What do you think causes cancer?

[roxyruby]

What do you think causes cancer and why?

Do you think it might be the consumption of dairy products or sugar and not enough plain or raw vegetables in our life?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by roxyruby

What do you think causes cancer and why?

Do you think it might be the consumption of dairy products or sugar and not enough plain or raw vegetables in our life?

Dairy products and sugar has nothing to do with it, nor is it not eating veggies. Plenty of people have gotten cancer while not drinking dairy and eating sugar while having plenty of veggies. No reason to even bring those up, as I don't recall a single study that showed it to be true. I don't know why everyone has such a disdain for dairy.

[scorpio1980]

Cancer is caused by cells being produced to rapidly. This is usually because of bad lifestyle choices. Don't stress, eat properly, exercise, get your sleep, relax, relax, relax, relax, relax, and you are way ahead of the game.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Cancer is caused by cells being produced to rapidly. This is usually because of bad lifestyle choices. Don't stress, eat properly, exercise, get your sleep, relax, relax, relax, relax, relax, and you are way ahead of the game.

What life style choices causes cancer?

[elucidate]

Worrying constantly about getting cancer is probably the fastest road to triggering those cancer cells into being activated, along with a stressful lifestyle. I don't think food really plays that big a part in it at all.

[Indiana]

Yeah, and sometimes you spend your whole life growing and eating your own vegetables and fruits, having a balanced intake of meats and fish, not smoking, not drinking excessively, not leading an unduly stressed life, enjoying an active lifestyle and close family and friends... and you still end up with terminal cancer, like my dad.

If cancer was simple to solve, they would have solved it by now. It's complex and you don't get cancer just because you worried too much or didn't eat enough broccoli.

[AngelPsychic444]

There are so many different causes of cancer these days...it's unreal. One of the newest causes is EMF's, like from your cell phone. Seem's like we get new ways to get cancer every few years. The only way to stay safe is to have a very strong immune system.... and even with that...it's still not 100%.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Cancer is just one of many ways in which nature keeps our population in check. It exists independent of our lifestyle choices. That being said, we can increase our chances by making poor choices. Sometimes it is as indiscriminate as having a bad gene. Curing cancer in general could actually be one of the worst things humanity could ever do. We are not meant to consistently double our population and drain the earth of all it's resources.

[niknac]

Stress

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

What life style choices causes cancer?

A million in 1 lifestyle choices. Working a job you hate, being with a spouse you dislike, having kids when you really don't want them, being in debt, eating food you hate just because it's "healthy", drinking bad water, microwaves, electromagnetic fields from cell phones, wireless equipment, smog from vehicles, smoking, and on, and on.

Ofcourse you could live the best life in the world, and have no stress, but still get cancer. A bad lifestyle won't always give you cancer, but all evidence points to the fact that our choices in life give us a better or worse chance at health depending on those choices.

I believe we are all predisposed to certain weaknesses within our genes. Our lifestyles turn these genes on, and off thus causing dis-ease where this weakness resides. I believe in life force energy, and the fact our choices dictate if our energies are weak or strong. I have no proof of this, but from the material I have studied this has quickly become my current beliefs.

I don't believe lifestyle to be the cause, but rather a trigger for cancer. I believe disruption of energy or stagnation within the energy body to be the true cause. This is my belief, and in no way am I trying to discredit someone else from their beliefs in this regard.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by roxyruby

What do you think causes cancer and why?

Do you think it might be the consumption of dairy products or sugar and not enough plain or raw vegetables in our life?

I don't really believe that any one food group causes cancer. I believe that anything in excess will lead to a stagnation in energy which may cause dis-ease one being cancer. Evidence has been shown that cancer cells thrive on a high sugar diet though. Most studies are pointless though, they are usually discredited shortly after wards, but my intuition rings true with this one for whatever reason.

[JamesKnochel]

1. Poor oxygenation of body tissues (diaphragm can get locked up, etc)
2. rapeseed oil
3. soybean oil

hth.

-James Knochel

[Trustme]

genetics

[Indiana]

If any of this were true, shouldn't all the cancer-free people expect some kind of - what - merit badge? when they make it through life looking after themselves so very well that they don't get the 'big C'. And all the people who do get cancer can feel just a little bit worse because they obviously failed to do something 'right' and therefore it's their fault, just a bit, that they got it.

