Cancer is a process

The cancer process can be a lengthy one. It can last for many years until the final point, the discovery of a tumor, is reached.

Since no one is in absolutely perfect and total health right down to the cellular level, everyone can be considered to be in Phase 1 - or, to put it another way, in the precancerous phase. It may seem strange to imply that if you do not have cancer, you are in a precancerous stage. Current figures as to the risk of developing cancer vary, depending on the source, from one in two men and one in three women, or approximately 40 percent, and up to as high as 70 percent for people born now. Taking the average, you have a fifty-fifty chance of developing cancer. These are not great odds. When deaths are aggregated by age, cancer has surpassed heart disease as the leading cause of death for those younger than age eighty-five since 1999. This being so, it behooves you to do as much as you possibly can to avoid cancer and to stop yourself from becoming one of the side of overcaution than to put your head in the sand and simply hope that cancer will never happen to you.

           

You may be in reasonable health; you may even think of yourself as being totally healthy. Or you may have a variety of health problems, many or all of which may be predisposing you to developing cancer healthy cells into cancerous ones.

The evolution of health care - Part 2

When two views coincide

There is another aspect to this history, and it concerns two French-man of the nineteenth century, Louis Pasteur and Antoine Bechamp.

A major area of difference between the drug approach to health care and the natural remedies approach is the way these two men viewed the activities of microorganisms and their impact on health. In the middle of the nineteenth century Louis Pasteur and publicized information about the presence of bacteria and other pathogens at the site of infections. He then made the mental leap required to claim that the pathogen had caused the infection. Antoine Bechamp also French and of a similar age, observed the same phenomenon but took the reverse view. He considered it was the breakdown of the terrain, the person's weakened or previously damaged tissues, that caused the disease and that the pathogens arrived later and were opportunistic beneficiaries rather than causative agents. Bechamp stated that this explained why one person succumbed to a particular health problem while another, in the same location or situation, did not.

The two men had many debates during the course of their professional lives, but it is Pasteur who, at the end of his life, changed his mind and acknowledged, 'It's the terrain that is important.'

Unfortanately, the initial ideas of Pasteur were seized upon by the many drug companies of the day, and this continues to the present. It is easy to focus on finding drugs that are patentable and profitable and that will kill specific bugs or bacteria. Whether or not that ensures long-term health is debatable. On the other hand, it is impossible to make and patent profitable ways of improveng the individual's terrain, for this depends on good diet, a healthy lifestyle, and, if necessary, the use of nutrients, herbs, and specific phytonutrient-rich foods, none of which can be patented. Thus the ideas of Bechamp were largely ignored, even though, in the end, Pasteur came around to them and embraced them.

Your health is linked to your terrain

CAM therapists follow the hypothesis put forward by Bechamp and whatever your health problem, they work to improve the terrain; your body. This is why CAM therapists work the whole body rather than focusing on a specific symptom or target tissue. It is also one of the reasons why CAM therapists put so much emphasis on diet, digestion, the avoidance of nutrient deficiencies, and the removal of toxins - factors that are enormously important if you are to recover from cancer.

The evolution of health care - Part 1

It is interesting to consider a very brief and simplified overview of the way health care has evolved through the millennia. In ancient times it was the wise men of the tribe, the witch doctors, who provided the ancient wisdoms and had the most dramatic effects on the health of the tribe. They healed the body and the spirit, often in dramatic ways. However, it was the women, working away quietly in the background, who came to understand the benefits of different foods, herbs, and other plant and animal substances, as well as remedies in the treatment of day-to-day health problems. Over the centuries the witch doctors evolved and subdivided into the church leaders on the one hand and the medical or drug doctors on the other, the latter being deemed, rightly or wrongly, to involve technical, scientific, and appropriate activities for men and to be worthy of respect. The women's role with nutrition and herbs evolved into nutrition and domestic science on the one hand, and health care using natural remedies on the other; both were considered 'soft' subjects, suitable, in a politically incorrect age of macho superiority, for women. This in part explains the placing of drug medicine in the universities and the CAM therapies on the outer edge in collages that are only gradually becoming recognized within the educational system.

The evolution of health care - Part 2

How Modern Medicine Contrasts with Naturopathy

Modern medicine, the MDS approach, offers little in the way of prevention. Although it has had some notable successes with some of the blood cancers, it has achieved relatively little in the treatment of solid-tumor cancers, when the hype and smudging of statistics is set aside.

Some sobering figures come from a recently published book. the cost of cancer drugs, worldwide, is 40 billion dollars per year, second only to medications for heart problems, but rising at double the annual growth rate. This is despite the fact that 'in most (nonblood cancers) chemotherapy is remarkably ineffective.'

A study of American and Australian data has shown that the survival rate is 63 percent, but that chemotherapy contributes only 2 percent to this. It showed zero effect on multiple myeloma, softtissue sarcomas, melanoma of the skin, and cancers of the bladder, kidney, pancreas, prostate, and uterus.

Two examples are given; lung cancer kills 150.000 Americans a year and costs 40.000 dollars per person, and treatment extends a person's life on average by two months (plus the cost of the side effects, which can be brutal). For metastatic breast cancer the figure was 360.000 dollars per person.

the economics are disturbing on another front. The authors state that oncologists are among the highest-paid doctors; their salaries are increasing faster than those of any other specialists, and more than 50 percent of their income comes from selling cancer drugs. Yet, 'the age-adjusted mortality rate for cancer is essentially unchanged over the past half-century.' This is in spite of the huge increase in funding and research during that same time.

In another report chemotherapy has been shown to increase the five-year survival rate by only 2.3 percent (Australian figures) or 2.1 percent (U.S. figures)

In contrast to the CAM approach, the MDS system;

• First, does do harm - there is no medical drug that does not have some harmful side, or toxic effect.
• Largely ignores nutrition and the possibility of nutrient deficiencies, even though that is the fuel on which the body runs
• Almost never incur ports any detox strategy in its treatment programs, and often incurases the body's toxic load, even though many of these toxins are carcinogens.
• Focuses on the symptom, not the whole body; hence we have specialists who focus only on the digestive tract, the heart, the kidneys, and so on.
• Frequently suppresses symptoms without correcting the underlying cause. Examples include the use of drugs to lower blood pressure, block pain, block inflammation, or suppress a temperature without correcting the cause. In fact a temperature is an essential part of boosting the immune system so that it can deal with the problem.