CSN Login
Members Online: 9

You are here

Cancer is not a disease it's a survival mechanism

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

I've just started reading this book and it's basically implying that chemo is killing thousands of people more so then the cancer itself. Anyone else read this book? I will continue reading on but already signals are coming in strong...maybe a compromised immune system is not such a good idea.

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

As I read more into thIs book, I find that it supports my thinking that most cancer patients were under a lot if stress a couple if years prior to DX. It states that most people who remove the stress, start fueling the body, and taking care of themselves go into remission, and people that rely only on chemo with no lifestyle change don't. Hmmm...

The book further states that cancer does not kill people, it's the chemo.
Just wondering, how many people here were under extreme stress when diagnosed?

Note. This is only one book, just sharing it's views. Please don't go and stop your chemo.

lizzydavis's picture
lizzydavis
Posts: 893
Joined: May 2009

I was under less stress at that time than any other time of my life. I have been through many stressful situations in my life (death of parents, murder of sister, divorce, fractured c1 and c2, job issues, etc.) However, prior to my dx, I was under no unusual stress.

-- My friend, Pam, died because the colon cancer wasn't caught in time. It had spread to her back, legs, liver and lungs. That is why -- when I had no symptoms - I went through the treatment as recommended. Only my opinion.

John23's picture
John23
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

Re:
"The book further states that cancer does not kill people, it's the chemo."

Give that book a toss towards the pail.

Cancer kills when it displaces more good cells in an area that requires
all those good cells. Let cancer take over a liver, and you die. Let it
take over too many critical cells in the brain, and you die.... Pick an
organ.....any organ...

While it's true (and well documented), that the side effects of
chemical therapy and radiation ends up damaging or killing "more"
people than cancer manages to kill, "chemo" and radiation treatments
do help many, many people remain alive in spite of cancer.

For any writer to make a blanket statement, that cancer does not
kill people at all, is ludicrous at the least. It renders anything further
the writer has to say, as pure BS. I would personally give it a
toss into the dumpster.

(My $0.02)

John

Annabelle41415's picture
Annabelle41415
Posts: 6186
Joined: Feb 2009

Totally agree with John. This author doesn't sound like he did much research on the subject. My .02 cents worth too.

Kim

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2005

"Guns don't kill people. People WITH guns kill people"

John23's picture
John23
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

The moral?
"maybe a compromised immune system is not such a good idea. "

What a shocking surprise!

Life........ never seems to stop amazing me.

</sarcasm>

 

Best of health, ya'll.

John

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

I think I will keep reading, you just don't know what one can learn...

Cancer is Not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism by Andreas Mortiz

Cancer is Not a DiseaseDid you know that 95% of all cancers appear and disappear on their own, and that treating them actually prevents them from being cured? The prominent cancer researcher and professor at the University of California, Dr. Hardin Jones, admitted: "Patients are as well, or better off, untreated....My studies have proven conclusively that cancer patients who refuse chemotherapy and radiation actually live up to four times longer than treated cases, including untreated breast cancer cases."

In Cancer Is Not A Disease, bestselling author and internationally acclaimed health expert, Andreas Moritz, proves the point that cancer is not a separate illness, but the result of specific, identifiable causes. Removing these causes sets the precondition for the body, mind and emotions to become healed, meaning, whole again.

Medical intervention, on the other hand, attempts to remove the symptoms of disease with almost complete disregard to their cause(s). This is not only unscientific and unethical, but also life endangering. Each year over 900,000 people in the U.S. lose their lives needlessly to medical treatment. Even one single dose of chemotherapy or radiation can be fatal for both the tumor and the patient. The success record of modern cancer therapy is dismal, even less than the weakest placebo response. On average, remission occurs in about 7% of all cancers, not because of, but despite these aggressive treatments.

