Chasing Cancer – Are we avoiding the true cause of the disease by design?

  • Share:
  • facebook
  • linkedin
  • twitter
Chasing Cancer - Are we avoiding the true cause of the disease by design? The cancer treatment industry in the United States is a huge multibillion dollar business empire. It starts with concern for our own health, and the role primary doctors play in our lives. In the back of everyone's mind is the thought " will I live till a ripe old age and be able to enjoy my grandkids." While we all have a lifespan that is guided by lifestyle, fate and genetics, the concerns begin to amplify as we age, especially because we unfortunately all have a finite lifespan. One of the diseases that is always in the media is cancer, whether it be breast, prostate, or other types of cancers that disrupt families and take the lives of wonderful people. The current healthcare systems obsession with testing, disease and interventions thought to prevent disease, is not making a difference in the quality of people's lives and in fact may actually create some of the problems people experience. Recently, mammograms have been placed under the microscope because the constant radiation may actually cause the cancers it prevents. Many other types of screenings have been shown to be less effective at prevention than advertized and some tests such as the PSA were so highly inaccurate, a large amount of the population has been injured in the attempt to save them from a cancer that in most cases would never have ended their life or affected the quality of it. Cancer continues to take many lives, and only one industry is currently in control of treating it in the United States, without other alternatives being seriously considered, which is the definition of a monopoly. What is more perplexing is that all cancer research is allopathic drug based only whose sole purpose is to study the individual cancers and create prohibitively expensive drug based and convoluted ways to treat it, without guarantees of success. The idea of trying to prove one system of thought, allopathy is the only way to help people with cancer is dogmatic and close-minded. There are many alternative health care providers who have thought differently, yet their voices are constantly being ignored by the mainstream cancer treatment monopoly which controls who most patients and insurance companies view as credible. The cancer treatment industry continues to create the impression that they give the best chances for live extension, but compared to whom, since organized medicine never takes any alternatives for cancer seriously. Actually, other methods and idea's have been shunned outright, assuring the continuation of the monopoly. Others outside of mainstream cancer treatment have discovered that Vitamin B 17 or Laetrile may actually be a nutrient we need, yet we are warned against eating things like apricot or apple pits because they contain small amounts of arsenic, which apparently prevents cancer in grazing animals. Is cancer a nutritional deficiency that has been conveniently ignored? If this is true, and we have been told to avoid foods that contain this, didn't the healthcare system fail us by keeping it a secret? One could argue that if this were adopted and cancer rates dropped dramatically, there would be little need for cancer treatment and people's lives would be extended naturally. Another case was a doctor in Italy who found out that all cancers had a common problem basis of yeast (candida albicans) which invaded cells and caused them to morph into different cancers, yet, the problem was candida albicans. When treated with baking soda, the tumors receded with this relatively inexpensive treatment. The doctor was chastised an eventually moved out of Italy (Dr. Simoncini) to perform further research because organized medicine there would not embrace his inexpensive approach. The doctor who figured out the reason for stomach ulcers (Barry J. Marshall MD) was chastised too until he used the treatment on himself which when fully realized markedly decreased the sales of a popular medication people took for relief of the condition for years. Now of course, it is fully recognized because no only have the studies proven it, but as adoption of antibiotics for H. Pylori had spread in popularity, many people have avoided having the disease process. Is the cure for cancer right in front of us, but we are not being allowed to see it? If an inexpensive treatment for the disease was found, wouldn't it put the cancer business out of business, with inexpensive treatment clinics able to handle the problem the average person could afford with or without insurance? Right now, if the current systems, with the current radiation, excision and poison (chemo) methods fail to save someone (see chart for cancer survival rates here ) , it is considered they fought a heroic fight. If someone went the alternative route, and had the same or better odds for success, but did not survive, they are chastised for not going through the traditional system. The public is often told to believe the other method was not appropriate and is a scam because it is unscientific, or was it? Is the war on cancer a war for public and private money through charities and insurance rather than a war against a disease process that has taken many of us, no matter how wealthy we are (Steve Jobs is a great example). Of course, with the money being spent and the fear of death in the balance, many terminal cancer patients will opt for the mainstream clinical trial, or will opt for another treatment that may just be hucksterism. There are many snake oil salesmen in healthcare, many of them with medical and other degrees, who are selling the public a bill of goods. With all the money spend on research, shouldn't we look beyond the disease model and look at all possibilities as to why cancer rates continue to rise? With all the money we have spent so far, we are still without a consistently successful cure or understanding of why cancer occurs. If we have realized the cure or the reason cancer exists, that knowledge has never been shared to the benefit of society in general. Since big pharma nor the cancer treatment and diagnosis industry would not stand to enhance their business model with a cure, perhaps we need to study this independent of the business agenda's who stand to profit from it. We may be very surprised by what we find out having cancer studied in an uncorruptable environment. Is that even possible? While this article raises more questions than it answers, the important point is for you to begin to question why, after all these years, is the treatment of cancer unreliable, so expensive and so damaging to us. Is there a more reliable solution that can be found with a different level of thinking. I hope I have you thinking!