autolysis of tumors during a fast, facts and questions

[jts]

More than once in OL I have been accused of presenting sources of information instead of saying what I think. And the purpose of OL, I've been given to understand, is opinions first and facts second. I am puzzled all to hades because I always thought facts should come first. And if we have facts then maybe we don't need opinions. If we must have opinions then facts might be a springboard to base opinions on. And if I present some facts or a source of facts then if there is to be a discussion based on this, it does not necessarily need to involve me. I heard many times that opinions are like ass holes; everyone has one. Why in the deepest pit of hades would anyone be interested in my opinion about anything? Usually when I say what I think, people take offense. So perhaps out of politeness I should not say what I think.

I will give an example of a set of facts . And then I will show how this set of facts can become a springboard for discussion.

The set of facts, repeated in multiple cases, is as follows:

Fact 1:  A person has a tumor, either obvious or diagnosed by a doctor. This tumor is usually not cancer. It might be diagnosed as cancer, correctly or incorrectly.

Fact 2:  The person does a fast, going into the fast with the tumor. By 'fast', I mean living on air and water and sleep and nothing else. Dr. Alan Goldhamer adds "in conditions of rest" to the definition of 'fast'. This is necessary to get maximum benefit from the fast. Rest means physical rest, mental rest, emotional rest, physiological rest (the fast). Somewhere "keeping comfortably warm" should be included in the list of kinds of rest, perhaps under physiological rest. In my own experience, speaking just for myself and not for other people, if I am cold during a fast, the fast goes bad. For me, being comfortably warm during a fast is necessary, not optional. The length of the fast varies. To autolyze a tumor usually takes at least 20+ days and sometimes up to 40 or so days.

Fact 3:  During the fast as above described, the tumor goes away. Sometimes it is obvious that the tumor went away because it is (was) in a place where it can be seen. Sometimes a doctor confirms that the tumor went away. Sometimes the doctor refuses to believe it because this is not something he learned in medical school. But the doctor at least confirms that there is no tumor; even tho he might say there was no tumor in the first place and there was a mixup.

To sum up these 3 facts briefly:  tumor, fast, no tumor.

This set of facts was repeated many times. Shelton says he saved hundreds of women from breast surgery. Alan Goldhamer and Loren Lockman saw tumors autolyze during a fast. Doctors who have experience supervising fasts speak of tumors going away during a fast as if it's the normal thing.

How this set of facts can be a springboard for discussion:

There are a whole bunch of questions that can be asked and discussed. I will attempt to show the opportunity for discussion. This is not the first time I brought up the subject of autolysis of tumors during a fast. The subject is of some possible value, especially to people who have a tumor that is of serious consequence that is inoperable and they want to get rid of it without harming themselves and they want the tumor to not come back.

Question 1:  Can cancer tumors autolyze during a fast. The general view is non-cancer tumors might autolyze but not cancer. Shelton took this view. He saw hundreds of tumors autolyze but never cancer. He saw cancer tumors shrink but not go away completely. Perhaps this is because it is possible for a tumor to be part cancer and part not cancer. Shelton also took the view that 99% of breast tumors that are diagnosed as cancer are not cancer. You don't need to believe everything Shelton wrote. I don't. This is a question that can be discussed. There is a serious hint  from Dr. Patrick Vickers that fasting with cancer can be extremely dangerous. (But that doesn't mean you don't do it if you know what you are doing.)

Question 2:  Tumors can grow in different tissues. A tumor can be a skin tumor or a spinal cord tumor or a brain tumor or a bone tumor or some other tissue. What might happen to these various kinds of tumors during a fast? This is a question that can be discussed.

Question 3:  There is huge variation from person to person in how long a given kind of tumor takes to autolyze during a fast. Shelton writes that there are factors, some known, some unknown, determining how long the fast needs to be. Obviously the size of the tumor is a factor and it might require more than one long fast. The shortest time for a breast tumor to go away in Shelton's experience was 3 (three) days; usually it took around 3 weeks for the same size breast tumor. It is possible to discuss what the factors are that affect how quickly a tumor autolyzes or if it does. (I have some ideas about that.)

Question 4:  Is there any truth to the theory that the detox stage of a fast can be subdivided into 2 stages -- stage 1 detox and stage 2 detox? It seems that the detox stage is necessary before major (near miracle) healing is possible. By 'near miracle', I mean even to the extent of the blind seeing (a man regained his sight) and the lame walking (which might happen if the lameness is caused by a spinal cord tumor). The theory of 2 stages of detox doesn't make much sense to me but what do I know? Stage 1 is intercellular detox; stage 2 is intracellular detox. First between the cells, then inside the cells. I don't know if this makes sense. I seem to be unable to track this theory down on the internet. I learned of it long before the internet and it seems to have come from Dr. Alec Burton. Stage 2 is supposed to begin at around day 15, but that doesn't make sense to me. The reason why I take the question of this theory seriously is that it seems to be the only possible explanation of some of my fasting experiences. The 2 stage theory of detox is a question that can be discussed.

Question 5:  According to Loren Lockman, if you double the length of a fast, you more than double the value of the fast. So according to that, a 10 day fast has more than twice the value of a 5 day fast; 20 days > twice 10 days; 40 days > twice 20 days. So if you plotted a graph, length of the fast versus value of the fast, you would get some kind of curve. Shelton does not say this but he hints that some problems can't be solved by a series of short fasts but require a long fast. We could discuss what in hades is going on here?

Question 6:  What is the effect on the fast of the diet eaten prior to the fast? It is easy to imagine how the diet eaten prior to the fast might have a major effect on what happens during the fast. One of the reasons why this question comes up is my experience in April 2009 when a tumor on my left foot vanished during a fast. Prior to that fast I was eating what I call an anti-tumor diet. My one little experience is obviously of no statistical value and doesn't prove anything. I fasted before after a pro-tumor diet with no effect. My little experiences seem to suggest (without proving) that:

pro-tumor diet followed by a fast ---------> nothing

anti-tumor diet not followed by a fast --------> nothing

anti-tumor diet followed by a fast -----------> tumor vanished in days(!), not weeks as I expected might happen

The effect on a fast of the diet prior to the fast is another topic that can be discussed.

Question 7:  How in hades does fasting work on tumors? The theory is during a fast the body consumes its own tissues, making a distinction between expendable tissue and non-expendable tissue. The tumor was created by the body, therefore may be regarded by the body (which created it) as non-expendable. But if all possible justifications for the tumor to exist are removed, as might happen as a result of an anti-tumor diet, then during a fast the  body might find that the status of the tumor is changed from non-expendable to expendable. Maybe you have a different theory for discussion.

Summary:

I presented a simple set of facts that has happened multiple times. Then I showed how this simple set of facts can be used as a springboard for discussion. I did not give any videos or links; that seems to annoy people. At the risk of stating something that should be understood without being stated, this list of questions is not intended to be a list of all the questions that could be asked.

One more thing:

Oh, I forgot. You all want me to say what I think. Okay I will say just one little thing that I think and then maybe you will wish you didn't ask me. But first a little story.

Recently, just before winter, I did a 15 day fast. I was intending it to go a lot longer but I was cold during the fast. In my previous experience, being cold during a fast destroys the fast. The purpose of the fast was to autolyze a spinal cord tumor  that to some degree paralyzes almost everything neck down -- hands, arms, back, belly, legs. It also makes me cold, reduces body heat. Add to that the fact that during a fast, metabolism (therefore body heat) might be reduced. The last previous fast of serious length was 22 days some years ago -- did nothing for the spinal cord tumor. I didn't have any expectation of anything happening to the tumor unless the fast was longer than 22 days, and I probably would need to be warm too. In spite of being cold, the first 14 days were okay, which is perhaps somewhat remarkable considering that previously I was not able to last that long while cold. On the 15th day I collapsed. I started to get up (head off the pillow) and a wave of dizziness and near unconsciousness and head back on the pillow. The weakness was extreme. The next day I took the mobility scooter to the store and bought some nice tomatoes and broke the fast on tomatoes. For a few weeks after that fast I had brief mild dizzy spells lasting maybe 5 seconds, nothing serious. I was wondering whether that was a permanent effect but now I am fully recovered.

But that is not the end of the story. I can lift my left foot off the floor. Prior to the fast I could not do that. This is the first sign altho very minor. I thought maybe this effect was temporary but it seems to be lasting.

So this is my opinion:  In my opinion I gotta do another fast when I can be warm and do it better (being warm) and longer and get the job done that the 15 day fast seems to have started. That's my opinion.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

29 minutes ago, jts said:

And the purpose of OL, I've been given to understand, is opinions first and facts second.

Jerry,

I don't know where you got that idea or understanding, but it's wrong.

Seeing as I'm the person who established the purpose of OL, I know something about it.

That's a fact, not an opinion.

 

Michael