Posts Tagged ‘Cancer’

Is cancer a living demon that possesses organisms and eats them?

July 8, 2015

About 17 months ago, I wrote an article called “Baking soda cures demonic possession by cancer,” in which I poked fun at certain presumptions that are commonly made when people talk about diagnostic labels like “an incurable cancer.” A primary “target” of my criticisms (whom I selected simply for convenience, since I could have picked thousands of similar examples) was a researcher at the University of Arizona. Today, nearly 17 months later, he publicly replied on the blog (although back when I wrote the article, I emailed it to his co-worker Steve Delgado to forward to him and I got no reply to that). The original article (and Marty’s reply) is here:

I also will put his reply further down in this publication, as well as my public reply back to him. First, here is a little background on him and where he works:

U of AArizona Cancer CenterArizona Cancer Center

Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Chemistry & Biochemistry, and Medical Imaging

Bio Highlight: Dr. Marty Pagel developed MRI methods to evaluate anti-cancer therapies.

In his reply, Marty copied this portion from the original content:

“JR wrote: Changing the pH does not [JUST] make the drugs effective. Changing the pH ends the effect of cancer.

another correspondent wrote to JR: You could design an experiment to determine if that was the case.”

Marty writes to JR:

We did this experiment. Changing the pH did not end the effect of the cancer, although it temporarily slowed its growth. Changing the pH AND treating with a pH-dependent chemotherapy had a much greater therapeutic effect.

I suggest that you should design and perform your own experiment instead of make stuff up.

Also, I took physics with calculus. I also took quantum mechanics at UC Berkeley. Again, get your facts straight before making stuff up.

—Marty Pagel, University of Arizona.

JR writes:

Hi Marty, I do not often review the comments submitted but I thought I recognized your name… and I was right! Anyway, thanks for your reply and your interest. I did not keep up with your ongoing research lately and I would be glad to be updated on it. As for the prior content, I want to “retreat” a bit and then “try again” with a few questions.

I get that a particular pH-based intervention might produce a favorable outcome (of whatever magnitude), plus that a particular chemotherapy intervention could be more or less effective depending on a variety of factors including pH. So yes, changing the pH in a particular way could logically be interpreted as “making something else work better” with that factor than without it. I was not questioning the specific results. I was raising a distinct point, which you did not address, so I will re-state it, but differently. In brief, I was questioning the conceptual models that guides how different people might describe the same effect.

When we observe some phenomenon over time, we can see a pattern of changes. We can measure the electromagnetic charge (such as pH) of various areas and fluids. We can even cut someone open and see with our naked eyes “growths” of varying size. Or we can measure the size of a tumor through other methods that do not involve an incision.

So far, there is no controversy. But then I raise a point of curiosity (not really a controversy).

Is there such a thing as a cancer, as in a living thing? Does it “grow?”

Or, did someone just MAKE UP that terminology / idea? When a pile of clothes in a laundry basket gets larger over time, is the pile alive? When plaque builds up in someone’s mouth, is the plaque “growing?”

We do know that it is reasonably easy to produce the effect called cancer. in particular, bombarding living tissue with certain forms of radiation can create measurable effects not only in humans and rats, but in plants and bacteria. The “ionizing” of tissue is entirely an electromagnetic effect, right? (I assume that you are generally familiar with many decades of research establishing the detrimental effects on living tissue of of various kinds of radiation and radio-active waste: )

So, in an experiment, we could turn up the intensity of radiation, causing the effects to increase. We could turn off or turn down the radiation, causing the effects to “change from a malignant demon that has possessed the organism and has been eating it… in to a benign cancerous growth that is no longer growing.”

Why would some organisms have less damage? The short answer is “their electromagnetic health.”

Why would some organisms be especially vulnerable to damage from radio-active waste? Again, while you may not be familiar with any research on that subject, I am.

So, can altering the electromagnetic integrity of an organism (even a plant) improve it’s “resistance” to the potential damage of ionizing radiation? Of course. Just as lead provides protection, there are many other possible protective factors.

An interesting example that might be uncontroversial involves damage to the thyroid gland in particular. What happens when iodine is exposed to ionizing radiation? If there is a deficiency of iodine (which I consider extremely common), then a significant portion of the iodine in an organism can be “made in to” radio-active iodine. That iodine will then damage various organs.

These instructions from the CDC indicate that “KI (potassium iodide) is a salt… that can help block radioactive iodine from being absorbed by the thyroid gland, thus protecting this gland from radiation injury…. It only protects the thyroid, not other parts of the body, from radioactive iodine.”

Is it simple to produce thyroid damage? Is it simple to even produce “thyroid cancer?”

Below is a quote from Time magazine. First, in the same article, there is a reference to the damage that can result from consuming dairy products that contain radioactive iodine.

”When thyroid cells absorb too much radioactive iodine — either through the air or through contaminated food — it can increase the risk for thyroid cancer, says the American Thyroid Association [ATA]. ”

And here is a paragraph from the ATA:


After the 1986 nuclear accident at Chornobyl (formerly called “Chernobyl”), shifting winds blew a radioactive cloud over Europe. As many as 3,000 people exposed to that radiation developed thyroid cancer over the next 10 years. Most victims had been babies or young children living in Ukraine, Belarus, or Russia at the time of the accident. The region of excess risk extended up to a 200 mi radius from Chornobyl. Poland, immediately adjacent to Belarus and Ukraine, distributed KI to >95% of their children within 3 days of the accident and does not appear to have had an increase in thyroid cancer.

(From )

One of the benefits of a diet high in iodine is that iodine can act as a donor of an electron. Electron donors are also called “anti-oxidants,” which means iodine can help to prevent or heal oxidation / combustion / inflammation / acidity. Below is a quote of a study detailing the fact that high iodine levels correlate to low cancer rates:


Seaweed is an important dietary component and a rich source of iodine in several chemical forms in Asian communities. Their high consumption of this element (25 times higher than in Western countries) has been associated with the low incidence of benign and cancerous breast and prostate disease in Japanese people.

….In animal and human studies, molecular iodine (I2) supplementation exerts a suppressive effect on the development and size of both benign and cancerous neoplasias….

(From )

In other words, certain electromagnetic conditions create an effect called cancer. Distinct electromagnetic conditions (AKA “health”) prevent the damage that would be otherwise caused by radiation poisoning.

