Scientists suggest that cancer is Man-made

TwinFishWithHorns

Active member
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=6243


Scientists suggest that cancer is man-made

14 Oct 2010

Cancer is a modern, man-made disease caused by environmental factors such as pollution and diet, a study review by University of Manchester scientists has strongly suggested.
Their study of remains and literature from ancient Egypt and Greece and earlier periods – carried out at Manchester’s KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology and published in Nature Reviews Cancer – includes the first histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy.

Finding only one case of the disease in the investigation of hundreds of Egyptian mummies, with few references to cancer in literary evidence, proves that cancer was extremely rare in antiquity. The disease rate has risen massively since the Industrial Revolution, in particular childhood cancer – proving that the rise is not simply due to people living longer.

Professor Rosalie David, at the Faculty of Life Sciences, said: “In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”

She added: “The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this disease. We can make very clear statements on the cancer rates in societies because we have a full overview. We have looked at millennia, not one hundred years, and have masses of data.”

The data includes the first ever histological diagnosis of cancer in an Egyptian mummy by Professor Michael Zimmerman, a visiting Professor at the KNH Centre, who is based at the Villanova University in the US. He diagnosed rectal cancer in an unnamed mummy, an ‘ordinary’ person who had lived in the Dakhleh Oasis during the Ptolemaic period (200-400 CE).

Professor Zimmerman said: “In an ancient society lacking surgical intervention, evidence of cancer should remain in all cases. The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity, indicating that cancer causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialization”.

The team studied both mummified remains and literary evidence for ancient Egypt but only literary evidence for ancient Greece as there are no remains for this period, as well as medical studies of human and animal remains from earlier periods, going back to the age of the dinosaurs.

Evidence of cancer in animal fossils, non-human primates and early humans is scarce – a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossils, although a metastatic cancer of unknown primary origin has been reported in an Edmontosaurus fossil while another study lists a number of possible neoplasms in fossil remains. Various malignancies have been reported in non-human primates but do not include many of the cancers most commonly identified in modern adult humans.

It has been suggested that the short life span of individuals in antiquity precluded the development of cancer. Although this statistical construct is true, individuals in ancient Egypt and Greece did live long enough to develop such diseases as atherosclerosis, Paget's disease of bone, and osteoporosis, and, in modern populations, bone tumours primarily affect the young.

Another explanation for the lack of tumours in ancient remains is that tumours might not be well preserved. Dr. Zimmerman has performed experimental studies indicating that mummification preserves the features of malignancy and that tumours should actually be better preserved than normal tissues. In spite of this finding, hundreds of mummies from all areas of the world have been examined and there are still only two publications showing microscopic confirmation of cancer. Radiological surveys of mummies from the Cairo Museum and museums in Europe have also failed to reveal evidence of cancer.

As the team moved through the ages, it was not until the 17th century that they found descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers and the first reports in scientific literature of distinctive tumours have only occurred in the past 200 years, such as scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761 and Hodgkin’s disease in 1832.

Professor David – who was invited to present her paper to UK Cancer Czar Professor Mike Richards and other oncologists at this year’s UK Association of Cancer Registries and National Cancer Intelligence Network conference – said: “Where there are cases of cancer in ancient Egyptian remains, we are not sure what caused them. They did heat their homes with fires, which gave off smoke, and temples burned incense, but sometimes illnesses are just thrown up.”

She added: “The ancient Egyptian data offers both physical and literary evidence, giving a unique opportunity to look at the diseases they had and the treatments they tried. They were the fathers of pharmacology so some treatments did work

“They were very inventive and some treatments thought of as magical were genuine therapeutic remedies. For example, celery was used to treat rheumatism back then and is being investigated today. Their surgery and the binding of fractures were excellent because they knew their anatomy: there was no taboo on working with human bodies because of mummification. They were very hands on and it gave them a different mindset to working with bodies than the Greeks, who had to come to Alexandria to study medicine.”

She concluded: “Yet again extensive ancient Egyptian data, along with other data from across the millennia, has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.”

Notes for editors
A copy of the paper ‘Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between?’ is available at http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v1...l/nrc2914.html

For more information or an interview with Professor Rosalie David, contact Media Relations Officer Mikaela Sitford on 0161 275 2111, 07768 980942 or Mikaela.Sitford@manchester.ac.uk.
 

Mark

Well-known member
This seems to be a new presentation of what we've known for quite some time. There have been a number of such studies over the years and they usually go unnoticed by medical professionals. If a new generation is taking over the medical community, research like this may become the foundation of a new way of looking at the human body and dis-ease. There have been plenty of anthropologists who noticed that cancer was almost unknown to many ancient societies. They found that usually it was only nobles (who were already a very small portion of the population) that were stricken with tumours. The lower classes (the vast majority of individuals) were much more active on a daily basis and ate healthier foods. The nobles who ate for taste and for status (to be seen eating the expensive stuff) were the ones stricken by things like cancer. The lower classes were almost immune to it. This is a stark contrast to what we see today, where the majority of people follow the same patterns that the ancient nobles did: eating the wrong foods, not eating the right foods, and living a sedintery lifestyle. Combine this with bad attitudes and bad habits of thought to get a low quality of life plus tumours.

It would be great if our doctors could start considering things like this important. It has to do with pollution, though that is only a small part. There was such a thing as a tumour in the ancient world, but it was a rarity and not a common killer as we have today. The reason you don't have cancer is not just a lack of exposure to carcinogens. Why can some people tolerate exposure and not others? Attitude and nutrition are the keys to fixing this problem. There was a case study on ABC a while back (probably nowhere to be found now) in which a man with stage 1 cancer (though I forget which type) reversed the growth of his cancer through diet, meditation, yoga, and visualisation. There were no special drugs and no secret solutions. The study found that the cancer patient actually changed the expression of his own DNA by changing his lifestyle. For legal reasons, no one can claim to cure cancer (unless you enjoy all of your stuff being sued away from you), so he reported, "They can't find my cancer anymore." It shrank and disappeared because of lifestyle changes alone.

All healing that may be accomplished in the body is already present within the body. The body can protect, maintain, and grow itself. You simply have to cooperate with your own body to help it do so. The cancer is a symptom of a bad lifestyle and is supposed to be a red flag that says, "something is seriously out of balance in your body." Return the body to natural balance and it can heal itself.
 

TwinFishWithHorns

Active member
You said alot Mark. This is not news, but it is becoming more mainstream knowledge. I think that is a good thing.

Big Pharma just has too much money to make. There have been plants found in abundance in South America that shows signs of killing Cancerous tumors. I need to do some research to job my memory and back this up, but I also believe there is a certain plant that helps kill Cancer which has been illegalized in the states. Like I said I need to do some research on that.

All healing that may be accomplished in the body is already present within the body. The body can protect, maintain, and grow itself. You simply have to cooperate with your own body to help it do so. The cancer is a symptom of a bad lifestyle and is supposed to be a red flag that says, "something is seriously out of balance in your body." Return the body to natural balance and it can heal itself.

Now trying to hammer this into people you care about is sometimes like trying to ***** the nail in. Unfortunately, we as people tend find comfort in what comes easy.

Edit: wow, this website is really sensitive. lol. I guess better than not for some.
 
Last edited:

tikana

Well-known member
this is the biggest load of krap i have ever read in my life. Can you guys at least do research before you post this bullsh*t? seriously!