Who, me? Bitter? Just a little. Why is it that my dad who looks after himself so well, who was growing organics back in the 70s, who never smoked or drank heavily, who has a loving marriage and a good job and runs four times a week, blah blah blah - how come he gets terminal cancer, while his brother, with all the same kind of genes, smokes a pack a day since his teens, chronic alcohol abuser, broken marriage, no exercise, unemployed except when he's working in mines - how come he gets off scot-free, huh? How about my friend who died of breast cancer at 28, leaving two little boys behind her? You gonna blame her vegetarian diet or her happy marriage for getting cancer?

All this pontificating about 'oh, stress gives you cancer' or 'not enough exercise gives you cancer' or 'bad lifestyle choices give you cancer'. You lucky, lucky people to be able to make such naive statements. ♥♥♥♥♥ that. Cancer is f*cking blind and merciless.

[ginkgo]

Here is the very latest information. Moores Cancer Center is considering that cancer is primarily caused by vitamin D deficiency (the sunshine vitamin). Harvard says that one study showed that it could reduce cancer by 77%. In 2007, Time magazine recognized vitamin D as one of 10 medical breahthroughs for 2007.

Is that all? No on November 30, 2010 the RDA of vitamin D was tripled. See a lot more about this on this site. See a 5 minute video by Dr Oz explaining how vitamin D prevents cancer and how onthe above site.

[elucidate]

Sorry that you are feeling this way, and that your father has cancer Indiana.

It's not fair, that's for sure. My grandfather smoked a pack a day for 20 years, and his lungs were found to be clean when he eventually did die. You're right about cancer being indiscriminate, and it's a mystery why some people's cells get activated and others cruise through life doing all the 'wrong' things and never get it.

I kinda deduced from that fact that the people who did take care of themselves seemed to worry alot about getting cancer, and I even knew a woman once who was battling Hodgkins Lymphoma, and she admitted that for her, she felt that it was the worrying about it so much whilst maintaining a vegan lifestyle, that triggered those cancer cells to be activated.

She said that she felt instinctively that this is what happened. I suppose she could have been wrong, but it just seems funny that the ones who don't get it aren't worried about getting it.

The women I work with , who are microbiologists, say that it's true, that it's just a mystery what happens with cancer cells. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason.

But yes, you're right, we all have the luxury of speculating about it, and it doesn't help the people who have to watch their loved one disintegrate. I'm so sorry this is happening for your father and your family.

Originally Posted by Indiana

If any of this were true, shouldn't all the cancer-free people expect some kind of - what - merit badge? when they make it through life looking after themselves so very well that they don't get the 'big C'. And all the people who do get cancer can feel just a little bit worse because they obviously failed to do something 'right' and therefore it's their fault, just a bit, that they got it.

Who, me? Bitter? Just a little. Why is it that my dad who looks after himself so well, who was growing organics back in the 70s, who never smoked or drank heavily, who has a loving marriage and a good job and runs four times a week, blah blah blah - how come he gets terminal cancer, while his brother, with all the same kind of genes, smokes a pack a day since his teens, chronic alcohol abuser, broken marriage, no exercise, unemployed except when he's working in mines - how come he gets off scot-free, huh? How about my friend who died of breast cancer at 28, leaving two little boys behind her? You gonna blame her vegetarian diet or her happy marriage for getting cancer?

All this pontificating about 'oh, stress gives you cancer' or 'not enough exercise gives you cancer' or 'bad lifestyle choices give you cancer'. You lucky, lucky people to be able to make such naive statements. ♥♥♥♥♥ that. Cancer is f*cking blind and merciless.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by AngelPsychic444

There are so many different causes of cancer these days...it's unreal. One of the newest causes is EMF's, like from your cell phone. Seem's like we get new ways to get cancer every few years. The only way to stay safe is to have a very strong immune system.... and even with that...it's still not 100%.

One of the newest ASSUMPTIONS of how you get cancer, is your cell phone.

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

A million in 1 lifestyle choices. Working a job you hate, being with a spouse you dislike, having kids when you really don't want them, being in debt, eating food you hate just because it's "healthy", drinking bad water, microwavesa, electromagnetic fields from cell phones, wireless equipment, smog from vehicles, smoking, and on, and on.

Again, non of that is proven, and just an assumption, as people who made perfect life choices still get cancer, and people who do every single thing on your list, do not.