Again, I am familiar with the specific of how different plants, animals, and humans will experience different results from the same causal factors. I can predict exactly where tumors will form in an organism, when it will not arise at all, and so on.

Cancer does not EVER “spread.” However, the effects of certain electromagnetic conditions can show up in a predictable sequence. Electromagnetic vulnerability in one region can cause a voltage drain on other tissue. These voltage drains are predictable.

Tumors can be predicted to show up in one place, then later in certain other places, but yet they are not alive. Cancer is not alive. Cancer is not a demon that possesses anyone. Even though people may worship the demon that they call cancer, it is just a diagnostic label that someone made up.

I could share some research showing “very high correlations” (100%?) between certain “causal variables” and the effects commonly labeled “cancer.” Again, changing the electromagnetic properties of a tissue or cell (as in pH) can produce predictable effects.

Strong acids will burn through bone. Lightning bolts can cause muscle contractions that cause bones to splinter. Those are [effects of electromagnetic causes].

One can change the pH of a tissue- not just by adding a bit of “pH 8.3 Baking soda”- but actually resolving the short circuit that has produced an electromagnetic draining of that tissue’s voltage. What effect would predictably result from a very precise alteration of the electromagnetic properties of a tissue (or organism)?

If you stop producing the effect called cancer, then the effect called cancer is no longer present. Prior accumulations of tumor can be eliminated (as in removed from the organism by the processes of a normal, healthy organism).

Changing the pH *PROPERLY* will end the production of the effect called cancer. Promoting the electromagnetic functionality of the organism (human, cow, bush, etc) will promote elimination of any accumulations of “diseased or dead tissue.” Further, when electromagnetic conditions are optimal, an organism can withstand significant exposure to otherwise damaging radiation and yet have no detrimental effect.

If you got this far, Marty, then congratulations on your tenacity. In the case that you are interested in corresponding further, please be aware that I found your prior response to be disrespectful. If you want my attention further, I am willing to consider offers of large amounts of money. ;)


A 2nd opinion on mainstream medicine

April 22, 2015

I admit that I was somewhat naive in the past, perhaps because of the fact that I started out life so very young. For instance, I believed in Santa Claus. I even believed that if a licensed physician said something, then as long as my parents believed it, I also presumed that it must be true.

That was my simple perception… until eventually I heard of the idea of “getting a second opinion.” Should I be offended by this suggestion that if you consult a variety of physicians, some of them might have more than one way of measuring health and of understanding various symptoms? Exactly how offended should I be if someone disagrees with something my own physician said (such as my own physician at a later time)?

And what about this issue of specialization? It was as if some physicians had more expertise in some areas than in other areas! This whole issue of whom to trust was getting rather complicated.

I later learned that most physicians did not personally do a lot of research. They might read several journals each year, but how many clinical trials did they personally participate in?

This all got very serious for me sometime around the late 20th century (perhaps in the 1980s). One of the great paranoias that I was trained to have at that time was in relation to cancer. Cancer was very bad. Cancer was very frightening.

But what exactly was cancer? A decade ago, I might have told you that it was the cause of a certain type of illness. I could list a few people that I would say “cancer killed.”

However, cancer is a label for an effect. It is not a cause. It is just a label for an effect. It is not a living entity (a demon) that possesses certain organisms and attacks them and spreads through them like a parasitic infestation.

While many people worship cancer as a demon that has power over them, I eventually considered such religions to be delusional and hysterical. I considered habitual statements like “your cancer is killing you” to be mindless curses invoked in rituals of witchcraft called “the practice of medicine.”

I was not emotionally triggered by the issue of cancer. I noticed that some people were. However, I personally did not suffer from cancer. No one close to me was possessed by the demon of cancer and then “abducted by mortality.”

So, as I listened to a variety of people talk about cancer, I noticed some wide variations in how they related to that word. Not everyone worshiped it as a powerful demon. Some people related to it as merely a predictable effect. In other words, some people demonstrated a scientific perspective on cancer, even logic and intelligence.

For instance, some people talked about how cancer rates changed suddenly in a particular area right after a nuclear explosion. They spoke of measured data, not just presumptive speculations made with no respect for language. (For the grammar police among you, I mean whether the word cancer should be treated as an active, causal entity by using the word cancer with a transitive verb).

Other people talked about cancer as a possible effect of smoking a certain amount of cigarettes. Was there really a connection between specific behaviors and possession by the demon of cancer?

Some people (such as the Center for Disease Control) talked about a specific type of cancer called skin cancer and how different races of people had differing levels of vulnerability to skin cancer (or at least different rates of incidence). Hispanics were several times more vulnerable than Asians or Africans. White people were several times more vulnerable than Hispanics. Further, the skin of white males was demonically possessed by cancer significantly more frequently than the skin of white females. Was it possible that there both behavioral factors as well as genetic predispositions?

Charts from

I noticed that different people spoke very differently about how easy or challenging it would be to produce the effect called cancer (as well as to stop producing that effect). To some, cancer was very mysterious yet not very important. To others, cancer was something that they were personally motivated to research and understand.

So, the issue came to my attention that some people are more interested in a particular subject (than most people) and so they get more expertise and more precision. Others lack a devoted, calm personal interest (and have only a hysterical interest or only a casual interest) and so perhaps they just learn a popular protocol from a medical school and carry on their business of treating cancer patients as they were programmed to do (and rewarded for doing).

I noticed that various people used words like “safe and effective” in regard to various treatment protocols. Some were so interested in these issues that they cited legitimate research or even conducted their own rigorous measurements. Note that when I say legitimate research, I mean research that is credible scientifically such that there is no logical controversy about it.

In other words, if the research actually presents models that accurately predict measured realities, then that is at least credible. The models may be imprecise, but at least they are credible.

I noticed that there were controversies among licensed physicians about whether certain treatment protocols were safe and effective. Some of the disagreements seemed to be over what exactly was meant by the word “safe.”

I reviewed the terminology used by the US government’s Department of Health and Human Services. A publication of theirs stated that “On October 1, 1988… the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was established to… [provide] compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines.”

