Not mentioned is something, that I believe is of equal importance, is the total inundation of electronic interference. All body functions are of an electrical, nerve nature and that has to be taken into account too.
My father healthy till 88, has had all kind of health problems since the shots rolled out. He is now taking a 'low dose leukemia drug'. At 90 he ended up in the hospital after a bad fall, and came home with a bag of 'candy' and there it went down hill. 3 coronas, several colds, 2 bad falls, infections of all kinds, internal bleeding (way too many blood thinners), you name it. I am worried about that leukemia med, but he is now 92. When he passes, everyone will say, BUT he was old!
I am so sorry. I suspect that nobody who takes drugs for a serious illness actually dies of that illness. I recall some health writer saying (right or wrong?) that we do not get our symptoms because of "old age". We get our symptoms irrespective of age because of declining health.
My friend got what they call Acute Myeloid Leukaemia. She was a bit tired but okay. Then, she was 'diagnosed'. It was plain to see she died after they poisoned her with chemo. Even if she had survived the chemo, it had already damaged the nerves in her feet (she'dhave remained in a wheelchair), and her nervous system, so her body could no longer be in homeostasis. Her blood pressure was all over the place. It was horrific to see. She was previously fit.
They told me I was heading towards leukemia and sent me to an oncologist who wanted to do a bone marrow biopsy, I told him I would not allow that, later they convinced me to go to another oncologist and I repeated that I would not allow that. I ended up turning my back on allopathic methods and dove deep into detox. Just recently I gained 4 pounds after not being able to gain weight (this is muscle mass not fat) for over 12 years. I know I would be dead if I hadn't turned away from death doctors. I believe most illnesses are due to toxicity after all we live in a time where the globalist are doing everything they can to poison us. They are afraid of our numbers, there are many more of us than them. Don't live in fear misery or lack it feeds the Evil.
This is a very interesting article for me because I have a Chronic Lymphocyte Leukemia diagnosis. My lymphocytes numbers keep going up and up. I am not sure that I have any symptoms from this.
I know for a fact that I have chronic mercury. I chelated for ten years and then discovered fragments in my gums. I lost a lot of symptoms but then got this diagnosis, which made me go back to do more due diligence on my teeth and also wonder about lead toxicity. The chronic exposure to mercury must have something to do with this diagnosis. At least I think so. And perhaps lead is implicated as well. Lead, after all is stored right there where the white blood cells are produced.
So far the oncologist won't prescribe and now I can see why. Looks like the treatment involves poisoning the bone marrow! If I decide to do any treatment, I want to have it make me FEEL better. I don't care about numbers on tests.
Until reading this article, I assumed that the bone marrow was producing a lot of duds and that is why there were so many extra neutrophils. A questions then is, why are so many of the neutrophils "sludge?" What is this "sludge" that is showing on slides?
My mother has been diagnosed with CLL. She is 86 and doesn't care to have any treatment for it. She has recently had a stroke and is now on blood thinners, beta blockers and wobble medicine for Parkinsons. I am sure that the root cause (terrain) will have been poisoning by mercury amalgam, lead and possibly lindane from wood worm treatments plus alcohol. She has not had any of the recent jabs and is drinking volvic water to try to remove some of the toxic load (aluminium). We are trying sunshine and grounding to see if that gives back some "joie de vivre".
Interesting that you note Aluminum toxicity, and Volvic water (containing Silica).
I’m just recently reading about detoxing Aluminum using Silica, found high in Fiji water. (93 mg’s per liter)
Apparently, Silica binds tightly to Aluminum in the body (and bones) and is then excreted.
I’m also examining my personal environmental exposures to Aluminum.
In cookware, coffee pot heating elements, coffee travel mug - trash, air fryer basket inserts - likely Teflon and Aluminum - trashed, candy colorants, cosmetics - I discovered that the makeup foundation I’ve used DAILY, for about 30 YEARS contains Aluminum. Pets’ water dish - trash. And some vax’s and injections (which I have NOT taken for years), as well as some medications.
Aluminum is non-magnetic.