Learn how to deal with cancer is a much more sensible and effective way than trying to fight or destroy it.
About the Author

Andreas Moritz is one of the world's leading experts on Integrative Medicine. He is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. Born in southwest Germany in 1954, Moritz had to deal with several severe illnesses from an early age, which compelled him to study diet, nutrition, and various methods of natural healing while still a child.

Rather than being satisfied with merely treating the symptoms of illness, Moritz has dedicated his life’s work to understanding and treating the root causes of illness. Because of this holistic approach, he has had great success with cases of terminal disease where conventional methods of healing proved futile. His books and other healing modalities made available through this site are designed to help a person address the root causes of ill health and naturally support the body’s own healing abilities.

Anonymous user (not verified)

This comment has been removed by the Moderator

coloCan
Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct 2009

without chemo, radiation and surgery I would not be typing this. From what's been described here thus far from this author makes sense to prevent cancer in the first place but once its got to the point where it jeopardizes your life, I think something stronger than a better diet is needed......."Anti-Cancer, A New Way of Life" by David Servan-Schreiber should be read as well (I believe Lisa 42 first cited this book)........steve

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

I read the anti cancer book also. And I follow it to a T.

This particular book isn't saying no surgery, or radiation for that matter, not so far.... I'm not siding with this, just reading...

coloCan
Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct 2009

share of chemo and surgery also.....I trust Servan's book too ; he's one of us......steve

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2005

but plays the part of a doctor with his books. Just what is a "Medical Intuitive*"?

I did a quick search on him and found an interesting link. Not very flattering. I have to agree with the post that he appears to be a quack.

Just looking at this quote from his book shows me that he is mis-informed. Cancer has been around since the time of the Egyptians and longer. I do not doubt that with the Industrial Revolution that cases of cancer have grown but I do not think that cancer is caused from having a "poor self-image, unresolved conflict and worries, or past emotional trauma":

"Cancer has always been an extremely rare illness, except in industrialized nations during the past 40-50 years. Human genes have not significantly changed for thousands of years. Why would they change so drastically now, and suddenly decide to kill scores of people? The answer to this question is amazingly simple: Damaged or faulty genes do not kill anyone. Cancer does not kill a person afflicted with it! What kills a cancer patient is not the tumor, but the numerous reasons behind cell mutation and tumor growth. These root causes should be the focus of every cancer treatment, yet most oncologists typically ignore them. Constant conflicts, guilt and shame, for example, can easily paralyze the body's most basic functions, and lead to the growth of a cancerous tumor.

After having seen thousands of cancer patients over a period of three decades, I began to recognize a certain pattern of thinking, believing and feeling that was common to most of them. To be more specific, I have yet to meet a cancer patient who does not feel burdened by some poor self-image, unresolved conflict and worries, or past emotional trauma that still lingers in his/her subconscious. Cancer, the physical disease, cannot occur unless there is a strong undercurrent of emotional uneasiness and deep-seated frustration."

*A Medical Intuitive is an alternative medicine practitioner who uses their intuition to attempt to find the cause of a physical or emotional condition. Making a formal medical diagnosis is not in the scope of practice for many Medical Intuitives, but some medical intuitives are also M.D.s.

coloCan
Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct 2009

&&*&%#@$%::">@!!!!(*)&$#%^(%******************

Anonymous user (not verified)

This comment has been removed by the Moderator

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

If I had never met someone that was cured without chemo, I would stop reading, but have so I will continue reading.

kristasplace's picture
kristasplace
Posts: 956
Joined: Oct 2007

I agree entirely with what the author is saying. He's not the only one who has come out with this information, and personally, it fits my situation perfectly. My cancer was a direct result of a stressful, two and a half year divorce. I've told this to doctors from the beginning, and none of them took me seriously. It all goes with the "i'm a medical doctor, therefore i know your body better than you do" bullshit. Anyway, i know it was the stress because i was symptomatic for two years before diagnosis, but my symptoms only came to the surface when i would become highly stressed. The more time that went by, the less stress it would take for my symptoms to surface until there was nothing but symptoms. Enter a stage III diagnosis.

Cancer came back after living in high stress for seven months straight, and being off my holistic diet.

As soon as i eliminated stress, refuse to do any more chemo, and build up my immune system, the spot on my lung disappeared within a month of it's discovery, and i'm now NED for the first time in six years. I can't say this would be true for every case of cancer as the author suggests, but i do believe that individually, we may be able to find out what it was that gave us cancer in the first place, and treat it accordingly.

tootsie1's picture
tootsie1
Posts: 5056
Joined: Feb 2008

It's always good to gather information and see what's out there. It helps to make an informed opinion. I am pretty sure, though, that I can imagine what my doctor would have to say about all this, and I would agree with him.

It's never a bad idea to live as healthfully as you can, and stress truly does cause ramifications. I know, because I've had post traumatic stress since my husband's sudden cardiac arrest. However, I don't think that caused my cancer.

*hugs*
Gail

pete43lost_at_sea's picture
pete43lost_at_sea
Posts: 3908
Joined: Nov 2010

would be interested in what impressed you and you thought was lacking.
most cancer patients are looking for cure.
the more i read and live this journey the more skepkical i become and at the same time hopeful.

i like a debate and a healthy exchange of opinions,

cheers the fence sitter,

pete

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

Will do! I can be stubborn when I'm not 100 percent convinced. Debates are good, but like you said I'm sitting on the fence.

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

I must stay the book is pretty interesting. It talks about the body and how cancer comes to be. How our cells work. How stress, meds and food effect our arteries, our brain. Reading on...

tr71068's picture
tr71068
Posts: 26
Joined: Dec 2010

I havent read that book but I have read many other and have talked to nurses that work on the oncology wards at the hospitals and even some of them say that they would do the surgeries and everything they could but they may opt out of the chemo and radiation. They have seen were the poisons we put in our body is what ends up killing us. I have two different friends and they have had a family member pass after there first chemo treatment the drugs were just to much for one and the other had an allergic reation. I say keep reading the book. I dont believe you can just let the drugs do all of the work you also have to change your lifestyle

herdizziness's picture
herdizziness
Posts: 3642
Joined: Apr 2010

I haven't read his book, but I did look him up.
What a Charlatan, instead of snake oil, he's selling ionized and "Holy" ROCKS!! LMAO.

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

I haven't read anything about holy rocks yet, but I will be getting on that Ark! Seriously, now.

Everything he writes makes sense. I believe stress can lead to cancer. I believe that your body may be allergic to certain foods taht you are not aware if, causing your immune system to leave areas in your body unprotected. I think a body can heal itself. I think positive energy works wonders. I believe getting off your Arse and on your feet does help produce more oxygen for the body.

He's basically saying that chemo can shut down your immune system. He gives lots of good cancer fighting suggestions.

To chemo of not to chemo is an individual choice. I hope I never have to make that decision again. But, For now, I am getting my Arse in motion and continue to eat healthy, no red meat, very little sugar, no white bread, no white rice. I am going to go out and get some sunshine, and not wear sunglasses all the time. I am going to finish this book, but, now bed time.

Cancer is not a disease, it's a fighting mechanism. Why not! Think outside of the box.

BTW: Ionized stones, or rocks are used for healing and many spas use them...

pete43lost_at_sea's picture
pete43lost_at_sea
Posts: 3908
Joined: Nov 2010

if you know what i mean. the box i am thinking of is not one i want to sleep in for many many years. sorry my humour gets a bit out there the not before chemo.
the fence is getting a bit unbalanced as we have a few too many on it,
whats your verdict ? bin or bookshelf ?
will you give the book to someone you love ? or not!
cheers pete on the fence first

Crow71's picture
Crow71
Posts: 681
Joined: Jan 2010

that's my kind of humor!! Love it.

