Don't Blame Cancer Patients for Their Disease

reply to post by soficrow


"we the people" decided not to change the environment when we decided to continue mass consumption of consumer goods. Don't blame the corporations, blame the consumer for buying the goods. The best course of action is to live as healthy as possible.. if you live in a compact city, there is no avoiding it, but you can at least buy non-toxic items and eat organically.

I got a brain tumor. I was originally diagnosed when I was 23, didn't smoke or drink was very healthy and of positive mindset. But, if some people want to blame me, then thats up to them. I just hope nothing should ever happen to them or one of their loved ones.

I do enjoy these cancer threads, everyone has such strong opinions, I wonder how peoples opinions change once you get a diagnosis.

Originally posted by soficrow

60% of cancers are caused by environmental factors - 40% are caused by diet and lifestyle, according to this research.

It's all bull. Like "smoking causes cancer" and "the Sun causes cancer".

What these things do is damage the cells of the body. Why the body fails to repair this damage is the real issue.

The body needs energy to repair itself. If the body lacks the energy to repair damaged tissue, no points for guessing what happens.

When do you think the body repairs itself? While you are awake and active, or when you are asleep? That screaming alarm clock that just continuously interrupts the healing process to send you to work may not be doing you much good.

The last thing I heard that "causes cancer" was unemployment! I'm not joking. It was on the radio here around 2 months ago. So I guess if you don't want to get cancer, you better get a job!

If TPTB want you to change your behaviour to suit what they want, they always use "cause of cancer" as a tool...

alot of cancer caused by polio vaccine grown on cancerous monkey liver and is sexualy transmitable and inharitable use a rain jacket

reply to post by Rockpuck

Don't blame the corporations, blame the consumer for buying the goods.

The "goods" being the never-ending lies and bs?

As in "bill-of-goods"?

reply to post by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by NuclearPaul

Originally posted by soficrow

60% of cancers are caused by environmental factors - 40% are caused by diet and lifestyle, according to this research.

It's all bull. Like "smoking causes cancer" and "the Sun causes cancer".

What these things do is damage the cells of the body. Why the body fails to repair this damage is the real issue.

True - much of it IS bull. But many toxins and contaminants go straight for the proteins (ie., that's the mechanism by which they damage the cells) - and then the mutant proteins become infectious. Big problem.

I'd say the body fails to repair the damage because it's too overwhelmed by synthetic chemicals and new molecules to keep up with everything. ...Time to cut our poor bods some slack, dontcha think?

Merck Dr. ADMITS Cancer & Other Viruses Found In Vaccines

www.youtube.com...

kinda takes the fun out of reading reports that are prolly funded by the same poeple that are killing us
AND getting rich off it...

like original sin
again
its blame the victim
and pass the loot

ps cancer feeds off sugar
hi fructose etc

CANADIAN maple syrop and baking soda
the cell eats the sugar the ILLEGAL co2 now inside the cancer cell blows its guts out

a Canadian dr spends TWO hours in his education on altrernative cures that work and all the rest of his her time studing the ART of PROLONGING DEATH with ppetro pharmacuticals

This seems to be the freshest Cancer thread, so I'll put up my thoughts and request here.

If you were pretty healthy on the outside, young, and capable of physically doing just about anything, but you were dying on the inside with weeks to months to live.

And

You knew that regular medicine had run its course, there was a slight hope of it prolonging your situation another year or two, but you would be miserable and still lose in the end.

And

You had a couple of alternative options like Bryzinski in Houston, but you needed $30k to $100k to even talk to them.

And

You had a wonderful network of friends and family to help you, but they were starting to be tapped out on cash as well, but they were all more than willing to do anything it takes to save your life.

---------> What are your options? What can you do to survive? Do you still go to work everyday? Do you worry about your bills and your house and your health insurance? Do you trust your doctors that have been helpful for a couple of years but are slowly preparing you for the worst? Do you accept fate and make peace? Do you fight to the bitter end? Do you beg, borrow, and steal to get the money that might help you survive?

Or, if you are a friend of such a person, what can you do to help?

Hypothetically of course.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I'd sell off all my possessions, and party party until the end. [

,aybe would try the ESIAC?

There's also a cancer clinic in Mexico which seems to have a fairly high success rate, and doesn't seem to be all too expensive.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I would leave the world, go to the source, get healed of the immediate problem, recognize that it's chronic and will return in some form or another, and then come back fighting to fix the world so I don't have to go through the same thing all over again.

the essiac tea lady is from just up the road
she got the cure from the local injuns

if you or someone you love is/are dyin
it could be from ANYTHING starvation, bullets flyin, a blown tire at 70 mph...drowning
what do you do...
moan and wail,
or dive in, or shoot back, white knuckle it back on the black top, or eat a tree?

The CREATOR gave man a brain, a heart, guts, and 5 senses for a reason
use what you got
deal with it

sincerly yours
Danbones

reply to post by AQuestion


Erm... ??? Different things do indeed give people joy - but we're talking about being too sick to 'enjoy' life, by any definition. Not sure what your point is.

Back to the topic - 60% of cancer patients have environment-caused cancer. Cancer is now pandemic - it's spread around the world. So it's a real problem, along with the other "NCDs."

I think we should deal with the environmental issues, not just blame the victims and forget about it.

As stated, here is the quote from the book, "Detoxify or Die" written by, Sherry A. Rogers, M.D. :

No Wonder Columbia University School of Public Health reports that 95% of cancer is caused by diet and environment

Here's the reference for that bit:

Perera FP, Environment and cancer: Who are susceptible?, Sci, 278:1068-73, Nov 7, 1997


...so, it actually jives well with your thoughts, as it said environment and not lifestyle choices as I originally posted. My apologies. Really wish I could have that post stricken. Will contact mods and see if that's possible.


