Is Cancer a Virus, or Virus-Related?

As somebody with an avid interest in biology, and have lost relatives to cancer. At this point and time, I have a cousin dying with cancer with only weeks to live. We lost a cat to cancer and the vet used the word 'virulent'.

I have been thinking along the lines of how cancer spreads and mutates, and it put me in mind of how viruses work.

So I got to wondering if cancer is in fact a type of virus. It doesn't spread from person to person, but from organ to organ. Also, I wonder if viruses can be a trigger to some types of cancer?

I was wondering if cancer has some viral factors in it's make-up then treating it like a virus would be much better than using radiation treatment, which obviously feeds the cancer.

That is the other thing that I noticed. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment seems to exaceberate the cancer. It feeds it. My granddad had throat cancer in the 70's and had the radiation treatments. In the finish, he was no better off then when he first had it. In fact, his throat was more swollen with the treatment.

I have made my mind up that if I am ever diagnosed with cancer that I will not undergo chemo or radiation treatment. I still think that it has viral properties and if it was treated more like a virus, then feeding it-cancer sufferers like members of my family will have more of a chance.

I had one relative diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. She was given only weeks to live. She had undergone some tests, which didn't involve chemo, or radiation treatment. Whatever they were giving her-she survived another 27 years with a rare form of cancer and without the radical treatments used today.

I wonder if they did use some kind of antibiotic type therapy on the cancer. Whatever they did, she outlived the doctors prognosis, and the cancer was deemed virulent. This was back in the 70's. I have not heard any more, as to whether they put her extended life span down to the non-radical treatment and why the treatment my relative was given is not being given to cancer patients now.

So, I wonder if anybody else thinks along the same lines as me that cancer can be treated non-radically.

Well think of it like this.
People in Chernobyl who were exposed to high doses of radiation, not toxic enough to kill them from radiation poisoning.
But toxic enough to give them advanced cancer.
Died from cancer in 3 months.
And they didn't get any virus.
But then look at HPV, and the vaccine for cervical cancer.
Clearly in that case a virus causes cancer.
So I guess you could say fairly accurately, that many things can cause disruption to our carbon based cells, and cause cancer.

I have heard of other alternative ways to treat cancer. The one I heard of that was based on the most common sense I have ever heard of was this:

Cancer starts as an irregular/mutated cell, right? What do chemo and radiation do? Attack and destroy said dangerous cell.

Why not try to restore the cell to a healthy state?

No wonder these types of treatments literally suck the life out of the poor people subjected to them.

I had a friend who was being treated for cancer, they put on space suits to inject her blood with this stuff, but then sent her off to her family and friends. She was literally radioactive, but okay to be around the ones she loves?


I wonder why no one in the medical community has ever picked up on this kind of thinking. Seems pretty common sense, but then again we used to believe that leeches sucked illness out of people.

It's funny you ask the question about Virii causing cancer. My grandmother got married to a nice man, 2nd marriage for them both. Within a year of them being married, she was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. We all wondered for years where it came from - she had a clean history, no predispositions, etc.

The only connection we could figure out came about 2 years later - from my grandmother's husband. Turns out his first wife contracted the exact same type of cancer a couple years after they were married. Strangely enough, the disease functioned pretty much identical in both women.

I freely admit I know nothing about cancer, but to me, it just seemed to much of a coincidence to be accidental.

I remember reading somewhere or seeing on TV that certain types of cancer are/ can be caused by virii. You can contract the virus and it may not affect you or trigger the cancer for decades.

I wish I remembered more facts.

I remember reading somewhere or seeing on TV that certain types of cancer are/ can be caused by virii. You can contract the virus and it may not affect you or trigger the cancer for decades.

I wish I remembered more facts.

There's no way you could list them all here. "Cancer" is a generic term for a whole host of diseases. Some are similar, some not at all. Some might be viral, some obviously are not. Some could be treated by making the sick cells better, some not ( what point would a "good" tumor serve? ). Early on, you had people trying to cure "cancer". Now, realizing how different each one is, you have them focusing on specific ones. I think this is the single greatest advance in cancer research there has been. And, I have seen chemo work miracles for some people, others not. Not being a doctor, but someone who has to deal with both professionally and personally, I'm not willing to throw any proven treatment out until we know for sure something else does work. The problem with chemo is it only works if the cancer has been spotted early enough. I haven't heard of anything that deals with advanced stages of cancer.