The book - Discovering Magic in Water… Preventing and TREATING: ALZ, Autism, CVD… by Dennis N Crouse, PhD, is based on 428 references to scientific literature. (I’m still reading)
An anecdotal testimony, pages 193-195, of a 75 yo man with 78% atrial blockage, among other negative metabolic health markers, drank 1 liter of Fiji water daily - and upon retesting 7 months later, saw a reduction in blockage, down to 9-12%, and CRP, homocysteine and BP, all now within normal ranges. He continues to drink 1/2 liter per day in 2025.
The author, additionally, (and the reason he began the research) prevented his mother’s mild cognitive impairment and CVD (she had stents) from advancing to ALZ nor the need for more stents. She was 85 at the time, and lived on her own until 95, and passed away at 97 without advancing to ALZ or further CVD. (page 195)
My frustration is that it’s difficult to ‘dance around with the medical mainstream’ and find this information - when it should have made news headlines!!
Example, I’ve taken up an Atkins-keto-ish diet last few years, and retired - so I can cook & prep more whole foods - and ate (real) Bacon about 6 days per week, and my Cholesterol dropped 50 points (284-234), I lost 15 lbs without ‘trying’ (140-125), and dropped 2 of 3 BP meds - and I can’t take the last one daily bc it drops my BP too low. (While our doctor tells my husband to avoid red meat and eat ‘clean’ fats - yeah, uh, ok 😉) (And we just discovered pickle juice to alleviate his debilitating nocturnal leg cramps! No thanks to said doctor. And yes, magnesium he takes too - but the pickle juice stole the show!)
it does sound like mercury because of the several different seemingly unrelated conditions. I am 78 and am persevering with mercury chelation, but I had my teeth remediated years ago. It is a lot to ask an 86 year old lady to go through all that. You are right to go after symptoms with things that work. Might I suggest "the core four," magnesium, zinc, C and E that particularly oppose mercury. You can read about how much to take and how often and all that on my website: www.maybeitsmercury.com. I bet she would benefit from adrenal cortex. She would probably like that a lot, but you need to experiment.
Thank you for your suggestions. I will look at your website. Do swollen ankles feature? English women of a certain age all seemed to have swollen lower legs when I was a child, (nowadays most wear trousers so not obvious).
Chronic mercury does all kinds of things. 250 different symptoms. So swollen lower legs could certainly be the consequence of something or other bad it can do to you.
Great article. With EMF as my main area of study, when I think about childhood leukemia, along the lines of a body dealing with electromagnetic poisoning, I think about the decades of epidemiological studies reporting elevated leukemia risk among children living in higher AC magnetic field environments. And I think about Dr. Samuel Milham’s recollection in his book Dirty Electricity from the late 1950s and early 1960s, during his medical internship, when for what was historically a relatively new phenomenon, entire hospital wards were filled with children suffering from leukemia. Years later, after a lifetime studying electrification and disease patterns, Milham came to believe that the modern electromagnetic environment could not simply be dismissed as biologically inert.
" It disputes the framing — the military metaphor of attack, invasion, surveillance, and defence — which presupposes germ theory and requires an enemy. "
Bravo. I recall, when I first read in a health magazine of someone taking issue with the damn military/enemy outlook on illness, how glad I was to see this foolishness finally exposed. And this was over 35 years ago.
Alright, let me walk through this argument carefully.
What the Argument Gets Right
The core observation is genuinely interesting and worth sitting with: medicine does treat elevated white blood cells as a response in virtually every clinical context except leukemia. Appendicitis, pneumonia, sepsis — high WBC count means the body is fighting something. Then at some poorly-defined threshold, the same cells are suddenly reclassified as the disease itself.
There's a real epistemological problem here. The diagnostic frame flips without any biological justification for why the same cell type performing the same function at a higher magnitude suddenly becomes a different category of phenomenon. That's a legitimate philosophical challenge to the ontology of leukemia as a disease category, and mainstream oncology has never satisfactorily answered it.
The toxic load hypothesis — that what we call leukemia is a bone marrow response to overwhelming toxic burden — also aligns with several observed phenomena that the mutation model struggles with:
Spontaneous remissions that occur when people radically change environment or diet
The clustering of leukemia cases around industrial sites and toxic exposures
The fact that chemotherapy for leukemia is itself leukemogenic (a known iatrogenic effect)
Where the Argument Overreaches
It conflates all leukemias. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in a child, chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) with the Philadelphia chromosome, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an elderly adult are profoundly different diseases with different etiologies, different cellular lineages, different clinical behaviors, and different relationships to environmental toxicity. The argument treats "leukemia" as one thing.
The Philadelphia chromosome in CML isn't a vague "mutation" hand-waved by oncologists — it's a specific, reproducible translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 that produces the BCR-ABL fusion protein, a constitutively active tyrosine kinase that demonstrably drives uncontrolled proliferation. This isn't a matter of "cells responding to toxic load" — it's a clonal expansion driven by a defined molecular lesion. Imatinib targeting that specific abnormality transformed CML from a death sentence to a manageable chronic condition. That's hard to explain under a pure toxic-response model.
The "no threshold" claim is overstated. The argument says there's "no biological threshold" where response becomes malignancy. But oncology does identify thresholds — they're just not based solely on WBC count. Blast percentage in bone marrow (≥20% defining acute leukemia), presence of Auer rods, immunophenotyping showing clonality, cytogenetic abnormalities — these aren't arbitrary. They reflect a genuine biological distinction between reactive polyclonal proliferation and malignant monoclonal expansion.
It dismisses the clonality problem. In a reactive leukocytosis, the elevated white cells are polyclonal — diverse populations responding to various stimuli. In most leukemias, the proliferation is monoclonal — a single transformed cell and its descendants. That's a qualitative difference, not merely a quantitative one. The body responding to toxins produces a polyclonal expansion; leukemia produces a clonal one. The Cowan argument doesn't address why toxic overload would produce clonality rather than polyclonal proliferation.
The treatment critique is partly correct but incomplete. Yes, chemotherapy is brutal, carcinogenic, and addresses the proliferation without addressing what might be driving it. But the argument implies this is category error rather than a pragmatic decision — when someone has blast crisis with 200,000 WBCs and is at risk of leukostasis (sludging of blood vessels leading to stroke, respiratory failure), you treat the proliferation because it will kill them now, regardless of what caused it.
The Strongest Version of This Argument
The strongest version isn't "leukemia doesn't exist" but rather: the mutations mainstream oncology treats as primary causes may themselves be downstream effects of toxic exposure overwhelming cellular repair mechanisms, and the elevated cell counts represent a physiological response that has become dysregulated — not a fundamentally different category of phenomenon from reactive leukocytosis.
This would explain why:
The same chromosomal translocations appear in "healthy" people who never develop clinical leukemia
Environmental toxins are known to cause exactly these kinds of genetic lesions
Removing toxic exposures sometimes leads to normalization even with persistent genetic abnormalities
The dose-response relationship between certain chemicals and leukemia incidence exists
Bottom Line
The argument identifies a genuine conceptual sleight-of-hand in how medicine frames white blood cell elevations, and the toxic-load hypothesis deserves far more investigation than it receives. Cowan's pointing at something real.
But the argument overstates by treating all leukemias as one entity, ignoring the clonality distinction, and dismissing molecular markers that genuinely differentiate malignant from reactive processes. The truth is probably messier: some fraction of what gets called leukemia may indeed be extreme toxic-response states that would resolve with detoxification and environmental change, while other cases involve genuine malignant transformation that requires intervention — and we're currently terrible at distinguishing which is which because oncology starts from the assumption that the elevation is the disease rather than asking what the elevation is responding to.
I was diagnosed with CLL with a lymphocyte count of 19 in March 2020. It should have been caught in 2017, when my lymphocyte count was 12, since normal is below 4.8, but it wasn't. Anyway, when I asked the oncologist what I should be doing to help myself. She said “there’s nothing to do, we just watch and wait”. That’s when I knew I was on my own, so having already done some research, I began taking EGCG and curcumin (and now DMSO) and never went back to the oncologist. I knew my CLL was mutated with all good markers. By March 2025, my lymph count was down from a high of 15.9 to 9.8, where it has remained for over a year now. I guess everything I've done over the last few years has improved my "terrain".
