Time Magazine published and essay entitled ‘Can Most Cancer Really be Prevented.’ “We’re born with a certain number of genetic aberrations that can lead to the disease, and we also pick up some from how we live or what kinds of things we are exposed to. But there’s also another way we acquire DNA changes: simply by having another birthday and living longer.” Just being alive for too long dooms approximately half of cancer sufferers to cancer if we believe what we read in the mainstream.

In a new paper in JAMA Oncology, researchers from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public to assessed how lifestyle factors were linked to a person’s cancer risk. The authors of the new study point out that patients with optimal lifestyles — who exercise regularly and don’t smoke or drink — can face cancer diagnoses. A year ago researchers from Johns Hopkins determined that well over half—65%—of cancers are actually traceable to random mutations and therefore mostly beyond our control. The new paper studied more than 135,000 men and women and determined that lifestyle factors, like diet, smoking and exercise, account for 20% to 40% of cancer risk.

They paint a picture of everyone having some baseline level of cancer risk that is caused by their cells dividing, and the mistakes that those cells make when they copy themselves. On top of that are layered the lifestyle factors — things such as smoking, diet and physical activity — that can accelerate or slow down that basal level of mutations that stem cells create. This is just an old cancer theory that is being dragged out from under the carpet. These medical scientists have huge bind spots about cancer and we can start with iodine deficiencies and how iodine can prevent uncountable amounts of cancer and lead to success in its treatment.

Dr. Bert Vogelstein, professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins, says that while most people focus on the amount of cancer that is preventable — according to most experts, and Song’s paper, anywhere from 20% to 40% — he and his colleague Dr. Cristian Tomasetti focused on the remaining 60% to 80% that is not. “What about people who don’t smoke and eat a healthy diet and get plenty of exercise and avoid the sun? If they get cancer, what’s behind their disease?” they ask.

To begin to answer these oncologists questions, what happens to healthy people who let doctors constantly test them with dangerous cancer causing radiation? What happens to people who allow dentists to pack cancer-causing mercury into their teeth? What happens to healthy people who drink cancer causing fluoride in their water or to people who live downwind from coal fired electrical plants or crematoriums that emit mercury or who live anywhere near nuclear power stations? The list is almost endless and even includes living too near cell towers.

“Cancer is a systemic, not a localized disease; it is a warning from your body that our diet and lifestyle need to be changed.”

A President’s Cancer Panel issued a landmark report a few years ago suggesting that public health officials have “grossly underestimated” the extent of environmentally-induced cancer among the 1.5 million Americans diagnosed with the disease annually. A significant number of annual cancer deaths in the U.S. are caused by environmental pollutants and occupational exposures; lower-income workers and communities are disproportionately affected by these exposures. The WHO has classified outdoor air pollution as a leading cause of cancer in humans. “The air we breathe has become polluted with a mixture of cancer-causing substances,” said Kurt Straif of the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). All of these leads us to the conclusion; it really matters where you live.

It is hard not to draw the additional conclusion that we cannot trust the medical media, doctors nor their publications for leaving out the most basic information and understanding about cancer in their communications. It seems like their main game is to keep patients distracted, uninformed, misinformed, and blissfully unsuspecting and unprepared to prevent or treat their cancer safely and inexpensively. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, with 1.6 million new cancer cases and 600,000 cancer deaths projected to occur in 2016.

Infections Cause Lots of Cancer
Cancer—always believed to be caused by genetic cell mutations—can in reality be caused by infections from viruses, bacteria, and fungi. “I believe that, conservatively, 15 to 20% of all cancer is caused by infections; however, the number could be larger—maybe double,” said Dr. Andrew Dannenberg, director of the Cancer Center at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. Dr. Dannenberg made the remarks in a speech in December 2007 at the annual international conference of the American Association for Cancer Research.

Given enough time, cancer will develop whenever there is a proliferation of damaged cells. When cells are damaged, when their cell wall permeability changes, when toxins and free radicals build up, when the mitochondria lose functionality in terms of energy ATP production, when pH shifts strongly to the acidic, when essential gasses like oxygen and carbon dioxide are not present in sufficient concentrations, and when essential nutrients are absent, cells eventually decline into a cancerous condition.

We can see that when a person has cancer they are literally rotting inside and dying from the loss of function, gathering infectious forces, and losing strength from malnutrition as the cancer cells eat us out of house and home. Cancer is caused, in great part, by poisons and by nutritional deficiencies. We can assume these factors are the main causes of mutations in a person’s genes.

A clinical study in Russia conducted by Dr. Sergey Paschenko was published by the Ukrainian National Journal of Oncology. The elimination of hyperventilation and hypocapnia in patients with breast cancer through slower breathing led to an increase in the three-year survival rate and a better quality of life of patients. In this study when a modified breathing retraining technique was applied, the three-year mortality rate for the breathing normalization group was 4.5% and for the control group 24.5%. Hence, breathing normalization decreased 3-year mortality by more than 5 times. All patients who normalized their breathing survived. Let us add another 30% chance of beating one’s cancer just from spending an hour a day using a Russian breathing device designed for asthmatics. Bottom line, the faster we breathe the less oxygen our cells get.

Scientists have confirmed that long-term lack of oxygen in cells is a key driver of cancer growth. Dr. Ying Xu, Regents-Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar and professor of bioinformatics and computational biology in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences study was published in the Journal of Molecular Cell Biology in 2012. “Cancer drugs try to get to the root—at the molecular level—of a particular mutation, but the cancer often bypasses it,” Xu said. “So we think that possibly genetic mutations may not be the main driver of cancer.”

