Okay, as it is a real concern for many people (indeed, many of my friends talk about themselves, family members or friends having this disease and I myself got through it exactly 2 years ago), and there are a lot of questions, misconceptions, uncertainties, false data and controversies in the subject, let's take another look at it. These are my own observations and conclusions, and you are invited to look at facts and make up your own mind.
A few months ago, regarding the Breast Cancer Awareness Month, October, I pointed out a couple of controversies of the official cancer politics:
Cancer research: forward or backward? and
Is cancer caused by the genes?
Let's go further.
It's great that the WHO is showing signs of improvement and hope when they now say that 40% of cancer can be prevented, compared to 30% in their fact sheet on cancer which was published in 2008. This is good improvement, but it is not enough.
And the motto for today is 'Cancer can be prevented too' which is fortunately true. One just has to know the exact causes of it - which is not widely promoted by the standard medicine or health organizations.
What they suggest for prevention are all valid and good things:
- no tobacco use
- a healthy diet and regular exercise
- limited alcohol use
- protection against cancer-causing infections.
"Increase political commitment for cancer prevention and control"
Prevention.
A question: Although one can see and welcome decisions on banning smoke at public places in more and more countries, and there are efforts to educate on the harms of tobacco, when will the time come when governments and other powers will say No thanks, we don't want the huge sums of money coming in to us from tobacco and alcohol sales??? An example: Sweden is a healthy country, that we all know, right? Their National Food Administration (Livsmedelsverket) names alcohol as nutrition.
Healthy diet?
Staying in Sweden, this authority supports such carcinogen poisons as aspartam or natrium-glutamat. Sugar, which is most loved by cancerous cells (according to Otto Warburg for example, who got a Nobel Prize on cancer discoveries), they need it in order to grow, sugar is recommended by the Livsmedelsverket up to 50grams a day, added to the food - it's very hard to find here food that shouldn't even be sweetened at the first place, like bread or meat products, without some form of sugar added to it. Fifty grams pure sugar a day, you know how much is that? Imagine eating almost 12 (twelve) teaspoons of sugar a day, with your sausage or ham sandwich, yuck...!
Protection against cancer-causing infections?
Of course, the pharmaceutical companies are highly interested in selling more and more vaccines, that should be clear.
And if the prevention fails (how wouldn't it, if you only look at these points above?) and the patient does get cancer, somebody will have to manufacture and sell newer and newer drugs for the chemotherapy and painkillers etc...
Control.
Here I can imagine the increasing political commitment: it can be easily seen that for example control occupational hazards (which is one of WHO's preventive strategies) means making it hard for alternative medicine or organizations, individuals that have proven record of healing cancer (or other illnesses) by treating the person in spiritual, holistic ways, with simple and cheap methods (sunshine, vitamins) etc. What if Albert Szentgyörgyi was right about vitamin C? No, that doesn't sound good, because Big Pharma has an essential role in the official cancer politics and strategies, and one can't make big cash on a simple thing that can't be trade marked and sold as such.
“Today, America’s pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies lead the world in investing in new biopharmaceutical research and development – investing nearly $59 billion in 2007 alone. These extensive private investments – roughly double that of the National Institutes of Health’s entire operating budget – represent one important reason why America leads the world in developing new treatments for diseases such as cancer and AIDS. Quick action on Senators Baucus and Hatch’s legislation will help the United States remain the global engine of technological and medical innovation as well as strengthen the economic and personal health of every American.” - from PhRMA Applauds Introduction of Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Act of 2008
Why do I have the notion that although without a question, most of the people working at the determining organizations have the honest and best intentions to actually handle the problem of cancer and help those who suffer, it is still money that talks?
So I just had a drink with 1000mg vitamin C (the 4th one today), cheers!
About Andrea's Survival Guide
www.andreagerak.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment