Cancer: No luck involved

Recently an article surfaced in the mainstream media about how cancer is just bad luck.  “Sometimes there just isn’t a good explanation for a cancer diagnosis other than random bad luck”, they claim.  As we will see this couldn’t be further from the truth.  Cancer has everything to do with the way we live our lives.  When we get cancer it’s not because of bad luck, it’s because of bad diet and a poisoned mind.

We are not a victim of our genes

Over the years cancer rates have increased exponentially. There have been theories that this only appears this way due to improved methods of detection. These theories have been thoroughly debunked. I shouldn’t have to convince anyone that more and more people are getting cancer, all you have to do is look around.  Here’s an article that suggests that cancer cases are expected to soar by 70% over the next 20 years.

We are living longer than we were a hundred years ago, sure,  but at the same time we’ve never been more sick.  Disease rates have skyrocketed, not only cancer, but in nearly every disease. It has become more about quantity than quality.   In 2013 a study was released that showed a decrease in cancer deaths, however if you look at the statistics you’ll find that more and more people are still getting cancer.  We’re just able to keep people alive longer until they die from another medical complication or iatrogenesis, ‘death by western medicine’.

Cancer is not “bad luck” We create our health and lack there of

Since incidents of cancer are increasing over time, ‘bad luck’ could not possibly be the cause of these 31 cancers cited in the article, nor the reason for their random mutation and angiogenic proliferation.  They conveniently leave out the two most prevalent forms of cancer in men and women, while claiming this information pertains to most cancers.  It may appear that it is bad luck from random mutations and misguided cellular mitosis when you look through the microscope. But I think when you zoom out, when you take a look at the big picture, the answer becomes more clear.  As Dr. D. W. Smithers from the Royal Marsden Hospital in London put it:

“Cancer is no more a disease of cells than a traffic jam is a disease of cars,” …“A lifetime of study of the internal-combustion engine would not help anyone understand our traffic problems.”

from the same article on the New York Times:

“The basic idea — still in the experimental stages — is that cancer cells cannot turn into a lethal tumor without the cooperation of other cells nearby. That may be why autopsies repeatedly find that most people who die of causes other than cancer have at least some tiny tumors in their bodies that had gone unnoticed. According to current thinking, the tumors were kept in check, causing no harm.

It also may mean that cancers grow in part because normal cells surrounding them allowed them to escape. It also means that there might be a new way to think about treatment: cancer might be kept under control by preventing healthy cells around it from crumbling.

“Think of it as this kid in a bad neighborhood,” said Dr. Susan Love, a breast cancer surgeon and president of the Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation. “You can take the kid out of the neighborhood and put him in a different environment and he will behave totally differently.”

“It’s exciting,” Dr. Love added. “What it means, if all this environmental stuff is right, is that we should be able to reverse cancer without having to kill cells. This could open up a whole new way of thinking about cancer that would be much less assaultive.”

“Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, recently discovered a paper that startled him. It was published in the medical journal The Lancet in 1962, about a decade before the war on cancer was announced by President Richard M. Nixon. In it, Dr. D. W. Smithers, then at Royal Marsden Hospital in London, argued that cancer was not a disease caused by a rogue cell that divides and multiplies until it destroys its host. Instead, he said, cancer may be a disorder of cellular organization.

We are looking at one tree if the forest for the problem.  We need to observe the whole forest in a holistic view to really understand where the problem lies.

We are creating our own health and lack of it through industrial agriculture, with its carcinogenic pesticides, insecticides, fumigants, preservatives, etc. We radiate our food. We eat out of aluminum cans and eat out at restaurants that care not about our health. We sit indoors most of the day and hardly get any sunlight which our bodies need to produce Vitamin D.

Exposing our food to radiation is beyond insanity, yet we continue to do it

Similar to the way western medicine works, since our food sometimes harbors supposed pathogenic bacteria, instead of improving the conditions of the food, we treat the symptom and attempt to kill any nasty germs in sight.  Oncologists use chemotherapy and radiation to concentrate on killing the cancer cells (and the healthy cells), instead of improving the cellular terrain where the cancer lives (think improving the immune system, even though this terminology is invalid)

Our water has been treated with noxious chemicals. We are polluting the Earth with fossil fuels, nuclear radiation, etc, meanwhile absorbing up the pollutants in our bloodstream. We casually tolerate the carcinogens in our food supply. It has become normal. Not only is our food supply more toxic, but it is less nutritious.  An apple has less than half the nutrients today than as it did in the 50’s.

Dr. Max Gerson called the soil our external metabolism.  He understood its vital importance to our health.    We are depleting our external metabolism of nutrients and polluting our environment, killing off the rainforest and ourselves.  We are suffering the consequences.  Cancer can’t be about luck.  Have we gotten less lucky over time?  Or have we just been poisoning ourselves and our environment more and more as the days go by?

We are poisoning our planet and developing cancer as a result

There have been many changes to our society since the time when cancer was hardly known in the 30’s or 40’s. Nearly all of these changes have resulted in worse health for the population. Correlation does not imply nor promise causation, but I think it warrants investigation and more so than is currently being done.

Cancer has more to do with our environment than the ways the cells multiply.

Cancer is either the result of our lack of nutrition, overexposure to toxins, and destruction of our external and internal environments, or it is the result of ‘bad luck’ which ostensibly increases over time.  There is a strong correlation to the amount of ‘bad luck’ with our destruction of the environment and collective health.

We get cancer, in part, from the sick animals we eat. If you eat meat, make sure it was loved and not drugged and tortured its whole life

It makes me cringe when medical professionals advocate early detection while ignoring the many proven methods of prevention associated with diet and lifestyle. The very methods they use to ‘detect’ are carcinogenic in of themselves. This may bring up the point that they save more lives than they damage.  This is not only not true, but when there are safe alternatives for detection, advocating the traditional method quickly becomes a logical fallacy.

The cure to cancer is health.  We create our own health and lack there of.  This is empowering news, because it means we are not the victims of our genes or ‘bad luck’.  We have the power to change and become healthy.  If you have cancer, become healthy and the disease will fade.  If you don’t have cancer, live healthy and you’ll never get it.  There’s no luck involved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9cvEa5qFQc