我今天要介紹給大家的是Binzel醫生的療法。炳哲醫生以維他命及酵素,Nitrilosides (B17,Latrile 為主),以及全素，全穀的食療治癒無數的癌症病人不管癌細胞有沒有擴散。
炳哲醫生1955年開始行醫。１９７４年因看了Ed Griffin的World Without Cancer而轉變為一個以自然飲食、維他命及酵素及Ｂ１７為主，治療癌症的醫生(根據他的書他只一星期三天看癌症病人，其餘大概為普通病人).B17是近代最具爭論性遭美國FDA禁賣的營養品。 (根據一切討論，B17及B15都不是維他命。但都是從杏子Apricot可大量提煉而得。B17可以分解癌細胞的保護膜，因而讓殺手細胞攻殺癌細胞。 B15 Pangamic acid可降低細胞的lactic acid。而有些人觀察到癌腫的lactic acid 較高，所以Ｂ15炳哲醫生亦用來治癌。FDA亦不准販賣Ｂ15)
各位如想知道美國大型癌症醫院，藥廠及FDA官員的黑心勾結控制把持請看炳哲醫生的書。
含Ｂ17的食物很多。如apricot seeds, peach seeds, apple seeds, grape seeds, blackberries, blueberries, strawberries, bean sprouts豆芽, lima beans,watercress,spinach,Bamboo shoots,Alfalfa sprouts,Lentil sprouts,whole nuts,millet小米, wheat grass麥草,and more.
如果將Ｂ１７從炳哲醫生的療法拿走則他的方法與我以前介紹的凱里牙醫的療法或者哥盛醫生的療法實大同小異。再加上Ｂ17也可從很多食物攝取到這樣說來有沒有Ｂ17是根本不重要的。吳永志先生出了一本"不一樣的養生法"在台熱賣。但不幸，學經歷被抓包。其實我與吳先生有一面之緣。他看來確實很年青，很健康。(除非他也吹牛，澎風他的年紀。哈哈。)但不像他說的，他不愛財這回事。最喜歡問血型開食療單收錢。但一次收多少錢我忘了。給吳先生一點credit吧！他說用高速果汁机蘋果連子一起打不失為多攝取Ｂ17的方法。但我更喜歡一天二茶匙的wheat grass。我太太喜歡吃小米( B17奇多)我看來也要跟進。我太太也喜歡自發豆芽又好吃又有營養(很多Ｂ17)更可免豆芽肥胖劑漂白劑的污染。
一個人被診斷出身体有癌腫後，要怎樣能夠活著,而且活得很好？我覺得這才是炳哲醫生給我們最寶貴的經驗。
我的研究告訴我，炳哲醫生的經驗及忠告是我看過所有的文章裡最直接的回答。為免翻譯失真，我將炳哲醫生的原文轉貼於下，供各位直接閱讀自己取捨。
"
要不要管怎麼對付腫瘤？
1.除非腫瘤因他的大小及位置影響身体的功能。
2.除非腫瘤因他的大小及位置讓身体疼痛不堪。
3.因腫瘤的存在讓你心理無法承擔。
一般來說腫瘤，容易開刀而且病人希望拿掉，我會這樣做。但不是所有利用食療的醫生會同意我的做法。如果腫瘤長在一個不容易割除的地方，而且也不會引起病人的麻煩，而且病人也同意，我會讓它留在那裡。我在這裡再強調一次，腫瘤是果不是因。我們要對付的是因。假使你照顧好你的身体，你的身体就會照顧好你的腫瘤。但不能保證腫瘤會消失。但它不會給你麻煩。我並不反對放療及化療。但使用應該量少而短。因為它們可以減輕疼痛而且有時可保存生命。但大部的治療都太高劑量及太久，反造成身体的傷窖。
最重要的問題是:飲食療法有效嗎？這要問你怎麼定義有效！如果要腫瘤奇跡似的消失，那食療法無效！但能避免擴散，病人與癌共存，那食療是有效。
"
以上這段炳哲醫生的告白及經驗與台灣姜淑惠醫生的"輿癌共存最健康"及李豐醫生的"我賺了三十年"的理念與經驗相同。但可惜姜醫生不再看診，而李醫生也只做病理。台灣的食療醫生在那裡呢？
I am sure that there are still some of you who are concerned about "What are you going to do about the tumor?" There are only three times when I am concerned about the tumor:
1. If the tumor, because of its size or position, is interfering with some vital function, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are best available.
2. If the tumor, because of its size or position, is causing pain, you have to deal with the tumor by whatever means are available.
3. If the presence of the tumor presents a psychological problem for the patient, have it removed.
In general, if the tumor is easily accessible and if the patient wishes to do so, I like to have the tumor removed. Not all doctors doing nutritional therapy agree with that. I feel that by removing the tumor the body has one less thing with which to cope. If the tumor is remote, not causing any problem and the patient agrees, I leave the tumor alone. Again, I stress the fact that the tumor is merely a symptom, not a cause. If you take care of the body, the body will take care of the tumor. That doesn't mean that the tumor will go away, but it is unlikely to cause a problem.
I am not opposed to the use of radiation. I am not opposed to the use of chemotherapy. There are times when a small amount of radiation for a short period of time can relieve pain and/or be life-saving to a patient. There are times when a small amount of chemotherapy for a short period of time can do the same. It is not the use of these that I so vehemently oppose, it is their abuse. The theory used in this country is that, if a little does some good, a whole lot more will do a whole lot better. Patients are getting radiation and chemotherapy who do not need it. Those who do need it are often getting far more than they need, thereby doing them much more harm than good.
The ultimate question is, "Does nutritional therapy work?" That depends on how you define "work." If you are tumor oriented and are looking for something to make the tumor magically disappear, no, it doesn't. If you are looking for something that will prevent the disease from spreading and save the life of the patient, yes, it does.
ALIVE AND WELL
One Doctor's Experience with Nutrition in the Treatment of Cancer Patients
a book by Philip E. Binzel, Jr., M.D.
http://www.whale.to/m/binzel.html#Chapter_Eleven:_The_Total_Nutritional_Program_
沒有留言:
張貼留言