|
Did You Know That Most Cancers Can Be Linked To Nutrition Deficiency?
Click Here For The Latest In Proven Cancer Nutrition And Supplements!
Theories About Cancer
The Internal Enemy Theory
The Environmental Toxin Theory
The Invader Theory
Types of Cancer Therapies
Theories About Cancer
What is cancer?
As far as we know, there is no absolute cure for cancer.
I may be wrong in saying that; however, it is not in my
experience to report that there is an absolute cure for
all cancers, although, as you will see, some cancer therapists
claim that there is such a cure. However, as far as I know
now, there is no absolute cure. That being the case, we
should not accept any one's theory about the cause of cancer
as fact. Any explanation of what cancer is, which does not
lead naturally to a cure for cancer, is necessarily simply
a theory — and theory, regardless of how good it sounds,
is not fact.
The only thing we know as certain about cancer is that it
is an uncontrolled growth of cells. These cells have the
ability to migrate to different parts of the body and grow
out of control there as well. These cells may compress surrounding
structures — especially in the skull and around the heart
and lungs — and their waste products may be toxic to the
rest of the body. By these means, they may usurp the function
of organs such as the brain, liver, kidney, lungs and others
and cause death by these means.
Why cells should be doing this is a mystery. Theories to
explain what is happening abound.
The Internal Enemy Theory
The predominant theory of the medical establishment is that
this wild overgrowth of cells is a kind of genetic rebellion
within the body. According to this theory, one's own cells
become the enemy and destroy the body which made them. It
is a kind of biological decision for suicide.
If there is an enemy within, it only makes sense to form
an army and go to battle with the enemy. The army may consist
of surgeons who try to cut, slash and burn the cancer out
of the body; it may consist of toxic medicines to poison
these internal enemy cells, so that they die and go away;
or it may be an army of electrons shot through the body
during radiation therapy, killing both cancerous and normal
cells.
In standardized medicine, these are the ways cancer is dealt
with: cut, slash, burn, poison and shoot. This is the standard
medical model, the paradigm or context in and from which
doctors are required to think. People who think outside
this paradigm are condemned by the cancer establishment.
Their therapies are blacklisted, without investigation,
by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American
Cancer Society (ACS) as "unproven, unaccepted"
therapies.
How successful is surgery, chemotherapy and radiation? Because
these are the dominant therapies, we can measure their success
by the statistics on cancer over the last forty years. While
it is true that cancer has increased in incidence by 44%
since then, probably we cannot blame that on standardized
treatment. For the answer to the increase in the incidence
of cancer, we probably can look to the chemical industry
and the flood of synthetic chemicals which are omnipresent
in our daily lives. That subject is dealt with in the previous
chapter.
Let us look at what happens after cancer is diagnosed. Did
the prognosis for cancer improve between 1950 and 1990?
Are a greater percentage of people with cancer being cured
now compared to forty years ago? The answer is a resounding
"No!" For whites, the five year survival rate
is around 50% and for blacks, 38%. This is unchanged since
1950. This is hard to believe, but true.
While surgery, chemotherapy and radiation may, in some cases,
help people, with all the billions of dollars spent on research
since 1950 and with the astronomical increase in the cost
of treating cancer, nothing has been gained. If people have
been helped or saved from cancer, an equal number have been
fatally damaged by the treatment itself — statistics do
not lie — nothing has changed overall since 1950!
Over one million people will be diagnosed with cancer in
the U.S. this year. Two thirds of them will die of their
cancer within five years. Chemotherapy will save two to
three percent, primarily blood and lymph cancers, especially
in children, which are diagnosed early. A combination of
surgery, radiation and chemotherapy has achieved significant
tumor eradication rates among certain rare tumors. Nevertheless,
these people have eighteen times the probability of having
a cancer later in life than other people. Is it possible
that the treatment itself causes cancer? Epidemiologists
think so.
Even though all of the FDA-approved, anticancer drugs are
themselves toxic, immunosuppressive and carcinogenic and
despite the fact that very few people can be helped with
chemotherapy — despite all that, over fifty percent of patients
with cancer will be given chemotherapy anyway. Why? It is
a $750 million business from the medical/pharmaceutical
side, and from the patient's side, well, people are desperate
when their lives are at stake, so they are likely to follow
doctor's advice.
With the average cost of treatment around $30,000 per person
and the results so discouraging, it is little wonder that
many people who are able and willing to think for themselves
turn to progressive treatment when confronted with cancer.
If you have cancer and accept chemotherapy, you may be saved,
but statistically, the odds are better that you are going
to die from complications of your treatment before you have
time to die from your cancer. I guess you could say, ironically,
that chemotherapy does prevent many people dying from cancer.
They die from the chemotherapy instead.
President Nixon declared the "War on Cancer" in
1971 and initiated a major spending effort on the part of
the federal government to develop a cure for cancer. The
overall, age-adjusted cancer death rate has risen by five
percent since 1971. Has the war on cancer succeeded? What
do you think? Yet the NCI and ACS are likely to be calling
you next week for another contribution.
The major thrust of the National Institute of Health, the
American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute
has been to promote the idea of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy
to treat cancer (i.e., destroy the enemy within) and to
degrade progressive means derived from alternative points
of view. Do these branches of the cancer establishment have
your best health interests in mind? What do you think?
Amazing, is it not? I know there are talented, intelligent,
dedicated people in the medical establishment cancer research
division. The fact that they are achieving no results, overall,
indicates to me that there is something wrong with the entire
paradigm within which they require themselves to think.
Perhaps cancer is not simply "an enemy within."
If the standard medical model is not the story, or at least
not the whole story, perhaps this leaves an opening to consider
other possible answers to the question, "What is cancer?"
Rather than abandon the standard medical model, I believe
a rational thinking person would expand upon it. Let us
look at other models, which are being quietly amalgamated
into the traditional standard medical model.
The Environmental Toxin Theory
This theory holds that the runaway growth of cells is somehow
stimulated by external toxins. The association made in many
studies between toxins and cancer is so clear as to be irrefutable.
Cancer prevention, and probably cancer treatment as well,
has much to do with avoiding and eliminating exposure to
these toxins.
The identification of these toxins is like pulling teeth.
Most of us remember the pain and agony it was for our society
to finally come to the conclusion that the use of tobacco
and later alcohol, has something to do with cancer. Other
industries which routinely use and build into their products
chemicals which facilitate the development of cancer, consider
tobacco a sacrificial lamb.
"Tobacco and alcohol have been thrown to the wolves
of medical epidemiologists. Why should we admit that our
chemicals also are killing people?" There is only money
to be lost and bother to be had in the changes which must
happen to stem the tide of the cancer epidemic.
I believe the environmental toxin theory is very useful
but, as with all paradigms, we must be careful not to accept
it as the only approach to cancer, lest it limit our thinking.
Probably, the many descriptions of what cancer really is,
are the equivalent of men trying to describe the earth before
space flight. There were many opinions of what the earth
would look like, but they were no substitute for getting
up there and looking at it. With regard to cancer, the day
of clarity about the cause will come when the absolute cure
arrives — if it hasn't already arrived and been suppressed.
The Invader Theory
The invader theory has it that cancer is caused, or at least
triggered, by an organism or organisms from outside the
body. This may happen by the production by the organism
of a biochemical compound which causes cells to degenerate
into a cancerous condition. These organisms may be viruses,
bacteria, or parasites.
Finding an association between the presence of a virus and
the development of cancer and proving viral causation are
two different matters. While a virus may be present in,
say, seventy percent of cases of a particular cancer, it
may be that the virus did not cause the cancer but merely
is allowed to exist in the body of a person due to damage
to the immune system caused by the cancer or by the therapy
designed to treat the cancer. In this sense, the virus is
present as an opportunist rather than as a cause. Are flies
the cause of the existence of rotten garbage? Certainly
not; they are merely attracted to it. Are viruses the causes
of cancer? Maybe, and on the other hand they may simply
be attracted to it.
The Invader Theory also includes those explanations which
blame bacteria and parasites. There seems little doubt that
some viruses, bacteria and parasites have a statistical
association with some cancers; however it is possible that
they are merely attracted to the cancerous condition and
are, therefore, present as opportunists. Their mere presence
does not prove causation.
Many prominent, if somewhat maverick, researchers over the
last seventy years have claimed to observe "pleomorphism"
with the aid of dark field microscopes. A dark field microscope
allows the experienced observer to see living tissue and
living organisms within that tissue, whereas the standard
light microscope and the electron microscope are designed
to see only killed material. According to these researchers,
it is necessary to see the living process to understand
what really happens in the body which causes cancer.
They say that subunits, which some have called "plastids,"
combine to form viruses and bacteria.
Pleomorphism is thus a paradigm which is based on the belief
that plastids exist at all times in the body, that viruses
and bacteria can evolve from them and from each other, and
that these organisms represent different stages in the life
cycle of microscopic life forms. Some of these researchers
claim significant numbers of cures of "incurable"
cancers using methods of killing these pleomorphic viruses/bacteria.
Pleomorphism is not accepted by mainstream medical microbiologists
who also say that the human body is normally sterile, i.e.,
devoid of bacterial life forms. There is no convincing proof
of this and a lot of evidence against it; it is medical
dogma, and dogma does not die easily. Nevertheless, the
routine presence of bacteria and/or viruses in the body
does not mean they evolved from "plastids."
Pleomorphism also is a paradigm and, as you know about paradigms,
they allow us to see what otherwise cannot be seen — and
they restrict our vision for what is not included in the
paradigm. The person who finally solves the cancer mystery
will be, or was, a master of paradigms and not stuck to
any particular paradigm.
Types of Cancer Therapies
With the above discussion behind us, we can now look at
types of progressive cancer therapies. There are no reliable
statistics on the results of cancer treatment by progressive
therapies, because the "respected peer-reviewed"
journals will not publish studies which threaten the profits
of the cancer industry. Once again: how ethical is it to
perform double blind placebo studies letting half the people
in the study die to prove the effectiveness of a therapy?
To me, it seems unethical in the extreme to carry out such
studies if a cure for cancer seems at hand. The people who
have some success in treating cancer in a progressive way
are typically humanitarian healers, not researchers.
Many amazing reports have been recorded and continue to
be recorded, in the lore of progressive cancer treatment.
The medical establishment handles these in one of the following
ways:
1. they are ignored;
2. they are explained as "anecdotal," implying
that they are lies;
3. they are said to have undergone "spontaneous remission,"
i.e., unexplained recovery (that means the doctor has no
idea what happened);
4. they are said to have recovered from the delayed effects
of conventional therapy, which was administered weeks or
months before the progressive therapy.
For information about specific approaches to cancer therapy,
follow these hyperlinks:
Ayurvedic Medicine Approach to Cancer
Biologic Therapies for Cancer
Cancer Prevention
Energy Medicine in the Treatment of Cancer
Herbal Treatment of Cancer
Homeopathy in the Treatment of Cancer
Immune Therapies for Cancer
Metabolic Therapies for Cancer
http://www.medical-library.net/
specialties/framer.html?/specialties/
_natural_cancer_therapies.htm
| 
High Grade Liquid
Discount Brand Name
Vitamins And
Cancer Nutrition Packages!
ORDER NOW!
LOWEST PRICES
ONLINE ON ALL LIQUID
SUPPLEMENTS GUARANTEED!Only at www.SharpWebLabs.com!
Put Some Nutrition
In Your Life Today!
Guaranteed Satisfaction! Thousands Of Customers! Cancer And Nutrition Go Hand In Hand!
|