YOU DO realize that cancer cells are within everyone's bodies, right? You dont need to be a doctor to understand this. You supposed to have learned this stuff in biology class. Whoever wrote this article is seriously in need of a mental and fact checkup. There are genes that contain cancer pre desposition that are pased down through generations. Breat cancer DNA strings can be tested right now. People go to the doctors and get the test done. There are varies of reasons and ways how cancer cells become active. Certain DNA mutations can spike or kill off chances of a person getting cancer.
As far as i know there are 4 DNA mutations - BRCA 1 and BRCA. Those 2 are cancer supressors. PTEN or P53 is less commoon. BRCA gene string dates back to 2-3k years ago.
If a woman has too many copies of HER2, she is MORE prone to get cancer. To figure out her chances of getting a cancer can be done either testing her DNA or extract her mother's and her father's DNA. In both cases, mitochondrial DNA strings must be extracted and analyzed. Because mitochondrial DNA is heavier and has more information due to the face that X has an extra leg than Y counterpart.


There is enough evidence that surgeries of some sort were performed during Stone age around 7,000 BC

However, the earliest cancer case was recorded on a papyrus in 1500 b.c in ancient egypt. there were 8 breast cancer cases recorded on one particlar paparus. Also amazingly enough there is enough of evidence that the ancient Egyptians were able to tell the difference between malignant and benign tumors. ON TOP of that, in the shadow of the pyramids in Giza, archeologists have found bones and skulls of local workers that have had surgeries done. One particular case goes back to Djoser a pharaoh from 3rd dynasty. A male skull was found which had a hole in it. There was enough evidence to point that a man was suffering from some kind of tumor.

At the same time pre-Inca civilization had the same knowledge of human body and THEY DID perform surgeries around the same times as Ancient egyptians.

In Ancient Greece, doctors misread how cancer was formed and what was its matter. Only in 1628, Harvey did autopsies to figure out what cancer's internal properties. Before that performing autopsies were a considered taboo.

Current conditions may enhance cancer but to claim that our moderm age is responsible for this, ALMOST COMPLETE BOGUS! Hexavalent chromium underground water contamination like in PG&E was manmade a lot of people got tumors and etc.

THE ONLY 2 POLLUTION caused cancers are if a person has been around ASESTOS, lead and arsenic. All buildings built before 1975 *i think* have asbestos. 1% of all cancers is caused by the enviroment. Out of industrial causes, nuclear radiation does trigger cancer cells to active. Chernobyl nuclear disaster is one case. LEAD / Cancer link DATES back to ANCIENT ROME! to this day there are ancient lead pipes in Italy. Slowly they are removing whatever is left but there are still there. Also, in ancient Rome, either wine was contaminated itself or the barrels where the wine was kept had lead. Lead pipes are still in some houses that were built before 1986.

#1 killer in the US right now is CANCER. Why? cause people do not eat right, they dont exercise, obesity, smoking, drinking, UV / sun exposure - thinning ozone layer. They dont eat herloom veggies because herloom is NOT profitable for large corporations and heirloom is not consistent. Crash diets I bet ya have a lot to do with playing with fire because if it is not done right, a person deprives the body from building and keeping antibodies that can fight cancer.

knowledge is power!
 

TwinFishWithHorns

Active member
Yes most people know that Cancer is within us. In fact, there have been recent discoveries of Cancerous tumors in Dinosaur fossils as well. Thanks Tikana. You seem very smart. However, the article which I'm sure you read, referred to the Egyptians knowledge of Cancer in the first paragraph. It continued throughout. It was actually the basis for most of the article.

#1 killer in the US right now is CANCER. Why? cause people do not eat right, they dont exercise, obesity, smoking, drinking, UV / sun exposure - thinning ozone layer. They dont eat herloom veggies because herloom is NOT profitable for large corporations and heirloom is not consistent. Crash diets I bet ya have a lot to do with playing with fire because if it is not done right, a person deprives the body from building and keeping antibodies that can fight cancer.
Thank you for reiterating the said and implied.
 

tikana

Well-known member
Yes most people know that Cancer is within us. In fact, there have been recent discoveries of Cancerous tumors in Dinosaur fossils as well. Thanks Tikana. You seem very smart. However, the article which I'm sure you read, referred to the Egyptians knowledge of Cancer in the first paragraph. It continued throughout. It was actually the basis for most of the article.


Thank you for reiterating the said and implied.


"Cancer is a modern, man-made disease caused by environmental factors such as pollution and diet, a study review by University of Manchester scientists has strongly suggested."

"Professor Rosalie David, at the Faculty of Life Sciences, said: “In industrialised societies, cancer is second only to cardiovascular disease as a cause of death. But in ancient times, it was extremely rare. There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”"


These 2 sentences are pissing me off. MAN MADE? WTF! this article sounds like 90% it is man made and 10% it is everything else.

ONLY 5% of all cancer is caused by enviroment and what we do with Earth.

The 2nd sentence is more ridiculous. The population drastically began to increase after 14-15th century. This was a global phenomenon. Then when black plague arrived, global population dropped dramatically. In another words, the highest population in ancient egypt was recorded 200,000 people .. Right now in egypt there are 80,335,036 *2007 data.*.. now .. how many people could read/write in ancient egypt? NOT many only 1%. Now.. out of 200k people, how much is 1%. 2000 people, right?
Now disturbute 2000 people across http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/images/map_images/small_egypt_map.jpg

do you honestly think they would spend their time collecting cancer data around ancient egypt which was hell of a lot bigger than current borders?
They would be busy writing laws and etc how to reinforce Egyptian empire not wasting their time on cancer research. Try traveling on the Nile on a rowing boat up and down. Traveling back then was expensive hobby. The scribes who knew how to read and write were working for a pharaoh or high priest or writing stories what to go on the collumns and the burial places because they were high commodity.. we cannot even know how many of those 200k have been struck by cancer? Only a fraction of doctors had a scribe. I am not even mentioning the lost papyruses and etc. Ohhh and ehh lol in ancient times there was a lot of cross mating going on ... sister marrying brother .. cousins marrying ... if a person has a cancer gene, their kids will inherit it.
Take King Tut as an example. King Tut was a son of Akhenaten and one of his sisters! Akhenaten was werd looking cause of imbreeding that has been going on in his family. Both Nefertiti and Ankenaten had skeletal problems. Nefertiti was king Tut's mother. She was directly linked to Akhenaten through her father, AY, who mysteriously became a pharaoh after king Tut's death. so Ay had to be related to Akhenaten through the common father. King Tut had osteporosis at a very young age that is what probably killed him - fragile bones. Akhenaten had it .. so did Nefertitti. If a family had no cancer gene, no matter how much they imbreed, they wont have it but theywill have other deseases. Same to be said if it is opposite. If family has cancer gene, their chances of getting it were very high.
 
Last edited:

dhundhun

Well-known member
Some cancers are man made:
~ Asbestos
~ Use of chromium in water pipes
~ Nuclear reaction and Nuclear bombs
~ Pollutions
~ Some cancers are because of low Vitamin D (due to Medical Science Decision to come up with recommendations to avoid Sun and limit Vit D to 400 iu -Billions of people are suffering from low Vit D). Partly, man created Ozone Hole is responsible for such decisions
~ Food industry using rancid oils
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Fact -historical fact easily verified by examining medical books of the 18th and 19th centuries, as I have done since I am a homeopath- is that, prior to the 20th century, cancer was a relatively rare disease, and, primarily, an "old people's disease" (people above 60 years of age) It is now no longer a rare disease; it is now no longer primarily an "old people's" disease.

Cancer triggers are a combination of genetic tendencies, miasms, life style, (including consumption of de-vitalized foods), distressed mental states and exposure to mutagenic environmental elements (including viruses). The supression of acute disease symptoms by antipathic (conventional) drugs (rather than stimulating cure of acute diseases by natural means) is also a significant contributory cause to this change of cancerous disease incidence, from being relatively rare (prior to the 20th centur) to a now-common condition at the present time.


(Ancient Egypt: from the "Introduction to the History and Culture of Pharonic Egypt"., @ reshafim.org, the population of Ancient Egypt in the first dynasties-3500/3000 BC- was between 1 and 2 million people, increasing slowly to the end of the Old Kingdom. At the time of the Roman conquest-1st century BC-the Egyptian population had increased to 5 million people)
 
Last edited:

tikana

Well-known member
Some cancers are man made:
~ Asbestos
~ Use of chromium in water pipes
~ Nuclear reaction and Nuclear bombs
~ Pollutions
~ Some cancers are because of low Vitamin D (due to Medical Science Decision to come up with recommendations to avoid Sun and limit Vit D to 400 iu -Billions of people are suffering from low Vit D). Partly, man created Ozone Hole is responsible for such decisions
~ Food industry using rancid oils


Yeah I said that but it is a fraction percentagewise.
 

tikana

Well-known member
Fact -historical fact easily verified by examining medical books of the 18th and 19th centuries, as I have done since I am a homeopath- is that, prior to the 20th century, cancer was a relatively rare disease, and, primarily, an "old people's disease" (people above 60 years of age) It is now no longer a rare disease; it is now no longer primarily an "old people's" disease.


BULLKRAP!
http://books.google.com/books?id=0h2gDLv3MOEC&pg=PA49&dq=cancer+in+ancient+egypt&hl=en&ei=36xXTZHMBYP2swPZurGcDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cancer%20in%20ancient%20egypt&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BW...K#v=onepage&q=cancer in ancient world&f=false


Dont tell this to a mother who lost or fighting for her child because he / she has cancer that CANCER was a rare desease back in a day!

If she doesnt rip your head off, i would be very surprized. Do me a favor TELL THIS TO VINCE NEIL (Motley Crue vocalist) who lost his 4 year old daughter Skylar to cancer. Go ahead.


CANCER WAS OLD MAN"S desease? REALLY ?? that is very arrogant statement. Ancient Rome - 95% living at or below the poverty level. Could parents afford to go to the doctor?
"While the people of Rome are known to have suffered from plagues, which erupted at various times, the real killers, were infectious diseases like malaria (Plasmodium Falciparium, the most dangerous form), tuberculosis, typhoid fever, and certain digestive ailments like gastroenteritis. Studies suggest that the period from July to October was marked by high mortality, with about 30,000 residents dying each year."
http://www.innominatesociety.com/Articles/Death and Disease in Ancient Rome.htm
Malaria kills a lot faster than cancer is many cases. If cancer doesnt kill the child, MALARIA does or some other plague.


here is a reply to above stupid article
http://ancienthistory.about.com/b/2...ry-in-the-news-is-cancer-a-modern-disease.htm

T
 
Last edited:

dhundhun

Well-known member
Some cancers are man made:
~ Asbestos
~ Use of chromium in water pipes
~ Nuclear reaction and Nuclear bombs
~ Pollutions
~ Some cancers are because of low Vitamin D (due to Medical Science Decision to come up with recommendations to avoid Sun and limit Vit D to 400 iu -Billions of people are suffering from low Vit D). Partly, man created Ozone Hole is responsible for such decisions
~ Food industry using rancid oils

Adding few more points. This is excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer:

"Cancers are primarily an environmental disease with 90-95% of cases attributed to environmental factors and 5-10% due to genetics. Environmental, as used by cancer researchers, means any cause that is not genetic. Common environmental factors that contribute to cancer death include: tobacco (25-30%), diet and obesity (30-35%), infections (15-20%), radiation (both ionizing and non ionizing, up to 10%), stress, lack of physical activity, and environmental pollutants."


Important point in favor of Medical Science is reducing number of Infections and diseases.


But interestingly, only 5-10% cases are genetic. Wiki article is apparently in favor of Cancer being man-made. Whether it is:
~ Tobacco
~ Obesity
~ Radiation
~ Stress
~ Lack of physical activity
~ Environmental Pollutants


I am not expert in Cancer related data, however what I read at various places, Cancer is mostly man-made. I believe that in Obesity part due to Vit D restriction is largely Contribution of Medical Science. And Radiation, largely lack of physical activity and pollution is contribution from Science.
 
Last edited:

tikana

Well-known member
WHy is it that YOU ARE omitting a very valid point from Wiki, Dhundhun?

"Researchers divide the causes of cancer into two groups: those with an environmental cause and those with a hereditary genetic cause. Cancer is primarily an environmental disease, though genetics influence the risk of some cancers."

so according to your logic... Enviroment leads to cancer oKay lets test this non-sense.

1. 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power meltdown - 600 000 people were dispatched to the zone - only 30 workers at the planet and antoher 50 died.
Where are the rest of victims? Mind me .. The radiation wave hit Belorussia / Ukraine / Russia. This is MEGA contamination. Right now there are 5 million people live in contaminated areas. You do not have 5 million people with cancer. 110,000 people lived directly in the shadow of Chernobyl. They did not know what happened in Chernobyl until 2 days later - they got a PRETTY BIG doze of radiation.

2. China - highly contaminated rivers with lead, poisons and etc, There is a spike but it is not uncommon trend.
In China's commercial center of Shanghai, 55 out of every 100,000 women have breast cancer, a 31 percent increase since 1997. That is acccording to MSNBC. the rest 99945 are okay for now. What does this tell you? Not everyone will get cancer because of enviroment. WHY? because they might just have antibody within their GENETICs to fight it before the cancer cell begins to grow.


3. Japan - "In 1946, the Manhattan Engineer District published a study that concluded that 66,000 people were killed at Hiroshima out of a population of 255,000. Of that number, 45,000 died on the first day and 19,000 during the next four months. In addition, "several hundred" survivors were expected to die from radiation-induced cancers and lukemia over the next 30 years." several hundreds against 250,000
'The Radiation Effects Research Foundation website gives a range of 90,000-140,000 1945 deaths at Hiroshima out of a population of 310,000. The Hiroshima Peace Site website gives a figure of 140,000 deaths by December 1945, out of a population of 350,000. And the Guinness Book of Records gives a suspiciously precise figure of 155,200 killed by Little Boy, including deaths from radiation within one year. "
http://www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm

DO YOU SEE any logic in what you people are ranting about?
NOT EVERYONE who smokes, obese or whatever will get CANCER.. Genetics have a LOT to say about if a body is prone to get it.

Contaminated enviroment may have some say on this matter but DNA / GENETICS has a last say in this matter.

T
 
Last edited:

Mark

Well-known member
It is true that genetics can predispose a person to developing cancerous conditions. I think the important point to remember is that lifestyle (daily conditioning) has been proven to change the expression of DNA in a living person. The genetic code is still the same, but homeobox genes (master genes, control genes, et cetera) become active or dormant according to the activity of the body. This means that when the DNA is replicated to make the next generation of cells, the DNA will be expressed differently in the new cells. According to the doctors studying this phenomenon in relation to cancer, genes that are tumour-vulnerable can be deactivated and genes that seem to be anti-tumour can be activated. Through changes in lifestyle, changes can be made in genetic expression which turn the body into a cancer-fighter, instead of a dying victim.

Most cancers occur in people who both have genetic predisposition and environmental factors. I think it's worth poiting out that if you live in an industrialised country, you are constantly surrounded by carcinogenic environmental factors. Some cancers occur without the genetic predisposition, but that depends quite heavily on lifestyle (to make the body vulnerable in the first place) and the intensity/quantity of environmental factors. The punch of all of this is even if you have a genetic predisposition to cancer, you can overcome this through lifestyle conditioning. This means that everyone has the potential to heal themselves, but not necessarily everyone will be able to do so successfully. The treatability of the cancer depends heavily on how early it is found and what type it is. The body can overcome just about anything, but it needs to be in a fair fight. If you are predisposed to colon cancer and you don't even know about it until stage 4, then you have a serious problem.
 

tikana

Well-known member
Of course! Mark.. if a person keeps walking on the train tracks without hearing or seeing a train, eventually he/she will be hit by a train.
Enviroment does deposit its marks on the genetic code - therefore, mutation will kick in cancer *i cant remember the right verbage*.. that is no brainer but to put enviroment to 90% to blame.. that is just uber non-sense.

It is true that genetics can predispose a person to developing cancerous conditions. I think the important point to remember is that lifestyle (daily conditioning) has been proven to change the expression of DNA in a living person. The genetic code is still the same, but homeobox genes (master genes, control genes, et cetera) become active or dormant according to the activity of the body. This means that when the DNA is replicated to make the next generation of cells, the DNA will be expressed differently in the new cells. According to the doctors studying this phenomenon in relation to cancer, genes that are tumour-vulnerable can be deactivated and genes that seem to be anti-tumour can be activated. Through changes in lifestyle, changes can be made in genetic expression which turn the body into a cancer-fighter, instead of a dying victim.

Most cancers occur in people who both have genetic predisposition and environmental factors. I think it's worth poiting out that if you live in an industrialised country, you are constantly surrounded by carcinogenic environmental factors. Some cancers occur without the genetic predisposition, but that depends quite heavily on lifestyle (to make the body vulnerable in the first place) and the intensity/quantity of environmental factors. The punch of all of this is even if you have a genetic predisposition to cancer, you can overcome this through lifestyle conditioning. This means that everyone has the potential to heal themselves, but not necessarily everyone will be able to do so successfully. The treatability of the cancer depends heavily on how early it is found and what type it is. The body can overcome just about anything, but it needs to be in a fair fight. If you are predisposed to colon cancer and you don't even know about it until stage 4, then you have a serious problem.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
It's clear that the basis of cancer (except in cases of gross mutagenic exposure) is an internal, dynamic predisposition-and, by the way, this connects up with bloodline, prenatal and natal astrological influences. Each day a healthy person destroys thousands of mutagenic cells within their own body. In prior times, this defensive capacity was not challenged as it is today by environmental factors. But when those defensive mechanisms are impeded, by de-vitalized foods, by environmental exposure to substances that were not part of the natural environment in previous times, by the homotoxins evolved from suppressive drugs, then, since these natural defensive functions have been impeded, the cancer cells get an increased opportunity to survive and generate and get a lock on the living system. It's not so much that cancer causing agents (mutagenic agents) have multiplied in the 20th/21st centuries, rather its that the natural DEFENSES within humans, have become increasingly impeded by a variety of factors, one of the most significant of these being the effects of suppressive drug therapy by "modern" drug medicine.

Cancer is not the only condition which has seen a dramatic rise of incidence since the early 20th century: in 1916 a survey in the United States found that 25% of the population was suffering from a chronic disease. Today (2009) that number is 51% of the populatiion suffering from 1 or more chronic disease conditions: this is a 100% increase since 1916 in the incidence of chronic diseases in the United States.
Pollution certainly has had an effect, but we can't blame it all on that-devitalized foods, and a slow weakening of the natural defensive systems in humans due to the slow and insidious effects of antipathic suppressive drug therapy, vaccinosis, and other causes, has allowed chronic disease processes to multiply (including the various cancers)

Note: the widely-respected (in aternative medicine) journal "Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients" continually publishes articles and studies involving cancer and other chronic disease conditions, which present a different view than what comes out of the "approved" (by the medical-industrial establishment) literature fed to the general public by the mainstream media (liki wikipedia on the internet)
 
Last edited:

tikana

Well-known member
My 75 year old mother was diagnosed with bone cancer around 18 months ago, and while she insisted on having her "chemo pill treatment" I got her onto apricot kernels too. Recently she was given the "all clear"...no more cancer ! Apricot kernels contain very small amounts of cyanide, which kill cancer cells. The kernels are available on the net from good health food sites. This should be front page news, but unfortunately our media is more of a propaganda mahine for the large corporations than anything else, the billions made from big pharma from selling their treatments (which have about the same cure rate as a placebo), outweigh(in their minds) the suffering of people who have this insideous disease. Shame on them.