John23's picture
John23
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

Re:
"Cancer is not a disease, it's a fighting mechanism"

Yeah, for the cancer cell.

A cancer cell is nothing more than a normal cell that's been damaged
and can no longer take instructions from the body.

Instead of being removed by the immune system, it was left behind,
possibly ignored.... And it continued to survive on it's own, by using
the fermentation process.

In that one respect, all, every single lousy cancer cell is the same;
it uses the fermentation process to stay alive, stealing away
glucose from good cells, and churning out Lactic Acid.

The liver takes in Lactic acid, and turns it into glucose, but the
liver becomes overloaded doing so.

Add chemo and/or radiation to the toxins that the liver has to remove,
and you end up with a badly, if not severely diminished ability of
the Liver to keep your blood clean and you healthy.

Cancer isn't a "disease" any more than alcoholism is a "disease";
you can't "catch it", and you don't become contagious.

Egads.... I love information, but ionized stuff and moon rocks...?

Yeah, Snake Oil. It's crapola like that, that makes people distrust
anything that the mainstream industry isn't selling to those most
vulnerable. It makes me ill..... Really!

There are alternatives that actually work, dammit. We really oughta'
read about those more often!

(There. I said it and I'm glad.)

(I love'ya Nana. It was a good thread; Keep on Keepin' on!)

John

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2005

Not to nitpick John but you said "Cancer isn't a "disease" any more than alcoholism is a "disease";you can't "catch it", and you don't become contagious."

Just because it's not contagious does not mean it is not a disease.
Alcoholism and Cancer are both diseases.

I do think that this clown is at the top of the Quack list as far as Cancer Cures go though. I mean, who doesn't know that stress causes so many of our ills???
Duh?

I too would like to see more alternative therapies but not ones from a alternative reality.
-p
PS: Good thread though, I see it as a warning of what to stay away from.

John23's picture
John23
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

(Bless ya', man!) (can I say that here?)

I had a friend awhile back (long while back), that was declared
to be disabled due to alcoholism, by the state of Massachusetts.

They paid this guy to stay home and drink. I'm serious. If I didn't
see this first-hand, I wouldn't believe it. They paid for his apartment,
his vehicle and plates, food, and medical care. And he bought booze
because his condition required it, according to him.

No, I do not for a minute consider it a "disease". I don't consider smoking
a "disease", or "gambling" a disease, or the insatiable, compulsive need to
have sex every 15 minutes a "disease" (I'm normal, I tell ya)..

They are habits that can be broken when one has the desire to break
them. Even with the very addictive nature of alcohol and tobacco, the
addiction can be broken when one is intent on doing so.

That's my personal belief, anyway. I haven't been to an AA meeting
in a very very long time, but I do know one thing...... If you cater
to a drunk, he'll remain a drunk. That's not a "disease" by any of
the old standards.

Cancer isn't anything you can "catch"; it just happens. Even the normal
process of cells splitting and dying to make room for a new cell, can
go awry. If the dying cell isn't removed by the immune system, it can
begin to grow on it's own, without control; Nothing but a malfunctioning
or weakened immune system, would be the reason..

We can't blame everything on a "disease", and if/when they stop
accessing blame to non-instrumental causes, perhaps they'll find the
cure for cancer.

My take on that.... fwiw..

Better days are comin'!!

John

coloCan
Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct 2009

perhaps for those who have inherited it. For me, it resulted from my lifestyle:poor diet, prior excessive alcohol and tobacco use, too many supplements/vitamins in pill form.......Cancer is the result of environment and diet, tho why we got it and not others under similar circumstances can never be explained......If it were a simple illness we wouldn't be still hoping for a cure. Its compexity, the innumerable pathways it has to develop and spread, the various cells it can mutate from....etc

If survival of the fittest has any validity at the species level, surely it might too at the micro/nano level, with cancer cells competing against healthy cells as well as other cancer cells to survive and multiply-sort of like roaches.....they get used to one insecticide (chemo) afterwhich you need an even stronger one(2nd,3rd line chemo)......

