The American Cancer Society lists more than one hundred "types" of cancers. It isn’t really clear to what, or how, these “types” are identified. For example, they list lung cancer, brain cancer, stomach cancer, etc. To me it seems awfully convenient how a "location" in the body determines the "type" of cancer, insinuating that each is somehow different from the others? I contest this unprofessional "opinion" and am more logically convinced that cancer is of one type, and only appears to be associated with a particular organ or location within the human body whence it may be initially discovered. It makes more sense to say that cancer is not a contacted infection, nor is it a virus, but instead is manifested from inside, not from outside, the host. Hence, cigarettes do not create cancer from smoke.
Nothing a human can digest would cause this effect on so many different bodily organs and not be recognized for what it is. For a medical professional to think that tobacco causes lung cancer is just as irresponsible as someone professing a cell phone causes brain damage. Mutations of human cells (even before humans) has been going on for millions of years. Darwin has shown all of us that every species known to man (and a lot we may never know), is a result of the slow mutation of living cells over time. This mutating is not only within man’s body but it has been affected by every different environmental situation in which man, and all of his previous incarnations, has been exposed to, from one age to another.
All those who have studied and searched for the cause of cancer seem to have ignored the possibility that it might already be hiding there contained in the individual being's chemical, hereditary, and cellular origins, and waiting to be triggered by the random mutation of a single cell. All of the previous history of man and all of his past manifestations is contained in his DNA, and it is not all favorable to him.
Break - Another Look at this Deadly Disease
I have not studied, nor even read, any medical publications or reports about cancer. Perhaps that is an advantage since I am not previously influenced or mislead by medical (self-proclaimed) professionals’ thoughts and opinions. However, I am curious about the medical “industry” and how it has spent decade’s and engaged umpteen thousands of people with all their years and years of scientific research, along with billions and billions of dollars, and we still know very little about the disease – other than it’s effects. What is missing here?
I used the term “medical industry” instead of “medical field” for a reason. I can see a similar alliance with the “oil industry” and the “automobile industry”. There are a growing number of people who believe there is a conspiracy between the two, to avoid any alternate energy technology, in order to ensure their survival and success as an industry. Needless to say, this industry has made some of the richest people on the planet and provided them a very comfortable lifestyle, in which they have no desire to jeopardize.
By the same analogy, is it possible there might be a similar conspiracy with the “medical industry” and the “pharmaceutical industry”? Can one survive without the other? To say that this conspiracy idea is invented, or is reaching too far, or that it is just paranoia, might have been true a few decades ago, but look where we are now. How many decades has this been going on? How much money is involved?
To reinforce this idea and to reveal the reality of these conspiracy theories, ask yourself this question: “How long will it take before we reach a time where the reliance on drugs and oil is less and not more?”
You already know the answer, it should have already passed.
Science or Reason