Theories of Cancer by Ingrid Naiman

Dear Subscribers,

Most of you probably realize that "all" is not in my vocabulary. This said, many of you have sent questions or copies of postings on the web about cancer and its causes. It would be impossible to present a complete list of theories, but a brief once over lightly may help to elucidate how very complex the world of science is. For those who skip the chapter and verse, you might want to watch this video on aliens. The very end is particularly interesting because it cites Voltaire:

http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science/2013/07/two-military-jets-escort-ufo-to-secret-base-alien-tech-in-military-hands-2442920.html

Mutation

The classical theory is basically impossible to prove. It would suggest that at a certain moment when cells were dividing, a "tragedy" occurs that causes a mutation. The mutated cell acquires a life of its own and is basically regarded as wayward or deviant. The interval between the crisis and the clinical diagnosis of cancer is variously posited as anything from 15 years to much longer. Obviously, this theory fails to explain cancers that occur in childhood except for the fact that cells divide faster when there is more growth taking place. Once growth stops, cellular division is significantly slower except in certain tissues that have to be frequently replaced.

One derivative of this theory is that the more abnormal the cell is, the more aggressive it is assumed to be. This theory was used to explain why some cancers claim lives very quickly and others are so slow that the odds of succumbing to cancer are low, i.e., something else will take the life before cancer. The incident itself is assumed to be some traumatic physical or emotional event. O. Carl Simonton based some of his work on this theory. Early in my career, I also accepted it, but the distance between a clinically undetectable event and the onset of cancer is so great that most people today seem to reject the theory. However, if we go back far enough, pathology reports actually stated the extent of the abnormality and prognoses were based on these facts rather than staged by size and degree of invasiveness as is common today.

We should not, however, throw out a theory just because it has been supplanted by another theory. There are hundreds of serious research studies that attempt to explain in physical and psychological terms how trauma relates to the disease. If there is a Type A personality, the psychosomatic theories may not make a whole lot of sense, but for a Type C personality, finding the details might be challenging and convincing. The causal event could have involved something quite tangible such as an exposure to radiation or high voltage or a vaccine, but it could also have been emotional, probably in a way that affected self-esteem such as molestation or abuse, loss of a contest, or humiliation. Sometimes the event correlates to some great loss: death of a family member, change of residence and loss of friends, or accident that left a physical blemish.

While this theory is still accepted by some, it is not as popular as it was 10 or 20 years ago.

Viral Links

Another very popular theory is that cancer is caused by a virus. Though Hildegard of Bingen stated this more than 800 years ago, in his experiments in the 1930s, Royal Rife proved that viruses cause cancer. He called the virus "BX". Virginia Livingstone Wheeler based her work in part on that of Rife and also attributed cancer to a virus. The work I cited recently suggests that SV40 (Simian Virus 40) invariably causes lymphatic cancers in laboratory animals. Another virus, found in the yellow fever vaccine, is said to be the cause of leukemia. Surely, there are many who never had that vaccine but who did develop leukemia. The point however is that certain scientists "know" that cancer is caused by a virus.

Parasitic and Fungal Causes

Others are equally sure it is caused by fungi. Dr. Tullio Simoncini says cancer is caused by Candida albicans. Ronald Gdanski believes the culprit is ergosterol, a sterol found in fungi that are typically found on grains, especially, as the name suggests, rye. Hulda Clark was convinced of the parasitic link as well as the aggravating factors in our modern world that make us more susceptible to degenerative diseases.

Other Theories

There are countless other theories, including that cancer is anaerobic, that it dies when reaching a certain temperature. Each of these theories is, of course, tied to a specific protocol. For instance, if you accept the theory of aerobic versus anaerobic respiration, then you would naturally want to consider oxygen or ozone therapy. If you feel that a high fever will kill the cancer, you might want to drink a Coley cocktail, but ultimately, each patient has to choose a protocol that resonates. While each theory has its adherents and opponents, it is possible to argue that a general state of imbalance could conceivably trigger anything so pH, infections, toxins, and so on and so forth may all be aggravating factors. Bringing the body into balance may set the stage for remission, and we certainly know of countless cases of both gradual and spontaneous remissions.

Giving up the most egregious indiscretions in eating habits, detoxifying periodically (system by system), resolving chronic infections (such as often found in the mouth), doing a major juice fast every few years, and correcting minor complaints before they become serious are reasonable enough strategies. On a psychospiritual level, my belief is that nothing makes more sense than to live one's bliss. Giving up the best years of one's life to tasks that are not enjoyed or even condoned is a recipe for depression and perhaps disaster. We are souls and as souls we have destinies. Therefore, if I were to reform our parenting, schools, and churches, I would start by prioritizing getting to know one's purpose for birth. Nothing else should be permitted to upstage the soul.

My two cents for today!

Many blessings,

Ingrid

What Causes Cancer?