My point, in the article, was simple: I don't believe in a cure for cancer.
That concept seemed a bit hard for most people to grasp.
Now, an article by P C W Davies and C H Lineweaver, published in the journal of Physical Biology provides some interesting information, and suggests a new way of looking at cancer. This article is a very interesting read if you want some deep thoughts about cancers and how they function.
carcinogenesis is here seen as a process of de-speciation, a radical lack of differentiation back towards the ancestral proto-cell. If this is true, given the right (or wrong) conditions, normal cells may regress to a more primitive, far more individualistic cell phenotype in an attempt to survive (if not thrive) within the biochemical/bioenergetic adversities characteristic of the sickened, cancer-prone body.
Reported in GreenMedInfo: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/cancer-ancient-survival-program-unmasked .. GreenMedInfo.com is a very comprehensive site that "provides free and convenient access to the biomedical research on the therapeutic value of natural substances and modalities in disease prevention and treatment."
Green Med goes on to suggest that our conventional cancer treatments may actually force cancerous cells to become more 'primitive', resulting in a more tenacious cancer.
I believe, and I believe it is supported by the research paper, that cancer is caused by poor or unhealthy biological terrain.
"Biological terrain" is the matter in your body that does not consist of live cells. It consists of dead cells, and other soil like materials. The study of biological terrain is in its infancy - and has never been taken seriously by medical science since . At present, Wikipedia says:
"The biological terrain assessment or BTA is a set of tests used to measure the pH, resistivity, and redox of a person's urine, blood, and saliva. The usefulness of the test is debatable. It is often associated with homeopathy and holistic health."
The above tests are pretty basic and tell only a very small amount about the health of your biological terrain. You might compare them to taking someone's pulse, blood pressure, respiration rate and body temperature. Useful to tell if someone has serious health problems - but not at all useful to take any positive actions, unless there is an emergency situation. There is much more to biological terrain - most of which is not studied by the medical community - even when they are studying it.
Much of the research on cancer has suggested that cancerous cells are 'genetically damaged' cells that grow uncontrollably. This research paper suggests a reverse concept - that cancer cells are not damaged to create new, uncontrollable cells, rather they are cells that revert to a 'pre-animal' state when stressed by their biological terrain, although the authors never actually use the words 'biological terrain'.
Many cancers might develop or grow as a result of unhealthy terrain, AKA 'bad soil' - the stuff between cells, and the nutrients that our cells consume. Every day our body grows new cells - and if the body is toxic, we cannot grow healthy new cells. If cancer cells develop, an unhealthy biological terrain will help them to flourish. This new research suggests that cancers develop from unhealthy terrain, where cells are forced to revert to genetic programs of more primitive times in order to survive.
Fighting this type of cancer with chemotherapy ignores the real problem and fights the symptoms (the cancerous cells) instead. Treating the symptoms, not the cause. If the cause of cancer is poor quality of the patient's biological terrain - then chemotherapy and radiation can only makes it worse - because they make the biological terrain less healthy. No wonder we worry that cancers might spread, or 'recur' - if our cancer therapies create an environment that produces cancerous cells.
Unfortunately, the authors of the article, P C W Davies and C H Lineweaver, do not appear to recognize biological terrain either - even though their article talks indirectly about the terrain, they never use the word. They say: "The genetic or epigenetic mutations that open up access to pre-existing adaptations can be caused by chronic inﬂammation, viral infections or other environmental causes" describing the biological terrain, without using the words biological terrain. They also state and give a reference to support, that cancer's preferred habitat is low PH, again without reference to the word biological terrain.
They go on to suggest that their research might give us 'new ways to fight cancerous cells'. And they may be well on the way to some revolutionary new concepts in the battle against cancer once it develops.
But they ignore the opportunities to stop cancers before the develop, by creating health and more healthy terrain in our bodies.
I believe that when we can measure the healthiness of someone's flesh, or biological terrain, then we can:
a) clearly establish what illnesses arise from different levels of healthiness or unhealthiness in the terrain
b) develop, test and study ways to make the terrain more healthy
c) treat illnesses that are triggered or encouraged by unhealthy terrain
d) truly prevent those illnesses, by detecting and correcting poor terrain health before the illness arises.
Our medical sciences treat our bodies like a farmer who never checks his soil - only tries to change the seed, fertilizer and pesticide. And wonders why his crop fails again and again.
This report may be a huge step forward in the understanding of cancers. Time will tell. But we need a lot more work to prevent cancers. With cancer - I believe understanding and prevention will prove much more powerful than a cure.
That's why I don't believe in the search for a cure - it diverts our attention from the real solutions. But of course, if I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow - I would be searching for a cure.
to your health, tracy
Tracy is the author of two book about healthicine: