Articles

Perhaps, after reading a series of my articles, someone will have the opinion that in relation to medicine I have chosen an accusatory tone. This is not true. The statement that medical science is slowly absorbing the features of stereochemistry in relation to oncology is not an accusation, but the need to articulate the expansion of the scope of its potential. So far, the best materials in this area are published only by chemists, physicists, and even technologists from oil companies. It is clear that this gold dust will settle in the minds of biochemists and pharmacists, but how many decades will we have to wait until this is formulated into protocols for oncologists. In the meantime, the heads of biochemists are busy with questions about where the cancer cell has legs and arms and where in the helix the gene mutates. And the Nobel Prizes are given precisely for such answers. Well, we will kill this ill-fated gene, board up the windows of the door and wait for it to emerge from its remission again.When I think of the professionally traumatized souls of oncologists meeting and seeing off their patients, I associate it with front-line nurses carrying the hopelessly wounded from the battlefield on their fragile shoulders. And it is from this angle that I would like to once again note the honest, professional and civil formulation of David Agus - “The body does not get cancer, but produces it”!!!If there are no congenital genetic defects affecting digestion in our body and it has not received serious exogenous holes, then the cancerous process is always determined by a metabolic disorder in the context of the condition and capabilities of our intestines. It is he who is the front door, where oncology and its development further branches into a local disease in a specific place and organ. Therefore, it is the intestines that is the "holy cow" of our body, in which the oncological process takes the first step towards diversity.Causes of cancer in general,...

Modern medicine has made a theoretical intervention in society about the causes of cancer. It turns out that the oncological process is an age-related inevitability and each of us will live to see his cancer. Moreover, medicine has put an increase in life expectancy to its credit, but as a result, humanity has lived up to oncology. Dissenters are hinted that it is possible to die earlier. Such a casuistic move relieves medical science of responsibility for the lack of a fundamental theory of the onset of cancer. I am especially surprised that even biochemically educated youth, who are promoting the idea of ​​how to stop human aging, also fell for this cartoon.Moreover, even the prehistory, where the term itself came from, is summed up. It turns out that in ancient times someone lived to be 50 years old and they noticed this crab, which, at the suggestion of the Latins, became cancer. Of course, mutational changes, when the isoelectric point in the chain of amino acids shifted from its axis, the process of photosynthesis began in the body. And this could have happened several thousand years ago, depending on how that person lived, ate, worked and emotionally.If you open the official statistics of the WHO and look at the peak point of diseases - lung cancer, or any other type of cancer, then this milestone fluctuates around 50 years. This is also confirmed in countries with high life expectancy, where the incidence rate drops sharply after 56 years. If you look at children's hematological centers around the world, then at the age of 12 most of them become old people. And when they tell me about the past, in it I clearly remember the women and grandfathers who stacked hay in their 80s. And they did not die from oncology, but shriveled from sarcopenia.In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when people were also dabbled in cigars and shag, in medical schools in the United States, cancer patients were shown as a rare curiosity. At the same time, students were...

Bolotov School. Probably, of all the varieties of oncological diseases, breast cancer and pediatric hematology occupy the leading places in the hierarchy of social phobias. There are many reasons for this. And first of all, the fact that every, especially a young woman, is a mother and an object of aesthetic plasticity, where the female breast occupies both of these places. For many women, a mirror is a close friend and any plastic defect depressingly hurts tender women's hearts. That is why there are a lot of psychological support programs for women who have gone through the oncological pipeline of medicine.I am not in favor of spreading horrors about modern methods of treatment, and even more so about doctors, since they are only a dependent technological appendage of pharmaceutical hopelessness. But it is essential to point out the illusion of hope that breast cancer chemotherapy is for the masses of women. I know that many will wisely object to me, recalling the aphorism “We can, we can”. But for my part, I want to remind everyone that “Water does not flow under a lying stone.”Modern medical science, not knowing the natural mechanism of oncological diseases, has offered society a whole list of secondary factors that cannot be combined into a common knot of genetic cell transformation.Aunt Pronya can read in every newspaper today that breast cancer is: the onset of menstruation before the age of 12; the onset of menopause later than 55 years; late birth after 35 years; abortions and miscarriages; irregular sex life; improper use of oral contraceptives; stressful working and living conditions; smoking; alcohol intake and injury, probably drunk. And this list ends with horror stories about heredity.Yes, here's another young neighbor consecrated Aunt Pronya with the Internet, that, they say, soda should be saved from this sexual and alcohol defeat. And "it seems that you are helping the Italians." The Internet has stuffed the brains of many, even...

"We often see what we don't know and we know what we don't see» G. Frying pan. In the early nineties, on the initiative and instructions of the Russian Academy, Boris Vasilyevich Bolotov began to rebuild the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, becoming its first president. This organizational work united innovatively thinking scientists and simply talented people around him. The main task of the Academy was the definition and development of science-intensive areas. But the interests and plans of politicians did not coincide with the scientific and ideological development platform, which was formulated by the Academy Board. After a skillfully organized, newspaper persecution, Bolotov abandoned the idea of ​​​​the formation of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, in his ideological understanding, and concentrated on scientific work and creating his own laboratory.There was a group of people around Boris Vasilyevich who accepted his conceptual principles, making them the basis of their future activities. I am one of them. This is what defines the concept - Bolotov's school.2. In scientific circles, his views are skeptical. How do you explain this?When, in the early nineties, Boris Vasilievich argued that any heat release should be considered as a nuclear process, even if it was an animal organism, the scientific community advised him to reread physics textbooks again. But after the Slovak experiment, thinking physicists began to quietly read his book on the structure of matter, remembering that about the same thing in the 60s, Nobel Prize winner Louis Kervran spoke. After all, ten years ago, the decay of iron into two aluminum atoms was perceived as scientific heresy. And today it is already clear that in an electromagnetic field at a certain momentum, this is possible with any element of the periodic table.In Ukraine, only applied technologies are financed on the basis of preserved, old scientific productions. No one invests money on the implementation segment between theoretical...

Having watched for many years how people troll everyone who tries to tell them something important, I guess that this article of mine will cause a special enthusiasm for swearing and hatred, especially among women with a puritanical understanding - my man in my life and society. This irritant always pops up next to the topic of diseases of the reproductive organs in men - the prostate.I remember once I came across a website with an article about prostate cancer written by a female urologist who gave men preventive advice to touch their organ less. What a wonderful example of professional misandry. And most importantly, it is immediately clear what the treatment of a malignant tumor of the prostate will be - castration by all available methods, so that there is no need to touch it.Medical science knows more about prostate cancer than any other type of cancer. But for various reasons, there remains a large gap between the scientific understanding of the problem and the methods that medicine uses. This is a general phenomenon seen in medical approaches to many diseases. If you have nerves, your brains will be blocked with a psychotropic drug, if you have pressure, adrenaline will drop to zero, if you have gastritis, you will destroy the acidic function of digestion, but if you have a tumor, then you will definitely have it removed.Yes, for many tumors this is the first necessity, but prostate surgery is not at all a mandatory measure, since even with histological confirmation of malignancy in 85% of cases, the disease is in an indolent, potentially safe form. Considering that the disease more often overtakes older men, then both medicine and society are always radically categorical: why does he need these prichandaly, his life is ending anyway - let them operate.In previous articles, I already wrote that medical science does not understand the cause and oncological mechanism before gene mutation. But at the level of already genetic disorders, a lot of interesting...

Bolotov School. Philip Day American publicist who has written a number of books that reveal the true face of the modern pharmaceutical businessIn 1996, scientists at McGill Cancer Centers had a good idea: they decided to find out if doctors treating their cancer patients with chemotherapy would choose this method for themselves if they got cancer. They sent questionnaires to 118 doctors who treated non-small cell lung tumors. 79 questionnaires were filled. Sixty-four out of seventy-nine physicians spoke out against a trial of cisplatin (Cisplatin), which is used in chemotherapy. 58 physicians found all types of trial treatments unacceptable. What was the basis? Inefficiency of chemotherapy and exorbitantly high degree of toxicity!John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, already in 1985 stated in Scientific American: of cancers encountered, no relationship can be drawn between sudden changes in mortality rates and chemotherapeutic treatments.Certain rare cancers are excluded from this statement.Evidence that widespread cancers can be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be presented. The testimony of honest and fearless doctors and researchers against the effectiveness of chemotherapy spans many pages in both books. Chemotherapy helps to shrink the tumor, but this does not mean that the patient is cured or prolongs his life. There are two more statements to be made here. Dr. Alan C. Nixon, former president of the American Chemical Society, stated, "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me how physicians can ignore the indisputable facts that chemotherapy does more harm than good." And Dr. Ralph Moss, deputy director of community affairs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital in Manhattan, the most famous research institute in the US, says: “There is no evidence that chemotherapy prolongs the life of the patient in most cases. This is the BIG LIE around this topic, namely that there should be a direct relationship...

The first euphoric hopes in the search for methods of treating oncological diseases arose in the 40s of the twentieth century, when, during the Second World War, they began to study in more detail the effect of chemical warfare agents on the body: mustard gas S(CH2CH2CI) 2 (mustard gas) and nitrogen mustard RN(CH2CH2CI)2 (trichloroethylamine). It is a chemical warfare agent. In the human body, mustard gas reacts with the NH groups of nucleotides that make up DNA. This contributes to the formation of cross-links between DNA strands, due to which this section of DNA becomes inoperable. For the first time as a chemical weapon of mass destruction, it was used by Germany against the Anglo-French troops, in 1917, near the Belgian city of Ypres, which determined the name of this substance.According to the Chemical Encyclopedia, mustard gas is an active protoplasmic poison that only a gas mask and chemical protective clothing can protect against. It is included in the list of substances that were tested on concentration camp prisoners during the Second World War, in order to obtain scientific information for geneticists and pharmaceutical companies. Behind the pharmaceutical modification of mustard gas, what is called cytostatics in medicine today, tens of thousands of tortured destinies are hidden. New generation drugs used today in oncology as alkylating agents are derivatives of the same mustard gas. Severe, irreversible side effects that occur after the use of these so-called (medicinal) substances are divided into immediate complications, immediate complications and delayed, long-term complications.Immediate complications (vomiting, nausea, drug fever, hypotensive syndrome, various types of allergic reactions) are observed in the first hours after drug administration. Immediate complications (myelodepression, dyspeptic syndrome, neurological disorders, toxic lesions of the urinary system, damage to the pancreas, lung and myocardial damage, immunosuppression) appear...

Today's problem of mankind associated with the oncological pandemic lies at the basis of a misunderstanding of the field and energy nature of living things. This statement can cause a wave of objections, where objective, positive arguments for medical science will abound. Most of them we can certainly agree with. But the essence of this problem is not what medicine has already achieved, but what it cannot achieve yet, due to the specific features of its foundation.It so happened that a person is unable to see nature as a holistic phenomenon, which could then be decomposed into puzzles. The past division of sciences into specializations, today has created a problem where it is difficult to determine the end of the field of biochemistry and the beginning of the field of physics, mathematics, and even more so astrophysics.For example, the existence of a science like astrobiology is limited to the simple questions of whether there is life elsewhere and whether humans can survive in deep space. But we cannot understand the informational density of such a phenomenon as psychosensory. We could not see and understand the relationship between the astrophysical determinant and its quantum transformation in the biological environment.So, one of the main reasons for the misunderstanding of the nature of the oncological process is precisely the basis for the isolation of medical science in the dimensions of optical analysis technologies. Since vision is a powerful instrument of emotion, its binocular basis largely determined the physiological, orbital dependence of the brain on the total integration of substantial objects. That is why an emotional image, as an object of a neural matrix, is poorly written mathematically when creating artificial intelligence.Therefore, all of today's advances in medical science are determined by the rational advances of what is clearly visible, or observable within a binocular microscope. Today it already observes and fixes quantum...

"Oncology is a shear disease, which is a bridge between two worlds - plants and animals." B.V.BolotovModern civilization, in its overwhelming mass, has perceived the phenomenon of life as something running, floating and jumping. Through Hemingway's mouth, this formed an image: - I live only when I feel and experience. But even with the static of emotional and life processes, they nevertheless go on. Therefore, life from the angle of consciousness and life as a phenomenon are different categories from philosophy and biology.Based on this premise, for further understanding of this article, it is necessary to formulate the starting foundations of the phenomenon of life in general. This is any energy, informational, biophysical and biochemical exchange, in the cyclic connection of protein molecules. Yes, in this ornate formulation there is no human prerogative, but it is precisely such an emphasis that makes it possible to comprehend that the rationality of nature is present in any process of interaction of proteins with sunlight.Therefore, we can safely state that the primary civilization of plants and the secondary civilization of living beings live on Earth. One develops on the basis of the processes of photosynthesis, with the absorption of photons of sunlight, and the other on the processes of beta synthesis, with the absorption of electrons from sunlight. These are two opposite systems for which the sun is the God of physical life. But the primary vegetative form of life is indifferent to the secondary animal form of life, the apex of which is man. The plant world has existed for millions of years without us and could continue to exist. But living beings cannot exist without the plant world, since the oxygen necessary for the life of living beings is a by-product of photosynthesis.Therefore, the secondary civilization of living beings retained a biological guide, which, under certain conditions, allows the formation of the process of photosynthesis in the...

“The problem of aging, like the problem of cancer, lies in stereochemistry of molecular matter!“ Gilbert LingIn recent years, the issue of becoming sour or alkalized has acquired a sharpness in society, which has formed into an urgent question - what to do? But the very formulation of the question, either-or, is fundamentally wrong and erroneous from the very beginning. Most people are arranged in such a way that their worldview base is based on a chain of small, usually emotional choices, or fragmentary information. This is due to the physiological characteristics of the nervous organization. The experience of visual summation of perspective points of external space formed the psychological summation of worldview choices.This is why most people choose from several extreme points, not being able to think in a matrix. People always choose a mono-priority, in the form of a favorite character in a novel, the best politician, actor or football club. Often this manifests itself in aggressive forms - are you for the whites or for the reds, are you a believer or not? Exactly the same situation either - or has developed in the question - to become sour, or alkalized. The body is a complex system of balances, where the two extreme elements control and complement each other.Perhaps this is fear from the horrifying statistics of the growth of cancer, with the search for simple methods of prevention. Perhaps this is a new feature of society to think about approaching old age in advance. Perhaps these are signs of the beginning of disappointment, unjustified expectations from medicine.Certainly, modern information capabilities allow any person to put their five cents into the problems of society. And this has created some problems of choice, since the lack of a level of special knowledge determines the emotional choices of people. A simple principle often works here - if I don’t understand, then it’s not mine and it doesn’t suit me. So why is the formulation of...