That is very interesting. l What is EGCG? How do you take DMSO? I have a bottle of the stuff but am not sure of the dosage. Do you take it internally or apply it externally?
EGCG is green tea extract that I get in capsules. I take the DMSO because it is supposed to carry whatever else you take into your bloodstream faster. I drink the DMSO from a shot glass and take between 5-10mg, which is about a 1/4 ounce or 1/2 Tablespoon.
My wife was diagnosed with Large B-cell lymphoma. Mayo researcher explained they don't know why the Enlarged B-Cells are destroying the T cells which are supposed destroy the virus. They claim that half of the 72 known forms of Lymphoma have a viral component. So, the basic question is: Has a virus reprogramed the normal B cell or is there a toxic chemical that altered the cellular function. Either way, the cells divide in a abnormal way and ultimately cause death. When the medical man creates a RNA molecule are we not creating a man made virus that reprograms cellular function. It certainly seems that way with the increased reporting of Turbo cancers. I am not a cellular biologist, but am looking at this in a logical fashion seeking answers.
Re CLL. First: I know someone was was diagnosed a dozen years ago. He refused their drugs and chose to take a bunch of herbs, minerals & vitamins and what-not. His blood readings are still improving.
Second: I recall reading on Mercola when you could still comment there, a nurse saying that she was pretty sure that socalled CLL was a bad fungus infection and nothing more. Not "cancer". Well, guess what, the above person I mentioned has every imaginable symptoms of bad fungus, including and especially the toenails (which have improved somewhat but still look bad). He eats what I could call a fungus-friendly diet but still with the vitamins is in good shape all things considered.
I'd be pleased to receive any commentary at all on the above. Thanks.
Not mentioned is something, that I believe is of equal importance, is the total inundation of electronic interference. All body functions are of an electrical, nerve nature and that has to be taken into account too.
My father healthy till 88, has had all kind of health problems since the shots rolled out. He is now taking a 'low dose leukemia drug'. At 90 he ended up in the hospital after a bad fall, and came home with a bag of 'candy' and there it went down hill. 3 coronas, several colds, 2 bad falls, infections of all kinds, internal bleeding (way too many blood thinners), you name it. I am worried about that leukemia med, but he is now 92. When he passes, everyone will say, BUT he was old!
I am so sorry. I suspect that nobody who takes drugs for a serious illness actually dies of that illness. I recall some health writer saying (right or wrong?) that we do not get our symptoms because of "old age". We get our symptoms irrespective of age because of declining health.
My friend got what they call Acute Myeloid Leukaemia. She was a bit tired but okay. Then, she was 'diagnosed'. It was plain to see she died after they poisoned her with chemo. Even if she had survived the chemo, it had already damaged the nerves in her feet (she'dhave remained in a wheelchair), and her nervous system, so her body could no longer be in homeostasis. Her blood pressure was all over the place. It was horrific to see. She was previously fit.
They told me I was heading towards leukemia and sent me to an oncologist who wanted to do a bone marrow biopsy, I told him I would not allow that, later they convinced me to go to another oncologist and I repeated that I would not allow that. I ended up turning my back on allopathic methods and dove deep into detox. Just recently I gained 4 pounds after not being able to gain weight (this is muscle mass not fat) for over 12 years. I know I would be dead if I hadn't turned away from death doctors. I believe most illnesses are due to toxicity after all we live in a time where the globalist are doing everything they can to poison us. They are afraid of our numbers, there are many more of us than them. Don't live in fear misery or lack it feeds the Evil.
This is a very interesting article for me because I have a Chronic Lymphocyte Leukemia diagnosis. My lymphocytes numbers keep going up and up. I am not sure that I have any symptoms from this.
I know for a fact that I have chronic mercury. I chelated for ten years and then discovered fragments in my gums. I lost a lot of symptoms but then got this diagnosis, which made me go back to do more due diligence on my teeth and also wonder about lead toxicity. The chronic exposure to mercury must have something to do with this diagnosis. At least I think so. And perhaps lead is implicated as well. Lead, after all is stored right there where the white blood cells are produced.
So far the oncologist won't prescribe and now I can see why. Looks like the treatment involves poisoning the bone marrow! If I decide to do any treatment, I want to have it make me FEEL better. I don't care about numbers on tests.
Until reading this article, I assumed that the bone marrow was producing a lot of duds and that is why there were so many extra neutrophils. A questions then is, why are so many of the neutrophils "sludge?" What is this "sludge" that is showing on slides?
My mother has been diagnosed with CLL. She is 86 and doesn't care to have any treatment for it. She has recently had a stroke and is now on blood thinners, beta blockers and wobble medicine for Parkinsons. I am sure that the root cause (terrain) will have been poisoning by mercury amalgam, lead and possibly lindane from wood worm treatments plus alcohol. She has not had any of the recent jabs and is drinking volvic water to try to remove some of the toxic load (aluminium). We are trying sunshine and grounding to see if that gives back some "joie de vivre".
Interesting that you note Aluminum toxicity, and Volvic water (containing Silica).
I’m just recently reading about detoxing Aluminum using Silica, found high in Fiji water. (93 mg’s per liter)
Apparently, Silica binds tightly to Aluminum in the body (and bones) and is then excreted.
I’m also examining my personal environmental exposures to Aluminum.
In cookware, coffee pot heating elements, coffee travel mug - trash, air fryer basket inserts - likely Teflon and Aluminum - trashed, candy colorants, cosmetics - I discovered that the makeup foundation I’ve used DAILY, for about 30 YEARS contains Aluminum. Pets’ water dish - trash. And some vax’s and injections (which I have NOT taken for years), as well as some medications.
Aluminum is non-magnetic.
The book - Discovering Magic in Water… Preventing and TREATING: ALZ, Autism, CVD… by Dennis N Crouse, PhD, is based on 428 references to scientific literature. (I’m still reading)
An anecdotal testimony, pages 193-195, of a 75 yo man with 78% atrial blockage, among other negative metabolic health markers, drank 1 liter of Fiji water daily - and upon retesting 7 months later, saw a reduction in blockage, down to 9-12%, and CRP, homocysteine and BP, all now within normal ranges. He continues to drink 1/2 liter per day in 2025.
The author, additionally, (and the reason he began the research) prevented his mother’s mild cognitive impairment and CVD (she had stents) from advancing to ALZ nor the need for more stents. She was 85 at the time, and lived on her own until 95, and passed away at 97 without advancing to ALZ or further CVD. (page 195)
My frustration is that it’s difficult to ‘dance around with the medical mainstream’ and find this information - when it should have made news headlines!!
Example, I’ve taken up an Atkins-keto-ish diet last few years, and retired - so I can cook & prep more whole foods - and ate (real) Bacon about 6 days per week, and my Cholesterol dropped 50 points (284-234), I lost 15 lbs without ‘trying’ (140-125), and dropped 2 of 3 BP meds - and I can’t take the last one daily bc it drops my BP too low. (While our doctor tells my husband to avoid red meat and eat ‘clean’ fats - yeah, uh, ok 😉) (And we just discovered pickle juice to alleviate his debilitating nocturnal leg cramps! No thanks to said doctor. And yes, magnesium he takes too - but the pickle juice stole the show!)
Sorry to be long-winded.
it does sound like mercury because of the several different seemingly unrelated conditions. I am 78 and am persevering with mercury chelation, but I had my teeth remediated years ago. It is a lot to ask an 86 year old lady to go through all that. You are right to go after symptoms with things that work. Might I suggest "the core four," magnesium, zinc, C and E that particularly oppose mercury. You can read about how much to take and how often and all that on my website: www.maybeitsmercury.com. I bet she would benefit from adrenal cortex. She would probably like that a lot, but you need to experiment.
Thank you for your suggestions. I will look at your website. Do swollen ankles feature? English women of a certain age all seemed to have swollen lower legs when I was a child, (nowadays most wear trousers so not obvious).
Chronic mercury does all kinds of things. 250 different symptoms. So swollen lower legs could certainly be the consequence of something or other bad it can do to you.