[Just Passing Through]

Cancer is just one of many afflictions that occur when something in the body has been compromised past a certain extent. Generalizing that A, B, C, D cause cancer and Z, Y, X provide immunity from cancer is an oversimplification. Different people have different systemic strengths and weaknesses. Different people are often affected differently by the same things. Two brothers will not be a genetic match unless they are identical twins. It's tempting to look at health as a measuring-stick value, but the truth is that bodily health is like a chain, and the weakest link is the greatest vulnerability. Sometimes different conditions of living (not all controllable) can put stress on certain links of this chain. Sometimes a systemic weakness is unknown and never found out. We never know when we may unwittingly be exposed to some seriously toxic or radioactive stuff. It's a danger none of us are immune to and which cannot always be seen or avoided. Sometimes things positively or negatively affect the body in ways that would not be expected. If you'd like I can give one example.

[stanmrak]

In our toxic world, there are too many answers to this. The more important question is what can you do to prevent cancer. As the replies suggest, sometimes a healthy lifestyle and diet isn't enough... there are too many carcinogens in your environment to keep track of, so you may be exposed without realizing it, and end up with cancer.

That being said, I think it's best to go over and above the usual healthy diet... eat plenty of superfoods and spices, drink fresh vegetable juices and smoothies, detox regularly, and take supplements that have some evidence for cancer-prevention. Clearly, an average healthy diet may not be enough protection. Even if you have "bad" genes, nutrition can compensate for them.

[ssandra]

Although I don't think bad diet, stress, unhappy life etc causes cancer, I do believe that it helps in the growth of cancer. Not for everyone, and not all the time, of course. But in general, yes.

And another important point... the healthier you are physically and mentally if you do get cancer, the better your chances for survival are.

(Mind: I say chances; it is no guarantee....)

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

Here is the very latest information. Moores Cancer Center is considering that cancer is primarily caused by vitamin D deficiency (the sunshine vitamin). Harvard says that one study showed that it could reduce cancer by 77%. In 2007, Time magazine recognized vitamin D as one of 10 medical breahthroughs for 2007.

Is that all? No on November 30, 2010 the RDA of vitamin D was tripled. See a lot more about this on this site. See a 5 minute video by Dr Oz explaining how vitamin D prevents cancer and how onthe above site.

And according to this Doctor with a lot of studies to support his position, Vitamin C is a major factor: The Biggest Epidemic We?ve Ever Known | Natural Health Newsletter

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

One of the newest ASSUMPTIONS of how you get cancer, is your cell phone.


Again, non of that is proven, and just an assumption, as people who made perfect life choices still get cancer, and people who do every single thing on your list, do not.

I disagree. I believe we have enough correlation over the past 100 years to safely say a bad lifestyle up's your chances of developing cancer. I also don't need proof to believe in something that makes all logical sense. How do you know that they did everything perfectly? These people keep saying well this man or that man lived a healthy lifestyle. Really so you were their for his entire childhood, you saw where all his food came from, you saw all his thoughts, and if they were positive or negative, you tested the water he always drank, he never used plastic, never lived around pollution, never had DDT in his system, never ate microwaved food, never lived in an area with cell, and radio waves beaming around, never served in the military, and the list goes on, and on. The fact is that when we have studied isolated tribes that lived naturally, cancer was non existent. Does this prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that cancer is not in part caused by lifestyle? No, but again it sure as hell doesn't prove otherwise.

[Leondegrance]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Cancer is just one of many ways in which nature keeps our population in check. We are not meant to consistently double our population and drain the earth of all its resources.

That could make sense (balance versus imbalance), unless someone can prove that modern types of cancers existed within various living species long before the birth of human civilization.

[secrets0stolen]

Considering the steep rise of cancer rates post-industrial revolution, I'd say toxification of the total environment has a lot to do with it. There was a study done where they tested human milk and not a single sample was without dioxin--dioxin!--in it. Tell me that doesn't have something to do with it.

This isn't something we can avoid by lifestyle choices, for the most part, because that's what toxification of the total environment means. The way our water systems work there are anti depressants in the general supply, not to mention all the chemicals they put in there purposefully. I'm lucky to have a well, but nothing really exempts us from effects one way or another.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Considering the steep rise of cancer rates post-industrial revolution, I'd say toxification of the total environment has a lot to do with it. There was a study done where they tested human milk and not a single sample was without dioxin--dioxin!--in it. Tell me that doesn't have something to do with it.

This isn't something we can avoid by lifestyle choices, for the most part, because that's what toxification of the total environment means. The way our water systems work there are anti depressants in the general supply, not to mention all the chemicals they put in there purposefully. I'm lucky to have a well, but nothing really exempts us from effects one way or another.

