Breasts

There are 11 lymph glands in each breast, and roughly 20 or more in each armpit. These glands are part of the second major lymphatic network in the body, which covers the breast, armpits, and arms, sitting between the first network in the neck and face and the third in the groin. The lymph system itself is composed of approximately 80% fat, 15% protein, and 5% carbohydrate, and it neutralizes toxins using the fats held in that fluid. When toxins enter the breast region, whether from the lungs, from external chemical exposure, or from the bloodstream, the lymph glands in the breast area draw that material in, neutralize it, and then route it out through the skin.

Because women have more lymph glands in the breast area than men do, and because those glands are responsible for filtering waste from the lungs and surrounding tissue, the breast lymph glands are among the most active filtration structures in the female body. Swollen lymph glands in the breast are a normal sign that the glands are doing their job, not a sign that something has gone wrong or that cancer is present.

Ninety percent of toxins are supposed to leave the body through the skin, and the lymph system drives that process. When the lymph system is overburdened or when the right fats are absent, the system cannot move toxins out efficiently, and they accumulate. This is what leads to lumps, swollen glands, and eventually to conditions the medical system labels as cancer.

Aajonus was explicit and emphatic that the overwhelming majority of what gets diagnosed as breast cancer is not cancer of the breast tissue or the lymph glands at all. In his estimate, 85% of the cases of breast cancer referred to him never involved actual breast cancer. What those women had was lymph glands that were actively doing their job, dissolving dead cells, neutralizing waste products, and in the process, containing concentrations of cancer cells, which are solvent-producing cells the body makes specifically to dissolve dead tissue it cannot otherwise eliminate or dissolve through normal lymphatic means.

Cancer cells, in his framework, are not malignant invaders but tools the body deploys when the lymphatic system is too congested or fat-deficient to dissolve accumulated dead cells on its own. The body produces cells containing a fluid that functions like a solvent, capable of dissolving dead and stagnant cellular material. Because the breast contains one of the highest concentrations of lymph glands in the body, and because those glands are constantly processing waste from the lungs and surrounding tissue, cancer cells are naturally found there in concentration. Finding cancer cells in the breast lymph glands should be expected, not interpreted as a disease state.

Women should expect to find cancer cells in their lymph glands and in their breast tissue all the time. The presence of these cells is evidence that the body's cleanup system is working, not that it has failed or turned against the body.

The consequences of removing lymph glands from the breast area are severe and in Aajonus's view often catastrophic. If the 11 lymph glands in the breast are removed, the body loses its primary mechanism for filtering toxins from the lungs. Those toxins and accumulating dead cells have to go somewhere. Without the breast lymph glands to process them, they migrate to the lungs directly, or to the armpits. The likely result is lung cancer, or an armpit condition in which the entire arm and shoulder area hardens, swells, and becomes immobile, "like their arms in a cast." He said he had seen this multiple times.

He stated clearly that he would rather have breast cancer than lung cancer, because without the ability to clear dead cells from the lungs, the lungs fill up and breathing becomes impossible. Breast cancer is manageable and the tissue is accessible. Lung cancer threatens respiration directly. Removing the breast lymph glands to treat or prevent breast cancer trades one condition for a worse one.

The situation becomes compounded when radiation is added to lumpectomy or mastectomy. Radiation prevents cells from dividing, which also prevents them from healing, and when applied to the breast area it inevitably affects the lungs directly behind the breast. Even "pinpoint" radiation targeting a specific lymph node will affect surrounding tissue including lung cells. Aajonus described telling his own mother, who was 73 years old at the time and had been diagnosed with one cancerous lymph node, that the radiation they were proposing could damage her lungs or cause lung cancer. She chose to proceed with the lumpectomy and radiation anyway, and the outcome was what he had anticipated.

He noted that a woman in New Zealand had come to him after going through medical treatments, having started with something small, and the situation had escalated through the process of treatment. He described another woman who had had 22 lymphatic glands removed along with her breasts, and whose cancer subsequently had nowhere to go except into the lungs and armpits. Removing both breasts and all those lymph glands left only two places for dead cell accumulation to occur.

