Is winning the war on cancer inevitable?

[Areopagite]

In Sylvie Beljansky's book she recounts that Mirko's lab contents, papers and herbs were confiscated by the French government and he was not allowed access to his formula.
I am not sure why there is so much hostility to alternative treatments, especially when they do have research behind them. It is entirely simplistic and inaccurate to say that Dr. Huber only uses vitamin C and baking soda as you would know if you have read her Manifesto for a Cancer Patient. However I will say that vitamin C and alkalinizing diets are effective against some cancers. Why would you denigrate biochemistry when it is the basis even for chemotherapy, which is merely poisoning the body at the cellular level to halt cancer growth. It is indiscriminate and often destroys organ function, so that even if the cancer is eradicated you may die from organ failure. Bizarrely, both chemotherapy and radiation are cancer causing. Surgery is effective, but can remove important bodily functions, as in the case of mastectomy and prostate removal.
I think the fundamental misunderstanding about what cancer is spurs on treatments that are less than optimal. Cancer is caused by damaged cellular dna in which cellular reproduction is turned on, with no feedback shut off switch. The damaged dna is often caused by environmental poisoning, i.e. toxins in air, food, water, personal products, and ionizing radiation. The main focus should be to stop the poisoning, detoxify the body, and repair the dna, all of which are possible. What makes no sense is to further poison or radiate the body, and even if you surgically remove the affected portions, the damage is at the cellular level so the reoccurrence of cancer is highly likely. The body's own immune system clears damaged tissues and dna on a daily basis when it is operating optimally. You as a healthy individual encounter cancer on a daily basis, but it is not allowed to proliferate because your immune system removes it. Damaged cells are removed, damaged dna destroyed. The key is supporting the immune system and working with what the body is naturally designed to do.
In any case, sometimes death occurs in spite of everyone's best efforts. I am not sure why we give conventional therapies a pass as effective treatments when people die. Alternative strategies have clinically shown to be effective, people often are healthier and enjoy their lives without the side effects of conventional therapies, and in some cases manage their condition in such a way over long periods of time as to 'die with cancer, not of it'.
Fighting cancer is very individualized, because each case involves an individual. It seems to me that expanding our tool box only gives us more opportunities to achieve better outcomes. Instead of gaslighting people regarding the effectiveness of alternative therapies, maybe it would be better to do unbiased research, which unfortunately very rarely happens because there is little funding for it. When 80% of peer reviewed research papers cannot have their results duplicated, you have a real problem with credibility. When corporate interests are the ones paying for research indirectly in academia through charitable donations you may not be getting unbiased results. When big ag and big food pay universities for 'independent' research through state cooperative programs, one must consider the source. GMO, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, heavy metals, dyes, preservatives, industrial chemicals and pharmaceutical drugs are all mainstays of our marketplace directly and indirectly. Profits are the point. Natural and inexpensive compounds do not make money, patented chemicals, drugs, and products do. Think about it. If you are willing to take a known toxin that will cause you to vomit uncontrollably and lose your hair that costs a fortune in hopes of eradicating a cancer cell, why wouldn't you consider drinking some ojibwa tea that is not toxic, pleasant, you keep your hair, it's afforable and still destroys that cancer cell?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Maybe with alternative treatments too. We can't say because there aren't any studies,

The book in question (Winning the War on Cancer) references multiple studies in detail.

[LuckyR]

Natural and inexpensive compounds do not make money, patented chemicals, drugs, and products do. Think about it. If you are willing to take a known toxin that will cause you to vomit uncontrollably and lose your hair that costs a fortune in hopes of eradicating a cancer cell, why wouldn't you consider drinking some ojibwa tea that is not toxic, pleasant, you keep your hair, it's afforable and still destroys that cancer cell?

No one is stopping you. Drink tea. That's the beauty of western modern medicine. If you want it, it is available. If you want to drink tea, western medicine isn't going anywhere. There are plenty of patients for western medicine practitioners to treat. You're not going to be missed. If the tea cures your cancer (which I hope it does), fantastic. If you are ever dissatisfied with using tea to treat cancer, fine, western medicine will be waiting for you. It's all good.

I admit I have no practical experience with the machinations of the French government. Though I would seek independent corroboration for such an odd story. I mean why would the French government care?

[Sushan]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month (link]Winning the War on Cancerlink) is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

Cancer is a perfectly natural system whereby cell division is, like everything, less than perfect. To live we must replicated our cells continually else we die. When cells mutate they most often die leaving the immune system to mop up. A healthy body with a healthy immune system is possibly the best way of coping with cancer cells - we all have cancer cells all the time. but as we grow older it becomes increasingly difficult to cope.
Cancer is not one thing, but a huge series of ailments whose common factor is the excessive growth of cells. It's onoly when these tumours become to big for the immune system to cope and when they start to invade other systems does cancer become a disease.
Cancer is a disease of old age.
I do not think he war on cancer can ever be won. The battle will continue and the front lines can be pushed back, but eventually for each of us the likley hood is that eventually we will die with a cancer in our body that contributes to our demise, even whem the primary cause of death is some other factor.

In general you have explained how a cancer can occur. But cancer is not an illness of old age. What about the neonates who are born with cancers (teratomas, astrocytomas, embryonal tumors, choroid plexus tumors, craniopharyngiomas, gangliogliomas, ependymal and meningeal tumors, etc.)?

Yes, cancer is a failure of bodily systems to fight against the wrong bodily processes. But that can happen at the beginning of life since we start as a single cell, and also towards our death as all the systems become to loose the efficacy as we get old. Anyway cancer is not a disease of old age.

[Sushan]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month Winning the War on Cancer is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

Cancer is a perfectly natural system whereby cell division is, like everything, less than perfect. To live we must replicated our cells continually else we die. When cells mutate they most often die leaving the immune system to mop up. A healthy body with a healthy immune system is possibly the best way of coping with cancer cells - we all have cancer cells all the time. but as we grow older it becomes increasingly difficult to cope.
Cancer is not one thing, but a huge series of ailments whose common factor is the excessive growth of cells. It's onoly when these tumours become to big for the immune system to cope and when they start to invade other systems does cancer become a disease.
Cancer is a disease of old age.
I do not think he war on cancer can ever be won. The battle will continue and the front lines can be pushed back, but eventually for each of us the likley hood is that eventually we will die with a cancer in our body that contributes to our demise, even whem the primary cause of death is some other factor.

Very important point. If all cancers were eliminated tomorrow, the human lifespan would only increase 3 years, since so many cancer patients are already beyond the average lifespan.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

OTOH, if you could cure suicide, homicide and accidents, the human lifespan would increase dramatically since those are killers of young people.

I think it is a fairly okay point, but not a 100% okay one. Older people who get cancers like prostate cancer won't get much benefit by the elimination of the cancer since it debilitating stage comes usually in very old age, up to when many won't even live.

But there are many other cancers that affect young people, like breast cancers, and also even the neonates, like brain cell tumors. If we can eradicate these ones it will be a great increment of not only the life span of those people but also an increment for their productivity as well.

[Sculptor1]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month (link]Winning the War on Cancerlink) is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

Cancer is a perfectly natural system whereby cell division is, like everything, less than perfect. To live we must replicated our cells continually else we die. When cells mutate they most often die leaving the immune system to mop up. A healthy body with a healthy immune system is possibly the best way of coping with cancer cells - we all have cancer cells all the time. but as we grow older it becomes increasingly difficult to cope.
Cancer is not one thing, but a huge series of ailments whose common factor is the excessive growth of cells. It's onoly when these tumours become to big for the immune system to cope and when they start to invade other systems does cancer become a disease.
Cancer is a disease of old age.
I do not think he war on cancer can ever be won. The battle will continue and the front lines can be pushed back, but eventually for each of us the likley hood is that eventually we will die with a cancer in our body that contributes to our demise, even whem the primary cause of death is some other factor.

In general you have explained how a cancer can occur. But cancer is not an illness of old age.

I think if you look at the statistic you shall find that cancer is primarily about age.

Deaths by age

What about the neonates who are born with cancers (teratomas, astrocytomas, embryonal tumors, choroid plexus tumors, craniopharyngiomas, gangliogliomas, ependymal and meningeal tumors, etc.)?

Thankfully teratomas are rare.

Deaths by age

Yes, cancer is a failure of bodily systems to fight against the wrong bodily processes. But that can happen at the beginning of life since we start as a single cell, and also towards our death as all the systems become to loose the efficacy as we get old. Anyway cancer is not a disease of old age.

Yes it is.

[Sculptor1]

I am unable to post a reference but you might be able to find the data on cancer and age from looking at
cancerresearchuk org health-professional cancer-statistics mortality age

[LuckyR]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month Winning the War on Cancer is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

Cancer is a perfectly natural system whereby cell division is, like everything, less than perfect. To live we must replicated our cells continually else we die. When cells mutate they most often die leaving the immune system to mop up. A healthy body with a healthy immune system is possibly the best way of coping with cancer cells - we all have cancer cells all the time. but as we grow older it becomes increasingly difficult to cope.
Cancer is not one thing, but a huge series of ailments whose common factor is the excessive growth of cells. It's onoly when these tumours become to big for the immune system to cope and when they start to invade other systems does cancer become a disease.
Cancer is a disease of old age.
I do not think he war on cancer can ever be won. The battle will continue and the front lines can be pushed back, but eventually for each of us the likley hood is that eventually we will die with a cancer in our body that contributes to our demise, even whem the primary cause of death is some other factor.

Very important point. If all cancers were eliminated tomorrow, the human lifespan would only increase 3 years, since so many cancer patients are already beyond the average lifespan.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

OTOH, if you could cure suicide, homicide and accidents, the human lifespan would increase dramatically since those are killers of young people.

I think it is a fairly okay point, but not a 100% okay one. Older people who get cancers like prostate cancer won't get much benefit by the elimination of the cancer since it debilitating stage comes usually in very old age, up to when many won't even live.

But there are many other cancers that affect young people, like breast cancers, and also even the neonates, like brain cell tumors. If we can eradicate these ones it will be a great increment of not only the life span of those people but also an increment for their productivity as well.

Sounds good. Too bad the stats don't back it up. The mere three year lifespan boost by curing ALL cancers does, in fact take into account the luckily rare cancers among children (who, of course are overwhelmed, statistically by the tsunami of elderly cancer patients).

If longevity is the goal, cancer cure is not the answer. As mentioned, although cancer tugs on heartstrings accident, homicide and suicide prevention is where the additional years are located.

[Sushan]

Winning the war on cancer is indeed inevitable because cancer cures are already available. The issue, as always, is exposure of this information. People with healthy immune systems fight and win the war on cancer every day. There are already a myriad of cancer treatments for those willing to take the time to look. What is quite certain, though, is that if you follow conventional modes of treatment and nutrition you will find yourself losing this battle. Your body is designed to heal if given the proper materials and absent subsequent poisoning. The cancer industry is a well documented for-profit corporate interest which benefits from creating a public perception that cancer is not curable. Mirko Beljansky bumped into this reality, and, his experience and research should not be ignored for those who want to actually see people healed rather than virtue signalling their moral superiority by buying something pink.

I cannot totally disagree with what you say as I too believe that the field of medicine and pharmacy has already become a business than a service. But for the time being I am not aware about 100% efficient alternative cancer treatment that can be used alone to treat any patient. Various combinations can do wonders on various patients, yet that has a patient factor as well. Our bodies are different and in them the same drug can act in different ways. One is allergic to a drug but another is not so. So I do not think that there are such multi-potent drugs or treatment regimes, although it would have been a blessing if we had such things.

[Sushan]

Maybe. Mirko did not have access to his own stuff, and there are other things he might have used. He was not able to exercise his options. The irony is that his treatment actually mitigates the side effects of conventional treatment if used in conjunction with it. He was denied this option and wasn't really capable at that point of developing something else. So he died. But that doesn't mean what he developed doesn't work. The real question is, why wasn't he allowed to use his own treatment, esecially if, as some say, it doesn't work. Also, let's posit that he used it and he still died. That doesn't mean that it was not helpful to him. Chemotherapy and radiation treatments are highly lethal on their own. He might have had healing occurring when the other treatments killed him, as they often do. Mirko did have long standing results in effectively treating difficult conditions over time. So, why wasn't he allowed access? If you wanted to disprove it would be easier to let him take it and claim it didn't work if he died. The 'if' is the problem, because if he lived, you may have proven something else. The clinical trials at Colombia show good results. There are other treatments like Beljansky's that also have good success. But you rarely hear of them, and most doctors will only recommend conventional treatment. The recent docuseries The Truth about Cancer was an attempt at helping to educate the public about cancer and show effective treatment and cures that they would never hear from their doctor. Cancer is very treatable and not an automatic death sentence. The war on cancer is really an individual fight, and those suffering from it need to have good information and be allowed to exercise all their options. Those who do often have great outcomes. Dr. Huber's practice in AZ has a documented 93% success rate with cancer patients. I would say she is winning.

It is possible that he did not have access to his own stuff due to the legal iissues. Legal issues can be made with corrupted intentions, but that does not mean they are always malicious in intent. Maybe his stuff had the potential to actually harm the patients than help them.

At the same time, if he performed his experiments with prohibited stuff then it is illegal, and seemingly his imprisonment has happened after a fair trial.

[Terrapin Station]

Is winning the war on cancer inevitable?

I think so.

But I seriously doubt that any of us will be alive to see it.

[Sushan]

Winning the war on cancer is indeed inevitable because cancer cures are already available. The issue, as always, is exposure of this information.

To play devil's advocate, knowing the cure alone does not make the war winnable.

For instance, we know the cure to morbid obesity. Even those dying from morbid obesity know the cure. However, we are likely to win the war on cancer long before we win the war on obesity, or even truly start the latter. Arguably, most of the work that is currently being done to make technological advancements in battling obesity is for mere aesthetics rather than health. In other words, people are more than willing to overeat themselves to death, but if possible they would pay good money to look more physically attractive while they do.

Nonetheless, despite people's addictions and they way for-profit companies like Pfizer and McDonalds cater to those addictions for profit, I do think that winning the war on cancer is inevitable.

The delay is because we need to win the war on cancer without winning the war on addiction (e.g. smoking cigarettes, overeating to morbid obesity and death, etc.) because the other (a war on addiction) is not going to be winnable nearly as soon if ever.

Why should we try to win the war on cancer just ignoring the many addictions that lead people towards various cancers (i.e. Smoking will lead people to lung cancers) ?

I see this as a war front, and we should target all the obvious as well as less obvious enemies. Cancer is visible since it is a full blown enemy and we see the damage it can do. But what about smoking and junk food eating? They do not appear as dangerous, but all of us are aware about the damage they can do, though we have chosen to ignore it with or without the intention. So I think the counterattack should be on the whole war front, destroying all the enemies, and it has to be done simultaneously, not one after the other.