The difference is that radiation and chemo actually manages to produce results while bloodletting did squat.
There’s even been major improvements in the way the treatments are administered such as devices that allow for a much more specific targeting (to ensure that the only cell die-off is in the tumor).
“Radiation and chemo” produce, at best, only superficial results. The basic idea is that you can treat what is basically an immune-system disease “externally.”
With chemo, you set fire to the forest, counting on the most rapidly-growing cells will catch fire first. You then hope that enough of the now-torched, now-poisoned forest will survive for at least a few more years. Unfortunately, you have destroyed the immune system in the process.
Radiation, similarly, hopes to “nuke one city,” conveniently forgetting that cancer occurs at the cellular level.
There is only one “reasonable” treatment for cancer at this point: immune-system stimulation. Unfortunately, we don’t yet really know enough about how cancer evades the immune system. Some cancers respond extremely well and extremely quickly to immune-stimulation treatments; others ignore it. We don’t know why.
DNA-based treatments such as PLEKHA7 definitely show promise as interventive treatments, which will (as I said), “send chemo and radiation to the land of bloodletting,” but we still don’t know how the cancerous mutations are first introduced into a cell. Many people speculate that it is a virus, or some as-yet unknown venue similar to it. Studies of the HIV virus have shown that viruses do exist that can compromise or defeat the immune response mechanism.
you mean chemtrails,GMO and Monsanto foods including RFID technology?
It’s the best we got for now, and as I said, the technology has changed to where the targeting is much more precise so the total amount of damage to healthy issue is much less now than it used to be.
in 90’s you had famous or infamous fast foods,but now many americans are addicted with fruits and vegatables.
Even though such byzantine things might still be sold as “the best we’ve got for now” (I disagree …), they are still attacking the problem with a blunt instrument, based on superficial characteristics of the afflicted cells … and they wipe out the immune system, which ultimately is what condemns the patient to one form of early-death or another.
I think we’ll discover that cancer is caused by a virus … or, by something as-yet unknown which is very similar. We know that the DNA is modified to cause uncontrolled cell growth and to prevent the immune system from recognizing the cells as rogue. It was not until HIV = AIDS that we realized that viruses could target the immune system, and defeat it.
Have you heard about Gamma-knife/Cyber-knife technology at all? As I said, radiation-based therapy has improved significantly over the years (such as getting far more precise) and it’s like night and day compared to archaic practices such as bloodletting.
Sure there are side effects, but I don’t think the newer techniques leave damage even close to being as severe as older ‘blanket’ treatments. There is also a clear record of such treatments getting rid of the cancer completely and giving someone a new lease on life (or if not extend their lives for half a year or more).
I would also note that none other than Steve Jobs was one of those who did not believe in radiation treatment and opted for holistic practices instead (which didn’t help at all and led him to die in his 50’s). If he only listened to the medical experts, he would still be the brains behind Apple today.
Actually, Ace, I doubt it. Steve had one of the most difficult forms of cancer to treat, and conventional therapies just might have killed him sooner. As a very intelligent man, he soberly weighed his options and he chose. I don’t disagree with his choice, and I miss him too. “It is appointed unto men once to die,” and it sux. :ba:
The problem with all of our conventional therapies, other than ones like the one discussed in this thread, is that they are external. Chemotherapies kill the fastest-growing cells which up-take more of the poison … but, they poison everything in the process. Radiation burns-up an identifiable wad of cells (and leaves them, dead, in your body). Neither tackles the root cause of the problem, which is effectively an immune-system disorder. Also: chemo destroys the immune system (which is also made up of rapidly-growing cells), while radiation leaves behind necrotic tissue that the body cannot dispose of. Radiation can also promote unpredictable genetic damage.
A close friend of mine opted for an unconventional immune-system stimulant treatment that has still not won FDA approval. She had to go through hoops to indicate that she freely consented to try it … (“it’s my body, and I am the patient as well as a consenting adult…”), and, it worked. A dozen or so chelated treatments, of a non-toxic substance, sent the cancer into full remission for eight years with no side-effects. Research into the treatment continues, but not in this country. (As with many treatments at this stage in the game, “it either works remarkably well, or it doesn’t, and it’s basically ‘either/or,’ and no one yet knows why.”)
But it is very encouraging to see that study of the human genome is paying off. If we can identify a particular mutation and reverse it, we will be able to stop the disease-process even as we continue to search for the root cause. As I’ve said, research into HIV is proving to be particularly important since it shows that there are bad-things out there which target and affect the immune system. “The key to cancer” will be to discover what causes the mutation and what causes them to evade the immune system. One day, it might come down to an immunization that is routinely given.
The problem with this is that it is not a single thing that causes these mutations. There are long lists of compounds that are either definitely carcinogenic or probably carcinogenic. DNA as a molecule is actually fairly reactive, and there are a lot of compounds that could react with it to cause mutations. There are of course safety measures against this, but they aren’t always 100% effective.
The thing was, he eventually gave up on the holistic approach and went in to have radiation treatment, but the cancer was already at an advanced stage and once that happens, nothing can treat it.
Also, I would still note that radiation treatment is generally not the first stage of cancer treatment, the first stage is actual surgery to try to remove as much of it as possible (so you don’t have some massive mass of dead tissue in your body).
Also, on the idea that it’s actually an immune disorder rather than a combination of genetic damage and carcinogenic matter, does that mean we can use materials like asbestos in buildings again and breathe it in to our heart’s content?
I heard conspiracy theory of Walt Disney Hybernation.
Don’t believe anything you read on the internet, because anyone can write an article stating anything they want it to be and wrap it up in a shiny presentation.
Cancer is human cells that behave abnormally. The rest of the biology then excommunicates the mass. Then the mass begins fending for itself. It hacks the existing biology for sustenance. Something causes the human cells to behave abnormally. This may be environmental factors. The type of function that human cells takes on is dependent upon the immediate environment that the cells interact with. This is why some substances are referred to as carcinogens. As an immediate environmental factor they may cause cells to behave abnormally.
When the condition is caught in the early stages, the chances of successful treatment is high. This is probably because the mass hasn’t yet organized to the point that it can sustain itself in a parasitic manner. It would still be a weak chaotic system. When it begins to integrate the risk increases. It may attach to vital organs or blood supplies etc. It would also become more resilient and thus more difficult to kill.
A lot of scientists agree that early detection is the best way to fight cancer.
As far as a cause, it’s probably something in our environment. This is difficult to support beyond theory because of the amount of substances in our environment and lack of knowledge about Epigenetics. There are just so many factors that researchers are overwhelmed with data.
It’s well known and understood that the experimental path that healthcare providers have taken have economic premises. This isn’t to say that researchers would have more luck with early detection technologies though. It’s still a difficult problem.
The cause of several types of cancer, according to some, it’s in some substances we intake everyday, most notably cow milk and gluten (and derivates).
So the cure would “simply” be cutting out those aliments and the cancer, if not too much advanced, would regress and disappear alone.
A relative of mine after some illness tried that (there were other food changes, but that was the mayor) and some kind of “ball” somewhere in the belly wich could have been sometingh serious effectively disappeared, as the diabetes and other minor things.
Now, i don’t have the knowledge to affirm if that’s really the cause but would be the first option i would try in case happens.
The problem with some health studies today is that it’s not uncommon for a future study to contradict it and discredit its claim. Studies once claimed to show that eggs were bad for you, but later studies show this isn’t the case. You could perhaps find enough studies even to suggest that almost everything you can possibly eat is bad for you (due to causing things like cancer).
In the case of cancer even, there is a lot of debate over exactly what can help cause it to appear (outside of decades of copying errors as cells divide).
There’s not a lot of debate over the long list of known carcinogens.
I don’t think there’s a cure for cancer at present times. The best way is to prevent having cancer.