|Date: 2/10/2011 3:07:02 AM ( 6y ago )
I would like to hear all the different point of views on cancer on this board. I read a few posts regarding cancer being caused by viruses, which I would also like to delve deeper into.
Also would like to hear anyone's input on why chemotherapy is bad or that the pros DO NOT outweigh the cons.
The biggest issues with chemo are:
1. It kills more people than it helps. One of my text books on cancer that was written as a training guide for doctors states that chemotherapy kills 95% of cancer patients undergoing chemo primarily due to the malnutrition it induces.
2. Chemotherapy DOES NOT address the microbial causes of most cancers. This is one of the primary reasons that the cancers tend to come back in a few years. This is like having a big piece of wood stuck in your leg and simply taking antibiotics to treat it. Unless the cause of the infection (the wood) is removed treating the infection with antibiotics is not going to do squat. With cancer the chemotherapy simply kills cells at random, healthy or not. How is poisoning the body deliberately going to be good by any stretch of the imagination. And again why would they expect the cancer to stay away when the infectious agents that cause most cancers are still present?
3. Chemotherapy drugs can cause serious damage to healthy tissues. These include organ damage, hyperpigmentation, ulcerations, etc.
4. Chemotherapy is a strong immune suppressant. Treating a condition that involves immune suppression with an immune suppressant is just plain lunacy. Funny how mainstream medicine makes fun of homeopathy because of the concept of like treats like, which they call quackery. Yet they are trying to do the same thing with chemo. And the immune suppression just leaves the person prone to the cancer coming back or secondary cancers by giving cancer pathogens more of a foot hold.
The only advantages of chemotherapy is that it can knock some cancers back to give time for people to obtain and do something that will really work such as ozone therapy. And the drugs vincristine and vinblastine do have a pretty high success rate for treating leukemias and lymphomas. Interestingly the drugs are derived from the herb Madagascar periwinkle.
Since cancer by definition, is the uncheck reproduction/proliferation of cells.
Somewhat. But not unchecked reproduction/proliferation of cells are malignant. Warts and lipomas would both fit that definition, but they are not malignant. Malignant cells have other characteristics that differentiate them from healthy cells.
The immune system can play a role in nipping it in the bud but the cause or main impetus for uncontrolled cellular division can also be due to DNA and genetic damage. Mutagens and carcinogens damage DNA and I don't have much information on viruses as a cause but theoretically viruses like retroviruses, by definition, can cause cancer if cellular DNA is messed with.
Yes, the viruses insert their genes (oncogenes) in to the DNA of healthy cells altering the chemistry of the cells.
I also know that there is a lot of components to cancer treatment. In cancer cells, cellular inhibition and the receptors on the membrane that stop it from growing once it makes contact with other cells is broken or dysfunctional and most of these receptors are glycoproteins. Perhaps thats why the whole "glyconutrients" buzz was such a hit.. but there's no real proof that taking glyconutrients will cause an increase in glyconutrients in the cell.
Absolutely true. In fact many of the glyconutrients are actually never absorbed from the gut. The molecules are too large to be absorbed.
Another aspect of cancer is metals. If you have a metal issue that damages and oxidizes everything in your body, causing DNA damage and cellular dysfunction, no amount of herbs will do the trick.
I totally disagree.
So what all the different possible causes of cancer, what I would like to know is why are viruses touted so strongly on this board? at least from posts Ive seen?\
Because most cancers have been linked to viral origins, including those believed to be hereditary. Problem is that every oncogene ever discovered has been viral. Viral genes are not hereditary. Some of the cancers that have been linked to viruses include Kaposi's sarcoma, Merkel cell carcinoma, leukemais, lymphomas, liver, bone, pancreatic, breast, skin, nasopharyngeal, prostate, brain, eye, cervical, ovarian, uterine, vaginal, penile, anal, kidney and lung cancers. Again this is just a partial list of cancers linked to viral origins.
What are cancer viruses?
Where is the medical literature that shows that this virus a) has genetic material that causes cancer b) enters into the lysogenic cycle to have it inserted into the host DNA and not lyse the cell c) Why isn't cancer contagious then or contracted via viral contamination or transfer like fluids, blood, saliva, etc.
Cancer viruses have been known since 1908. And there is all sorts of information on them in the medical journals for one and even entire books written on the subject. You might want to start by researching Medline.
0.711 sec, (3)