Our medical system is schizophrenic with regards to generic cancer. Cancers are classified by tissues, but treatments attack malignant cells and ignore – or worse actually decrease tissue healthiness.
Cancer Research UK, classifies cancers into carcinomas (cancers of the Epithelial tissue), sarcomas (cancers of the Connective tissue), leukaemias and lymphomas (cancers of the blood and lymphatic tissues), and gliomas (cancers of the nervous tissues). In the previous post: What is Generic Cancer, Does Generic Cancer Kill?, I concluded that sarcomas are typically ‘generic cancers’.
Cancer Research UK’s fundraising banners proclaim “RESEARCH KILLS CANCER”. They mean to say – “research kills cancer cells”. When medicine attempts to treat cancer, it does not attempt to ‘health’ the tissue; it simply attempts to ‘kill’ the cancerous cells via surgical removal, chemical toxins or radiation bombardment. And unless surgery is used, it leaves the dead cancerous cells to be ‘cleaned up’ by the body. Surgery, on the other hand, often leaves live cancerous cells, or takes huge chunks of healthy tissue in an effort to ‘get all of the cancer’.
If cancer is a disease of the cells, the best way to tackle cancer might be to fight or kill off the ‘bad cells’.
Generic cancer is a disease of the tissues. Killing the cells is like fighting the alligators instead of draining the swamp. If unhealthy tissues caused cancer cells to develop, and allowed them to flourish, then the unhealthy tissue will simply create more cancer cells.
It gets worse. ‘Conventional treatment’ of radiation and chemotherapy, make the tissue ‘less healthy’ and are more likely to cause more cancers to arise. But because of the slow development of cancerous cells – the cancers created by chemotherapy and radiation will often not appear until after the 5 year window is past. So they are counted as ‘new cancers’ – which, I guess, is technically true.
Generic cancers are caused by ‘unhealthy tissue’.
The Hierarchy of Healthicine gives us an important visual into the causes and effects of generic cancers. We can see that cancers are centered in the tissues – as medical textbooks agree.
Causes of cancer are found in those elements that contribute directly to the health of the tissues: tissue genetics, tissue nutrition and tissue cells. If any of these three elements are unhealthy – we will have unhealthy tissues. We can now see that it may be possible to have a cancerous tissue with more than one ‘primary cause’. Eg. It is possible to have more than one type of ‘generic cancer’ in a single tissue. We might have some cells that are cancerous because of our genetics, others that are cancerous because of our unhealthy nutrition (remember that nutrition includes nutrients and toxins), and others that are unhealthy because of unhealthy cellular growth.
We can also see the progression of cancer, once the tissues are infected. Soon, cancer advances to affect the organ that this tissue is contributing to – it might be a specific gland, the lung, or another organ. It may also effect on the bodily systems that organ is part of. Cancers also subvert some bodily systems – most commonly the circulatory system – to provide nutrients and foster growth of the cancer. If you have lung cancer, the cancer will begin to affect your respiratory system.This will have an effect on your entire body, and will begin to prey on your mind as well. Your spirit will begin to falter, and your contributions to your communities will suffer.
We can also see that each of these elements might be secondary causes, or contributors to your cancerous condition. If you are not of sound mind, your nutrition might suffer – leading to unhealthy tissues and to cancer. If your community, or your digestive system does not provide healthy nutrients – a similar effect can result.
Unhealthy tissues lead to cancerous cells. Cancerous cells infect unhealthy tissues and can also invade the territory of healthy tissues. Over time these cells can affect every aspect of our healthiness – sometimes leading to death. Note: in our first discussion of Generic Cancer, we recognized that generic cancers don’t usually result in death.
Let’s take a moment and define ‘unhealthy tissue’. If we examine a tissue, we can, in theory, measure the ‘healthiness’ of the tissue. We might plot the healthiness of the tissue on a percentage scale from 0 to 100 – where 100 percent is perfectly healthy.
Unhealthiness is the inverse of healthiness. Someone with a tissue that is 80 percent healthy, has an unhealthiness score of 20.
However, tissue healthiness is very complex to evaluate. We currently don’t measure healthiness – medical systems are designed to detect and measure illness, not healthiness. If we were to ask, for example, what healthiness factors are most likely to indicate tissue healthiness – there might be many suggestions, but no scientific agreement.
What unhealthiness scores lead to cancer? What types of unhealthiness are more likely to lead to cancers?
Because we don’t measure healthiness on a scale, nor map it to a percentage – we (today’s medical technologies) also cannot measure unhealthiness. Measuring tissue unhealthiness that might cause cancer is complex. We know, for example, that smoking leads to lung cancer – sometimes. And sometimes it doesn’t. There are medical examples of lungs turned black from smoking – but cancer did not develop. Clearly simple measurements of tissue healthiness will not tell us about cancer tendencies of the tissue.
It’s important to understand that our tissues, like all aspects of healthiness, are not static. Healthy tissues are always growing, acting, changing. If they are unhealthy, we have many systems that attempt to re-balance, to re-create healthiness, although sometimes those systems make mistakes. If we want to health our tissues, we need to assist this process.
What tissue healthiness factors might lead to cancer?
Let’s begin with some simple measurements of tissue healthiness – nutrients and cleansing – food and taking out the garbage. Tissues are comprised of living cells, and those cells need nutrients and produce waste products.
If the required nutrients are not available in the diet, or are not provided by a healthy digestive system and blood flow – nutritional deficiencies will appear. Now we see that not only does everything seem to ‘cause cancer’, but also…. Not eating the right foods might also cause cancers to develop. Zinc is a key factor in natural cell death. It is possible that a deficiency in zinc could lead to cancerous cells that do not die. Many tissue nutrient deficiencies might cause cells to become cancerous. This could be due to deficiencies in the diet, or due to deficiencies in the nutrient flow.
The lymphatic system and the blood circulatory systems are responsible for cleaning up cellular waste products, as well as toxins arrive via many pathways. If these cleansing processes are not functioning well – unhealthy tissue could get worse, leading to the development and growth of cancerous cells. There are many indications that exercise prevents cancer. It makes sense. Exercise stimulates the blood and lymphatic systems and helps make tissues healthier.
Is it possible to measure the health of the blood flow to our tissues? Do we know how to measure the healthiness, or the healthy functioning or our lymphatic systems? An unhealthiness in either of these areas could cause some specific cancers. If we don’t learn to measure these tissue healthiness factors, we can’t measure their effects on cancer.
There are other theories about tissue healthiness. There’s the sugar theory. It’s an important one. But there is controversy as usual. The May Clinic says: “Sugar doesn’t make cancer grow faster.” But MedicalExpress.com reports a scientific study demonstrating a trigger between excess sugar consumption and cancer. It seems they ‘agree to disagree’. Or perhaps to split hairs.
Note: MedicalExpress makes the common mistake of saying “Sugars are needed to provide us with energy and in moderate amounts contribute to our well-being.” A ‘myth’ that is easily disproven by fasting and by diets that do not contains sugar. So much for science.
Mercola reported recently that giving up all sugars and carbs that convert to sugar stops the growth of cancer cells. The Mayo Clinic only talks about sugar and does not mention the fact that simple carbs are equivalent to sugar. One way to cut sugar totally, is to adopt a meat only diet – and there are very few studies of an all meat diet, none that I am aware of that test effects on cancer. Another is to fast – some people recommend fasting to health cancerous tissues.
There are many anecdotal studies suggesting that fasting, or an all meat diet can stop cancer tumor growth. Unfortunately, medical science is not very good at evaluating anecdotal results, even when the evidence is strong. As soon as an event is identified as anecdotal, our so called ‘medical science’ throws out all of the babies with the bathwater.
There are also suggestions that or body fluids can be more or less acidic – and that this contributes to cancer creation and growth. But these have not been tested scientifically. What tissue unhealthinesses contribute to cancer? Frankly, we don’t know, and no-one is searching for an answer. There are many people studying what happens to the cells – but no-one studying tissue healthiness. Medical science removes cancerous tissues with surgery – and reports that the tissues not infected by cancer are ‘healthy tissues’. If they are ‘healthy’, where did the cancer come from? Health is not binary. Your tissues are not ‘healthy’ or ‘unhealthy’, they are healthy and unhealthy. Unhealthiness is the inverse of the measure of healthiness.
How unhealthy do your tissues need to be to cause cancer? Modern medical research suggests that the development of a cancerous cell is very complex and requires a complex sequence of cellular damage. This suggests that in order for a tissue to develop cancerous cells it must be very unhealthy, and might require many different types of serious unhealthiness.
For a cancer to metastasize, many further steps are required, eg. the tissue must be even more unhealthy than required to develop a generic cancer. This is one of the reasons generic cancer doesn’t usually kill – generic cancer is a cancer that has not metastasized. Some generic cancers can exist for decades without metastasizing and without threatening life.
Generic cancers are caused by unhealthy tissues. Our current war against cancer cells, and similar attempts to ‘cure cancer’ are actually be making cancers worse – even when short term results seem to indicate some progress.
Fundraisers everywhere say they are searching for a ‘cure for cancer’. There are big dollars to be earned in our current, misguided cancer war. We don’t need to cure cancer, we need to cure the cancer patients. We need to health their tissues, not kill their cells.
Is anyone out there ‘healthing’ cancer? Yes, I believe there are. Why haven’t you heard about them? Let’s suppose someone gets cancer, and then they do something completely different from all of the ‘kill cancer’ treatments. Specifically, they do many things to improve their tissue healthiness – and the cancer goes away. What will you hear? The medical establishment will dismiss the incident as ‘anecdotal evidence’. Doctors will shun the patient, for fear of their license. Media might pay attention for a moment – that’s the duration of their attention span – the time between commercial advertisements for cancer causing processed foods and cancer fundraisers.
It’s not difficult to find organizations that claim to health cancer. But it is difficult to find the truth.
We don’t need a war on generic cancer, we need to make peace. We need to ‘health cancerous tissues’, so they can ‘kill cancer cells’. If you are searching for an organization to help you ‘health generic cancer’, don’t look for someone who advertises a ‘cancer cure’. People and organizations that advertise a cancer cure are usually selling ‘alternative’ ways to kill cancer cells. They are still marketing the medical paradigm.
We need a health paradigm to truly understand and health cancer.
to your health, tracy
This post is the second in a series where I explore the concepts of ‘generic’ cancer from the perspective of Healthicine. The first post is: