercising our modern weakened
immune system.
It would be difficult to find a solution to a problem that lies in the opposite direction from where everyone is
looking. The concept may sound ‘ludicrous’, but from the perspective of this new model for cancer, this is still a
logical supposition. If we can produce a remission from inadvertently exercising the immune system once, with
poison (as in a chemotherapy session), imagine the results of setting out to systematically exercise the immune
system repeatedly, without harming the entire body in the process. I believe that the successful protocol will not
stimulate, but rather, aggravate the immune system. Instead of trying to invigorate, we should irritate. Assisting
becomes tormenting. Helping becomes hurting. Hurt your immune system like you hurt your muscular system during
a vigorous workout. Hurt your immune system like you would hurt your cardiovascular system running a marathon.
Helping the immune system, I believe has shown to be counter-productive. If you are getting the opposite results to
what you desire, than logic dictates that you should do the opposite to what you are doing to get that which you do
desire. The byproduct of helping the immune system, is to weaken it, which allows the cancer cells to go out of
control. It should then follow that the byproduct of ‘ hurting’ the immune system would be to strengthen it, and thus,
allow it to regain control over these maverick cells, which were originally under the domain of the immune system.
Applying this new model, the successful treatment of cancer would take the form of ‘clinically’ torturing the body.
This is precisely what chemotherapy is doing, but on an exhaustive scale. A series of allergy tests would discover
some antigens or substances that the immune system reacts to, but avoid the full spectrum attack that is presently
provided by chemotherapy. Things that irritate the immune system would be a good exercise tool. I have a suspicion
that these ‘alternative medicines’ that seem to miraculously cure some individuals, and mystify the professionals, are
by chance exercising that patients immune system. This individual is simply allergic to one or more of the
ingredients in these concoctions. This would help to explain why some cancer fighting cocktails respond
miraculously in some patients, and yet can be utterly useless or unresponsive in the majority of patients. The patients
who are not allergic to any of the ingredients, unfortunately, do not get the workout. Similarly, the evidence supports
that combination strategies have been shown to be more effective then single treatments. This could be accounted for
using this same logic. Introducing a greater number of ingredients merely increases the chances that the cancer
patient will be allergic to one or more of the ingredients. I suspect that finding out what a patient is allergic to, and
then provoking an immune response with this antigen, would be a productive approach. This line of thought is
consistent with the observable data that shows that few allergy sufferers ever develop a cancer. Several studies have
raised the possibility that people with over stimulated immune systems may have a reduced risk of brain cancer
(presently, the most ‘mysterious’ cancer in terms of being able to find any "cause-effect" relationship).

No single medicine has been discovered that works for everyone. If everyone were allergic to the same thing, then
that substance would no longer be considered as an allergy. It would be labeled as a ‘poison’. Accordingly, a poison
could therefore be described as a ‘generic substance’ that everyone is allergic too. Chemotherapy could therefore be
considered as an exercise of the immune system, using a universal antigen that everyone is allergic too. The logic
used in employing poison,(as in chemotherapy) is to slowly harm everything, and hope that the cancer cells are the
first things to die. Some people have had success with drugs being marketed as “immune system response modifiers”
such as beta glucans (yeast’s) and mushroom extracts. To account for these successes, I would consider that these
medications are by chance inciting an immune response which is inadvertently an ‘exercise for the immune system.
Any yeast culture that has not perished from high heat in the cooking process, is a living entity and as such, would
provoke an immune response. Similarly, many molds and fungi provoke an immune response in people. These
medications are not being hailed as miracle cures because they only benefit those who have an allergy to one or more
of the substances they contain.
Radiation therapy is a broad spectrum attack on all living cells, with the hope that the cancer cells are the first to die.
What I believe is actually taking place, is an exercise of the immune system, being forced to repair or reconstruct the
body from all the harm being caused by this destruction. Due to the fact that the radiation cannot distinguish between
cancerous and normal cells, it disrupts or kills normal healthy cells throughout the body, in addition to attacking the
tumor. This protocol has been somewhat successful due to the fact that it inadvertently forces the immune system
into the scenario by simultaneously creating an intense workout for it.
Perhaps there is no need for the attack to be of such a broad spectrum. The attack could be much more specific. If
we were to employ allergies to intice an immune responce it might be possible to give the immune system the
exercise, without simultaneously giving the body any of the accompanying destruction that is central to
chemotherapy and radiation. This, perhaps, is why we have allergies in the first place. Everything in nature it seams,
has a purpose. It is logical to assume that allergies too have a purpose. Allergies are an inappropriate (unnecessary)
immune response to a substance that is actually of no real harm to the body. All successes in the fight against cancer
can be explained by adopting the paradigm that something has caused the immune system in that individual to
experience a workout. Unfortunately, due to the fact that there is no way to bottle and brand this approach, this
philosophy is not likely to be studied by any pharmaceutical company, and will remain as a concept.
I believe that a cure for cancer will be as individual as our own immune systems are. Not everyone catches a cold
when a cold virus comes around. (although, perhaps everyone should try to.) There is no cure for the common cold,
and I believe there never will be. The cold virus is natures way of running the immune system through a series of
exercises, thus attempting to keep it functioning in top form. In the fight against cancer, everyone seems to concede
that the answer lies within the immune system. All efforts are being focused on finding out what causes the immune
system to kick in and finally go after the cancer cells in some individuals. My thoughts are also linked to the immune
system, but I hold that we must find out what it is that wakes up our own immune system, and causes it to reclaim
control over these maverick cancer cells, which I believe are an integral part of the immune system, and the root
cause of all cancers. A good place to start this search would be finding antigens which cause allergies in a patient.
Perform chemotherapy using this antigen, which is a poison only to this individual’s immune system, and does no
real harm to the body. Theoretically, the results should be the immune system receiving the exercise, without the
body receiving any significant adverse effects. The stronger immune system should then be capable of regaining
control over these cancer cells (as in a remission), and the body should revert back to near normal conditions