Video Transcript: The Politics of Cancer – The Science of Cancer Therapy – Part 1
Ty Bollinger: Have you ever thought of cancer as something that is “missing” instead of something that shouldn’t be there?
Charlene Bollinger: In this video, G. Edward Griffin kicks off his 3-part presentation on this eye-opening topic. You don’t want to miss this closer look into the science behind the politics of cancer.
G. Edward Griffin: Alright. Well, actually speaking of parts, I am going to divide my talk into two parts. The program indicates that I’m speaking on the politics of cancer, which indeed I am. But I think it requires a little perspective.
You’ve got to talk a little bit about the science of cancer therapy in order to put the politics into perspective. I suppose for this audience, it’s really not necessary, because you’ve been hearing about the science of cancer therapy all day long, and for the last couple of days. You already have imbued in your brains so much more information than I could impart in a few minutes.
But I think for the sake of the integrity of my presentation, I’d like to cover just a little bit about the science of cancer as I have learned about it. And then that will put me into a better position to answer the question, the big, big question, as to why is it that my doctor doesn’t know about these things? And the answer is, of course, because of the political side.
I learned when I got into it—by the way, I think I mentioned earlier in the panel discussion, I got into it because of a good friend of mine, Dr. John Richardson, who was one of the first doctors to use laetrile in the world, probably. And he brought me in to see if I couldn’t help him explain what he was doing and why he was doing it. I’m happy to say that his two sons right here, Charlie Richardson and John Richardson, would you please stand and take a bow?
Thank you. Their father, John Richardson, was a great mentor to me. I learned a lot. I mean I cannot begin to tell you. I’ve forgotten more than I could even tell you about. But he was a great leader and one of the most principled men I have ever met. He stood firm when many others, most others, did in fact weaken and yield to the pressure of the organized medical establishment. But he stood firm on principle, and I think that we should know more about Dr. Richardson. And I’ll do my best to spread that story through our own news sources and our publications. Because he I think is a role model for us all.
But back to my presentation, which I said is divided into two parts, the science and the politics. And I can—I’ve condensed this whole thing into 35 words. So, this is going to be a real short presentation. It’s the Q&A that will last on and on and on.
And believe it or not, you can take a complex topic like this and condense it down, down, down and down. People asked me to condense the topic of the Federal Reserve, which is one of my other favorite topics, and I say “That’s easy. You can reduce that into three words. “It’s a scam.”
But you see? It’s real easy.
Well, for this story, it takes 35 words, and here it is:
A control for cancer is known, and it comes from nature.
But it is not widely available to the public because it cannot be patented, and therefore, is not commercially attractive to the pharmaceutical industry.
And there you have it. Any questions? I’m through with my speech.
So, now for my quick overview of the science, as I have learned from my mentors, like Dr. Richardson and Dr. Krebs, and so many others who have been researchers and practicing physicians, taught me everything I think I know about this. And it all makes sense to me after a while.
And that is that there are generally two views of cancer, as you folks in this audience already know. There’s the orthodox view, and what we sometimes call the alternative view. I tend to call it the reality view.
But the orthodox view is that the cancer is the lump or the bump, and that’s it. And so, if you want to control or cure cancer, you get rid of the lump or the bump. And so, we have all these modalities for that, we have surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Either cut it out, burn it out, or poison it away. Then once you get rid of the lump, well, look. The doctor will say “I think we got it all.”
But as you know, statistically, and from your own personal experience, you know that quite often it comes back. Why? Because in the view—the reality view, the lump or the bump is not the cancer at all, it’s the symptom of the cancer.
And so, the reality doctors that I learned everything from taught me that the lump or the bump is a symptom, and that therefore, we should be more concerned with the question “Why is that lump or bump growing there in the first place?”
So, that’s one of the basic views. And when you dig down deeper then, the next discovery is to see the most amazing thing, and that is it looks like cancer really is natural. It’s something we all have in one form or another all of our lives, from the instant we’re conceived. Because this general view that I learned was that cancer is merely the healing process gotten out of alignment. It’s gone awry for some reason. We’ll talk about that reason in a moment.
But it’s the healing process, it’s the replacement of damaged or dying tissue. We’d be—we couldn’t survive without this healing process, the regeneration of new tissue. If I scratch my hand right now, I’ve scraped away maybe thousands, who knows how many, little tiny cells.
And probably, my body right now is responding to that scratching syndrome, or symptom—signal I should say, and it’s already, there are chemical process and, believe it or not, electrical processes undergoing, triggering a very complex mechanism that nobody really understands, but they’ve got a little clue here. We know it involves the healing process, it involves estrogen and things like that.
And it triggers the stem cells to start recreating or differentiating and producing the cell, in this case, skin tissue. Now if I had damaged my lung tissue because I was smoking, the body would be triggering the creation of lung tissue. And if I had been subjected to radiation, wherever radiation seemed to have the most effect and destroyed tissue, my body would be trying to create new tissue to replace that.
And this works just fine. We’d be in sad shape without this process, right? So, in fact, it’s the very process that takes place even at the embryonic stage, when the embryo is conceived, it starts to multiply and divide, and that’s the same process is involved. It’s called the trophoblastic thesis of cancer, for those of you who want to get into it deeply.
But it’s amazingly logical, and the evidence behind it is so strong, that even now, some of the orthodox universities are acknowledging that cancer is trophoblast. Which was one of the things they used to condemn the alternative doctors for saying years ago. “These people actually think that the embryonic process is related to cancer in some way?” And now some of the most prestigious universities are saying “Yep, it’s true.” It all goes back to Dr. John Beard a century or so ago.
Anyway, all of this is a little bit off the track. The main thing that I’d like to impart is what I learned. The most shocking and then encouraging thing is that we all have cancer in a way, because it’s part of the healing process. We need not fear it. What we need to fear is why does our healing process get out of whack? Why doesn’t it stop healing?
When we’ve done the job, when that skin tissue is replaced, there are signals that say “Okay, you can go back to bed now and sleep.” But what happens if those signals aren’t there? Well, the body continues to do its healing process, and healing—it’s called over healing, and then we have a name we put to it and call it cancer.
Now that’s an amazing conception that orthodox physicians do not share. They think that it’s the lump or the bump, and it has to be cut out or burned out, where alternative, or reality doctors, are thinking in terms of why isn’t the body, the healing process, performing normally?
And then we come then to the next amazing discovery, at least my amazing discovery, was that cancer was not caused by something. It is caused by the lack of something. Very profound difference. A lack of something that should be there in a normal, natural, healthy organism. And we’re talking about it. But the healing process, of course, is the natural thing. But why isn’t the healing process working? Because of a lack of something.
Well, there could be many things that are required for a functioning healing system. Most of it involves the immune system. We’ve heard that said here many times, that if you have a healthy immune system, you’ve got cancer pretty well licked. And that is true.
But there are other factors, too. I found that one of the most common factors that was missing was a dietary factor. We’ve been talking here a lot about how important our food is. Why is that? Because there are dietary factors, there are microelements, micronutrients in non-GMO food, in organic food. There are things that we don’t even know that are there. They’re still discovering complex molecular compositions in normal food. We have no idea how important those are.
But I can tell you one thing. If we don’t get them, we get sick. That’s all we have to know. We don’t have to be geniuses, we don’t have to go to med school to know that we need good, healthy food, whatever that—whatever we define that to be.
So, it’s a deficiency disease in most cases. That is the most common thing we find missing from all cases of cancer, and that’s why it’s relatively common to see that cancer can be reversed, even advanced cancer, if a person restores their diet to a natural state. Because even though they don’t know what’s in there, they’re getting it if they get to a good, healthy source of food.
Ty Bollinger: That’s some great information from G. Edward Griffin, our good friend. We hope you learned from this presentation.
Charlene Bollinger: And if you did, please share this on your social media and let your friends and family know about The Truth About Cancer. Thanks for joining us and God Bless.