Wow sofi, I stumbled on this when trying to find the exact reference, and thought you might find it interesting. It seems the children are most at risk to environmental pollution, which intuitively makes sense.



Linky

reply to post by getreadyalready


You will definitely fight to the bitter end. I'm almost sure of that, but when the bitter end is with you, then it's important to make those last days as comfortable as possible.

You can try and eek out as much love as possible from your friends and family, you spend quality time with the people that matter most.

Once there is nothing left that can help you then you want to receive the best palliative care available, the best pain relief and comfort that you can get. We are all going to die, might as well make it as comfortable as possible.

reply to post by unityemissions


Thank you! EXCELLENT little linky there - kinda sums up the research to 2007, doesn't it? Given the situation just with fossil fuels, kinda makes you wonder exactly why the big focus is suddenly on obesity and "personal choices," doesn't it? ....I'd sure like to see the original paper, before it was sanitized.

.....we have seen the direct damage inflicted on children in the United States and worldwide by our society’s addiction to fossil fuel. Fine particles, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), sulfur and nitrogen oxides, benzene and mercury emitted by coal-burning power plants, and diesel and gasoline-powered vehicles have been variously linked to infant mortality, lower birth weight, deficits in lung function, respiratory symptoms, childhood asthma, developmental disorders, and cancer (Bobak and Leon 1992; Gauderman et al. 2004; Grandjean and Landrigan 2006; Ha et al. 2003; Miller et al. 2004; Perera et al. 2006b; Šrám et al. 2005; Woodruff et al. 1997). The many observed adverse effects are not surprising, given the diversity of fossil fuel combustion products (Bernard et al. 2001); moreover, the same pollutant can exert multiple toxic effects. For example, in utero exposure to PAHs as a result of mothers breathing polluted air during pregnancy has been associated with lower birth weight, reduced birth head circumference, preterm birth, and small size for gestational age (Choi et al. 2006, 2008; Perera et al. 2003; Šrám et al. 2005). The same air pollutants have also been linked to developmental delay in U.S. and Chinese children (Perera et al. 2006b; Tang et al. 2006). Air pollution is not only an established trigger of asthma in children; but there is evidence that prenatal exposure to PAHs may be an early risk factor for the development of asthma (Miller et al. 2004). There is also a suggested link between PAHs and cancer (Bocskay et al. 2005).
These health effects represent a major societal and public health burden. A significant proportion of U.S. children 6–17 years of age are reported to have developmental problems including learning disabilities (11.5%), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (8.8%), and behavioral problems (6.3%) (Blanchard et al. 2006). Asthma affects as many as 25% of children in certain inner-city communities in the United States (Nicholas et al. 2005), and the prevalence of asthma has increased throughout the developed world over the past 30 years (Beasley et al. 2003; National Institutes of Health 2001). Approximately 10,400 U.S. children under the age of 15 years were diagnosed with cancer in 2007 (American Cancer Society 2007). Although data are lacking on attributable risk of specific pollutants and relationships between trends in pollution and rates of disease, air pollutants such as lead and mercury are known to contribute to the burden of neurobehavioral disorders (Cheuk and Wong 2006; Lanphear et al. 2005; Stewart et al. 2006), and fine particles, ozone, diesel emissions, and PAHs are known or suspected contributors to childhood asthma (Etzel 2003; Strachan 2000).

Insults sustained early in development can have lifelong consequences. Some adult diseases can be launched in utero or in childhood. For example, exposure to air pollution in childhood may result in a reduction in lung function and ultimately to increased risk of chronic respiratory illness (Gauderman et al. 2000; Shea 2003) and greater susceptibility to cardiovascular disease in adulthood (Shea 2003). Similarly, several studies have indicated that genetic damage in the form of DNA adducts or chromosomal abnormalities can be acquired in utero as a result of air pollution exposure (Bocskay et al. 2005; Perera et al. 2005). Such types of genetic damage have been associated in prospective studies with increased risk of cancer and are considered biomarkers of increased cancer risk (Bonassi et al. 1995; Hagmar et al. 1994, 1998; Tang et al. 2002).
Epigenetic effects of developmental exposure to air pollutants have been less well studied.

reply to post by soficrow


Indeed.

Think I'm pretty well on board with your thesis at this point.

There seems to be far too much evidence pointing towards corporate/goverment collusion to cover ass, and keep reaping the profits.

Psycho, to the core!

reply to post by unityemissions

....too much evidence pointing towards corporate/goverment collusion to cover ass, and keep reaping the profits.

Indeed. But remember, it's not a conspiracy, just good business.

And don't forget the mantra:

There are no problems, just new opportunities for profit.




PS. Glad to see you've done your homework and you're coming around.

An interesting personal story - from biologist, ecologist and cancer survivor Sandra Steingraber:

..... in the larger world where cancer patients live, there was—and still is—a silence about the environmental links to cancer. And there remains a huge disconnect between what the scientific community knows about environmental carcinogens (quite a lot) and what cancer patients are told (very little). I know this because I am a biologist as well as a cancer survivor. I sit on both sides of the table.

As a member of the scientific research community, I can tell you that chemicals linked to cancer are found in beauty products, plastics, and pesticides. They routinely turn up in food, air, and drinking water. And, as the President’s Cancer Panel concluded in 2010, environmental carcinogens play a much bigger role in the story of human cancer than has been previously appreciated.