Since incorporating the information obtained from Dr.med. Heinrich Kremer [OIRF Biological Medicine Tour #29 to Germany] into our cancer therapy protocol, we have seen a distinct improvement in outcomes. Not only have more people normalized their “cancer scores”, but they also do it more quickly. It is not unusual for us to see normal scores in “simple” cancers after 1-2 months of treatment. So, let’s go into more detail about what the above statements mean.
Dr. Kremer outlined his theory of the development and treatment of cancer, and I think that he’s got it right. Two of the biggest areas to address are the normalization of energy pathways and the terrain. This is best accomplished through the use of several therapies, including oral supplements, Ultraviolet blood irradiation, glutathione IV’s, ozone, and ionized oxygen. In addition, in my practice we have the added bonus of being able to use Hyperbaric Oxygen therapy, which I believe provides a significant advantage.
Once the cancer is no longer in the form of a visible mass, we use the AMAS test to track response. This is a blood test that gives a “yes/no” answer but it does not specify type or location of the cancer. It does however, give a measure of response. As the cancer fades away, the scores return to the normal range. If the therapy isn’t working, the scores increase. Once the scores are in the normal range, we reduce the intensity of the program. We also place each patient on a schedule to track response over a period of several years with the AMAS, and suggest that they do the test once a year from then on. Additionally we combine this lab test with energetic testing and any other appropriate tests (i.e., MRI) to obtain as complete a picture as possible of their progress.
And what of the results? Let’s look at a couple of “simple” cases first. A 70-year-old woman presented with recurring breast cancer diagnosed for the second time in 10/04 with infiltrating ductal carcinoma. The mass was 2.5 cm with spread beyond the margins. Lymph nodes were not resected and were not palpable. An AMAS done 1/5/05 was abnormal. She had a history of prior chemotherapy for the first episode of breast cancer. She started our full cancer program on 1/11/05, and an AMAS done 2/9/05 was WNL. Two subsequent AMAS tests have also been normal, and the patient continues to do a reduced program.
The second patient was a 45-year-old female with an abnormal AMAS. There was a positive family history of a sister and mother with cancer; one of the breast and the other of the throat. The type and location of this cancer was unknown, as no imaging studies were done, and there was no obvious location. The patient started on the full cancer program, and in one month the AMAS was normal. Three subsequent AMAS tests have also been normal, and the patient has continued on a reduced program. She did note during the course of treatment that she had an “abscess” form and drain from one of her breasts. This subsequently healed with no residual effects.
The last patient is our worst-case scenario so far. She had a recurrence of breast cancer and by the time she first came to our office, she had extensive metastasis to bone, brain, lung and liver. She was told that she had only a few weeks left to live. She had received extensive chemotherapy for both episodes of her cancer. In spite of doing only about 20% of the procedures, and only some of the oral supplements off and on, she survived with good quality of life for 20 months, far exceeding expectations.
I also find that these same therapies and approaches work for a wide variety of health problems, and I believe that normalization of the energy production pathways is critical to many patients’ recoveries.