Steep rise of people understanding what cancer was, not rise in cancer rates. 100 years ago, they called it Consumption, just like they called anything that consumed your body over time. So many things today existed long ago, but were just not understood or not known. Everything was lumped together. You must always account for lack of records when looking into our history to see how things have changed.

[sheffy4]

I don't have a fully formed opinion of what causes cancer, except that I don't think it is "caused" by anything - I think the word "triggered" would be more accurate. I think the potential for overgrowth of cells exists in everyone, and certain things contribute to triggering it into action.

I do believe that eating well, being active, and not stressing your body too much can help with preventing cancer, but it's not a cure-all. Being exposed to known carcinogens increases risk of cancer, such as certain chemicals, smoke, and other poisons. I don't think dairy or meat or other foods like that cause cancer, but eating too much of them (like overindulging in pretty much anything) is not a good thing either, as their fat content won't do any favors for your heart and arteries.

That was a pretty wishy-washy answer, but it's how I feel.

[stanmrak]

There's a book out there (I haven't read it) named Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism by Andreas Moritz. If you want to understand cancer, it might be something to check out.

Summary by the author:
"This book will serve as a life-altering revelation for those who are sufficiently open-minded to consider the possibility that cancer is not an actual disease. Instead, they will begin to view cancer to be a profoundly elaborate and final attempt by the body to heal itself and stay alive for as long as circumstances permit; circumstances that, as you will discover, are most likely in your control."

Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism (Book Excerpt)

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Steep rise of people understanding what cancer was, not rise in cancer rates. 100 years ago, they called it Consumption, just like they called anything that consumed your body over time. So many things today existed long ago, but were just not understood or not known. Everything was lumped together. You must always account for lack of records when looking into our history to see how things have changed.

Okay then if that's true, that means we can't know cancer rates pre-IR.

However, there are known carcinogens we come into contact with regularly and casually that just weren't there in significant quantities pre-IR. Just one example is a subset of the one I mentioned in my last post:

Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), or simply dioxins, are a group of organic polyhalogenated compounds that are significant because they act as environmental pollutants. They are commonly referred to as dioxins for simplicity in scientific publications because every PCDD molecule contains a dioxin skeletal structure. Typically, the p-dioxin skeleton is at the core of a PCDD molecule, giving the molecule a dibenzo-p-dioxin ring system. Members of the PCDD family have been shown to bioaccumulate in humans and wildlife due to their lipophilic properties, and are known teratogens, mutagens, and confirmed (avered) human carcinogens. They are organic compounds.
Dioxins occur as by-products in the manufacture of organochlorides, in the incineration of chlorine-containing substances such as PVC (polyvinyl chloride), in the bleaching of paper, and from natural sources such as volcanoes and forest fires.[1] There have been many incidents of dioxin pollution resulting from industrial emissions and accidents; the earliest such incidents were in the mid 19th century during the Industrial Revolution.[2]
The word "dioxins" may also refer to a similar but unrelated compound, the polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) of comparative environmental importance.
...
In particular, TCDD has been shown to be teratogenic, mutagenic, carcinogenic, immunotoxic, and hepatotoxic

[secrets0stolen]

Dioxin in Breast Milk Is Evaluated in Private Study - New York Times

A study of breast milk from 50 mothers around the nation has found relatively high average levels of the toxic substance of dioxin, the study's author reported today.

The study, conducted by Dr. Arnold Shecter, professor of medicine at the State University of New York in Binghamton, said that the level of the most toxic form of dioxin in breast milk was enough to cause cancer eventually in 27 out of every million children who nurse for a year.

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency said that the health risks suggested by the study appeared to be exaggerated.

Scientists at the environmental agency said that they were not surprised by the report because the levels of dioxin in the milk of American mothers was similar to that previously reported in studies in other industrialized countries and by the World Health Organization. They said that the levels were consistent with studies conducted here of dioxin in body tissue.

...

The study found a mean level of 7.5 parts per trillion of 2,3,7,8 TCDD, the most toxic form of dioxin, in samples of breast milk from the 50 women. There were about 1,000 parts per trillion of all forms of dioxin in the milk samples, Dr. Shecter said.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Dioxin in Breast Milk Is Evaluated in Private Study - New York Times

27 out of a MILLION. That's a .0027% increase chance of getting cancer compared to someone with out dioxin in their breast milk. We are also talking about an average from just 50 women.

I'm not going to speculate whether or not people have a higher chance of getting cancer then 100 years ago. It's quite possible. But without knowing rates from the past, it's just speculation. Just how much higher of a chance is it NOW then before, even if we are 100% sure that the IR has raised chances?