originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
a reply to: imjack
I wonder who coined the term "cancer"? Was it a joint venture between the government and big pharma? Is "cancer" really just a virus and these two
forces and making us believe it is something else so they can load a bunch of drugs (chemo) into the human body? YES>
Does it matter what it's called? To the average person? No.
Does it matter to the scientific community to differentiate them? Yes.
Why? Because cancer can be cured with surgery and should not be approached as a virus, because no other virus can be cured by surgery. This definition
alone should please you buddy.
There is hardly any short of other reasons it's not considered a virus, but I'm explaining the most simple application to consider because your stance
is endlessly trying to relate it to "Big Pharma" and is heavily pushing disinformation in the process under the conclusion "something is awry".
From an objective perspective, considering it a virus, when it can be cured by methods that don't cure any other virus, is not an assest in its
classification at all, and would only lead to potentially worse treatment.
Basic biology suggests it's not a virus, no Doctor claiming it is understands basic biology.
All cells in your body experience mitosis or meiosis cell division. Cancer is when this functionality goes nuts and reproduces at a high rate. Nothing
external is needed to make this go wrong, that is just a fact, it can happen on its own because cell division is a standard part of your bodily
A virus is only EVER described as something external, entering your body, for example when someone sneezes on you. It then infects you and reproduces
inside of you, and it even has its own DNA. Can one of these cause cancer? Yes. Why is it objectively important to seperate the concepts? Because they
are not the same
and information about virus will not change information about cell division processes.
In short, curing whatever virus caused your cancer, won't stop cancer from happening. You have to address that on its own. And what it's called won't
change that, short of if you just named every single ailment on Earth a virus, when you break your leg, you call it a virus, etc, would only cause
confusion of treating two different conditions appropriatly.
In conclusion, having different names for different conditions is important, and to be blunt, how are you not sure Big Pharma isn't the one pushing
the information you found that cancer is
a virus? That concept on it's own is heavy disinformation, and they probably got you right where they
To go back to the sneezing example one more time, as a nail in the coffin, all virus can be considered contagious or infectious. When's the last time
you heard of someone catching cancer, from another person? Never. Injecting rats with cancer cultured pork, and using advanced lab equipment to get
the rats body to accept foreign bodies "as their own" and then causing cancer is not even close to the way a virus infects you in reality, and many
people have unsuccessfully tried to reproduce this in brave humans. The human immune system obliterates foreign bodies to that nature, and even though
it's not biologicaly impossible to spread cancer, it is for us. Now a virus on the other hand is incredibly easy to spread. The mosquito bites person
A with a virus, and then person B is infected.
Finally, to add insult in injury, how do you cure most virus that CAN be treated?
edit on 6-4-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)