Cancer

This is welcome news in a couple of ways. If they are faking cancer stats and cancer recoveries (as many of us suspect), then it shows up in this fact that half the people with cancer will die of a different disease. Secondly, even if the stats are real, it means cancer is less to be feared than many people think. I think the third interpretation… that we are winning the war against cancer, is the least likely to be true! What are the facts? Officially (this is the USA), there are now 12 million cancer survivors… up from 3 million in 1971 and 9.8 million in 2001. Other territories will have proportionately similar figures. Two-thirds of them have survived cancer for at least five years, according to Yi Ning, MD, ScD, of the Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center in Richmond. He and his colleagues examined data on 1,807 cancer survivors who participated in the 1988-1994 and 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). The most common forms of cancer among the survivors were breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal. Fifty-one percent died from cancer and 49% died from other causes. Died Of What?

This is welcome news in a couple of ways. If they are faking cancer stats and cancer recoveries (as many of us suspect), then it shows up in this fact that half the people with cancer will die of a different disease. Secondly, even if the stats are real, it means cancer is less to be feared than many people think. I think the third interpretation… that we are winning the war against cancer, is the least likely to be true! What are the facts? Officially (this is the USA), there are now 12 million cancer survivors… up from 3 million in 1971 and 9.8 million in 2001. Other territories will have proportionately similar figures. Two-thirds of them have survived cancer for at least five years, according to Yi Ning, MD, ScD, of the Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center in Richmond. He and his colleagues examined data on 1,807 cancer survivors who participated in the 1988-1994 and 1999-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). The most common forms of cancer among the survivors were breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal. Fifty-one percent died from cancer and 49% died from other causes. Died Of What?

Get this and be clear about it. Many cancers are infectious; they arrive because of infective organisms and can be passed from person to person. 20% of all cancers are caused by infections and, 80% of those, it’s a virus. An oncovirus is a virus that can cause cancer. This term originated from studies of retroviruses in the 1950–60s, often called oncornaviruses (onco-RNA-viruses)  to denote their RNA virus origin. It’s amazing that viruses don’t cause many more cancers than they do, because a virus is basically a bunch of nasty DNA/RNA that gets into the cells it infects. Cancer is also basically nasty DNA/RNA. There could come a day when we realize that ALL cancers are infections. That would explain why cancer is basically a disease of the immune system. A vibrant and healthy immune system remains your best insurance against cancer. Burkitt’s lymphoma (or “Burkitt’s tumor” or Burkitt lymphoma) is a cancer of the lymphatic system (in particular, B lymphocytes). It is named after Denis Parsons Burkitt, a surgeon who first described the disease in 1956 while working in equatorial Africa. It was, essentially, the first confirmed human cancer caused by a virus. By 1964, Anthony Epstein and Yvonne Barr identified the first human cancer virus from Burkitt lymphoma cells. A herpes-group virus, this virus is formally known as human herpesvirus 4. But it is more commonly known as Epstein-Barr Virus or EBV, after the discovers.

Get this and be clear about it. Many cancers are infectious; they arrive because of infective organisms and can be passed from person to person. 20% of all cancers are caused by infections and, 80% of those, it’s a virus. An oncovirus is a virus that can cause cancer. This term originated from studies of retroviruses in the 1950–60s, often called oncornaviruses (onco-RNA-viruses)  to denote their RNA virus origin. It’s amazing that viruses don’t cause many more cancers than they do, because a virus is basically a bunch of nasty DNA/RNA that gets into the cells it infects. Cancer is also basically nasty DNA/RNA. There could come a day when we realize that ALL cancers are infections. That would explain why cancer is basically a disease of the immune system. A vibrant and healthy immune system remains your best insurance against cancer. Burkitt’s lymphoma (or “Burkitt’s tumor” or Burkitt lymphoma) is a cancer of the lymphatic system (in particular, B lymphocytes). It is named after Denis Parsons Burkitt, a surgeon who first described the disease in 1956 while working in equatorial Africa. It was, essentially, the first confirmed human cancer caused by a virus. By 1964, Anthony Epstein and Yvonne Barr identified the first human cancer virus from Burkitt lymphoma cells. A herpes-group virus, this virus is formally known as human herpesvirus 4. But it is more commonly known as Epstein-Barr Virus or EBV, after the discovers.

Remarkable as it may seem, humble aspirin has a strong effect against cancer cells. This is in part due to the fact that cancer is part of the picture caused by our “inflammatory fire”; partly because it has a specific cytotoxic effect—see below. A study just last year (2011) showed taking aspirin (salicylic acid) significantly reduced the risk of colorectal cancer. 434 subjects taking just a placebo had an incidence of 30 cancers; 427 subjects taking aspirin daily for at least 2 years had an incidence of only 18 cancers. That’s a remarkable 40% reduction. No fancy expensive drugs can do that, or even come close!

Remarkable as it may seem, humble aspirin has a strong effect against cancer cells. This is in part due to the fact that cancer is part of the picture caused by our “inflammatory fire”; partly because it has a specific cytotoxic effect—see below. A study just last year (2011) showed taking aspirin (salicylic acid) significantly reduced the risk of colorectal cancer. 434 subjects taking just a placebo had an incidence of 30 cancers; 427 subjects taking aspirin daily for at least 2 years had an incidence of only 18 cancers. That’s a remarkable 40% reduction. No fancy expensive drugs can do that, or even come close!

If you didn’t get the first part of the discussion on this topic, you can read about it here: Cancer is not an apricot deficiency This article by me provoked a lot of response. It’s amazing how many people want to defend this Laetrile (amygdalin) hokum. One colleague even quoted research by Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, the scientist who performed the requested tests at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. He claimed that laetrile inhibited secondary tumors in mice, though it did not destroy the primary tumors. He repeated the experiment several times with the same results (he says). However, three other researchers were unable to confirm Sugiura’s results. While these uncontrolled and inconclusive results were considered too preliminary to publish, they were leaked to laetrile advocates, resulting in significant public uproar that here was an amazing new cancer “cure” being suppressed. From that day forward, I don’t anybody in alternative medicine (except me!) followed along. It was a proven deal, that laetrile worked. Well, it wasn’t. What’s more the basic requirements of science were not met. There has to be reproducibility. If others can’t copy what you did, chances are, you are WRONG.

If you didn’t get the first part of the discussion on this topic, you can read about it here: Cancer is not an apricot deficiency This article by me provoked a lot of response. It’s amazing how many people want to defend this Laetrile (amygdalin) hokum. One colleague even quoted research by Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, the scientist who performed the requested tests at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. He claimed that laetrile inhibited secondary tumors in mice, though it did not destroy the primary tumors. He repeated the experiment several times with the same results (he says). However, three other researchers were unable to confirm Sugiura’s results. While these uncontrolled and inconclusive results were considered too preliminary to publish, they were leaked to laetrile advocates, resulting in significant public uproar that here was an amazing new cancer “cure” being suppressed. From that day forward, I don’t anybody in alternative medicine (except me!) followed along. It was a proven deal, that laetrile worked. Well, it wasn’t. What’s more the basic requirements of science were not met. There has to be reproducibility. If others can’t copy what you did, chances are, you are WRONG.

I’m constantly surprised by how little knowledge of geopathic stress is passed around. It is a significant factor in the genesis of cancer, as I explained in my book “Cancer Research Secrets“. Recently, I received a note from correspondent  David Reecher, director of the Aquifers and Health Institute, which I decided to share. Dear Dr. Scott-Mumby, I’m Director for “Aquifers and Health Institute”; a non-profit organization created solely for the purpose of making people aware of geopathic stress and the harmful effects it causes if exposed for long-periods of time, over and over again. As you mention on page 181 of your Cancer Research Secrets, “location can be a factor in disease”. Indeed it can. And that is what drives us each and every day towards making this knowledge public. Just knowing people are getting sick simply because they, or someone they know, positioned their bed or office chair over a location that causes stress (stressor) to the body without being aware of its existence, is our motivation. I’ve known of you for many years, as you provided the forward to Kathe Bachler’s great book “Earth Radiation”. She was a great pioneer in this field. I visited Ms. Bachler in her home town of Abtenau, Austria a few years back. I believe she had just turned 85 around that time. I didn’t speak German nor did she speak English, but we had excellent translators that made the trip very beneficial for us both. Thanks to the early pioneers like Kathe Bachler, we know a lot more about what causes geopathic stress today. To keep the subject as simple and scientific as possible, we are only focusing on geopathic stress created by the pressure and friction of moving groundwater inside an aquifer. Scientifically, it is already known by the EPA that under the right conditions, groundwater can and does generate electric fields.

I’m constantly surprised by how little knowledge of geopathic stress is passed around. It is a significant factor in the genesis of cancer, as I explained in my book “Cancer Research Secrets“. Recently, I received a note from correspondent  David Reecher, director of the Aquifers and Health Institute, which I decided to share. Dear Dr. Scott-Mumby, I’m Director for “Aquifers and Health Institute”; a non-profit organization created solely for the purpose of making people aware of geopathic stress and the harmful effects it causes if exposed for long-periods of time, over and over again. As you mention on page 181 of your Cancer Research Secrets, “location can be a factor in disease”. Indeed it can. And that is what drives us each and every day towards making this knowledge public. Just knowing people are getting sick simply because they, or someone they know, positioned their bed or office chair over a location that causes stress (stressor) to the body without being aware of its existence, is our motivation. I’ve known of you for many years, as you provided the forward to Kathe Bachler’s great book “Earth Radiation”. She was a great pioneer in this field. I visited Ms. Bachler in her home town of Abtenau, Austria a few years back. I believe she had just turned 85 around that time. I didn’t speak German nor did she speak English, but we had excellent translators that made the trip very beneficial for us both. Thanks to the early pioneers like Kathe Bachler, we know a lot more about what causes geopathic stress today. To keep the subject as simple and scientific as possible, we are only focusing on geopathic stress created by the pressure and friction of moving groundwater inside an aquifer. Scientifically, it is already known by the EPA that under the right conditions, groundwater can and does generate electric fields.

Diet Wise has always been my best-seller. If you haven’t got that, you are just not serious about safe, healthy eating (as opposed to fad programs). But right up there close is my “Cancer Research Secrets”. It sells a lot because people are scared of cancer. This disease does have a dread reputation. You see movie stars wasting away in front of the paparazzi and you figure “Well, they have all the money. They can afford the best available treatment and it’s still killing them.” What’s wrong with that line of logic is that movie stars might have the money and the most costly doctors. But that doesn’t mean they get the best treatment. Far from it. Jackie Onassis was literally KILLED by experimental unproven treatment from her oncologist. The truth is that doctors cannot take over our own health. Even if doctors were terrific at what they profess to do, you’d still be crazy to hand over your own body to their care. It’s your life. You should captain the ship. And when it comes to cancer control, you’d be mad to surrender to conventional care. It’s clear that the “cancer industry” is NOT about curing or even helping people. It’s about profits. They don’t want cures, as can be seen by the fury with which they attack doctors who promote safe and cheap alternatives to their cruel “death machine”.

Diet Wise has always been my best-seller. If you haven’t got that, you are just not serious about safe, healthy eating (as opposed to fad programs). But right up there close is my “Cancer Research Secrets”. It sells a lot because people are scared of cancer. This disease does have a dread reputation. You see movie stars wasting away in front of the paparazzi and you figure “Well, they have all the money. They can afford the best available treatment and it’s still killing them.” What’s wrong with that line of logic is that movie stars might have the money and the most costly doctors. But that doesn’t mean they get the best treatment. Far from it. Jackie Onassis was literally KILLED by experimental unproven treatment from her oncologist. The truth is that doctors cannot take over our own health. Even if doctors were terrific at what they profess to do, you’d still be crazy to hand over your own body to their care. It’s your life. You should captain the ship. And when it comes to cancer control, you’d be mad to surrender to conventional care. It’s clear that the “cancer industry” is NOT about curing or even helping people. It’s about profits. They don’t want cures, as can be seen by the fury with which they attack doctors who promote safe and cheap alternatives to their cruel “death machine”.