Dr. Paul Gerhard Seeger found that cancer cells utilize only between 5 and 50% of the oxygen of normal cells. The virulence of cancer cells is directly proportional to their loss of oxygen utilization, and with this to the degree of blockage of the respiratory chain. In 1957 Seeger successfully transformed normal cells into cancer cells within a few days by introducing chemicals that blocked the respiratory chain.

Cancer is a systemic, not a localized disease; it is a warning from your body that our diet and lifestyle need to be changed. Eighty percent of our genetic predisposition towards disease can either be activated or held in check by proper diet and lifestyle, which have direct implications for one’s immune system strength.

Withholding Critical Information about Cancer is Criminal
Withholding information, when it comes to cancer can be a criminal act that ends in countless deaths. How is it that Time Magazine and these oncologists say nothing about the fact that cancer deaths for those taking the selenium can be cut almost in half? According to a study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on December 25, 1996, people who had taken selenium had 63% fewer prostate cancers, 58% fewer colorectal cancers, 46% fewer lung cancers and overall 37% fewer cancers. Selenium was found to reduce the risk of lung cancer to a greater degree than stopping smoking. Thus, obviously selenium should be part of every cancer treatment because it prevents many genetic mutations.

A new study published in JAMA Internal Medicine says that exercise can lower the risk of some cancers by 20 percent. Regular physical activity: it can lower your risk of becoming overweight and can keep diseases like heart problems and diabetes at bay. Previous studies have found that people who are more active tend to have lower rates of colon, breast and endometrial cancer. Exercise might lower colon tumors by speeding the transit of waste through the intestines, leaving little time for any potential cancer-causing agents to harm intestinal tissues. Physical activity can lower estrogen levels, which are known to contribute to breast and endometrial tumors.

Once you reach a serum vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml, your risk for cancer plunges by 67 percent, compared to having a level of 20 ng/ml or less. The Health and Medicine Division (HMD) of the National Academies of Sciences has reported an association between vitamin D and overall mortality risk from all causes, including cancer. Vitamin D also increases your chances of surviving cancer if you do get it, and this includes melanoma patients.

An epidemiological study by Dr. Cedric Garland focused on the relationship between breast cancer and vitamin D levels as shown in the medical literature. Their conclusion: If women kept their vitamin D blood levels at approximately 52 ng/ml, they could expect a 50% reduction in the risk of breast cancer.

“Oncologists are arrogant, and will get mad if you do not want to poison yourself with chemotherapy or radiation. Oncologists are often the worst people to trust when it comes to treating cancer.”

Dr. Pamela Goodwin and colleagues retrospectively analyzed more than 500 women over a period of 11 years. Results: Women who had been deficient in vitamin D at the time of their breast cancer diagnosis were 73% more likely to die from breast cancer than those with sufficient vitamin D at the time of diagnosis, as well as being almost twice as likely to have recurrence over the 11-year period.

Emotional and Mental Causes
One large scale study among approximately 2,000 middle aged male employees of the Western Electric Company reported that those individuals who were more depressed were 2.3 times as likely to die of cancer during the following 17 years than their non-depressed counterparts.

Dr. Nalini Chilkov writes, “Cancer risk increases when the immune system is compromised by stress, loss of sleep, depression, inability to eat, poor nutrition. When a woman is traumatized by sexual violence and sexual assault, particularly if it was perpetrated by someone she trusted such as her partner or a family member her immune system will be compromised and her risk of many diseases, including cancer will increase.” According to traditional theory, if you buy it, genetic disruption can happen for many reasons not just because it so happens to happen all on its own.

People under a lot of stress have fewer natural killer cells, immune system cells that spontaneously kill abnormal cells in their vicinity, including tumor cells and infected cells. We also know that the killer cells of people under stress are also less active. Sexual stress, something common enough especially among women, fits the bill in terms of seriously compromising the immune system.

Conclusion
I have been really down on oncologists for good reason. Oncologists are arrogant, and will get mad if you do not want to poison yourself with chemotherapy or radiation. Oncologists are often the worst people to trust when it comes to treating cancer. Medical criminals are doctors and researchers who covering up toxicity issues especially the toxicity of chemo and radiation therapies and all the dangers that come with diagnostic tests that use radiation. They are criminally wrong for using substances that cause cancer to treat cancer.

Oncologists certainly lack the ability to think in multiple dimensions about cancer and its treatment. There are many things I have not mentioned above, like full hydration with hydrogen water. Like using infrared therapy – aggressively as to increase one’s core body temperature – for body temperature is in a mathematically direct relationship with immune system strength.

Moreover, we have not even touched on one’s pH; and how acid conditions lead to cancer meaning we can treat with sodium bicarbonate to aggressively and safely bring us back to a more alkaline condition. One of the best forms of chemotherapy is concentrated medical marijuana. It, as opposed to normal chemotherapy, is not something that causes cancer, it only treats it. Additionally we have to ask ourselves which doctors we know understand how important and basic magnesium is to cancer treatment and its prevention.

Moreover, Time Magazine and all these good oncologists always fail to mention how high sugar intake often leads to cancer. All of these factors mentioned above dramatically change the numbers we should be using for why we get cancer and how many of us are going to die from it. Additionally they give us a world of advice about how to treat cancer successfully, information that oncologists simply refuse to learn or give.

Written by Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P) and published at DrSircus.com, May 23, 2016. Dr. Sircus  is the Director International Medical Veritas Association and Doctor of Oriental and Pastoral Medicine

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml“