Can You Avoid Getting Cancer?

Roughly six years ago I started writing a book on the most promising treatments for cancer.  The project was born out of a deep personal desire to give people who had been diagnosed with cancer (or had a relative or friend in such situation or who were simply afraid of getting the disease) palpable hope that was based on hard, sink-your-teeth-into science.

That is not to say that I don't believe in the spiritual world but, noting that many people don't, I wanted to ascertain what the predominance of the science out there had to offer.  Deep into my quest for answers, I quickly became disillusioned with and skeptical about the medical establishment. 

To put it bluntly, it was becoming glaringly aparent that not only was the treatment of cancer a highly profitable "business" (not just an unbiased, altruistic endeavor by a rather huge army of highly-trained professionals) but maybe curing (or, more importantly, preventing) it was not necessarily the over-riding priority.

Needless to say, I was rather confused, disappointed and, of course, greatly irritated.  Surely, everyone on earth wanted to erradicate cancer, perhaps the most intimidating and deadly (even if cardiovascular disease supposedly kills more people annually) disease of all time; surely, the medical research/healthcare establishments were doing everything they could to get rid of cancer.   

At the very least, they wouldn't stand in the way of progress, no matter how much a new discovery might threaten the profitability of conventional cancer treatment--right?

Is Cancer "Research for a Cure" All about Systemic Information Suppression?

Well, in my quest for answers, I found, time after time, instances of information about potential treatments for cancer being suppressed--not investigated, not evaluated for actual scientific merit, but either quietly swept under the rug or aggresively attacked without the undeniable scientific scrutiny (such as is possible only with formal research studies and actual lab/subject experimentation and testing) that should accompany such attacks.

The laetrile fiasco is a glaring example.  If you are one of the millions of people who think that laetrile was rejected because it was unsafe or proven to be ineffective against cancer, then you must possess scientific evidence those of us who seek truth have yet to see. 

In fact, I can provide a long list of medical doctors (all of whom enjoyed good reputations as honorable, trustworthy and competent healthcare providers--until they came up with a cure/treatment for cancer) whose treatment proposals were never adequately investigated (at least not in the US).

Folks, getting a panel of experts and doctors whose opinions are heavily conflicted (because of their being paid by the same companies who benefit too much from conventional cancer treatment as to not be too interested in actual cures) to reject a new treatment or cure for cancer is not "scientific evidence"--no matter how qualified these "experts" claim to be. 

Yet, time after time, I found that most of the new treatments/cures for cancer ever proposed have been glaringly rejected based on the personal opinions of highly-conflicted "professionals"; actually, the only exceptions I found were treatments which, at least on the surface, sounded ludicrous or dangerously experimental--but even these merited scientific scrutiny, if only to make sure that we don't ever turn down a potential cure/treatment that later turns out to actually work.

After all, science isn't supposed to be based on personal guesses, hunches or the "apparent" feasibility (or lack thereof) of something new.  It's supposed to be based on cold, hard, verifiable facts.  And you can only garner and amass those "facts" with formal studies and experimentation

Here is a short list of the brilliant men and women (most of whom were highly-respected physicians, Hoxie being one of the exceptions--not that his not being a doctor necessarily disqualified him from being able to find a cure for cancer) who claimed to have found effective treatments/cures for cancer, only to have their ideas arbitrarily rejected, ridiculed or ignored:

• Max Gerson
• Linus Pauling
• Ernst T. Krebs
• Harry Hoxie
• Virginia Livingston
• Robert F. Cathcart
• Tulio Simoncini

What do these people have in common?--the fact that many of their claims regarding alternative treatments for cancer were not rejected with formal scientific studies or experiments.  In other words, we don't know for sure whether their cures/treatments worked.  Folks, anyone with common sense has to call this "information suppression," not "scientific discovery" or "unbiased formal investigation." 

For the record, I am not saying that these people found legitimate cures/treatment for cancer--I am simply making it clear that what they had to offer was not properly investigated/assessed.  If we all indeed want cures/treatment for cancer, how can we reject anything without proper scientific scrutiny?

Is Cancer an Unavoidable Fate or a Traceable Cause/Effect Circumstance?

Beyond the deplorable socioeconomics of the business of cancer treatment, there are the scientific realities from which we can either cull hope or despair.  Well, interestingly, there is much to be optimistic about in this regard.

Concerning the question as to whether cancer is more genetically or environmentally promoted, for example, the preponderance of the evidence points to the "environmental." This is actually very good news.  There isn't much that we can do about genetic predisposition but environmental factors (i.e., exposure to radiation, toxic chemicals, excessive sunlight, etc.) at least give us some control, in terms of prevention and avoidance.

Especially in regards to the differences in terms of prevalence and incidence between cancer rates in the past and the most recent data, it's becoming obvious that we are inflicting cancer on ourselves through a number of different paths.  To put it more simply, we have created environments that are more and more toxic and unhealthy; we have also unwittingly suppressed/compromised (mostly through deficient diets) our immune systems, which, by all accounts, should be able to prevent or suppress most types of neoplasms (new growths) that may later turn cancerous.

Do We Know What Causes Cancer & How Can We Use This Infomation to Our Advantage?

While the mechanics of the groups of diseases called "cancer" is not yet fully understood, we do know about some of the processes that can lead to cancer.  Some such processes include inflammation, oxidation, over-excitement (as in the case of excitotoxins), genetic disruption/errors, etc.  By finding ways to prevent or counter these "processes," we can, it appears, prevent or avoid getting cancer.

By ingesting or helping our bodies produce nutrients and substances (aptly called "antioxidants") that counter free-radical-induced oxidation or reactive oxygen species (ROS), for example, we can reduce or eliminate the damage in our bodies that may lead to cancer.  Some such anti-oxidizing remedies include:

• Resveratrol (found in red wine, grapes, cocoa, etc.)
• Vitamin A
• Vitamin C
• Vitamin E
• Carotenoids
• lipoic acid/Alpha-Lipoic Acid (ALA)
• Plant polyphenols
• Glutathione (GSH)
• Astaxanthin (a marine carotenoid)
• CoQ10
• Ubiquinol (derived from CoQ10 but may need as supplement if over 25 years old)
• Albumin

These antioxidants may be found in fresh, organic vegetables and fruits, herbs and spices (e.g., ground cinnamon, clover, oregano, turmeric, ginger and garlic), nuts and organic green tea. 

Yet another effective way to reduce the chances of getting cancer is by reducing or eliminating the inflammation that is a significan risk factor for cancer.  Ten foods that can help you accomplish are: 

1. Fermented items such as yogurt, vinegar, kimchi, kefir, etc.  The probiotics in these can help digestion.
2. Greens such as kale and broccoli; these are rich in phytochemicals, calcium, fiber and iron.
3. Berries, especially blueberries.
4. Shiitake mushrooms--these strengthen the immune system.
5. Organic green tea; it contains anti-inflammatory flavonoids.
6. Wile-caught salmon/fish oil; these are high in Omega-3 fatty acids.
7. Seaweed such as kelp and kombu; these are high in vitamin K and fiber.
8. Spices and herbs, including basil, cinnamon, cayenne, and turmeric; these help the immune system, digestion and body detoxification.
9. Avocado--it has Omega-3 fatty acids
10. Papaya, pineapple & mango; with proteolytic enzymes, these fruits help with inflammation.

Is Prevention Your Best Hope?

Not only is cancer preventable but, to be realistic, this is by far the most proactive and most promising strategy when it comes to cancer.  As simplistic and obvious as it may sound, you don't want to get this usually-fatal disease. 

It's not just a matter of there not yet being a cure--according to the medical establishment--but the fact that conventional cancer treatment is expensive, painful, and, to be blunt, not particularly effective. 

In fact, chemotherapy, radiation and surgery (the three main weapons doctors are literally obligated to push, to the exclusion of officially "unapproved" treatments--regardless of what doctors and patients favor or opine) are as likely to kill you as to give you some extra time on this earth (usually under low-quality-of-life circumstances--i.e., your hail falling out, developing cancer in other parts of your body, losing important parts of your body, being in constant discomfort and pain, etc.). 

If cancer is indeed being caused by the many carcinogens in our food, water, air, cosmetics, personal hygiene products, medications, vaccines, etc., then doesn't it make sense to just avoid these carcinogens whenever possible?  It also makes sense to eat foods and take supplements that decrease the chances of getting cancer and avoid practices (i.e., drinking unfiltered fluoridated water, consuming GMOs, microwaving meals, eating processed/packaged & fast foods, keeping cell phones too close to the body, sunbathing or using tanning salons, abusing alcohol & drugs, etc.) that increase your chances of getting malignancies.

If you get cancer, by all means do everything you can to treat it, including considering alternative treatment options, even if your doctor isn't keen on the idea.  Your doctor (unless he/she is a naturopath, chiropractor or favors alternative medicine options, including nutritional approaches) will most probably be part of the "putting-out-the-fires" medical paradigm which mostly (if not completely) rejects prevention (even if they claim otherwise publicly). 

Prevention, however, is your best, most promising strategy.

Conclusion

One of these days, we will find a cure for cancer; when it comes, it will probably be a collection of medicines or strategies since cancer is really a group of diseases.  The hurdles we will have to overcome, though, are many. 

They include a reluctance by the goverment, big corporations and private sources to fund alternative, natural-substances-based treatments and cures (often because they can't be patented), as well as an immediate, automatic opposition to anyone out there (no matter how well-respected or qualitifed) that claims to have found a new cure/treatment for cancer.  It seems that anything but conventional cancer treatment options are safe and effective to the profit-obsessed cancer medical research establishment. 

Needless to say, this is, at the very least, highly suspicious to anyone with any common sense.

The fact is that just about every single new treatment/cure that has been proposed in the last 75 years has been arbitrarily and summarily rejected by the highly-profitable cancer treatment industry.  Had they done this with the use of formal research studies and documented experiments (available for anyone to verify), there would no reason to question such rejections. 

In the case of Harry Hoxie, for  example, most of his records (which, supposedly, included case reports of the many people with cancer that he allegedly helped to cure) were promptly destroyed by the FDA (which, surprise, surprise, has a well-established reputation for such behavior), after they confiscated them.  Why did they do that? 

If the FDA had a solid case against Hoxie, didn't it make more sense to hang on to the records in case anyone questioned their real motives for shutting the Hoxie clinics down?  Who destroys evidence that proves their case/position?  The answer is obvious and doesn't need speculation. 

The FDA destroyed the evidence in the Hoxie case because it was the only way they could silence someone who may indeed have found a cure for cancer.  To this day, the FDA can easily deflate any further speculation into the matter by sending unbiased researchers to Mexico to see how many people (if any) are being cured with the Hoxie treatment but, surprise, surprise, they have adamantly refused to do this, thus childishly continuing to fuel the undeniable doubt and skepticism that still surrounds the Hoxie fiasco.

If indeed there is a reluctance to finding a cure for cancer, do you really want to put your life in thehands of people that selfish, profit-oriented, dishonest and, more importantly, apathetic to scientific and medical integrity? 

Well, that is what you may have to do (unless you can afford to go overseas to find alternative treatments/cures for cancer)--unless, of course, you prevent or avoid getting the disease in the first place.

Copyright, 2016.  Fred Fletcher.  All rights reserved.

References

(see embedded links)