Great discussion, thank u
seriously, I'm going to have to retire so I have enough time to read all of your highly interesting articles
I so agree. Not enough time to read and digest this useful material. Retirement must be the answer.
Great article. With EMF as my main area of study, when I think about childhood leukemia, along the lines of a body dealing with electromagnetic poisoning, I think about the decades of epidemiological studies reporting elevated leukemia risk among children living in higher AC magnetic field environments. And I think about Dr. Samuel Milham’s recollection in his book Dirty Electricity from the late 1950s and early 1960s, during his medical internship, when for what was historically a relatively new phenomenon, entire hospital wards were filled with children suffering from leukemia. Years later, after a lifetime studying electrification and disease patterns, Milham came to believe that the modern electromagnetic environment could not simply be dismissed as biologically inert.
" It disputes the framing — the military metaphor of attack, invasion, surveillance, and defence — which presupposes germ theory and requires an enemy. "
Bravo. I recall, when I first read in a health magazine of someone taking issue with the damn military/enemy outlook on illness, how glad I was to see this foolishness finally exposed. And this was over 35 years ago.
Useful to run it thru alter.systems ai:
Alright, let me walk through this argument carefully.
What the Argument Gets Right
The core observation is genuinely interesting and worth sitting with: medicine does treat elevated white blood cells as a response in virtually every clinical context except leukemia. Appendicitis, pneumonia, sepsis — high WBC count means the body is fighting something. Then at some poorly-defined threshold, the same cells are suddenly reclassified as the disease itself.
There's a real epistemological problem here. The diagnostic frame flips without any biological justification for why the same cell type performing the same function at a higher magnitude suddenly becomes a different category of phenomenon. That's a legitimate philosophical challenge to the ontology of leukemia as a disease category, and mainstream oncology has never satisfactorily answered it.
The toxic load hypothesis — that what we call leukemia is a bone marrow response to overwhelming toxic burden — also aligns with several observed phenomena that the mutation model struggles with:
Spontaneous remissions that occur when people radically change environment or diet
The clustering of leukemia cases around industrial sites and toxic exposures
The fact that chemotherapy for leukemia is itself leukemogenic (a known iatrogenic effect)
Where the Argument Overreaches
It conflates all leukemias. Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in a child, chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) with the Philadelphia chromosome, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an elderly adult are profoundly different diseases with different etiologies, different cellular lineages, different clinical behaviors, and different relationships to environmental toxicity. The argument treats "leukemia" as one thing.
The Philadelphia chromosome in CML isn't a vague "mutation" hand-waved by oncologists — it's a specific, reproducible translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22 that produces the BCR-ABL fusion protein, a constitutively active tyrosine kinase that demonstrably drives uncontrolled proliferation. This isn't a matter of "cells responding to toxic load" — it's a clonal expansion driven by a defined molecular lesion. Imatinib targeting that specific abnormality transformed CML from a death sentence to a manageable chronic condition. That's hard to explain under a pure toxic-response model.
The "no threshold" claim is overstated. The argument says there's "no biological threshold" where response becomes malignancy. But oncology does identify thresholds — they're just not based solely on WBC count. Blast percentage in bone marrow (≥20% defining acute leukemia), presence of Auer rods, immunophenotyping showing clonality, cytogenetic abnormalities — these aren't arbitrary. They reflect a genuine biological distinction between reactive polyclonal proliferation and malignant monoclonal expansion.
It dismisses the clonality problem. In a reactive leukocytosis, the elevated white cells are polyclonal — diverse populations responding to various stimuli. In most leukemias, the proliferation is monoclonal — a single transformed cell and its descendants. That's a qualitative difference, not merely a quantitative one. The body responding to toxins produces a polyclonal expansion; leukemia produces a clonal one. The Cowan argument doesn't address why toxic overload would produce clonality rather than polyclonal proliferation.
The treatment critique is partly correct but incomplete. Yes, chemotherapy is brutal, carcinogenic, and addresses the proliferation without addressing what might be driving it. But the argument implies this is category error rather than a pragmatic decision — when someone has blast crisis with 200,000 WBCs and is at risk of leukostasis (sludging of blood vessels leading to stroke, respiratory failure), you treat the proliferation because it will kill them now, regardless of what caused it.
The Strongest Version of This Argument
The strongest version isn't "leukemia doesn't exist" but rather: the mutations mainstream oncology treats as primary causes may themselves be downstream effects of toxic exposure overwhelming cellular repair mechanisms, and the elevated cell counts represent a physiological response that has become dysregulated — not a fundamentally different category of phenomenon from reactive leukocytosis.
This would explain why:
The same chromosomal translocations appear in "healthy" people who never develop clinical leukemia
Environmental toxins are known to cause exactly these kinds of genetic lesions
Removing toxic exposures sometimes leads to normalization even with persistent genetic abnormalities
The dose-response relationship between certain chemicals and leukemia incidence exists
Bottom Line
The argument identifies a genuine conceptual sleight-of-hand in how medicine frames white blood cell elevations, and the toxic-load hypothesis deserves far more investigation than it receives. Cowan's pointing at something real.
But the argument overstates by treating all leukemias as one entity, ignoring the clonality distinction, and dismissing molecular markers that genuinely differentiate malignant from reactive processes. The truth is probably messier: some fraction of what gets called leukemia may indeed be extreme toxic-response states that would resolve with detoxification and environmental change, while other cases involve genuine malignant transformation that requires intervention — and we're currently terrible at distinguishing which is which because oncology starts from the assumption that the elevation is the disease rather than asking what the elevation is responding to.
Dr Rockefeller never came across a set of symptoms he couldn't turn into a new disease requiring allopathic treatment:).
I was diagnosed with CLL with a lymphocyte count of 19 in March 2020. It should have been caught in 2017, when my lymphocyte count was 12, since normal is below 4.8, but it wasn't. Anyway, when I asked the oncologist what I should be doing to help myself. She said “there’s nothing to do, we just watch and wait”. That’s when I knew I was on my own, so having already done some research, I began taking EGCG and curcumin (and now DMSO) and never went back to the oncologist. I knew my CLL was mutated with all good markers. By March 2025, my lymph count was down from a high of 15.9 to 9.8, where it has remained for over a year now. I guess everything I've done over the last few years has improved my "terrain".
That is very interesting. l What is EGCG? How do you take DMSO? I have a bottle of the stuff but am not sure of the dosage. Do you take it internally or apply it externally?
EGCG is green tea extract that I get in capsules. I take the DMSO because it is supposed to carry whatever else you take into your bloodstream faster. I drink the DMSO from a shot glass and take between 5-10mg, which is about a 1/4 ounce or 1/2 Tablespoon.
Excellent! For additional context on Duesberg, see my 1991 interview with Peter Duesberg.
https://mikechappelle.substack.com/p/peter-duesberg-interview-part-1
My wife was diagnosed with Large B-cell lymphoma. Mayo researcher explained they don't know why the Enlarged B-Cells are destroying the T cells which are supposed destroy the virus. They claim that half of the 72 known forms of Lymphoma have a viral component. So, the basic question is: Has a virus reprogramed the normal B cell or is there a toxic chemical that altered the cellular function. Either way, the cells divide in a abnormal way and ultimately cause death. When the medical man creates a RNA molecule are we not creating a man made virus that reprograms cellular function. It certainly seems that way with the increased reporting of Turbo cancers. I am not a cellular biologist, but am looking at this in a logical fashion seeking answers.
Very interesting article, thank you. It has got me some way towards understanding how and why people can live for a long time with such a diagnosis.
Re CLL. First: I know someone was was diagnosed a dozen years ago. He refused their drugs and chose to take a bunch of herbs, minerals & vitamins and what-not. His blood readings are still improving.
Second: I recall reading on Mercola when you could still comment there, a nurse saying that she was pretty sure that socalled CLL was a bad fungus infection and nothing more. Not "cancer". Well, guess what, the above person I mentioned has every imaginable symptoms of bad fungus, including and especially the toenails (which have improved somewhat but still look bad). He eats what I could call a fungus-friendly diet but still with the vitamins is in good shape all things considered.
I'd be pleased to receive any commentary at all on the above. Thanks.