Too funny... It's not my fault you're blind and refuse to even observe the evidence. (hint, watch the documentaries and cross-reference the newspaper articles...)


Now, show me the evidence of quackery...

A documentary, and newspaper articles are not evidence. If they offered data then we could use that data, but just showing that other hold the same opinion is not evidence.

This is part of the problem, you just do not understand science at all.

The cure for cancer is good health.

Toxins, parasites, poor immune systems provide a nice environment for cancer. Cancer itself is like a parasite. It grows, and it feeds off of your body.

Modern medicine does not really have a handle on what causes cancer and they certainly don't know how to cure it.

They treat it.

Doctors today still don't (are not permitted) to prescribe natural medicine or vitamins. They don't know much about nutrition either.

When garlic thins your blood, they will prescribe a pill to do the same thing. But they can't monitor the pill any better than they can monitor the garlic tablets.

People need to take personal responsibility for THEIR OWN WELL BEING.

Stop drinking pop, soda, sugar, processed foods, bad fats, etc. Find out how to use food as medicine and you will live a lot longer.

Ugh, not true.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/indexWe have lots of knowledge about various kinds of cancers. Some are easily treated and the person never gets it again, thus a cure. Not all cancers are equal.


My uncle was a very pale, red haired Irish looking fellow . . . who worked as a roofer who never wore sunscreen. He died at the age of 42 from melanoma skin cancer, we know EXACTLY what caused his cancer. Sadly that form of cancer is very aggressive. A tumor would be removed, treat it, it would be gone, and come back some place else, until all of his organs had inoperable tumors and he died. Even the spread of his cancer was well understood, we even know why it killed him.

The body is a huge place to hide a few cells to start a new growth.

So tell me, what "exactly" was the cause of his skin cancer?

Sun burns. Repeated trauma to the skin cells causing mutations.

Okay, we all know that too much burning of the skin is bad. UV rays, radiation from the sun etc.

But do you know how or why exposure to the sun causes skin cancer on some people but not on others?

For that matter, how does exposure to the sun cause skin cancer?

Also, if it is the sun is what causes skin cancer, then anyone and everyone who spends too much time in the sun should be getting it.

Also, how does that translate into cancer of the internal organs and why does it keep coming back even after they have found the cause and removed the person from it?

There is something else going on there. It is not just exposure to sunlight that is causing the cancer.

It doesn't fly.

Ok here is your problem in a nut shell. You ask a good question, but then wihtout knowing the answer you create a conclusion from your lack of understanding.


The mechanism(s) for how the cancer develops IS the reason why everyone does not get it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC79671/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803212053.htm

The factors involved are very specific, and when damage occurs it is unlikely to setup the situation for cancer, however, the more you damage the skin, the more likely you are to get a cancer. Some populations may have advantageous genes which prevent, or restrict the likelihood of a given pathway.

What "conclusion" did I "create" (except that if the sun is the cause, then everyone who gets too much exposure should get skin cancer.)

That is just logic. It demands more answers to the question, that's all.



I read that article very carefully...... twice.

My impression is that they found a clue but they still don't really know much about it. And they still don't have a "cure."

If they REALLY know what causes skin cancer (along with too much sun) then logically they would know how to prevent and cure it.

Another question: Are there any cases of people with skin cancer who don't get too much sun?

Also, how does that end up spreading to internal organs if the sun is the cause?

Cells in your body move around, they then can take root in other places. Lymph nodes are a common transit mechanism.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/lymph-nodes-and-cancer

It amazes me people without knowing even the basics of cancer are so ready to make statements about what prevents it or what causes it.

Really? I believe it was YOU who made the statement about what causes skin cancer, not me.

My "so-called conclusion" was a logical deduction based completely on your claim. (And it's not really MY conclusion at all) It is yours, based on your claim that exposure to the sun causes cancer.

I am just asking questions.

I am not coming to any conclusions either. I just made a logical statement that

IFF exposure to sun CAUSES SKIN CANCER (as you stated)

THEN

Everyone who gets too much exposure will get it.

But you changed your statement to more like exposure to the sun may cause cancer IFF.... blah blah.





So people with these "advantageous genes" are less likely to get cancer.

and you said also:
"The mechanism(s) for how the cancer develops IS the reason why everyone does not get it. "


I see.

Yep, like I said you come to conclusions using your "logic" with a lack of knowledge and no effort on your part.

It's not MY logic. It is simple generic logic.

You don't read very well. I did not come to any conclusion.

You did when you stated that exposure to the sun IS THE CAUSE OF skin cancer.

I don't have skin cancer, and I live in a very sunny place. Hence your claim is not accurate.

None of my so-called conclusions are my conclusions. They are simple logic based on accepting YOUR PREMISE or statement.

Repeat it all you want. The lack of knowledge is yours. You have a lot to learn on a great many things, and seem to have little desire to do it.

Spend more energy on learning and less on being offended at the obvious.

" It is interesting to note that in the trial court, before Judge Atwell, who had an opportunity to hear the witnesses in two different trials, it was held that the so-called Hoxsey method of treating cancer was in some respects superior to that of X-ray, radium, and surgery and did have therapeutic value. The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit decided otherwise. This decision was handed down during the trial of a libel suit in the District Court of Dallas, Tex., by Hoxsey against Morris Fishbein, who admitted that he had never practiced medicine one day in his life and had never had a private patient, which resulted in a verdict for Hoxsey and against Morris Fishbein. The defense admitted that Hoxsey could cure external cancer but contended that his medicines for internal cancer had no therapeutic value."


http://www.scribd.com/doc/3817444/The-Fitzgerald-Report-Suppressed-Cancer-Treatment

My "lack of knowledge" (about cancer or anything) is completely irrelevant. It does not apply to the logic of your statement.

You made a statement, I asked a few questions.

If I accept the premise of your statement as being true, (that too much exposure to the sun CAUSES SKIN CANCER) ... THEN... everyone who gets "too much" exposure to the sun should, get skin cancer. ---> cause that's what causes it according to you.

You are just too proud to retract your statement, even though you did do some back peddling.

(Please don't jump on the Metalwing bandwagon with your ego by harping about my "lack of knowledge.")

You have no idea how much I know or don't know about skin cancer or any other kind of cancer.

My sister had cancer, my grandmother, my aunt, my grandfather, my cousin, etc. I am familiar with cancer and the many failed ways that doctors try to treat it.

My aunt was given two weeks to live and sent home with as much drugs as she wanted to die with. She was not ready to die. She turned to natural medicine, Old mexico, and change of diet and she recovered and lived for ten more years.

From being given two weeks to live and being given up on in America, from her American doctor,-- to living for ten more years.

That is nothing to sneeze at.