If cancer is not a disease, what is?

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2005

rather than the rule. I think it's totally wrong that the state pays for that person to continue with their condition. It is a fact though that alcoholism is a disease and not just someone having a good time or opting to drink. It's genetically passed on as cancer CAN be. Not always, but it can be. Also, supposed someone worked with asbestos for years and developed cancer then it just didn't happen. Some things cause cancer, you can't [well, maybe you can:-)] dispute that. I do agree with you that sometimes it just happens too.

Some people are born with a pre-disposition for certain things. Homosexuality, cancer, alcoholism to name a few. To say that they are not diseases really distances oneself from the situation I think. Of course there are always exceptions. In the situation you talked about, the state should INSIST that the person seek help and not just give them money to perpetuate their condition.

"That's my personal belief, anyway. I haven't been to an AA meeting
in a very very long time, but I do know one thing...... If you cater
to a drunk, he'll remain a drunk. That's not a "disease" by any of
the old standards."
I agree with that, catering to this person does not help anyone.

Hope you're doing OK...
-p

mom_2_3
Posts: 964
Joined: Nov 2008

Phil,

When I was a senior in college I had planned on pursuing my MSW and looked towards a career treating alcohol and drug addiction. My senior thesis looked at various alcohol treatment strategies as well as the premise of whether alcoholism was or was not a disease. Part of my research was an interview with Stanton Peele who authored a book about this same topic. What I found most interesting about my research was that when the "gene" for alcoholism was "discovered" the NY Times put the story front and center on the first page. But when subsequent review of the study revealed that that particular study was flawed, the retraction was buried deep in the NY Times (if I recall correctly it was about page 30 or so). Always found that to be fascinating.

Hope all is well with you. 2 year scan today and off to see Dr K next Monday for results.

Amy

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2005

I just did a search on "is alcoholism a disease" on the internet and I found info supporting both sides of the discussion. As usual with the internet. Some help THAT tool is! I think when you get into substance abuse or other "bad habits" like smoking or over-eating that one has to look at the question of why people do things that they know are "bad" for you. I wonder why alcoholism tends to run in families and also why one member of a different family can have 1 beer while another can not stop at one? If something can be so harmful to a person, why don't they just stop? Why do some people find it easy to quit smoking while others struggle? Why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near? Opps!

I used a poor example it seems to compare alcoholism to cancer. I do think cancer is a disease but it also can be prevented or one can minimize their chances of getting it. Cancer can also be totally random too. It's hard to categorize it I think.

It's a shame when a newspaper puts something as a headline, then when it is proven false they bury the retraction. It's like when someone is accused of a crime. Front page news. When they are found not guilty or they had the wrong person, it's not as important. People mainly remember the headlines...

Amy, I hope you hear GREAT news from Dr K.
I'm in there every 3 weeks now for treatment.
Things are going OK, can't complain (about cancer)
-phil

John23's picture
John23
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

Re:
"Homosexuality, cancer, alcoholism to name a few. To say that they
are not diseases really distances oneself from the situation "

Homosexuality is a disease?

It took me about fifteen minutes to stop laughing.

I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it was typed, Phil.

I often use the "edit" feature here, so don't be too shy to.

As far as cancer? The reason some get cancer from all those
carcinogenic things, while others do not, should be self-explanatory
in a totally mundane way.

Sure, genetics can be a problem, why not? Being vulnerable
to cancer is due to the immune system not doing it's job, and
a genetic quirk could possibly (and probably) does cause some
immune systems to falter, while others do well.

There isn't an oncologist or cancer specialist in the world, that
would deny that the immune system is important in the fight
against cancer. They won't give chemotherapy to one with a
compromised immune system, or one that's already fighting
a disease; the reason is evident.

The chemicals used in chemotherapy are all well known
carcinogenic. Radiation is a carcinogenic. Some of us will
get second, unrelated cancers from those "remedies", while
others will not.

Some smoke all their lives and never get cancer, and others
blame their cancer on second-hand or even third-hand smoke.

Is it the "causes", or is it just the immune system not doing the
job it was intended to do? Again, the answer should be evident.

And since every "type" of cancer survives by the same very basic
process of life (fermentation), the banter about all "different kinds
of cancer", and all the necessary forms of drugs that are needed
to kill cancer, is a real big drift from reality.

The industry continues to baffle and obfuscate; they will do their
best to tell you that it's a complex matter that takes billions of
dollars and years of research, yet never seems to resolve the real
problem in any way, shape, or manner.

How can they? They're not addressing the real problem.

You can call it what you want, but I don't consider cancer
a disease; I consider it an immune system problem.....

And I'm among quite a few that feel strongly in that view;
some that are well embedded in the field of cancer research.

I hope we all can find our remedy..... soon.

Best wishes,

John

PhillieG's picture
PhillieG
Posts: 4885
Joined: May 2005

Can't edit it.
"Some people are born with a pre-disposition for certain things. Homosexuality, cancer, alcoholism to name a few." This is the part (I think) that I meant to get across. I don't think people choose to be gay. It certainly is NOT a disease.

Like I've said, cancer has many causes. Some you can control and some you can't. Some people swear the reason they live to be 104 years old is that they drank, smoked and ate fried foods. We're all different so it's hard to compare one person to another. These are the types of things that make cancer such a tough nut to crack. If there was only one cause of it I think it would be easier but it's not like that.

Event the word "Disease" has many definitions. I think we both can find one that defines cancer to make our own point. We can call it whatever we want. My Dad used to say "Just because you call a horse a cow, it doesn't make it one" to which I will add "if you step in poop does it really matter who pooped?"

I found the ideas expressed in the book at the beginning of this discussion to be something that I would not follow nor do I believe it is helpful.

Now excuse me, I need to get my anti-gay vaccine....
Oy!
-p
;-)

Buckwirth's picture
Buckwirth
Posts: 1272
Joined: Jun 2010

"if you step in poop does it really matter who pooped?"

Only to my wife!

:)

PGLGreg's picture
PGLGreg
Posts: 741
Joined: Jul 2006

"I am going to go out and get some sunshine, and not wear sunglasses all the time."

I'm afraid of eventually getting macular degeneration, since my mother had it, and sunlight is, I've heard, a risk factor. My optometrist suggests always wearing sunglasses outside.

--Greg

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

Yes, sunglasses are good if you are out in the bright sunshine a lot. But for those that seldom do, they are very susiptable to cancer. Wearing sunglasses prihibits the eyes from telling the brain that it's daylight, subsequently, the body doesn't prepare itself to absorb the vitamin D 3. Vitamin D3 is detrimental in the fight against cancer. Even though I am taking 5000 units of it, I am still lacking in vitamin D3. I need some sunshine.

The book mentions that the tumor forms itself in an attempt to hold all the bad cells that the immune system can't destroy. If the immune system is weakened eventually the tumor cells travel through the lymph nodes to other organs. By feeding the right foods to the immune system, getting sun light, staying positive we can put up a good fight. We are all different and have different nutritional needs, we should all seek to naturally help our bodies. I wish I could take notes while reading but the book is on my IPad and I have to hide from my two year granddaughter, who can work this IPad better then me. She always wants the IPad, but you know must know, wireless devices contribute to cancer.

Did you know that giving a child soy milk is like giving them 5 birth control pills, The hormones in soy are outrages, I have since dumped my soy milk.

Just my point of view. To be healed, where are you. I need your cleansing regime.

John23's picture
John23
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

Re:
"Wearing sunglasses prihibits the eyes from telling the brain that
it's daylight, subsequently, the body doesn't prepare itself to
absorb the vitamin D 3. "

I certainly don't mean to be rude, or embarrass you in any way,
so I hope you can excuse me for this.

I do quite a bit of research, and I'm always willing to learn something
new.... But.... I have never read anywhere, that blind people inherently
suffer from vitamin D deficiency.

There's nothing in any of the medical literature that even remotely
mentions that phenomena!

Are you sure you read that correctly?

John

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

I did read it I will find the reference. Questions never embarrass me John, I make sure I back up what I say. Learning is always good. Maybe you can explain acidic environment and cancer to me. And how digestive enzymes come to play. I was talking to my husband about it last night and I just can't wrap my head around it. Thanks.

John23's picture
John23
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

Re:
"Maybe you can explain acidic environment and cancer to me."

Ok, "Life according to John":

For awhile, I was caught up in that PH thing too. The fact is, that
the body maintains a near constant PH for your blood, and too much
deviation from that can result in an untimely death. Your system will
keep a near perfect balance,in spite of what you eat, or how much or
little you eat. The idea of just eating a well balanced diet instead of
trying to control things with diet, is a pretty damned good idea,
when you study the facts.

Your digestive system is more acidic than you can possibly imagine,
and trying to make it more alkaline will end up causing you major
digestive problems. Your system needs that acid to digest food,
without it, you're going to be tossing away an awful lot of good
things that you are eating, every time you defecate.

Cancer uses glucose at a faster rate than a normal healthy cell.
The cancer cell steals the glucose away from our system, so
trying to starve a cancer cell by withholding glucose, will starve
the good cell first, while that cancer cell will roll happily along.

The cancer cell uses glucose in the fermentation process that it is
using for it's basic survival. The waste from a cancer cell, is lactic acid.

Lactic acid is converted to glucose by your liver...

So does it make sense to believe that a cancer cell likes
an acidic environment? I don't think so.... If anything, it would
love an alkaline environment. The cancer cell's methods of survival
causes the system to become a bit more acidic, and the liver does
it's best to correct that situation.

I really don't understand why there's so much misconception
and misunderstanding, regarding cancer cells; it's as if the confusion
is being promoted by some multi-billion dollar industry....

The cancer cell, once a good cell, is trying to stay alive. It's lost
it's means to communicate with it's host (like our normal cells do),
and begins surviving on the most basic of life methods. There's
nothing complex about how a cancer cell starts, or stays alive.

Chemicals designed to kill the cancer cell will kill it just fine,
but there isn't a good and accurate method to deliver that dose.

The best means to single out a cancer cell, is with the immune system.
And ironically, the average immune system does just that, naturally.

Some of us have a quirk; a malfunction with our immune system,
and our system didn't do the job it should have.

Researchers are now apparently figuring out that the immune system
can "learn" what a cancer cell is, and it seemingly does in many cases
after a bulk of cancer cells die.

When living things die, they release compounds and chemicals that
are usually kept contained; a cancer cell is no different. The immune
system can be sensitized to the chemicals that are released, and
begin to search for more of that chemical in an effort to remove
it from the system.

If the research is correct, it would be an explanation why so
many patients are having better results from a rapid and short
chemo treatments that leaves the immune system healthy, instead of
long, drawn out chemo treatments that damages the immune system
and leaves it incapable of fighting for your life.

So you tell me, does cancer really love an acidic environment?

Or is acid just a by-product of it's survival, burdening our liver
in it's clean-up duties?

Myths are fun, but they don't help solve the problem.

Or:
"When it doesn't sound like it makes sense, it's a good indication
that it doesn't make sense."

That's my two centavos worth.

Stay healthy!!

John

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

Thanks John! This whole acidic thing started when I brought in fresh oranges off our tree. I eat about three a day. They are seedless, sweet, juicy, big and cool. My kind of orange...

Regarding the sunglasses, the book is not saying that you will get cancer because you are wearing sunglasses, or are blind. It's stating that if you are low in vitamin D3, you can take an extra measure to get some sun, by stepping out there as naked as possible. kidding that's my take on it. But, seriously, If you are depressed due to cancer and lack of D3, get out there!

Take care! Raquel.

John23's picture
John23
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

Vitamin D is real important, and from all I've ever read, the best
way to get it, is to sit in the sun for 15 minutes and let your body
use that sunlight to make it's own Vitamin D.

The process the body uses to manufacturer Vitamin D when
the skin is exposed to sunlight, is unique and complex. Just taking
vitamin supplements doesn't do what happens when the body
is making it, and isn't as beneficial.

We can't fool Momma Nature, well... not for long, anyway.

Most all vitamins, minerals, enzymes, etc., are best received
from their natural sources. This bologna about taking supplements,
and having it added to everything we eat, is pure BS. It's no wonder
our systems malfunction. How can we have an immune system,
a perfectly natural defense system, working the way it should if
we only provide it phoney manufactured substances to survive on?

I'll leave you with that thought?

( I have to, my White Castle Cheeseburgers are getting cold)

Think healthy~!

John

pete43lost_at_sea's picture
pete43lost_at_sea
Posts: 3908
Joined: Nov 2010

john thanks

I am lucky its summer and the days are clearing.

I have been in the sun swimming, sailing, fishing, push biking and walking.
Was a little worried about vit D and not having this d3 thingy.

How dam stupid of me.

I will hope my moderate
but constant exposure is enough.

cheers,
Pete

Nana b's picture
Nana b
Posts: 3045
Joined: May 2009

Pete...Where is it summer! I want to go!

tesslee's picture
tesslee
Posts: 97
Joined: Apr 2010

and all the discussion within. i hope that it continues. i would like to add my two cents. i totally do believe that a compromised immune system is definitely a major and maybe the only risk factor for disease, whether it be cancer or another serious disease. and i do believe it is a disease of the immune system so therefore disease is where i would categorize cancer. i also believe there are many many different things that will compromise our immune systems. not just stress as this booki suggests but chemicals, compounds, many environmental factors. but i can speak for stress as i have much experience in this arena. what i am about to offer is very personal but may be of help to others if not then may be of help for me to release some of my dirty little secrets. i have an anxiety disorder. one to the extreme. about 5 years ago, i was tested by an independent lab with a saliva sample from me and the results were my adrenal gland was exhausted. while this test falls in the alternative category there is no non alternative remedy for this malady. only the knowledge and validation why you are always the first to catch a cold, or why you feel like crap so often. a good indicator to reduce stress in your life. but almost impossible when you are wired that way to begin with. so yes i firmly believe this book is very good and valid information as i am proof, but the caveat is as i said in the beginning of this post, there are many things that can cause a weakened immune system and stress is only one, so therefore my belief is that this book can be on value to those who are high stress individuals or those who want to understand the importance of what stess does to the body, but by no means is it the one and only answer. just my opinion from someone who has had more than her fair share.

tesslee's picture
tesslee
Posts: 97
Joined: Apr 2010

taxing my already weakened immune system with chemo drugs is indeed very frightening. not to mention these same drugs are carcinoginic (sp) as well. talk about stress, lol.

pete43lost_at_sea's picture
pete43lost_at_sea
Posts: 3908
Joined: Nov 2010

you have given me another idea for a post.

doing good things in the sun is fun.

i may even take nude sun baking at the appropriate spots.

but I just realised that i have a bag, dam that another potential foil.

but heck what a great way to advertise how great bowel cancer is.

all the nudies would see first hand what its looks like to get bagged.

now that would raise public awareness.

cheers,

Pete

John23's picture
John23
Posts: 2140
Joined: Jan 2007

Beach Dialog:

--
"What's that?"

"It's a Tick, I must have picked it up in the woods".
--

Stay well,

John

Subscribe to Comments for "Cancer is not a disease it&#039;s a survival mechanism"