Cancer: Step Outside the Box

By Laura B. I finished "Cancer Step Outside the Box" last night. The vast majority of this stuff I already knew from searching youtube for a few hours. That which I didn't know was was almost entirely brand name products and other books that Bollinger was shamelessly plugging. All of the potentially useful, natural, and verifiably safe cancer treatments that are mentioned in this book ( i.e. vitamin B17, Budwig, Gerson, vitamin C, essiac tea, etc. ) could have been squeezed into a twenty page pamphlet without any trouble at all. The real vile aspect of this book is the gas chamber/holocaust lies and the HIV causes AIDS lies on pages 5 and 7. The murderous Zionist state is made possible by the holocaust lie ( read Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century ) and the lie that HIV causes AIDS and that AIDS is sexually transmitted has been simply torn to tatters by Dr Karry Mullis (Nobel Prize), Dr Duesberg, Dr Willner, etc.. Shameful. Here's some food for thought for fellow truth seekers..."Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ("a priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises)"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."-George Orwell, 1984Formal/Classical Logic was invented by Aristotle in ancient Greece (circa 350 B.C.). It is a remarkably versatile and effective system of "rules for reasoning" that anyone can use to good effect. Devised as a systematic method of evaluating evidence and language arguments to (1) insure correct reasoning within the limitations of the existing evidence, and (2) effectively reveal erroneous or deceptive reasoning, it was soon to govern and define the measured thought of the leading rulers and intellectuals of the ancient world. Alexander the Great was only the first of a very long line of adherents of formal logic that would dramatically alter the course of history. To this very day, utilized in virtually every field that requires accurate and objective reasoning from archaeology, astronomy and medicine, to law, politics and war, more so than any other intellectual tool, formal logic has been responsible for laying the foundations of our civilization. Curiously, formal logic contains one common historical thread that has always been true. Niether the ancient Greeks, nor the Romans, nor the old antbellum American South ever considered it wise to teach formal/classical logic to common slaves, for obvious reasons. The teaching of Classical logic was removed from the U.S. public school system over 150 years ago, and has been systematically suppressed by our media for exactly the same reasons ("The Underground History of American Education" by John Gatto, his "Ultimate History Lesson" on YouTube, "The Lost Tools of Learning" by Dorothy Sayers, "The Prussian School System", and "Operant Conditioning", all online). If you doubt this just ask some average U.S. high school graduates sometime to tell you the difference between a "formal" and an "informal" logical fallacy; or, how to determine if an argument is both "valid" and "sound" (i.e., very basic and essential knowledge of formal logic). You'll find that they have no idea. The vast majority couldn't even tell you the difference between "deductive" and "inductive" reasoning. As you will soon see, this is no accident.The following is a concise and effective method of using formal logic and is the essence of that ancient system of reasoning (adapted from a definition given in an early edition of Howard Kahane' s book "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", 1976)."All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from preexistent knowledge."Aristotle, Posterior Analytics"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."-Aristotle, RhetoricCogent (logical) reasoning, reasoning designed to strongly appeal to the intellect rather than the emotions, should meet 3 conditions:1. It must be derived from premises that "you know" are true. (These are true propositions that are either; (a) "self-evident"; (b) verified by your own personal direct experience; or (c) well supported by solid verifiable evidence. There is no fourth way to "know" that a premise is true.).2. It should contain all of the known relevant evidence. (The suppression, or improbable absence, of relevant evidence is a good indication of deception. Relevant evidence is any evidence that would tend to make an argument more likely or less likely to be true.)3. It should be properly structured, so that it comes to a conclusion which logically follows from the premises. (In the case of valid deductive arguments this conclusion would "necessarily" follows from the premises. In the case of very strong inductive arguments it would follow "beyond a reasonable doubt". In both cases it would be free of contradiction and consistent with the facts.)When an argument meets these conditions (ie. verifiably true premises, all relevant evidence, and properly structured) it is said to be sound or cogent, and very likely to be true. When an argument does not meet these conditions it is said to be fallacious (faulty/deceptive reasoning)."Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four."-George Orwell, 1984"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."- John Stuart Mill, A System of Logic"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy(Very helpful in analyzing the relationship between premises and conclusion is the following taken from the book "Logic and Rhetoric" [1968] by James Johnston. "The hypothesis most likely to prove right must do the following: 1. Include all known facts; 2. Not over-emphasize any part of the evidence at the expense of the rest; 3. Observe the laws of probability as established by previous investigation; 4. Avoid logical contradictions; 5. Stay as simple as possible without ignoring any part of the evidence. Hypotheses which violate any one of these requirements are Forced Hypotheses.")"To know what you know and to know what you do not know. That is true knowledge."-Confucius"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.-Former United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld at a press conference Febuary 12, 2002Two years later Rumsfeld offers us a "fourth kind" of knowledge about which people who would one day like "free" systems of government to actually exist should be keenly interested."Febuary 4th, 2004Subject: What you knowThere are known knowns.There are known unknowns.There are unknown unknowns.But there are also unkown knowns. That is to say, things that you think you know, that it turns out you did not."-Donald Rumsfeld, from the Errol Morris documentary "Unkown Knowns"Here's what Donald Rumsfeld won't say.An effective understanding of classical logic is indispensable in the identification of "unknown knowns". That is why it has been suppressed."Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance."-George Bernard ShawNow, on to a bit of rhetoric with the informal logical fallacy:"Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men."-PlatoProfessor Madsen Pirie most aptly defines a logical fallacy as anything one can say or do that breaks down or subverts reason. The ancient Greeks discovered over 200 different logical fallacies. Here are some commonly used "informal" logical fallacies taken from the book "The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric" by Sister Miriam Joseph Ph.D..(In his book "Logic For Lawyers" Ruggero Aldisert defines the formal logical fallacy as an "error in the logical form of an argument" and informal logical fallacies as those that "deal with the content and context of premises." When an argument meets the three conditions of cogent reasoning it does not contain any formal logical fallacies.)"ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEMArgumentum ad hominem ( literally, an "argument to the man") fallacy confuses the point at issue with the people concerned. Attacks on the character and conduct of people and personal abuse or praise are substituted for reasoning on the point at issue. Argumentum ad hominem seeks to persuade by unsound ethos. In rhetoric ethos means establishing the speaker or writer as one worthy of making an argument.""ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUMThe argumentum ad populum fallacy arises from substituting an appeal to the passions and prejudices of the people for logical reasoning on the point at issue...""ARGUMENTUM AD MISERICORDIAMThe argumentum ad misericordiam (literally, an "argument to pity") fallacy replaces reason with a plea for sympathy.""ARGUMENTUM AD BACULUMArgumentum ad baculum is the appeal to the "big stick." The issue is ignored in an attempt to inspire fear of the consequences of adopting a proposed opinion or program, or of allowing a movement branded as dangerous to gain strength. The threat of social ostracism or loss of position might be used to deter a person from exposing fraud...""ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAMArgumentum ad ignorantiam is the use of an argument that sounds convincing to others because they are ignorant of the weaknesses of the argument and of the facts that stand against it."ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAMArgumentum ad verecundiam is an appeal to the prestige or respect in which a proponent of an argument is held as a guarantee of the truth of the argument. This is unwarranted when reasoning about an issue is required and only the authority of its upholders or opponents is given consideration. It is perfectly legitimate to supplement reasoning with authority (Argumentum ad auctoritatem ), but it is fallacious to substitute authority for reasoning in matters capable of being understood by reason."A very helpful tool in understanding effective rhetoric is Aristotle's three primary pillars of persuasion; (1) Ethos (authority), (2) Pathos (emotion), and (3) Logos (logic). To believe an argument that is supported by Ethos alone is to be manipulated by authority. To believe an argument that it is supported by Pathos alone is to be manipulated through emotion. Aristotle advises rather, that we take great pains to avoid being manipulated, and allow ourselves to be only truly persuaded by logos (i.e., logical arguments that are correctly reasoned and well supported by evidence).CONCLUSIONTherefore, when testing "any" argument one should ask if the three conditions of cogent reasoning have been met and if logical fallacies have been used."If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things."-Rene Descartes"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; The real a tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."-Plato9/11:Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth9-11 Missing LinksDr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War CollegeThe Holocaust:Bishop Richard WilliamsonDavid McCaldenDavid ColeMark WeberGermar RudolfErnst Zundel (...)Sylvia StolzCancer:Linus PaulingG. Edward GriffinDr. Nicholas GonzalezAIDS and HIV:Dr Kary Mullis (winner of the Nobel Prize)Dr Robert Willner (author of "Deadly Deception the Proof that Sex and HIV Absolutely do not Cause AIDS")Dr Peter Duesberg (author of "Inventing the AIDS Virus")JFK assassination:Jim GarrisonMichael Collins PiperBenjamin FreedmanSandy Hook shootings:Wolfgang HalbigThe Moon Landing:Bill Kaysing"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" by Bart SibrelAll can be found on youtube

I reconnected with a cousin, who I discovered had become a full-blown organic for the past ten years. On top of that, she had some choice things to say about “Big Pharma” and the AMA (among other governmenet entities) that were new to me, and, at the very least, intriguing. Then she mentioned Ty Bollinger, so I looked him up, and was amazed at the past experiences that impacted his life so strongly that they motivated him to write this series of books. Made me want to read further! She recommended CANCER: STEP OUTSIDE THE BOX as my first read. Before I bought it, I read through some of the thoughtful reviews (not the insipid one-liners), and was thoroughly impressed. Except for the super lonnnnnng review that seemingly ripped the book to shreds! I asked myself, “Why is this review so negative? So AGAINST everything this author wrote?” It didn’t take me long to guess, even knowing what little I had begun to pick up from my cousin: the viewpoint was more in line with the hidden agendas of the federal government, and was out to discredit the author. I know this may already sound outlandish, and let me tell you—off and on last year (the year of covid, which was equal to the year of LOTS of reading/research) I came across certain things that I thought were SO off the wall, they HAD to be concocted! Movie scripts! So I tucked them in the back of my mind. Wayyyy in the back. But then I decided to buy this book and read it for myself, because I value my OWN opinion, and I don’t like others forming it for me.Ty Bollinger has indeed done hundreds and hundreds of hours of research, both readiing and talking to countless medical professionals, research scientists, AND—cancer survivors who have actually been HEALED. Yes, I said HEALED. Do you know why this struck a cord with me? Because about 10 years ago, I met a friend of my brother-in-law who was diagnosed with cancer, decided to go herbal, and he healed himself! I was amazed then, but not enough to do further investigation, because—well, I was too busy with “life.” You know how it is. Back to the book…In summary, I would say that it totally blew my mind, and was a breath of fresh air—though a little scary, a little exhiliarating, to know that cancer can actually be cured with no side effects, unlike the conventional wisdom of surgery/rardiation/chemotherapy, which always causes weight loss, hair loss, lethargy, nausea, and nearly depleted immune systems. I always wondered how this nation, with its wonderful medical advancements, seems to be so much sicker than it was 100 years ago! And why can we find a way to put men on the moon, but cannot find the cure to cancer? Well, this book explains it in order, from the beginning—from the Flexner Report, which was the turning point in that it literally rewrote the medical curriculum at the universities. Behind it were men with big, big dollars. Carnegie and Rockerfeller, who only funded the universities that fell in line with the new curriculum that taught modern medicine (vaccines and drugs), and actively discouraged natural medicine as quackery. Even Wikipedia says this, when you look up “Flexner Report.” That explained why, all these years, I kind of got an underlying questioning/mistrust of things like homeopathic medicine and chiropractors. Yet I didn’t know why some people still swore by them! Didn’t make sense to me, until I read the report. Then I became angry, and read more of the book.I am totally solidified in my complete distrust of all federal government entities, now that I believe that cancer can be cured by multiple natural means, at the CELLULAR LEVEL, something modern medicine does not address. Even genuinely good doctors don’t know, because they were not taught. God made the earth complete with EVERYTHING we ever needed to combat everything we’d ever face, and He made our bodies a wonderful, marvelous, efficient mechanism for nourishment and filtering. Together, healing takes place with no side effects. I am not against modern medicine altogether, however, because I am thankful for antibiotics in some cases. Not for the abuse of them, because that causes resistant bacteria to emerge, and weakened immune systems.I saw a very strong connection between what has always been done to doctors and researchers who discover natural cures for the past 100 year, to what has been happening to doctors and researchers who have been discovering natural remedies for covid in the past year: CENSORSHIP, discrediting of findings, imprisonment of doctors, destruction of records, and the powers-that-be trying to dictate what is “best for us.” Excuse me? What kind of nation is this, when this is happening? Am I so stupid that I can’t make up my own mind about things? Am I a 3 year old, that I need the government to take care of me? I have spent years developing my common sense and my curiosity, and will NOT be told what to believe. I just want to scream, “How DARE you??” —-Deep breath. Enough.Read, people. Read a LOT, and learn how to sift through rubbish. Praying for wisdom wouldn’t hurt, either, because the people behind the scenes are insidious, and well rehearsed with their lies. We’ve swallowed them all, hook line and sinker since we were children. It’s time to start questioning EVERYTHING we’ve known to be true. Dig around. Talk to people. Talk to naturalists. Talk to anyone that’s been banned. Another story exists, and it needs to be told.

E' un libro scritto in inglese da Ty Bollinger e è considerato una bibbia per medici e pazienti.

Do not read this book if you wish to die early consenting to some ill-fated conventional cancer treatments

Much too biased towards religion to my liking...and the style is not particularly good either... definitively not a book you want to pick up again. I would recommend How not to die and anticancer, a way of life... those 2 books are well-written, backed up by corroborated experiences (one of the authors has had cancer for the past 12 years) and written by doctors with experience who do not necessarily paint chemo black from the start and instead give sound advice as backup measures. (some people have been known not only to survive it but also got better...). i ordered this one thinking it was in the same category but I find it not only misinformed but also dangerous and to be honest boring. I quite see that the big pharma companies want to keep the status quo with chemo and operations but the way Bollinger presents it makes it look like a cheap conspiracy theory with no real proof. A dangerous book in the hand of somebody really looking for sound answers and real help. LEAVE IT WELL ALONE !!!

Plenty of alternative therapies on offer. Not sure how many of them actually work. Till we have a definitive answer to this grave illness, solutions are always going to be a hit or miss affair.

The entire experience of buying a book that is not locally available is painful. All kinds of hoops to jump through AND paying Rs 1000 to clear a BOOK from Customs. And then they say India has progressed. Malls and goods are NOT progress. THIS behavior needs to change.