As promised, this second section of the medical deception topic is dedicated to the never ending efforts to belittle LMI’s therapy, even though evidence of research, carried out in both the US and Europe, abundantly confirms the validity of our approach.

We fail to understand why so much time and effort is being spent to block our efforts and attack the undeniable truth in our claims, while it would be rather inexpensive and time efficient to run the appropriate confirmation testing.

It is well known to microbiology experts that elevated temperature induced death of biological tissue (i.e. hyperthermia) does not produce cellular structure (membrane) destruction; and therefore, under a simple light microscope used in biopsies, it would not be possible to detect the presence of damage in the cytoplasm (such damage is technically known as coagulation necrosis).

Shouldn’t a physician be aware of this occurrence? You would think so. However that is not what happens. After a patient has received our treatment, he or she goes home feeling great. In spite of all our warnings, intended to prepare them for the upcoming healing stage, they generally are high on life and forget about everything else. Some, however, are still terrified at the very word cancer and run back to their initial physician; alternative or mainstream that he or she might be. Those patients are pretty much doomed from day one.

As we clearly and repeatedly instruct all patients, going back for standard treatment (a.k.a. the horrid threesome) after the LMI therapy, almost inevitably will lead to the patient’s demise, because it is equivalent to the situation of a healthy individual subjecting him/herself to life threatening remedies with the goal to kill something which is already dead.

Trying to maintain a sense of humor in tragic circumstances, we call this situation “Murder on The Orient Express”, although in the case of the movie the condition of the victim did not worsen with repeated murdering attempts, since his heart had already stopped., i.e. the host system was no longer viable. In the case of our treatment, the only non-viable element is the tumor; the host system is intact and it will remain so, unless subsequent poisoning occurs.

However in the case of cancer patients having received the L.I.E.S.H. Therapy, receiving standard treatment thereafter means subjecting yourself to a very harsh and dangerous regimen, for a disease you no longer have, and possibly generating additional problems from accepted cancer causing “cures”.

The other problem comes into play for patients who have experienced months of general well being, devoid of the common healing stages.
The local discomfort patients experience is not a side effect of the LMI’s therapy. It is the normal immune system process, connected with the removal of dead tissue and the healing of damaged locations in the body.

Unfortunately, when these patients run for the nearest physician or hospital, they are informed that their cancer condition has drastically deteriorated and they are facing imminent demise, unless they agree to aggressive chemo and radiation.

The first question coming to mind would be: is this done out of lack of knowledge, and the total inability to handle deductive reasoning; or is it in fact deception?

We analyzed the problem extensively and repeatedly, sadly arriving every time to the same conclusion. Although it is very hard to accept the idea that the involved professionals can be guilty of such a crime, especially after the oath they are supposedly bound to before they start their practice, still evidence does not leave much room for redeeming justifications.

How can an experienced oncologist, with more than a quarter of a century practice behind him/her, ignore the fact that PET scans indicate the presence of inflammation only, and taken alone cannot confirm the presence of cancer nor reoccurrences?

Furthermore, how can an experienced pathologist ignore the presence of advanced decomposition, generating from coagulation necrosis, in the samples they observe?

There is only one possible conclusion for these events and it spells deception of the patients, motivated by the refusal to accept changes and progress, even when the best interest of the public is at stake.