I learned that in over 4,000 cases a total of over $3 billion dollars had been paid by the US government on behalf of the vaccine industry, which prior to 1988 was legally liable for the injuries determined to be caused by vaccines. Other claims were rejected, such as allegations of a facial deformation caused in Beyonce, pictured above, after taking a skin cancer vaccine that made her in to a white male.

Anyways, I was curious about why this program did not have more publicity, given that large segments of public school curriculums are dictated by federal authorities. Why was there so much hysteria promoted about “the fatal effects of cancer” (which is bad grammar if cancer is an effect rather than a cause)? For every 100,000 white males, 4.3 of them are murdered by cancer each year!

Why was there so little paranoia promoted about the apparent dangers of vaccines? How interested should I even be?

Ultimately, my curiosity was only so strong. Perhaps the same lobbyists that in the 1980s persuaded the US government to transfer liability from the vaccine industry to the US government also did not want the budget for publicizing that compensation program to be more than $10,000 or $20,000 per year. I was satisfied by that explanation and moved on to other issues of greater interest to me.


September 27, 2014
  • This long article details the suppression of the most controversial research of Weston A. Price, DDS:

    > > “Dr. Meinig began doing root canal fillings on his patients’ teeth in 1943. In 1948, he was one of the 19 founders of the American Association of Endodontists (root canal therapists). When he retired in 1993, he was honored, along with the other three surviving founders at the 50th anniversary celebration of the AAE.

    In 1993, shortly after his retirement, Dr. Meinig learned of the 1,174 pages of research done on root canal teeth by Dr. Weston Price, D.D.S., F.A.C.D. and 60 fellow research dentists. Their findings had been suppressed by the American Dental Association since 1925. This research, done over 20 years, showed, beyond any doubt, that there was no safe way to do a root canal filling. Not only that, but the research established root canal teeth as the cause of many serious degenerative conditions, including cancers. “…

    The Root Canal Coverup If you have any root canal-filled teeth, removing them from your mouth should be your number one priority.  You will not get well until you do this.  Once it is done…
  • Regarding cancer again, there is the issue of exactly why does someone go from “not having it” to “having it” and then to “not having it,” then perhaps “having it again” (or a different form of cancer, like in a different location). My assertion / claim is that many cases of cancer have been completely reveresed through methods that do not include any dietary change or lifestyle change (according to my own personal definition of lifestyle change).

    The dental root canal issue has been studied and verified (in that the location of the root canal – which teeth- reliably predicts exactly where the “cancering” will manifest). Further, I assert that the single intervention of replacing metal dental work with porcelain fillings has produced a full reversal of many cases of cancer (no dietary change and no lifestyle change).

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn So, these are simple, direct claims about the source of cancer. People can say “I dismiss your claim as irrelevant to me.” People can say “I want to see the research on that.” People can say anything else.

    “Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of the body’s cells by an anaerobic [i.e., oxygen-deficient] cell respiration.” -Dr. Otto Warburg-1931 & 1944 Nobel Prize-Winner

    I say that Warburg was right, but his comment alone is not useful. *Why* do cells lose the ability to metabolize oxygen?

    pH is the answer (and that may not have been established scientifically as of 1931 or whatever). Why is pH so far off from “normal” in so many people? Dental fillings “bleeding” electrons is my answer. That is a very useful answer whenever a filling can be easily replaced with porcelain.

    This article focuses mostly on toxicity as it relates to cancer, but has lots of interestign actual data for any science nerds out there.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn This is a shorter piece (by a dentist) with less detailed science, but a nice summary:

    � Chronic Illness, Cancer, Dentistry – �� Are there any connections?
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn In this article, an employee (?) of Jerry Tennant MD refers to eating raw eggs, drinking raw milk (page 7), and the sidebar of page 4 is all about how to produce cancer 100% of the time through electr0magnetic charge (measurable as pH or voltage)..…/Voltage,%20The%20Key%20to…

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Here is a reference to a study in which breast cancer was correlated at 98% with root canals:…/root-canals-cause-cancer/

    They do not detail “getting a bridge” (a dental bridge) to replace a root canal, but that is the “useful info” in terms of reversing the process that causes the symptoms known as cancer.

    He found that 147 of them (98%) had one or more root canal teeth on the same meridian as the original breast cancer…


More on the simplicity of cancer and electrical charge (pH/acidity/alkalinity)

September 26, 2014
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn To clarify, dietary changes can be entirely sufficient to stop producing the effect of cancer in many cases. However, the most common cause of cancer are electrically conductive root canals (capped with dental fillings made of mercury, gold, silver, etc) that “bleed electrons” out of specific areas in the interior of a body.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn No matter how much benefit arsises from raising pH through diet, replacing conductive fillings with porcelain fillings will universally improve health (whether or not cancer has been diagnosed). However, that can cost thousands of dollars.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn The most abundant supply of electrons is the planet itself. By electrically insulating ourselves from the planet (using rubber-soled shoes etc), modern humans have cut themselves off from “being grounded” to the earth. That means that we cannot access electrons directly from the earth, so static electrical charge can build up and will suddenly shock us if we touch a metal doorknob that is grounded to the earth. (If you regulary “get shocked” by a doorknob, then that means you have a recurring issue with imbalanced electromagnetic charge).
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn An excess of protons can be measured as acidity (in liquids) and also as “positive charge” in volts or millivolts. By touching the earth directly (or connecting electrically through a grounding wire, hugging a tree, etc), than anyone with a relative excess of protons will magnetically draw electrons from the earth in to the body, bringing the body as a whole toward the same pH / charge as the surface of the earth, which is around 7.35 – 7.4 pH.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn However, that does not mean that urine or stomach acid (!) should have that same pH. Living things must have the capacity to hold a charge (to insulate electromagnetic charges in the interior of a “cell”). Intracellular charge should not be the same as intercellular charge. That condition is called “death.”
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn The letters pH stand for “potential hydrogen” and refer specifically to the relative abundance of hydrogen atoms with exactly one excess electron (a “negative ion of hydrogen”). When pH is low (acidic), that means that there are very few unbonded electrons available for chemical reactions (or how big the demand is for unbonded electrons). When pH is high (alkaline), the pH number (pH of 8.2, or of 10.5 etc), that number indicates the relative abundance of charged ions of hydrogen.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn In other words, pH measures electrical potential AKA electromagnetic charge. If the pH of an entire body is way too high, that is also bad- but is also easily corrected by maintaining physical contact with the earth. Touching the earth always brings us back toward the small negative charge of the earth (pH close to 7.375). Touching anything that makes your hair spread out in to the air is creating a huge “bleed” of electrons from your body, causing your voltage to soar so far away from normal that your hair pulls electrons out of the air (like lightning).
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn We need an overall charge similar to the charge of the surface of the earth (which has apparently been pretty consistent for the last several million years). We also need both acidity (like to digest proteins) and alkalinity (like to neutralize the acids for digesting proteins). So, the human body makes HCl (hydrochloric acid) as well as baking soda (for alkalinity).

    In the image below, NaHCO3 (at the bottom left) refers to what is otherwise known as baking soda:

Is cancer a living demon that possesses cells?

September 26, 2014

VS asked: …Do cancers feed on protein? Does this idea not apply to raw protein? I know sugars feed cancer.

SC: Sugars, lack of oxygen, glutamate and acidity all feed cancer. This is why I question the balance of it all. One says that being too alkaline is too “yin” but it’s good for starving cancer cells. However, in order to digest protein, one needs more acid, which I assume is more “yang.”

JR: the issue of the low pH of stomach acid (to digest protein) is completely distinct from overall pH or pH in a particular part of the body where there might be the physiological effect/ process called “cancer.”

It is like saying “blood and urine should have liquid in it but not so much that you drown.” Acidity in the stomach and overall pH are very, very different issues.

SC: Yes, J R, I am aware of this fact. However, what one consumes will either lower or raise the pH of the stomach as well as the body itself.

Also, I’m not on this forum for any type of contention. I don’t find your analogy to be of any relevance. Thank you.

JR: SC,  maybe you are open to learning and maybe not. If you do not understand what pH measures, then my comments may seem irrelevant or even threatening. pH is simply a measure of electromagnetic charge (which comes down to the number of electrons relative to protons).

Consider the idea that cancer is a label for an effect of prolonged acidity in a particular tissue / area. It is “localized” (like arthritis).

Reducing the pH of a skin tumor reverses the process called cancer. Injecting an alkaline solution in to the area of a tumor does too. This article covers a lot of what VS referenced:

More on the use of slight alkalinity (baking soda) to reverse cancer:

As for the idea that cancer is a living thing that feeds on protein, I do not acccept those presumptions. Cancer is just a label for the natural result of prolonged localized acidity in any living tissue.

So, it is common to say things like “oxygen feeds a fire.” However, to mix metaphors and ask if fires like to eat protein is “inattentive language.”

Eating sugar can “feed” cancer in the general sense. However, it is helpful to be calmly attentive to our language. It is not as if we must hysterically avoid proteins because proteins contain amino acids and “I read that acidity is bad and car battery acid can burn your skin.”

That is misunderstanding the simplicity of the issues. Acidity is not something to avoid hysterically “no matter what because it leads to cancer.” For someone who understands clearly what cancer is, it is is easy to treat. It is also easy to alter pH (and that is why it is easy to treat the natural result of prolonged localized low pH… AKA “cancer”).

Did I “oversimplify” in my comments? Yes. When people are confused about little details, it can be useful to “zoom out.”

SC: J R, an old Chinese proverb says, “you can catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.” Your assumptions of me, as I stated, are irrelevant and all the information that you have supplied, I am aware of. Have a nice day and may you continue to be blessed.
JR: I do not recall stating any presumptions about you, SC. If you presumed that you were a fly that I was trying to catch, you might be wrong.

For those that think of cancer cells as “the source of a problem,” there can be a hysteria about cancer. But “cancer cells” are just regular cells that stopped behaving “normally” and for very specific reasons. Cancer is a symptom, not a cause.

So, to me, the best way to respond to the effect called cancer is to know how to produce it and then stop producing it. Also, the assumption that diet is the primary cause of the effect called cancer does not explain why cancer shows up only in certain places/ areas of the body.

Is skin cancer caused by one dietary factor and breast cancer by another? No. Diet is not the primary issue at all.

However, can dietary changes “make a difference?” Yes, and so can many other things- some much more effective than drinking “baking soda tea.”

(For more info, ask me.)

How a holistic model avoids the confusions of reductionist medical “demon worship”

September 8, 2014
  • Barry wrote: does baking soda alkalise the digestive system or the blood? or both?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Let’s start simple. Every pancreas on this planet (in every animal that has a functioning pancreas) makes baking soda (NaHCO3- which is in the picture above is in the bottom left in the blue text).

    It is released in to the very top of the small intestine to neutralize the intense acidity that is present when the contents of the stomach are released in to the small intestines (which SHOULD contain a lot of HCl- hydrochoric acid). The acidity of HCl and the alkalinity of the baking soda mix to produce NaCl (salt) and H2O (water).

    For more info, see:…/how-much-salt-and…/

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Baking soda is commonly used (typically, when moistened with water) on the skin for countering any type of acidic inflammation, such as from a bee sting. It is also used in foot baths or full-body bathing.

    Consuming baking soda in a liquid may or may not be favorable depending on the person and the dosage. (For instance, since cancer is basically a label for the effects of an acidic pH in a particular tissue or region, baking soda has been used orally to treat cancer, but solutions – liquids- with baking soda have also been directly injected in to acidic areas to neutralize the acidity and discontinue the effects of the acidity- which can be labeled “cancer”).

    For more info, see:…/baking-soda-cures…/

    J: what are your thoughts about adding baking soda to water to ingest or alkalinSee More
    22 hrs · Edited · Like · 1 · 
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Taking baking soda orally is typically the method that people have used to excess, leading to reducing the acid levels of the stomach to the point of causing a huge cascade of negative effects resulting from incomplete digestion of proteins. The acidity of the stomach is THE mechanism for digesting proteins and if it does not happen there, then undigested proteins beyond the stomach are likely to be attacked as foreign proteins.
    22 hrs · Like · 2
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Another term for that is “an allergic reaction to the proteins in food.” Compromising the digestive process by raising the pH of the stomach so much that the stomach acid is ineffective… can be disastrous.

    Also, given that the masses of people consume so little seafood or other food rich in iodine, the massive deficiencies of iodine lead directly to a deficiency in stomach acid, and that means that even small amounts of baking soda added orally can be quite unfavorable because the organism’s digestive function is already so compromised.

    22 hrs · Like · 2
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn So, even though there is an intense emotional hysteria regarding baking soda and salt amongst certain “alternative health” enthusiasts, that is the logical equivalent of the mainstream paranoia about cholesterol [which I address in detail in the previous blog], saturated fat, or unpasteurized mammary fluids (milk). Human bodies make these things for a reason. Discard the mainstream religions of hysteria (if relevant, one hysteria at a time).
    22 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Here is a picture again showing NaHCO3 (baking soda) in the pancreas ready to be released in to the upper small intestines. Keep in mind the simplicity of the issues here.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Next, here is a news item about $2 million of funding in 2012 for baking soda as a cancer treatment at University of Arizona. I have criticized the ignorance of the PhDs (directly to them) in their use of terminology like this:

    “… acid destroys surrounding tissue, which allows the tumor to grow, invade surrounding areas, and metastasize to other organs in the body.”…/new-test-found-for…

    A $2 million National Institutes of Health grant has been awarded in support of See More
    22 hrs · Edited · Like · 1 · 
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn They are still talking about cancer from a model of 19th century demon worship. Yes, acids rips apart molecules and destroys tissue, then that accumulation of non-functioning matter can increase in size- but it is not ALIVE, so it does not GROW. Acidity is not a living creature (a demon) that INVADES other areas.

    If enough acidity is present in a tissue, that will destroy the tissue and lead to the accumulation of the waste that has not yet been removed. That can be labeled a cancerous tumor.

    Cancer is not alive. Cancer is not a demon. Most MDs are just unaware of the lack of scientific credibility in their “religion.”

    • I created this group so the conversation on this event could shift to a group in

    See More

  • Valerie Steinfeld I like how you have written this in bite size pieces J R. It makes it easier to assimilate! Thanks! Val
  • Valerie Steinfeld To look from a bigger perspective and identify the factors that create problems in the human body and in our world at large is what is needed to really understand and actually solve them. To me this is constructive critical thinking! Bravo and thank you!
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Valerie, it is understandable to sometimes have an orientation of resolving problems. However, such a “remedial” model (which is “against problems” as in “allopathic”) will never produce the efficiency of a holistic model.

    People who are seeking remedies operate in a very different “wavelength” than those simply focused on promoting health. They suppress symptoms and manage symptoms. That is one way to proceed but can eventually produce catastrophes.

    So, anyone appraoching health with an exclusive emphasis on diet or nutrition is not operating from holism. Anyone focusing on biochemistry is missing the much more efficient realm of electromagnetics (physics), which includes the issue of pH / acidity / voltage.

    Voltage is a scale that measures electromagnetic charge. So is pH. They are like fahrenheit and celsius. The vast majority of people do not comprehend the simplicity and basics of physics, and so they argue about biochemical remedies (dietary changes) and so forth.

    That could be like building a house with your eyes closed. Sure, it can be done, but it can be confusing and frustrating. Why not open your eyes while building a house? Why not set aside the inefficiencies and confusions of a biochemical, remedial orientation?

    One issue is that there is so much social reinforcement (including the propaganda of public schools and so on) that promotes the use of models developed in the 19th century. (Many of those models were also discarded by leaders in their fields within that same century, but how many people today know that?)

  • Valerie Steinfeld J R, you just identified 5 factors that help to form a bigger perspective from which to look and improve health and life. I believe we are saying the same thing. I was giving you a compliment. I hope that came through in my communication. Improvement comes with an increase in understanding and awareness. The more understanding and awareness, the greater the improvement. You are adding to understanding and awareness with your insight and information. I appreciate you. I do feel that there are problems that come up in life and in living to resolve. Resolving them effectively leads to happiness. How is that remedial? I agree with you that allopathic approach is a tunnel vision approach. It is difficult for me to tell sometimes whether you are disagreeing with what I am saying or simply making another point! Have a good Sunday! Val
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn “Tunnel vision” has many forms. That was my point (distinct from yours, but related).

    Anything that is not a holistic model that studies how a healthy organism functions will never provide the efficiency of that perspective. So, we can be skeptical about the way that the researchers at the Univ. of Arizona report their findings. Their findings are useful as evidence, but of what?

    If they base their conceptual model on what I am calling 19th century demon worship, which they clearly do, then that explains why their results show only a tiny fraction of the effectiveness of the actual trail-blazing researchers in health. They may have results maybe 500 times as efficient as chemotherapy. So what? That is 1/100th of what is easily available. (10 years ago, I would have been excited by that, but today that seems trivial.)

    What will get publicity? The U of A research.

    What will not get publicity? The research of folks like Jerry Tennant, MD (for instance) who in two minutes could dispel 90% of the pseudo-scientific presumptions of the mainstream model of demon worship [and a fair amount of my comments on the issue of cancer are abbreviated paraphrases of his comments and findings].

    Further, the chemotherapy lobbyists are not going to just suddenly disappear. Their interest is profit, not health. No government agency is every going to approach the scientific efficiency of leading independent researchers. Bureaucracies cannot operate with that degree of flexibility.

    Isn’t it fascinating that the U of A researchers (among millions of others) continue to speak of cancer as a living entity that spreads and grows and “attacks?” To me, that is remarkable.

  • Valerie Steinfeld Fascinating…but honestly words and their nuances of meaning can be an infuriating way to communicate especially when you cannot see someone and I feel that we are distinct ships passing in the night. I am not sure that counts for real communication!!!! I am not certain how the University of Arizona comes into play here, but you possibly posted something about it earlier in the thread? Don’t know.

    I acknowledge and understand what you are saying. To simplify: Problems present themselves. A wholistic view is best to carry forth resolution. If I am inaccurate or not using the correct words, forgive me, but I do intuit we are in agreement!

    Barry, I hope you have gotten some answers that are helpful to you!

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn One point was that the research at any university (such as U of A) will typically get more publicity than the results of a single practitioner (or even a group). It could be important to realize that the mainstream media (and mainstream schools) are not primarily vehicles for promoting intelligence, but for promoting the special interests of those who form those organizations and fund their operations. The media will typically be unreceptive to “independent researchers” (especially research that would “offend” their advertisers) and will only publicize things like university research, plus only in certain cases and only in certain ways.

    (Also, Valerie, yes I posted a link way back there to research at U of A establishing that drinking water with baking soda has been documented as reversing a variety of forms of cancer.)

    8 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Next, I have been offering a holistic view. An example is this: someone contacts me and says that they have a list of problems.

    I say “let’s focus instead on what promotes health” and then go through a hierarchy of issues, asking them what they are doing or not doing. In many cases, one or two very basic changes can resolve a huge list of medical complications with a single method.

    To a mainstream medical practitioner, they would see arthritis, bursitis, leaky gut syndrome, GERD, fibromyalgia, bone cancer, and skin cancer. They might have 7 different treatments to inefficiently address each diagnostic label independently.

    To me, I would see 7 forms of one thing: inflammation. What causes inflammation? Acidity reliably causes inflammation, like if you dip your hand in some battery acid briefly, your skin will AT LEAST get inflamed, right?

    Acidity at a joint causes joint inflammation, which is labeled “arthritis.” (Note that when a TV ad says “arthritis causes joint inflammation” that is like saying “heat causes a high temperature.”)

    Acidity in the upper small intestines causes inflammation of the intestinal wall (AKA leaky gut syndrome). Each various location of acidity (like acidosis of the blood etc) will get a different label by an MD as if there is something fundamentally distinct about that inflammation from the rest of the inflammatory symptoms in the patient.

    7 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn So, the MD’s conceptual model may be “reductionist” and therefore their treatment methods tend to be complicated and inefficient (as they “attack” each symptom as if it is an isolated thing). In a week, I can produce results that they might not produce in a decade.

    How? Stop contributing to ANY inflammation and start countering ALL of the inflammation… very efficiently.

    I do not get confused by the diagnostic labels like MDs seem to be. I do not relate to arthritis as a mysterious cause. I relate to it as an incidental label for a [predictable] effect.

    7 hrs · Edited · Like · 1

What causes cancer: diet? sunshine? naivete? ;)

August 17, 2014

  • Many people throw around the word “cause” when all that they know about is a correlation. A “cause” would ideally mean 100% precision.

    So, can a specific “bad” diet cause the effect labeled cancer 100% of the time? Can a specific diet can produce an effect 100% of the time (and not just in a sample of 50 city dwellers, but in a scientifically-relevant sample that includes many healthy humans of many ages- and, on the subject of skin cancer- many races)? Even if so, then there is the question of exactly how- what is the mechanism of producing the effect of cancer?

    To me, cancer is just a simple label for a very simple phenomenon that is very simple to cause 100% of the time (and food is NOT the *primary* factor, but certainly is a factor). Further, when making a bold and plain statement like this, it is interesting how many people who may say that they are interested in understanding health will immediately flee (in terror?).

    So, one of the first issues I raise is whether someone is willing to question the idea that cancer is a living organism that attacks another living organism, invades it, possesses it, and grows or spreads. In other words, are you willing to at least question the religion of demon worship that has been promoted through mainstream propaganda sources?

  • If the effect labeled cancer is as simple to produce as I suggest, then 100% precision in producing it is not only the measure that we should have in mind. If the effect is really so simple, then not only should we expect 100% precision in “causing” it, but we should also expect 100% success in regard to discontinuing the production of that effect.

    It is always interesting to see folks flee away from science toward their religion of worshiping “incurable” demonic possessions. They will invest thousands of dollars and months of their lives worshiping their sacred demon. Then, they may want others to invest hours of time with no compensation to “convince” them that the effect of cancer is just a simple physiological effect which can easily be produced or discontinued. Their hysteria is… totally hysterical.

How incurable demon-worshiping skin cancer goes in to remission

July 17, 2014
People sometimes come to me who have recently been diagnosed with a serious health issue and they tell me of their despair. They say that they have no hope left of recovering. With teardrops spilling on to their face, they may say in a solemn, serious tone: “I have a disease and my disease is incurable.”
For instance, I remember one man who was only 35 years oldwhen he was suddenly paralyzed, but he had been told there was “no medical explanation” for his condition. So, the doctors that he had already been seeing had given his condition a long fancy-sounding label, but then they said things like “we have done all the tests that we know to do, but we  still cannot explain why you cannot walk. We don’t know how to help you. So because we don’t understand your condition well enough to help you, all we can do is give your condition a very special label, which is incurable.” By the way, within a few months he had a total recovery of the ability to walk.
Another even younger man came to me and said that he a had a red, itchy rash spreading across his body. It started on his face, then spread to the side of his face on his cheeks, then to his forehead, and then to his arms just below the sleeves. A few hours later, his skin literally started to fall off.
So, the young man came to me in a panic. He begged me, saying “Please help me. Please pray for me so that the demon which is inhabiting my body will be destroyed and I will recover.”
Then I took his hand in my hand and I looked him in the eyes and asked, “Is this your first time here on vacation?”The young man’s face shifted suddenly to a very confused look and he said to me: “Yes, but how did you know that I was here on vacation?”
I said: “you have been out in the sun too long. Just because you do not understand the source of the effects that you are experiencing, that does not mean that you have been possessed by a demon.”
He got a bit excited and said: “No, of course I am possessed. First of all, this has never happened to me before. Then today from out of nowhere, the demon burned my nose, then my cheeks, and then this living creature that had somehow possessed my body spread in to my forehead and my arms, attacking my skin. Look here at the layers of my skin just peeling away! It is even worse than it was an hour ago. Anyway, I know all about sunburn and this cannot be sunburn because I was not even in the sun at the particular moment when the demon starting attacking my skin and making it itchy. So, how can you say that it is not a demon that has been doing this to me? Look at my skin peeling away. I am not making this up! Are you calling me a liar?”
So, then I said to him: “Well, I admit that you sound very confident. So, since you seem like a person who is very motivated, I am going to share with you an old legend. Some people say that there is a rather common plant that has some magic lotion inside of it. I happen to have some of that lotion from the plant and, if you would like, you can rub some of it on your skin to drive away the demonic sunburn. Many people report very good results of using this substance to heal their skin from the burns. Believe it or not, they say that it kills the demon instantly.”
He stood up from his chair and pointed his finger in the air and then announced: “Well, you do not need to insult me. I am not going to fall for such foolishness. I will not be tricked in to embarrassing myself by using some untested methods recommended by a witch doctor like you. I am disappointed that you believe in such nonsense!”
As you might expect, he abruptly left in a rage. I had to make some effort as he left not to laugh, because his face was sunburned so bad that the more emotional that he got, the more pain he felt on his face.
As I said, he was a young man at that time. However, a few years later he had been coming here regularly for vacations and he came in to see me again. He said that he eventually recognized that he had simply developed a sunburn. In fact, he even had used the lotion that I had mentioned to him years before to relieve the pain and heal the burnt skin. So, he was coming to apologize and to thank me for my offer to help him.
However, he said that there was another reason he was visiting me. He had recently been possessed by a demon called skin cancer. He said it had spread from his nose to his hands and next to his lungs and now to his liver.
So that I was clear on what he was reporting, I asked him to confirm what I thought he had said: “so you have been possessed by a demon called skin cancer and the skin cancer has spread to your lungs and then skin cancer in your lungs also spread to your liver?”
He said “Yes. I even have some pictures of the living tumors which are growing larger as they eat away at my body.”
I asked him if he had ever considered that perhaps the tumors were clumps of unhealthy cells that were like a stack of dirty dishes in a sink. I invited him to consider that the pile of dishes is not itself alive. If the pile gets higher, that is only because new dirty dishes are getting added faster than anyone is removing the dishes for cleaning.
He repeated that he was very sad because the demon of cancer had invaded him. He also said that he did not know why I was talking about washing dishes. He asked if I was actually even a real witch doctor at all.
I told him that I was a minister, not a medical specialist. Then he asked me which medical school I had attended.
I told him that once I had visited the campus of a local college nearby. He said, “oh, yes, I know that is a very prestigious school, so congratulations! Anyway, what do you think I should do about the incurable skin cancer in my liver? Also, did you know that cancer is caused by unresolved anger issues?”
I asked him if he was familiar with the difference between correlation and causality. He said “thousands of people with cases of incurable possession by demonic skin cancer are very angry. Therefore, anger causes demonic possession by incurable skin cancer in the liver.”I asked him if he knew anyone who was angry without having any skin cancer in the liver. He said “yes, but why are you asking that?”
I asked him if he knew anyone with any kind of skin cancer that was not angry. He paused for a moment and then said that he did not personally know anyone else with skin cancer.
That is when I told him that I had previously been diagnosed with skin cancer. He said “no, that is impossible. You are not an angry person. So why would you be cursed with the punishment of being possessed by skin cancer demons like me?”
I told him that I was glad that he had come to visit, but I could not help him with his demonic possession. He said “but I thought you did exorcisms and stuff, right?”
I said “no, I do not performexorcisms.” He said, “well, I don’t really care if you have been specifically trained in dealing with incurable demons like mine.  Just try to remove the demonic cancer from me with a prayer, okay?”I looked at him for a moment, tapping my finger a few times. Then I said “Dear Lord, please help this angry man possessed by demonic skin cancer of the liver. Thank you for your help, Lord. You are very powerful for an Almighty God, Lord, so please help this man to do the things that promote fast removal of all of the dishes from his sink. Guide him so that he will stop doing the things that add lots of dirty dishes to the sink very quickly. Finally, Lord, thank you for magically removing the demon of incurable skin cancer from my skin several years ago by showing me which practices lead to the effect of cancer and which practices lead to the effect of health. So, Lord, I thank you in advance for your divine wisdom and power as you help this man to be healthy and happy, Amen.”
The man was smiling now and looked relieved. That is when the young man asked me if my incurable demonic cancer had gone in to remission. I said, “Well, the tumors are gone now, so yes, that is one way of putting it.”
He said that was very interestting to him. He was planning to have some surgery to remove the incurable demonic skin cancer from his liver very soon and, after that, he would be shopping around for some remissions to put the tumor in. He asked me where my cancer had gone in to remission.
I told him that remission is not an actual place, but just a diagnostic label used for convenience by certain witch doctors. He said that I was a very smart man and, because of that, I should help lots of people to defeat their incurable cancer by praying that the demon possessing the person with the incurable cancer would find the actual place where the remissions were kept, so that everyone could go in to remission whenever they want.
Somehow keeping a straight face, I thanked him and said “that is a very kind thing to say.” He shrugged and said “well, you know, when you worship incurable demons as long as I have, it really teaches you to be the most compassionate person ever.”

what causes the effect called cancer?

March 28, 2014

 For us to say “cancer is caused by toxicity” is not as precise (or useful) as to say that extreme acidity (and/or dehydration) causes inflammation and other dysfunctions, such as the extreme form called cancer. Is there ever an effect called cancer which is not produced by biochemical toxicity? Yes. That is a major issue for the theory of “toxicity causes cancer.”

Bombardment of tissue with neutrons or protons (for instance) can alter the electromagnetic balance (the pH or voltage). That disrupts cellular function, such as mitochondrial functionality (metabolism, energy production). The effect called cancer results.

All “cancers” can be slowed or reversed with electrons (raising pH). However, the most serious obstacle when filling up a bucket is when there is a hole in the bottom, such as the case when there is a metal filling draining electrons. In many cases, simply plugging the hole produces an end to the effect called cancer.

What do I mean by plugging the hole? Let’s start with identifying the hole.

A metal filling (such as mercury or silver or gold) MAY OR MAY NOT be so close to the natural electrical circuits of an organism’s nervous system that it connects/ conducts electrons, producing an CONSTANT leak or drain on energy in to the air. Over the course of decades produces the effects that are given labels like “cancer.” While it is also possible to produce cancerous effects simply by bombarbing an organism with certain kinds of radiation, that does not explain WHERE the cancerous effects develop.

The electrical explanation (which is the same as pH since pH is simply a measure of electrical charge) predicts not only which organ(s) will develop the effects labeled cancer, but more. By removing the metal filling(s) and replacing them with porcelain, that removes the short circuit from the circuit and CAN (when an organism is properly grounded and has access to an abundant supply of electrons) contribute to the electromagnetic rebalancing of the tissue and removal of the accumulated cells of a tumor, such as we call “remission.”


So, Susan asked about how all of this is related to electrical eels. That is a great question.

When I personally lacked the insulation (myelin sheath) to transmit a nerve signal between my brain and my leg, I called that paralysis. 1 single pint of raw cream later (and a good night’s sleep), and “my paralysis disappeared.”

However, paralysis is just a label for an effect. It is not a demon possessing people- no more than scurvy or cancer or autism or acne. (Of those, autism is the closest to a demon because it involves a large colonization of parasites driven in to brain tissue, typically driven there by toxic levels of mercury in vaccines.)

Here is a quote from the article Susan cited:
“How the fish [electric eels] are seemingly able to tolerate large currents at certain times and not at others is a mystery which still eludes research scientists. The answer may lie partly in a thick layer of fat which behaves as an electrical insulator, protecting the eels from their own shocks and, to some extent, the shocks of others.”

So, ignorant researchers in institutions label lots of nature as “a mystery.”
What if the science is quite simple and the researchers have been blind because of false presumptions unsupported by evidence?

When a cell is properly insulated with saturated fat, then it can hold a charge and also maintain proper charge even when strong electromagnetic currents are present. Modern humans mostly consume low amounts of saturated fat and high amounts of PUFAs (fatty acids that are inferior in many ways including for electrical insulation). That is why the modern humans are so easy to electrocute (or even to injure with cell phone radiation or wifi radiation).


Further, by lack of electrical contact with the earth (being ungrounded), they no only cannot hold charge well (because of lack of cellular insulation), but often do not have the proper charge/voltage in the first place (they have too many protons relative to electrons, as in a systemic pH that is too acidiic as in below 7.35). Combine bad fats (poor insulation) with no grounding (no supply of electrons) and lots of electrical drainage from metal fillings (most often\ made from mercury amalgam), and there is a recipe for a huge rise in frequency of the effect called “cancer,” as well as a long list of other auto-immune disorders that are simply not present at all in the populations of most traditional cultures.

If you understand all of this, then it becomes obvious why it is not good to drink sodas with a pH of 3. Why does cooking reduce the electromagnetic integrity of organic tissue? First, it destroys the hydrating effects of the moisture by burning off the liquid. That issue alone is HUGE.

What happens when you have a well-insulated battery cell (in a car battery), plus an ample supply of charge, but no water in the cell? Nothing happens! Without hdyration INSIDE the cell, the electromagnetic functionality of the “battery” is ZERO.

That is why I focus so much on #1 electromagnetic balance, such as by using $1 copper wires, and #2 hydration (by using water engineered to hydrate efficiently OR water from natural sources that provides superior hydration to the average source of water). Hydration is essential to holding charge (just as myelin and saturated fats are essential for insulating the charged or ionized water).

So, acidity plus dehydration always produces the EFFECT of inflammation. Inflammation is not a root cause. It is as simple to produce as putting your skin directly on the burner of a hot stove.

When tissue is being slowly burnt (cooked) from the inside by acidity, we can call that cancer. The paranoid focus on which diagnostic label to worship is a testament to the ignorance of most modern scientists. Why are they so focused on disease and lucrative remedial interventions and so little focused on promoting health? Again, the issue is rather simple.

It does not matter whether you have ever “had” paralysis or cancer or inflammationitis. If you have proper hydration and proper electromagnetic flow, that is the only way to have optimal health.


promoting health or fighting demons (like cancer, the FDA, etc)

March 24, 2014

fighting demons

MS wrote:


Alternative medicine is just as much guilty of simplification as conventional medicine. Both have an issue with understanding that “one size fits all” approach doesn’t work really well. So you can have a chemo or radiation for cancer, or on the other end b-17 or cannabis oil or green smoothies… our desire for a one-step simple solution to a complex problem is understandable, but doesn’t work well in real life.

The same with PD [the primal diet]. The fundamentals are simple yet as you go deeper you discover some things work for you and some don’t and you adjust your diet accordingly.



Angel Fighting Demon


JR replies:


I am satisfied with my understanding of “cancer” as an effect of low pH (AKA improper voltage /more protons than electrons). I am not aware of any controversy in that regard. Please feel free to show me any well-constructed scientific research on the subject that is not absolutely clear.

If people do not fully understand the simplicity of cancer, then they may only be able to repair damage efficiently (like through diet to remove the accumulated waste of the tumor) without at all addressing the basic cause: the electromagnetic short-circuiting of something like a mercury tooth filling which leads to the continual draining of the voltage from that physical circuit. Changing of diet does not alter the short circuit, does it?

Because of the near complete ignorance of electromagnetics and the worship of what may ultimately be a largely inaccurate model of biochemical cause and effect, many conventional and alternative models are still rooted in the familiar and popular 19th century falsehoods called “mainstream biochemistry.” When the simple elegance of physics is properly respected, highly efficient models are already rather well-developed for us to apply.

However, we must stop exhausting ourselves with attacking the FDA or AMA if we wish to develop insight and spread it. Their continuing power may even RELY on us attacking them instead of promoting science.

Back to the topic of my recent exchange with A.R., imagine if millions of people said “I do not care what the FDA recommends. I am interested in actual science!” Why pay thousands of dollar as a co-pay for an insurance-covered treatment that is highly dangerous? Perhaps because people do not know there are $5 cures- or have not loosened their worship of the FDA (blind faith or blind attacks) enough to “bother” to go on to the internet and then assess the simplicity of the most remarkable claims and evidence and theories.

Back to the original topic of this thread, let’s consider grounding (which always raises pH of someone experiencing cancer, who always is acidic). Is grounding sufficient to remedy all of the symptoms labeled cancer? No!

Grounding does not remove short circuits created by mercury dental fillings (avoidable with porcelain fillings)! Grounding also does not provide hydration (which, along with pH, are the two most prevalent “epidemics” … of 19th century ignorance)!

However, proper grounding ALWAYS promotes health and reverses the causes of cancer. It will slow down some “cancering” (slower malignancy of tumors) and reverse some (remission of tumors) and simply create stability in some cases (benign tumors). Will grounding PLUS a primal diet ALWAYS be sufficient? NO!!! Will removing a filling while eating a bad diet lead to the same speed of recovery as removing the filling plus eating a great diet? NOOOO!!!!

If an alternative medical approach is anything but holistic, then it could still be struggling against symptoms. That is just medicine (or at least only “remedial medicine”). That is not promoting health.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 299 other followers

%d bloggers like this: