In a sort-of sequel to my last article on cancer, I reprise an article from 2023 that delved more deeply into the true causes of, and cures to, poor health. The article has been slightly amended and updated with a new section at the end....

The subject of health has been on my mind a lot recently, not because there's anything wrong with mine (at least not physically, yes, thank you, hate-fans...), but because several people I know have recently been diagnosed with serious health problems. I'm not talking normal seasonal illnesses, but profound disorders of the brain, heart, and nervous system. All of these people are under 65, none have had the you-know-what (I know of a number of people who have, and sadly an increasing number of them are no longer with us, but that's a different article), and none of them had any serious underlying health conditions.

In fact, one of the most critically ill in this cohort is an example of someone otherwise considered to be a bastion of good health - doesn't drink (never has), has a good diet, and exercises regularly.

Meanwhile, in contrast to this, we all generally have several "Keith Richards" figures in our lives, the types who drink like fish, smoke like chimneys, and strenuously avoid anything remotely strenuous - who never seem to develop serious health conditions, or at least, not until a grand old age.

So what is going on here? Are the proverbial Keith characters just freak anomalies of nature (even though there seem to be loads of them)? Are those who lead healthy lifestyles but get sick anyway just cursed with bad luck or bad genes?

What's really going on?

With a strange stroke of synchronicity, whilst I was pondering these issues, I came across a column by Tom Utley, a Daily Mail journalist who (by his own admission) is extravagantly overpaid to write one short, frothy lifestyle column a week (he was initially paid £120,000 per annum and that was 15 years ago...).

Tom's financial good fortune has allowed him to enthusiastically indulge all his bad habits, including consuming vast quantities of alcohol (when he moved to his current location and visited the nearest supermarket to stock up on his usual weekly quota, the cashier cheerfully congratulated him on the "huge party" he must be planning), and smoking 50 Malboro Reds a day, which he has done for his entire adult life. He's also a self-professed couch potato who eschews fruits and vegetables, loves fatty foods, and drinks "gallons" of coffee daily.

Yet, on the cusp of his 70th birthday, and having lived this way for decades, he has no serious health problems.

The response of "the experts" to someone like Tom is to say that he is just lucky, and is dicing with death every day with his terrible habits - yet, if we were to take any of their scaremongering statistics at face value (that every cigarette knocks multiple minutes off your life, that no amount of alcohol is safe, and that fatty food is "a heart attack on a plate"), then it would be mathematically impossible for someone like Tom Utley to exist.

He would have died of multiple serious health conditions at around the age of 35, if not (trying to do the maths on 50 cigs a day for 50 years, if each cigarette - as "official sources" now claim - knocks 11 minutes off your life) several years before he was born.

Now, maybe he could be seen to be "just lucky" with ONE bad habit - maybe if he just smoked, but had no other vices, we could say, "well, his other healthy habits balance out the smoking so he's been lucky enough to get away with it". But he doesn't have any healthy habits. Or rather, he doesn't have any as defined by "the experts", because, as I was reading on through the article, I found he does have one exceptionally healthy habit indeed. Not that he occasionally goes for a walk (which was ostensibly the point the article was trying to push), but that he never goes to the doctors, and has not seen one since 1982.

He said that he is scared of them, so if he has a niggling health complaint, he just ignores it (such as the cough he has had for the last 20 years).

Conversely, the NHS is currently telling everyone who has had a cough for more than three weeks to make an appointment to get tested for lung cancer.

Now, here's the thing: if all of us were tested for cancer every day of our lives, we would all be found to "have cancer" multiple times (and don't get me started on the farcical fraud that is "pre-cancer", about as scientifically rigorous a concept as being "pre-pregnant". Even "official sources" admit that: "While pre-cancer that goes unchecked may ultimately become cancerous, it's not a guarantee and, in many cases, isn't even likely."). 

Indeed, it is quite common for elderly people who have died merely of old age to be found, upon autopsy, to have had breast or prostate cancer - but they had no knowledge they had this cancer, it hadn't made them ill, and it wasn't what killed them.

Consider, also, that whenever you hear of tragic tales of elderly recluses who never left the house, dying alone and not being immediately discovered, such was the solitude of their lives, that these people are never found to have died of cancer. You never hear, "the deceased had cancer that was never diagnosed or treated so they died". People are found to have died from heart disease or cardiac arrest, perhaps a stroke or aneurism, but not cancer. Cancer deaths only ever seem to result following a formal diagnosis from the health services. I did a news search for "recluse dies from cancer" and was only able to find a single story, regarding someone who refused treatment after diagnosis. I could not find any accounts of people who had died from an undiagnosed cancer.

Yet if cancer alone was what killed people, rather than the effects of the diagnostics (biopsies, which can spread cancer) and treatments (chemotherapy, which can cause it), then we would hear such stories all the time, since many people (like Tom Utley) are scared of doctors and so don't routinely consult them when they develop health complaints.

While I'm not saying this means dying from an undiagnosed cancer has never, ever happened (I don't know everything that has ever happened in the world), what I am saying is that it appears to be so spectacularly rare, that it is impossible to find an example of it. If cancer was really the big sinister evil killer we are told it is, examples would be innumerable and ubiquitous.

So, to return to the indomitable Mr. Utley: the obvious conclusion to draw is that, by far the most likely reason he's never "had cancer" is because he's never been to a doctor to test for it. If he'd been getting annual check-ups, having all the screenings, taking all the "preventative" treatments and pills, he would almost certainly have been diagnosed with some terrible disease by now, if not several of them - and that is ultimately how the whole scam of modern medicine works.

The establishment has induced various degrees of hypochondria in the entire population, so we are trained to believe, if we have a cough that lingers "it might be lung cancer", that persistent headaches "could be a brain tumour", that palpitations are "probably heart disease", and so on, and that, therefore, the responsible, self-caring thing to do is to get any concerning symptoms checked out by a doctor as soon as possible.

Indeed, we are told that "early detection" is key to a positive prognosis and our ultimate survival.

Yet it seems increasingly clear it is the other way around. Doctors need to see you early to maintain the illusion that - if you recover - it was their treatments that did it, because if you did not go early, but rather decided to "wait and see what happens", there's a very good chance - not a guarantee, but a very good chance - the health complaint would resolve itself, or never turn into anything sinister (like Tom Utley's 20-year cough).

It's the same scam they use for vaccination: they start to inject a baby at 8 weeks old, not for the good of the baby (even ardent pro-vaxxers admit an infant's immune system is too immature to mount an effective response to vaccination), but to "train the parents" - to convince them that, if the baby survives to its first birthday, it's only because of all the vaccinations, so they must keep on receiving them.

When vaccination was first introduced and children were typically not offered vaccines until after the age of two, many parents deduced (correctly) that, "well, my child's been fine up until this age without vaccines, so they probably don't need them now, either". That's why the medical cartel starts the infant vaccine regimen so early - to maintain the illusion that they're necessary - and that's also why health authorities push the importance of "early detection" for adult illnesses - to ensure people never realise the power of their own bodies, and that many health conditions, if simply left alone, can and will resolve themselves.

I came to the conclusion that doctors and their endless "tests" do more harm than good about ten years ago and, as a result, never re-registered with a GP when I returned from studying in the States. I now exist blissfully as an "NHS ghost", never harangued and harassed by their endless campaigns trying to entice me to come and expedite my own death by e.g., having a mammogram (known to cause breast cancer), or any of their other dubious "screenings" - none of which I have ever had or ever will have. There is no logical reason to believe that the NHS is invested in ensuring I live a healthy long life, and a lot of very good reasons to believe the opposite.

Fortunately, I developed a sort of reverse hypochondria in my teens, where I became terrified of, not so much illness, but medical treatments, so I wouldn't accept any potions or injections from the GP for any reason. This has served me very well, and these days, I no longer worry about contracting 'deadly diseases', either. When a cat scratched me the other day, drawing blood (it wasn't the cat's fault: I was holding him and someone went to hug me and he got squished...), I declined the invitation from worried bystanders to ring 111, because I knew what they would say: go to A&E for a tetanus shot* (*which, even if it worked, would be useless after the fact, as seroconversion would kick in about three weeks after I had already died. If you think you might have tetanus, you need a tetanus immunoglobulin, an anti-toxin, not a vaccine).

So, I did nothing, and the scratch healed perfectly well on its own (the cat also survived his squishing unscathed), because that is what the body is designed to do: heal itself.

Pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, are designed to do the exact opposite: their specific purpose is create disease (if they cured it, the pharmaceutical industry would have no customers). All pharmaceutical drugs come with a long list of potential side effects, and using one product is intended to lead you to need another, and then another, and then another, hence why millions of older people are currently on at least seven different medications.

This is the fundamental deception at the heart of the entire allopathic ("modern") medical system, which teaches that your body is faulty and stupid and diseased and constantly trying to kill you, and it is only because of the "wonders" of modern medicine that you are alive at all, since it is a well-known fact that, back in the bad old days, everyone died before the age of 30...

In reality, literally the exact opposite is true, and it is the constant interference with the body's natural healing mechanisms from "medical experts" that has created the tsunami of chronically sick people worldwide we have today. As Aldous Huxley, author of the terrifyingly prophetic Brave New World, said, "medical science has made such tremendous progress, that there is barely a healthy human left".

Sometimes (quite often, in fact), the best thing you can do for your health is nothing at all, and trust that the extraordinary genius of the human body knows how to heal itself.

I'm very surprised, therefore, that the Tom Utley piece made it past a copy editor of a mainstream newspaper, because this is the message it is quite obviously and unequivocally giving (even if it wasn't the intended message): that it is frequently engaging with the medical system, rather than indulging bad habits, that is most likely to lead to severe disease and premature death.

But there's another message there, too, that is less obvious, but just as key. Tom Utley lives with another person (the long-suffering "Mrs U"), and, until recently, consistently lived with at least one of their four 'boomerang' adult sons, who were born soon after the couple married in their early twenties. So, Tom Utley has never lived alone, in stark contrast to millions of other people, who have lived alone for most or all of their adult lives.

Currently, nearly 1 in 3 households in England and Wales are single occupancy.

It has long been known that the biggest predictor of poor health and premature death is not drinking, smoking, having a bad diet, or taking no exercise. It's being chronically lonely. This is not to suggest that every person who lives alone is lonely, many have full and active lives, but a lot of them are, and that trend has been expedited exponentially by "the pandemic" when so many social opportunities were cut off and working from home became normalised.

In the years leading up to the Covid chapter, an enormous amount of funding was poured into understanding the effects of loneliness and isolation, and ostensibly, this was to enable governments to find ways to better tackle it.

Of course, this wasn't the real reason (whenever the ruling elites do anything, there are always two reasons for it: one, the reason given to the public to make it palatable; and two, the real reason). The real reason was that the ruling classes are ruthless depopulators and are constantly trying to find ways to curtail the numbers of people in the world: this is why they are always engineering wars (as a member of intergenerational ruling dynasty the Rothschilds said, "if my sons did not want wars, there would be none").

However, what they have learned is that wars aren't effective enough at lowering population figures in the long-term, because they don't kill everyone, and those who survive often demonstrate a robustness and resilience that the ruling classes did not anticipate and do not desire. Devastating and tragic as wars are, they can also rouse powerful community spirit and productive energies, and most of us have heard elderly people who remember the spirit of the Blitz make comments along the lines of, "what this country needs is a good war!".

Adversity can often bring out the best in people, and the ruling classes don't want that, so they have spent the last half century searching for the one thing that is guaranteed to decimate human morale and health permanently, and they've found it: loneliness.

"The pandemic" was a test run to demonstrate just how brutally effective loneliness as a population control tool can be, as we saw physical and mental health plummet in the population as a result of the social restrictions. This was also the reason for the seemingly utterly irrational instruction to - if you did get together with others - "stay six feet apart".

What evidence was there that "Covid" could travel one, two, three, four and five feet, but not six? None, obviously - the real reason for the six feet cut-off is that this is how far the heart's energy field extends. If you want to really ensure people feel totally isolated from one another, really and truly completely "cut off", you separate them by six feet.

People benefit from being around other people, even if they aren't directly engaging with them. That is why members of the human species almost universally prefer to sit in bustling pubs, rather than deserted ones: even if pub patrons have no intention of talking to the other customers, simply their presence changes the dynamic of the environment in a positive way. This is also why so many single older men sit in Wetherspoon's all day, rather than drinking at home. They may be "on their own" in Wetherspoon's, insofar as they're not there with a friend, but they're not "alone", as they would be at home - they're surrounded by other people, and benefitting from that at multiple different (healing) levels.

Post-Covid, the ruling classes now believe they have hit on the "perfect" formula for drastic and lasting depopulation - to terrify people out of trusting their own bodies (this, after all, is the only reason to take any vaccine or indeed any other medical treatment - that you are scared your body wouldn't be able to handle the situation on its own) so they will submit to eugenic "modern medicine", and to gaslight and trap them into a situation where their health is much more likely to fail - sitting on their own at home, working and socialising through their screens, severed from the real-world healing energetic frequencies of other people.

Therefore, there are only three things I think people need to do to preserve their health...

The first is not to eat excessive starchy carbohydrates, as these really do drive disease (that's precisely why "the experts" tell us to base our diets on them, whilst demonising healing fats). All the big killers, cancer, heart disease and diabetes are driven by an excess of sugar (carbohydrate), which also contributes to Alzheimer's and arthritis and a host of other unpleasant conditions (including mental health conditions).

The other two are to avoid doctors (apart from natural health doctors) and to seek out people.

Essentially, the takeaway from this article is that you are imperilling your health far more sitting on your own at home reading health advice from "the experts", than you are spending all evening in the pub with your mates and rounding off the night with a kebab (just skip the chips...).

And now for the inevitable tedious disclaimer that you should not conflate this blog with official medical advice. Obviously not, since the advice given here might actually help...

UPDATED 07/07/25

Not long after I composed the above, I myself had a bit of a health scare. It started with slight abdominal discomfort, which escalated to more severe discomfort, then came strong burning pains, and ultimately, an intense ripping, searing sensation that made it difficult to stand up straight and walk.

This developed over the course of several days, and by the time the pain peaked, I was seriously considering going to A&E.

But something stopped me. I thought very deeply to myself, do I believe what I am experiencing is imminently life-threatening? I came to the conclusion that I didn't. The pain was bad, but not intolerable, and I decided I would wait it out and see if it went away on its own.

Obviously, "the experts" would tell you this was a hideously irresponsible decision and I should have sought medical attention immediately. And in some circumstances, one should of course do that. For instance, when I suffered detached retinas at the age of nine, this was a medical emergency which required immediate treatment or blindness would have resulted. Retinal detachment is not something the body can heal itself, ditto burst appendixes, heart attacks, and so on.

However, the existence of actual medical emergencies doesn't mean every experience of pain or discomfort, even severe, is such an emergency, and my decision to wait it out turned out to be the right one.

After about a week, the symptoms started to significantly subside, and within three weeks of onset, had completely disappeared. That was nearly two years ago and I've had no recurrence since, so whatever it was, went away with no lasting effects.

Yet what if I had gone to hospital? What if I had had a scan and they had told me sombrely "it's cancer", as they seem to be telling many under-50s at the moment?

Meanwhile, my friend who I wrote about last article, who ultimately died after a cancer diagnosis, said he bitterly regretted ever going to hospital and getting diagnosed, feeling that if he had not, he would probably have had years of healthy life left ahead of him, rather than the 18 months of rapidly deteriorating health he got once diagnosed and "treated".

Another friend of mine who strongly suspected he had cancer (constantly fatigued, losing weight, bruising easily), never got a formal diagnosis, but instead, used natural treatments including a strict diet and lots of walking, and within six months, all his symptoms had gone.

I therefore emphatically believe that the process of cancer diagnosis is responsible for a lot of subsequent cancer deaths, first of all because biopsies spread cancer, and second of all, because of the inordinate power of fear - of the "curse" of being told, "you have cancer". It has already been concluded that stress can dramatically increase the chances of dying from cancer - and there are few things more stressful in life than being given a cancer diagnosis.

Then, of course, the toxic, lethal chemotherapy and radiotherapy finish the job.

As I indicated in the main body of this article, I have been trying for years to find a single example of someone who died at home from an undiagnosed cancer.

I have not been able to find a single one.

Like "Covid" deaths, cancer deaths only seem to happen in hospitals, or after someone has spent a lot of time being "treated" in a hospital, and they never occur naturally at home in someone who didn't know they had this condition. As I said, it's not uncommon at all for elderly people who died of something else to be found, upon autopsy, to have had cancer: a cancer they had no knowledge of and that did not contribute to their death.

Consider the case of Rosie Gamp.

Shorthand typist Mrs Gamp was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1999 - a month after alerting medics to a small lump under her right armpit.

After a biopsy, a specialist rang the family home to break the news it was terminal (it having been previously agreed the doctor would deliver the news to Rosie's husband first).

Her husband, Melvin, who knew her four sisters were all struck down by cancer, took the call, and the specialist said: ‘I’m sorry Melvin, I can’t do any more... I’ll get on to your surgery and arrange palliative care’.

Melvin Gamp said: “The doctor actually knew Rosie had already lost four sisters to breast cancer. One of her best friends died of lung cancer. She was petrified of even the mention of the word cancer."

As such, Mr Gamp elected not to tell his wife of the terminal diagnosis. Whilst she knew she had cancer, she did not know it was terminal, and as such, refused chemotherapy (although she did take an experimental drug).

She went on to live for another 21 years and died, aged 90, of an entirely unrelated condition.

How many "Rosie Gamps" might there be out there, who have lived for years or decades with an allegedly "terminal" cancer, blissfully unaware they were supposed to have died years ago?

The body has an astonishing ability to heal itself when the right conditions are met, including, and perhaps especially, the right psychological conditions.

Healthy self = heal thy self.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.