Katherine’s Dilemma

Katherine & Bill


 Katherine, my “Sweety-Pie” of fifty-three years of marriage, is 75 years of age. She is the mother of three healthy, successful children, and grandmother of six smart and healthy grandchildren. Suddenly, virtually overnight, a mole developed on her forehead from the deep layers of the skin. The mole was black and red combined with a jagged periphery and a very sore base. It grew to 1” across and 1/2 in height in one week. It had penetrated into the subcutaneous fat with fingers spreading more than 1”. What shall we do? Shall we do a biopsy and risk metastatic spread? At age 34, a breast cancer was successfully surgically treated. At age 44, a basal cell carcinoma was successfully surgically treated. At age 71, a skin lesion with the characteristic appearance of a basal cell carcinoma was successfully treated with a negative magnetic field. With intensity born of necessity, we studied the traditional and alternative medical treatment options for a malignant melanoma. Shall we have surgical removal, which would remove half of her forehead down to the bone and require a graft? The rapidly growing mole had suddenly developed on her forehead where no mole had been before. Its appearance was that of a classic nodular malignant melanoma with invasion of the subcutaneous tissue. This gave the evidence of being a very malignant and potentially metastatic lesion. X-ray and chemotherapy reportedly have poor results. Is Dr. Robert Becker’s observation that a biologically produced negative electromagnetic field governs all healing true? Does this principle of a negative magnetic field governing healing also apply to cancer and not just to cuts, bruises and broken bones? Can we use the negative (south-seeking) magnetic pole field of a static field magnet, which is the magnetic field polarity equivalent of the electromagnetic negative field concentrated by the body at injured areas for healing, to control or actually heal cancer? Can we trust the maverick physician, Kenneth MacLean’s reports of 40 years ago that he observed cancers controlled in animals and humans by a magnetic field? How much faith can we put in an observation made on myself of a fast growing, multi-colored, sore mole which dried up and peeled off under the influence of a negative magnetic field? This was the dilemma and crisis Katherine and I found ourselves suddenly thrust into. We cried. Our children cried. The decision was for her to enter a research program that had qualified itself for FDA approval with its appropriate institutional review board and appropriate monitoring of cases being treated with a negative magnetic field. For the first week, she was treated with a neodymium disc magnet, which was 1” across and 1/4” thick of 12,300 gauss. She was treated only when asleep at night. The mole continued to grow and the edge became wider and more notched than originally. The magnet was barely the size of the surface of the tumor. A more vigorous time exposure was obviously needed and the magnetic field needed to be larger. The tumor was then exposed to a ceramic disc magnet that was 1 1/2” across and 3/8” thick of 3,950 gauss. She was then treated 24 hours a day. The tumor stopped growing with 24-hour-a-day exposure to a negative (south-seeking) magnetic field. It took one month of 24-hour-a-day treatment before the soreness at the base of the tumor disappeared. After the soreness disappeared, the tumor gradually began to recede and dry up. Ten weeks after daily treatment, the tumor had dried up and skin had grown under the tumor.

Lessons that were learned during this research:

  1. A negative magnetic field can reverse a fast growing melanoma with the classic appearance of a malignant melanoma.
  2. It requires 24-hour-a-day exposure to inhibit the tumor growth in contrast to having observed night treatment only while sleeping for reversal of a basal cell carcinoma in six weeks.

Single cases such as this have provided the inspiration of a mission for me to find out how consistently a negative magnetic field will reverse cancer. Surely, these single cases justify the large-scale definitive and expensive studies necessary to find out if indeed a negative magnetic field energy is capable of curing cancer.

We desperately need the definitive studies making it both scientific and ethical to claim that a negative (south-­seeking) magnetic field can and does cure cancer. My only claim is that we are abundantly justified in doing definitive research to find out if a negative (south-seeking) magnetic field can indeed cure cancer.

2 Responses to “Katherine’s Dilemma”

  1. Sue January 30, 2014 at 10:07 pm Permalink

    Csn magnets help and deter pain of fibromyalgia

    I know several people who have it.

    I have loved your products for many years. I live down 29th and glad to
    Be close to your facility. I saw a sign out and wondering
    If you are selling out.

    I had the pleasure if talking to the great Dr Philpott many
    Yrs back. I have not met him but did talk to his dear wife as well
    As Sweet Helen

    Please write back. Thsnks

  2. popcorn325 July 6, 2015 at 7:42 pm Permalink

    I have FMS, which is the reason for buying the magnetic mattress pad nearly 20 yrs ago. I no longer felt like a truck was sitting on me when I awakened each day. The ceramic magnets always relieve pain. I normally place a magnet inside my shirt and second one on the outside. They never fail me.
    After my husband was in a disabling accident in 1999, I let him have my side of the bed with the twin mattress pad. He felt relief, but my pain was back. Ordered another source we both have the benefits of magnetic therapy. Jack has shared so many four ceramic magnets, that we need to order more.

Leave a Reply