It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cancer is Contagious + Is Spreading !

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I agree Santa people have been dieing from 'consumption' since the medieval times. Long before the industrial revolution. I think most studies can confirm it is on the rise. It is a natural fact of living and dieing. Look at Lance Armstrong, one of finest physically fit specimens of our species. Or the gold medal sprinter (can't remember) his name, cancer. I don't think they trained with Marlboros and potato chips.




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
everything causes cancer these days. it's outta control. almost every type of food or too much thereof. the sun. working graveyard shifts and sleeping during the day. the list goes on and on.... and on. we're all gonna die someday, don't worry about how.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I'm not a doctor, however the title of my MEng research project (for an MEng in Cybernetics) is 'An interactive simulation and visualisation of cancer cells' which currently consists of computer models i have created to visualise the model various researchers have created and have found from the literature to closely model actual medical data. I am in the process of extending someof these beyond thirinitial parameter with the final goal of creating my own model that stands up to medical data that couldthen be used for further research purposes.

Yes, thats off topic, but it's better if I make it obvious that I have atleast some understanding of what we are talking about here.

Cancer cells themself are not contagious generally speaking, the causes of it however can be. Certainly their exists ascenario in which cancerous cells leave a host body and enter a new one via sexual activity, however the likelyness that it will set up shop and vascularise and metastasise in the new host seem astronomically small. They would likely have no better chance that any organ used in a transplant that then does not have any supporting imunosuprresents taken to make sure it doens;t get rejected.

Canceritself has an incredibly wide ranging number of causes. At a very base level it is down to cells screwing up in their reproduction process, due to a carcinogen, radiation,a virus or whatever. When they copy themselves, they create bad copies,these copies can then have acompetitive advantage overother cells, such as an increased ability to survive in lower ph, glucose or oxygen levels and an advantage in speed of reproduction. Cncer cells have also been shown to be able to ignore apoptosis (the programmed mechanism of cell death) and survuve in a quiescent state in these conditions,and then coming back to reproductive life when levels are better, however if they are quiescent too long they will die. When a cancer cell dies through any non-apoptotic method, it does not destroy its outer surface allowing it to be taken away,and it just stays there,leading to a build up of necrotic (dead) material, which can then stimulate the cancer to start the vascularisation process in which it tries to stimulate blood vessels to grow towards the cancer so that it can have it'sown personal supply ofhijacked nutrients, after that it can then shed cells into the blood stream to metastise elsewhere. Of interesting note, if your initial tumour is in your lung, and after metastisisation, a tumour developes in your kidney, that tumour, regardless of it being in the kidney, will be made up of lung cells.

Undoubtedly that was a bit too much offtopic info, but maybe it will help with the discussion,or at least peoples understanding just abit.

And I am more than happy to cite research papers fromanumber of sources to back up everything i've said.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Every year at least 560000 Americans are killed by cancer even after receiving treatment from the most expensive snake oil of chemotherapy which has a 7% overall success rate.

Do you even know what chemotherapy is? Chemotherapy does cure most leuchemia, but it also destroys your immunodefence, so you'll probably just die of something else.


The cancer epidemic is sweeping America.

1 in 3 get cancer now.

So is other health related diseases, like overweight. Most scientists relate the increased cancer cases to our way of eating and living. You should go look into it, instead of getting scared and making a case up.


You should all be very worried about this and take action.

I do. I try not to be in the sun for too long time when the summer is too hot, I take care when handling cancer-inducing chemicals and I try to keep my immuno defence at is best.


Pressurize your corrupt Congressman to come clean.Tell the ahole he will get cancer too.Or maybe someone should put a large dose of cancer causing microbes in their food to get some action as they all seem have their heads up Big Pharma's Ahole.

Rediculous.

Ordinary people are suffering and dying all over America because of corruption in Congress.

Uhm.... Yeah... Well, hello, the rest of the world has cancer too, and well, humans had cancer even before the congress was even made. And surprise, animals get cancers too! Bad congress, baaaad congress!



Professor Paul Ewald says we recognise about 20% of all human cancers are caused by infection. The other 60% who knows, but for many of them there's evidence that infectious agents are also involved.

Yes, but radiation of any kind can also cause cancer, so what is your point?


Virginia Livingston MD, who for 40 years claimed that various bacterial and viral forms of "the cancer microbe" were responsible for the infectiousness and possible contagiosity of cancer. The establishment went to great lengths to blacklist her and got her sacked.

Funny. Cancer causing microbes and vira are a normal thing in cancer research. Research is just focused on those things that we humans are exposed to the most, and suffer from the most, like the sun, HPV (As an example, see explanation from another user above), leuchemia.


No one in their right mind would want blood from a dying cancer or AIDS patient.

Why not? You certiainly don't seem to know what actually causes cancer. It is actually quite easy to clean serum or blood for HIV vira, it is just not viable on a large economic
scale, which is why it isnt done. And if you even get a cancer cell in your blood from a foreign person, the chance that that cell is destroyed is basically 100%.


Test animals are GIVEN cancer by injection with viruses and bacteria !

Yes, but usually you just move a cancer from one animal to clone. Easier and much more reliable.


and recently it has been shown that animal cancers ARE contagious!

www.washingtonpost.com...

As the article states - Its a curiosity of nature, and its actually more like a parasite. Parasite = An organism living and feeding upon another organism without doing any major damage to its host. Cancer is something that is lethal in most cases, if left untouched.


SO IF ANIMALS CAN BE GIVEN CANCER AND CONTRACT CANCER WHY CAN'T HUMANS GET CANCER FROM ALL THAT PROMISCOUS ORAL/ANAL AND MOUTH TO MOUTH SEX?

No one said we couldn't?


If animal cancers have been proved to be contagious why not human cancers too?

Again, a curiosity of nature. Maybe such a thing just hasn't developed yet. We've only seen one case.


In the 1970s, scientists proved that animal cancer viruses were capable of causing cancer.

Wow! I've also heard that HIV can cause immuno-deficiency!


In reality there is a close relationship between certain forms of cancer, particularly lymphoma and leukemia. In the 1970s, virologists discovered that animal retrovirus infection (similar to the AIDS virus) could cause an increase in lymphoma and leukemia in the animals, as well as immunosuppression.

Your point being?


The American Cancer Society is unlikely to remind its contributors that treatment for one form of cancer can cause the formation of another "different" cancer. For instance, after chemotherapy about three percent of Hodgkin's disease patients go on to develop Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, or leukemia. Officially, the reason for these "second cancers" is unknown!

Maybe a developing cell-line? It really isnt that farfetched, since cancer cells are know to be very unstable and highly mutating.


After 40 years of research and eating our money they DON'T KNOW!

Actually, we know a lot more than you seem to know of. You really should do some studying into what cancer is, how it happens, and what keeps it in check.


More recent evidence again shows infectious agents like fungi cause cancers but mainstream media never mentions these findings.

Its not interesting, since there are millions of things causing cancer. Again, do some research.


The so called journalists are given free beer and a macdonalds to dull their tiny brains at the "presentation" and they just copy/paste/regurgitate the latest toxic wonder drug commercial from Big Pharma.

And some users on the Internet believe everything they read..


They never ask any searching questions.

Probably because they don't have a several year education learning about this stuff, so they actually don't know anything about it!

Edit: The quotes are getting #ed up.. And the board keeps editing them even though I correct the errors..

Edit number 2: Seems like I fixed them now.

[edit on 6/1/08 by Thain Esh Kelch]

[edit on 6/1/08 by Thain Esh Kelch]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Before my Dad passed last year from liver cancer, he told me that if you live long enough, something would kill you.

If this article is correct in its' assertions, so was my Dad.

Go figure.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


Good point. But isn't cancer a pretty generic disease? I ask because I am no expert on the matter. What i mean is, you don't get the same cancer on your skin as you do in your prostate. So if there are so many different types of cancer, there must be just as many if not more causes for such disease. Cancer, I believe, is the result of stress placed on a part of the body over extended time, nothing more. Life today is all about the bad stresses and none of the good stresses (AKA physical activity).



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Very well indeed possible Santa. The 50's my three sons era was usa hayday 'ceptin for the duck and cover cold war nuclear thingy. I do believe you are quite correct, mental wellness is a strong mitigator of physical ills.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SantaClaus
It has to do with the way we live our lives. Get off your butt, eat naturally, reduce stress, and avoid poisons.. Thats how to stop cancer dead in its tracks.. But that, sadly, will never happen and probably increase in coming years.


Living this way would mean a few things. You don't live in the civilized world, you don't work in the civilized world, you don't eat in the phony civilized world, and you don't breath the air, or drink the water. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I am a collage student in Oregon and by a strange coincidence my term paper was on cancer and it is true that there are viruses that cause cancer, but cancer is not a virus. Cancer is the result of the structure of the original cell changing. This can be done by certain chemicals, viruses, and exposures. There have been “cures” to cancer that where swept under the table. The cures I am talking of made it so your own immune system destroyed the cancer. So though it is true that certain viruses cause cancer, but those viruses happen to be like aids in the fact that the virus changes the structure of the cell it comes in contact with. To think of it, it may even be possible that aids is a mutation of cancer but instead of attacking common cells it attacks specifically the CD4 cells.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Microwaves are bad. There is a reason why the USSR did not allow its citizens microwaves. Im not saying thats the sole cause of this epidemic. I also question how accurate the "1 in 3" results are.

Alot goes into what causes cancer. The best advice i can give someone is do not eat fast food, eat natural foods, eat natural herbs and spices. What im about to say pretty much goes for any illness. The "vaccine" is all around you. If you give your body the right things, the better and more efficient the body runs. Which means, your body can better fight certain illnesses etc. Its common sense. A diabetic doesnt just become a diabetic for a reason. Sure it can run in the family. But there are cases where ppl become diabetic because of how poorly they take care of there body. Workout and eat HEALTHY, and you will live a long healthy life.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
if i were you people i would worry about aids more, at the rate its going it could be as common as the cold,

and cancer is totally cureable - see my thread about natural cures, it says a few stuff about it



www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth

Originally posted by SantaClaus
It has to do with the way we live our lives. Get off your butt, eat naturally, reduce stress, and avoid poisons.. Thats how to stop cancer dead in its tracks.. But that, sadly, will never happen and probably increase in coming years.


Living this way would mean a few things. You don't live in the civilized world, you don't work in the civilized world, you don't eat in the phony civilized world, and you don't breath the air, or drink the water. Your damned if you do and your damned if you don't.


Ah, there in lies the answer, Civilization causes cancer. to be cancer free is to be civilization free ! live without cancer live without civilization. There are not many(any) reports of cancer in the wild.

Cancer is the civilized disease !



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
well between uranium tipped ammunition (which is toxic and i believe has a half-life over a million years) and the GMO foods which have caused certain defects during animal tests and are rumored to spawn cancer easier , it really a surprise?

also chemotherapy is a money making machine. sad but true

and before anyone jumps on me for this delicate statement. consider i dont blame the treatment center's who do offer chemotherapy. no body forces someone to accept that form of treatment. There are less publicized alternatives that show promise, but smaller institutions don't have the connections and don't always get the publicity. but geez it is such a tuff decision and i know a few people that had cancer and it was treated succesfully w/ chemo , others not so well.

either way , i personally think a good idea would be to eat more organic foods, avoiding smoking, and possibly take a supplement like spirullina B4 anything turns up.

indian , thai , and japanese all have very low rates of cancer compared w/ america. certain foods are likely to have cancer fighting benefits but don't expect these things to be shouted from the roof tops. one would not want to make a dent in big pharma's coffers. That's life in world run by money, and people would be smart (not to shun this harsh possibility) or wait for the final "say" by some mysterious organization with nothing to gain by publicizing studies w/ this info (since who can patent foods) and how would they be able to get money. more likely anyone trying to do this would be rail roaded by pharmacutical company lawyers (well paid btw) who would fight tooth and nail to save company from losing huge $$$.

www.owenfoundation.com...

unless you think it is a co-incidence that these other cultures have so much lower rates.

not saying this will eliminate your chances, but i feel very strongly it would lower them a great deal.

this study from the new york college of medicine is one that looked at the benefits of foods on preventing (i believe) certain cancers.

www1.elsevier.com...

i would not wait for many scientific study's to confirm the link that seems apparent from cultures, because sometimes these things move very slowly, especially when there is not an over whelming amount of funds to sponsor study's with agents that can't be patented. however these study's could try to pin point certain food for certain cancers and so on and so forth.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by cpdaman]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
[edit on 7-1-2008 by esecallum]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Legalizer
as for woman, I can only suppose plenty of breast massage keeps them healthy,
if not at least they enjoy their breasts before they get shaved off.
Check yourself. That is in poor taste, crass and offensive!



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 



Originally posted by darkelf

Originally posted by esecallum
Every year at least 560000 Americans are killed by cancer even after receiving treatment from the most expensive snake oil of chemotherapy which has a 7% overall success rate.


I too, would like to know where you get your numbers. As a cancer survivor, I owe my continued life to chemo and radiation.

My family has a high cancer rate, which makes me believe that genetics are also involved in the causes of cancer.


I am afraid the cancer is being passed on from family members.

It is true some people are predisposed towards genetic cancer but this number is very small.The vast majority of cancers are transmitted by fungi,viruses and bacteria.

The ACS is made up of commercial phamaceutical companies and their job to present the figures which boost sales.

Did you know that in their figures for success they exclude people who died during or BECAUSE of the treatment.

This is a serious distortion.By excluding people who die during treatment or who get killed by the treatment they artifically improve their success figures.

A doctor actually studied the RAW DATA and found chemo killed more people
then the cancer and also those getting chemo died more quickly then if they had NOT got the chemo.

I quote---Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.:-


"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."


2% TO 4%



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
esecallum

you never know if those doctors claim's are right. sometimes "both sides" try to fudge the numbers to make their case stronger.

i think the key is eating certain foods w/ lots of the cancer fighting agents BEFORE The cancer grows and spread.

and if i had a genetic disposition i would make sure i would give this a try. what's the worst that could happen from eating more of these foods, I get healthier?

i also believe the indians w/ the extremely low rates often ate the seeds of apples, peaches, cherry's and they all contain a high level of b-17. if i remember correctly apricot kernals contain the highest percentage, but i'm not sure if the correlation between very low levels in these cultures has been linked w/ any other factors as well.


[edit on 7-1-2008 by cpdaman]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Having gone through surgery, chemo and radiotheraphy, and having talked to several of my oncologists over the last seven years. There seems to be a variety of different views on the nature and causes of cancer, the theory that cancer can be viral can not be ruled out.

In respect to the treatment of various forms of cancer, there seems to be a very narrow spectrum of options. The options available have side effects which are not that pleasant, having experienced them first hand and survived them.

In respect to the increased rate of cancer, I can say that I have personally noticed this increase in the last decade as I have lost several friends to it, before and after having it myself.

During my last check up, I expressed concern over the possible effects of Tetramast - Cell Tower EMF and ELF emmissions and my oncologist said that the medical studies were inconclusive. It seems that even the experts in the field have a hard job making any concrete viewpoint on the potential causes of cancer.

All I can say is that by all means try to minimise you risk, unfortunately this is becoming more and more difficult as atmospheric pollution is getting worse, the nutritional value of the food we eat is decreasing, lifestyles are becoming more sedentary and stressful.

Note to OP, good thread.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by esecallum
 


Why do i get a feeling, that most of your info is either from "miracle mineral supplement" or about it?

Do you at least get paid, for advertising bottled chlorinated water?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Genetics most certainly plays a major role in Cancer. No person in either my Mothers or Fathers families have ever contracted any form of Cancer. My expectation is I will never suffer from that disease unless it is self inflicted by using tanning beds or failing to use sun blocker.

I think it should be noted that in spite of the belief many have that Medicine and the Pharmaceutical Companies are in fact causing disease our life expectancy and quality of our health at old ages keeps improving. It would seem this would be only possible if that theory were entirely wrong. Could it be that more people are getting Cancer simply because we are living far longer? I think that is probably true. We are currently exposed to far less dangerous chemicals than in previous generations. Especially at work. Even so the Cancer rates go up? It has got to be related to living longer.

As to your cited statistics regarding Chemo; please include a link to your proof? I know numerous people in my age group who have been in remission for many years due to Chemo. Far more than I know who died from Cancer. Based on that alone that number can't possibly be true. Your source of information must be bad. What is your source?




top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join