reply to post by pjslug
instead of doing something to prevent it in the first place, like taking care of themselves and treating their bodies the way nature intended
them to... If we all fed our bodies with real, nature-made food and none of the synthetic crap we find in almost everything today, eliminated the
stressful, rat-race for our next paycheck, had healthy relationships with other human beings, cared about our environment and the planet we live on --
I guarantee you that cancer and so many other diseases would virtually cease to exist.
That's very optimistic. Cancer is a disease that affects most higher animals. Reptiles, fish, birds and mammals are all susceptible. Wild animals
feed their bodies with real, nature-made food. They stay out of the stressful rat-race for their next paycheck. And if their relationships with other
members of their species are not always healthy, they are undoubtedly quite natural. Yet wild animals, too, develop cancer.
Yes, it is true that exposure to carcinogens in the environment can increase the risk of cancer - sometimes quite dramatically, as every smoker knows
if he is properly informed about his addiction. And yes, one form of environmental exposure is through diet. But there are also carcinogens in the
water you drink and wash in, in objects and fluids that may come into contact with your skin and in the very air you breathe. Radiation is
carcinogenic - and unless you're sitting in a lead-lined room, you're being exposed to some even as you read this. As for stress, whether caused by
rat-racing or by 'unhealthy' relationships, you may be surprised to learn that its link with cancer isn't nearly as firm as most people think.
Scientists know that psychological stress can affect the immune system, the body’s defense against infection and disease (including cancer);
however, it is not yet known whether stress increases a person’s susceptibility to disease.
National Cancer Institute
Currently, there is no evidence that stress is a direct cause of cancer. But evidence is accumulating that there is some link between stress and
developing certain kinds of cancer, as well as how the disease progresses.
This New York Times
article has more information.
The truth is that we don't know very much about the many forms of disease we label cancer. We don't really know what causes it. Even today, 51 years
after the first medical warnings about smoking and lung
, the process by which smoking promotes cancer is not properly
How exactly does cigarette smoking cause lung cancer? This question has not yet been answered definitively. But the most likely cause is the toxic
mix of chemicals found in tobacco smoke...
The big things we know for sure about cancer are (1) that it kills and (2) there is no readily available, medically proven cure for it. That's enough
to scare us half to death. So in the absence of any reassurance from science we seek comfort in myth and magical thinking. 'Stress' and 'diet' are
part of contemporary cancer mythology. Both may well be contributing factors, but watching what you eat and avoiding stress are not, by themselves,
going to fully protect you against cancer - not even if you stop smoking as well.
* * *
, I salute your courageous determination to face facts instead of taking refuge in pseudoscience and quackery. I wish for your
story a happier ending than the one you presently foresee; and I hope you will not find lacking the strength and support you need to help you through
this terrible time.
* * *
On topic at last:
It is clear that Dr. Yamamoto knows his onions, or once did; he may, however, have succumbed to crankhood during his long
years in the lab. His extended silence is not encouraging, his patient sample size is far too small to indicate anything, and it seems as though he
defines a 'cure' as a drop in the level some chemical or other in the patient's blood. Equally disheartening is the information about his
foundation and business premises that were posted earlier. I would say: wait and see. Wait for what? Wait until the medical research community has
done its due diligence, so to speak, and a conclusive verdict reached. I know that recomendation won't be popular among conspiriographers and Big
Pharma bashers, but honestly, it's the sensible thing to do. Chameleon302
has already explained the reasons why with lucidity and passion.