He was direct: "Save your breasts. Don't have them lopped off because of some stupid medical concept."

His mother contacted him to say she had been diagnosed with breast cancer involving one cancerous lymph node and intended to have a lumpectomy followed by the removal of 11 lymph glands and then pinpoint radiation. He described walking her through the reasoning: the lung sits directly behind the breast, radiation to that area would affect lung cells, and removing 11 lymph glands would leave no filtration capacity for everything the lungs process. She was 73 years old, not a young woman who might have more resilience and recovery capacity. He argued that she was trading one cancer for a likely lung cancer, and that her arms would no longer drain properly either.

She acknowledged that she knew what medicine had done to him over his life, that she had seen it, and then said "the doctors know what they're doing" and proceeded anyway. He described this as one of the most frustrating situations in his work, the difficulty of watching someone defer to medical authority against direct, visible evidence of what that authority had done to their own child.

Aajonus confirmed the connection between deodorant use and breast cancer, stating that this information had been available to him for over 26 years. Deodorants advance and accelerate the buildup of toxins in the lymph nodes of the armpit and breast area. While toxins build up in those nodes regardless of deodorant use, because that is where they concentrate naturally, deodorants add chemical toxicity that speeds the process and in some cases causes a breast cancer that would not otherwise have occurred. He noted that in some cases, the buildup would not have reached a cancer-causing threshold without the additional toxicity from deodorants.

He also addressed crystal deodorant specifically, noting that it is better than conventional deodorant but not completely safe, because the mineral crystal somewhat clogs the pores. His preferred alternative was to apply lemon or lime directly to the armpits and wipe.

Mammograms have been proved to be cancer-promoting. He pointed to the work of Dr. Hardin Jones of the University of California, Berkeley as documentation for this position.

In one consultation, Aajonus identified signs of carcinoma development in a woman's left breast and recommended a specific supportive approach. He prescribed 12 ounces of vegetable juice first thing in the morning, 4 to 6 ounces around noon with a tablespoon of coconut cream and half a tablespoon of cow's cream in the juice, and 5 ounces around 5 to 6 in the evening without coconut cream or cow's cream. He also told her to put a hot water bottle under her armpits, because warmth helps melt accumulating material and get it moving out of the body. His reasoning was that if carcinoma starts building a fibroid and then begins dissolving it aggressively, the detox will be intense and the hot water bottle helps manage that process by keeping the lymphatic drainage moving.

He described a woman who came to him with breast cancer at a stage where the tissue was beginning to break down externally. He told her the breast might harden by about a third, and that she should not be afraid if the material started coming through the skin. He instructed her to keep rubbing coconut cream on it continuously. He noted that her nipple turned inside out and then back again during the process, and that doctors interpreted this as a sign of terminal progression and advocated for more chemotherapy. In his reading, it was a sign of the body actively dissolving and expelling the cancerous material. The tissue eventually softened and began to look normal again, though she had lost approximately half the breast, similar to how one patient he described lost half her nose but not the whole structure.

He said he always prepares patients to lose the whole breast so they are not shocked, but in many cases only half or less is actually lost as the body works through the dissolving process.

The mammary gland does not manufacture milk from internal glandular secretion. Milk is the end product of the lacteal system, the web network threaded through the intestines that converts all digested food into an off-white milky fluid regardless of what color the original food was. This lacteal fluid is absorbed up into the breast from below and held there in the mammary glands for release during nursing. The breast is a gatherer and storage vessel, not a generator.

This distinction matters because it reframes nursing entirely. The quality of a woman's breast milk depends entirely on what she is eating, because she is not making the milk from glandular output but pulling it up from what she digested. An animal that has eaten raw food its entire life, living outside on natural forage, will produce milk from a lacteal system that has been processing high-quality raw mineral-dense food. A woman who has spent her life eating processed and cooked food will produce milk drawn from a lacteal system contaminated with all of those processed inputs. The animal milk is therefore superior in most modern situations to a modern woman's breast milk.

Mammary secretions are concentrated in minerals because the purpose is to support rapid growth in offspring. This is also why nursing mothers on poor diets become severely mineral deficient, as the body will take minerals from muscle tissue and bone to supply the milk if dietary intake is insufficient.

He advised most modern women not to breastfeed, for reasons entirely separate from the mainstream reasons used to discourage it in the 1950s, which were connected to selling commercial baby food. His objection was that a modern woman who has not been on a raw diet her entire life carries a massive toxin load, and all of that toxicity transfers into her milk and then into the nursing baby. The lacteal system pulls from everything the woman has eaten and everything she has absorbed, so the breast milk of a woman carrying a heavy toxic burden is contaminated milk from the perspective of the infant.

His alternative was to get raw cow's milk or goat's milk from an animal that has eaten raw food its whole life. He told women to get naked with the baby and feed it from a warm bottle of raw milk, so the infant still receives the warmth of the mother's body and maintains physical bonding, but receives the cleaner, more mineral-dense milk of an animal on a clean raw diet rather than the contaminated milk of a toxin-laden modern mother. He said infants fed on good raw cow's milk would bond to the mother just as well, and would benefit from the healthier nutritional input.

He specifically said: "You have not been on a raw diet your whole life." That was the entire basis of the recommendation. If a woman had been on a raw diet eating lots of raw dairy and raw meat her whole life, her milk would be the best thing for the baby. The problem is that essentially no modern women meet that condition.

He also described genetic hormones in pasteurized commercial cow's milk that can affect nursing, specifically that these engineered hormones may cause overproduction of milk while nursing, spontaneous lactation when not nursing, or difficulty ceasing lactation, and that they were found to be carcinogenic when the milk was drunk pasteurized.

Aajonus located breast size and overall bodily voluptuousness within a framework of nutritional adequacy and fat storage. Before the Twiggy era, voluptuous women with large breasts, wide hips, and substantial fat stores were considered the ideal of health, beauty, and marriageability, particularly in cold climates, because a woman needed those fat reserves to survive childbirth, nursing, heat, cold, and hard winters without the modern conveniences of central heating and refrigeration. A man who could not find a fat woman to marry was considered to be taking on a 90% risk of losing her to heat exhaustion or hypothermia. Skinny women were seen as poor candidates for motherhood and were generally unmarried.

He described a six-foot-tall model from Canada who had come to him 11 years earlier as "as skinny as Twiggy" but with large breasts, the only substantial thing on her body. After 11 years on the diet, she had filled out into a voluptuous, curved, muscular woman with even larger breasts, and had become a champion tennis player at 31 years old. He described her as looking like "a larger scale Marilyn Monroe" and "powerful." Her breasts had grown further as she gained healthy weight on the diet.

Women's breast tissue contains large amounts of fat within and around the lymph glands. This fat feeds the overlying skin so well that women generally do not burn on the chest or breast area even at nude beaches without sunscreen. Men, who lack mammary glands and their associated fat deposits in the chest region, rely on chest hair for protection from the sun, because the underlying tissue is more sensitive to UV radiation when not insulated by the fatty lymphatic tissue women carry in the breast.

He described visiting hospitals in Vietnam and observing an extraordinary rate of lung cancer and breast cancer in women there. He attributed this to the widespread adoption of plastic synthetic clothing that had been introduced during the American military presence in the 1960s and 1970s. Women were wearing plastic-based garments as everyday clothes. The plastic does not allow the skin to breathe and blocks the 90% of toxin elimination that is supposed to occur through the skin. With that exit blocked, toxins back up into the lymph system, and because the breast and armpit lymph glands are responsible for clearing toxins from the lungs, they become overwhelmed, leading to breast cancer and lung cancer at rates he said were "unheard of anywhere in the world."

He did not say lymph glands are never cancerous. He specified one marker for when a lymph gland is actually involved in cancer rather than simply performing its normal function of concentrating waste: when it is "hard as rock." A swollen lymph gland in the breast is not cancer. A painful lymph gland in the breast is not cancer. The gland becomes actually cancerous only when it hardens completely, indicating that it has been overwhelmed to the point where it is no longer able to process waste and has calcified or fibrosed into an inert, hardened mass.

Short of that threshold, all swelling and activity in the breast lymph glands is normal lymphatic function and should not be treated by removal.

---