Is our definition of cancer correct?

[Didge]

Ric I do not have enough time to even read all your post as I am rushing for work but 'poking the immune system with a stick' has been long held as one of the paths to stimulating the repelling of cancer. Dr Issel's clinic (known from my youth as failing to save Lillian Board) used this method as do many today. I have long been interested in lifestyle changes and tried Gerson's therapy for my late husband 25 years ago. They have always maintained that they have better results with people whose diets were very poor than those whose diets were already very good. The assumption is that those with poor diets may have cancers which have been triggered or even caused by poor lifestyle whereas those with healthy diets were not. I do not think there is one thing which causes cancer in all individuals but we do need to consdider each individual as exactly that. Some people clearly have a genetic tendency to develop cancer such as those with the BRAC genes. But it has always seems obvious to me that whatever treatment you try, to remain in remission the body has to take over after 'treatment' has finished. How and why some people do that and others do not is not clear. But it makes sense to me and always has done, that if you are lucky enough to get to remission, you change something in your lifestyle or the way you live. Something my late husband declined to do in the 2 years he was in remission. I have also long been suspicious of vaccinations believing that the natural reaction to the disease gives strength in a way which the vaccination does not. Whether vaccination have played a part in the increase of cancer I wouldn't know. I suspect, like everything else in the cancer world, it is not that simple.

[Didge]

I am still rushing but not quite so much as on a work day, so here are a few more musings about the incidence of cancer today. Gerson said in the 1950s that he feared for the children born 'today' (i.e. in the 1950s). He was talking about the increased use of pesticides and the deterioration in the quality of food and predicted that we would be facing an epidemic in cancer for those baby boomers. He appears to have been right but whether the cause is as he suggests is up for debate. I am sure it has played a part. We are always being told that people are living longer and longer. But I am not convinced by the statistics. My parents are in their 90s and at my father's 95th birthday this week one of their neighbours commented on how many of their friends were in their 90s and how common it was now. Conversely, my late husband was a member of a close group of friends (4 couples) and 3 of them died of cancer, my husband in his 30s and the other 2 in their 40s. I have also lost numerous friends to cancer in their 40s and 50s. One fact could be that in my parents' generation, before penicillin, perhaps infections carried off the ones with weakened immune systems early in life. If a compromised immune system plays a part in the cause of cancer then that would make sense, that those weaker individuals survive to succumb to cancer later in life at an early age. Interesting also is the fairly new (is it?) idea that the body actually gets rid of a lot of early cancers itself and early diagnosis (sadly not a problem for PC sufferers usually!) has added to the statistical rise in cancer stats. Apparently there has been a big increase in breast cancer incidence since mammograms have been use and the first thought was that the radiation could be causing it. More likely (as small amounts of radiation would surely take some time to make a difference) is the idea that the test picks up early cancers, a lot of which the body would overcome itself without the sufferer ever realising they had it. But treating each person as an individual rather than blanket treatments for all must be the way forward. If we know which people are likely to repel their cancers with no treatment at all, which will respond to chemo (and which type), which will respond to dietary therapies or any other treatment, the survival rate will increase for all cancers. At the moment, we seem to be in the dark ages with treatment for a lot of cancers and with all the money which has been poured into research over the years that seems unbelievable. of course most research is led by drug companies and the random testing model is hopelessly flawed. If they develop a drug which cures 10% of people and then they develop a drug which cures 20% of people, the first one will be ditched in favour of the second. But the people who were in the 10% of people cured by the first drug may not be in the 20% cured by the second. With knowledge of how indivuals will respond rather than the population as a whole, we could have had 30% cured in that example. At last we do seem to be taking a step to look at individuals' make up but it has come very late in the day! For my part, without modern surgery I would have died at 15 so I try to look at all the time I've had since then as a bonus!