According to Dr Simoncini, Cancer is caused by common fungus Candida Albicans, and is successfully treated by him with... Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCo3) :

www.cancerfungus.com...

Oppositely, many consider cancer to be a natural defense system to overcome bad habit... until the process becomes uncontrolled.

Anyway, some recent discoveries might offer some effective cures :

- DiChloroAcetate (used as a successful cancer cure in at least one canadian clinic)

- Vitamin B17 aka Laetrile aka Nitroliside : according to its supporters, the best natural cure for cancer, as most populations whose diet is based upon apricots (and their SEED) do NOT get cancer - while they get it if getting a western-like food regimen

- Phoenix tears (this method be NOT "medically correct" though).

Try a google search with those words...



[edit on 9-3-2009 by Rigel]

Some are, some aren't.

As to the idea of returning a cell with the propensity to become cancerous into back to its "Normal State".....that IS that cells normal state. Preventing normal cells from becoming abnormal in a way that can trigger cancer would make far more sense.

It's good that you are doing your own research. Here's a website that will help tremendously...

www.cancertutor.com...

That website has almost any alternative cancer therapies you can imagine. It's quite a big pile. But I'm sure your motivation is high. I have nothing else really to say as that website contains almost everything .

[edit on 9-3-2009 by broli]

Originally posted by ohh_pleasee
I have heard of other alternative ways to treat cancer. The one I heard of that was based on the most common sense I have ever heard of was this:

Cancer starts as an irregular/mutated cell, right? What do chemo and radiation do? Attack and destroy said dangerous cell.

Why not try to restore the cell to a healthy state?

No wonder these types of treatments literally suck the life out of the poor people subjected to them.

I had a friend who was being treated for cancer, they put on space suits to inject her blood with this stuff, but then sent her off to her family and friends. She was literally radioactive, but okay to be around the ones she loves?


I wonder why no one in the medical community has ever picked up on this kind of thinking. Seems pretty common sense, but then again we used to believe that leeches sucked illness out of people.

You can see what I am saying about cancer. How is it one relative of mine survived for almost 30 years with a rare form of cancer that was suppose to have taken her life within the first six months of diagnosis, and yet I have a cousing dying of bowel cancer, who had chemo and radiation therapy and now although she has stopped treatment has only months to live and she is much younger than the great aunt, who survived three decades after diagnosis?

It makes me wonder if Jade Goody's life would not be cut so short, if she didn't have all the chemo.

Last night, I had a dream that I was diagnosed with cancer and had a year to live. I chose not to have treatment. I guess the dream brought my questions to the forefront of my conciousness and out in the open.

I am so glad that others like you are responding and giving me your input. It is a topic worth discussing,as the medical world would much rather use radical treatment, which seems to make the person more ill and puts stress on the person suffering and the family, who have to watch them suffer so horribly.

The reason I suggested it could be a virus was the way it showed up in my cat. Also, the vet said that she could have been living with it for years. She had had a bit of a cold, before the onset of the cancer which was quite virulent and within a couple of weeks, she was gone.

Also, she spent a great deal of time out in the sun, which gives off some forms of radiation. So there has to be a link between viruses and cancer.

There has got to be other ways to treat cancer cells without, as you said 'sucking life out of the people'.

I know if I was to ever be diagnosed with cancer, I would look for alternative treatment that didn't involve radiation and chemotherapy.

Originally posted by Aeons
Some are, some aren't.

As to the idea of returning a cell with the propensity to become cancerous into back to its "Normal State".....that IS that cells normal state. Preventing normal cells from becoming abnormal in a way that can trigger cancer would make far more sense.

Hence the reason, I think chemo and radiation therapy is pointless. I think like you that the normal cells should be studied to find out how to prevent cancer.

[edit on 9/3/09 by rachel07]

reply to post by broli


Microbes and cancer cells simply cannot thrive in an alkaline environment.


Second, is oxygen. Things like hydrogen peroxide (e.g. 12 drops of 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide a day), stabilized oxygen or chlorine dioxide (e.g. 12 drops taken transdermally, meaning through the skin) can quickly raise the oxygen level in the blood. Chlorine Dioxide is made from stabilized oxygen (i.e. Miracle Mineral Supplement, MMS, which is 28% stabilized oxygen).



I found this really interesting, which suggests that there are less radical ways to treat the cancer. Also, I like the idea of protecting the non-cancerous cells to stop the spreading then focus on the cancerous cells.

Here's another oxygen treatment I've come across to, it's very simple, it always is.

www.newpath4.co...

I believe curing is always possible. It just depends on how much knowledge one posses or is willing to look for.

reply to post by Rigel


Sure, and there's another quack (whom I will not promote by giving a name) who says that all cancer is caused by intestinal parasites. Just get rid of the parasites and you'll be fine. You can even go to the clinic in Mexico and for the reasonable fee of $4,000 (plus expenses), have the parasites removed. Viola!

There is no cure for "cancer". There are scores, if not hundreds of diseases, all completely different, which fall into the category. All of them respond differently to different treatments.

Cancers are not virii nor do they behave like them. Some cancers are thought to be caused by virii.

[edit on 3/9/2009 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

Mark Twain

I read the other link, and it didn't dawn on me that it could be fungal related. I am going to save up for the book.

I think, if I am ever diagnosed with cancer that I will go with what is in the book, as it covers the majority of cancers.

Also, from what I have seen of it combined with the other link (cancer tutor) that they show much better potential for curing cancer or at least slowing it down.

It is a shame that I don't know what treatment my great-aunt received with her cancer, as it kept her alive for near enough three decades. I know she didn't receive the other radical treatments. She was some sort of guinea pig and I think they did use alternative methods of treatment on her. I don't recall any mention of chemo or radiation treatment.

The last time I saw her; I couldn't tell that she had cancer, or was battling with it. She didn't look so weak and drained, and her hair didn't fall out. So whatever, they were giving her it couldn't have been orthodox treatment.

[edit on 9/3/09 by rachel07]

Another interesting story/testimony is the french Docteur Gernez* (discoverer of the now so-Obamania-hyped Stem-Cells) whose therapy/prevention protocol was proofed efficient before officially (but discretly) refused by French Gov for that "curing all cancers would have catastrophic consequences on the economy".

The story there, in french :
www.dailymotion.com...
www.wideo.fr...

Another apophatic proof, if needed, of the Pharma-Industriel Complex Conspiracy on the cancer question...


*see also the french version of Wikipedia's article for more thorough informations


[edit on 9-3-2009 by Rigel]

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Rigel]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by rachel07

Originally posted by Aeons
Some are, some aren't.

As to the idea of returning a cell with the propensity to become cancerous into back to its "Normal State".....that IS that cells normal state. Preventing normal cells from becoming abnormal in a way that can trigger cancer would make far more sense.

Hence the reason, I think chemo and radiation therapy is pointless. I think like you that the normal cells should be studied to find out how to prevent cancer.

[edit on 9/3/09 by rachel07]

Personally, if I have a cell that is starting to multiply in a way that is going to kill me nasty and early I am all for killing it as soon as I find it by whatever means works best.

THEN, figure out why it did it.

Otherwise if I don't have that problem, I'd be happy to take steps to prevent such a thing from happening.

What triggers an adult stem cell to become cancerous? I bet if you can make an adult stem cell more like an embroyonic stem cell, it'll become more clear that what makes an adult stem cells wig out and become cancerous starts with that stem cell retaining some of its embroyonic qualities.

reply to post by broli


My "ignorant comments" stems from my experience. I was diagnosed with 3rd stage Hodgkins disease 27 years ago. At that time I researched my disease as well as other forms of cancer. There was no internet so the quacks didn't have it quite so easy as they do now, but they were still around. I was told by some people, including friends, that I should forego the conventional treatments and just use herbs (or any one of a handful of other "natural" therapies).

I chose to undergo radiotherapy which put my cancer into remission for five years. After a reoccurrence I underwent an aggressive chemotherapy program. I seldom think about the whole experience anymore but when I see threads like this I have to speak up. While I was undergoing therapy, I met others with Hodgkins. Some of them chose to go with the "natural" approach. They are all dead.

I am not wealthy. It is the quacks selling snake oil to very, very frightened and confused people who are wealthy. It is they who are providing the "disinfo". But I prefer the term "lies".