Go ma! Congrads! well you gotta realize that FDA has a lot to do why natural remedies are not explored because they are not money makers. Also notice how every once in a while they Okay a medicine then come up with a recall or some stupid label warning or pull the the medicine from the shelf. I think Fen-Phen was FDA approved then blacklisted.
 

dhundhun

Well-known member
What about opposite to cancer - shrinking, degeneration?

And this is a fact - how doctors hide facts from patient and let the things go from bad to worse.

I go for refection and retina exam every year. I have been noticing some problem in right eye for the past few years. I Asked them about this abnormality. But doctors would keep this as secret. I think, allopathic system of medicines lets thing go wrong - seems to be more true in USA because of insurance factor - hiding the problems from patient to save money of insurance.

Three days ago I came across Amsler Grid, and discovered that the problems I was reporting to doctors is Macular degeneration.

amsler-grid.gif


I am expert in alternate therapies. After knowing this fact, my right eye's Macular Degeneration symptoms disappeared in three days using Bryonia 30.

The fact is that there are 100s of medicines in alternate therapies for Macular Degeneration - and perhaps none in prescription.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Yes and this is the crux of the matter: building and stimulating each person's own defense and balancing system (we homeopaths call it the "Vital Force") so that regardless of environmental challenges each person will be best able to resist these disruptive influences and maintain their own strength and health.

(Bryonia alba is one of the top polycrest homeopathic remedies, useful if-specifically energetically indicated-in a wide variety of problems and imbalances and constitutional states-a precious homeopathic remedy freely available without prescription throughout the world, from India to Iceland to Australia to the USA to Russia and almost all points in between)
 
Last edited:

Mark

Well-known member
It's actually getting rather silly. I've seen a number of effective treatments that reverse the growth of cancerous tumours, yet most people don't know about any of the "alternative" (more likely to work) treatments. Many of these treatments have been derived by doctors and the medical community still sides with the pharmaceutical reps. How many people have to die before our society notices that patent medicines can't fix everything? The arguments for patent medicines are really getting stale. I'm thinking of a commercial I've seen on television lately. A lawyer's office has been notifying people of the effects of an anti-acne drug called Accutane. Evidently, some people now have Crohn's disease or have had their colon partially removed because they wanted to get rid of their pimples. At what point do we have to draw a line in the sand?
 

tikana

Well-known member
It's actually getting rather silly. I've seen a number of effective treatments that reverse the growth of cancerous tumours, yet most people don't know about any of the "alternative" (more likely to work) treatments. Many of these treatments have been derived by doctors and the medical community still sides with the pharmaceutical reps. How many people have to die before our society notices that patent medicines can't fix everything? The arguments for patent medicines are really getting stale. I'm thinking of a commercial I've seen on television lately. A lawyer's office has been notifying people of the effects of an anti-acne drug called Accutane. Evidently, some people now have Crohn's disease or have had their colon partially removed because they wanted to get rid of their pimples. At what point do we have to draw a line in the sand?


Acutane is a trouble drug. i have known about this piece of sh*t since i was a teen. I know it has side effects and bad ones. Back again to the argument that FDA is owned by pill manufactures. Just read the labels every single medicine has a warning of a side effect ... Unfortunately people are hooked on presciption drugs. "i am depressed!" "Great! here is anti-depressant!" .... "I got ADD!" "here you go, teen, take some of Ritalin!"
 
Top