The Cancer Council has funded a study that shows that one in three cases of cancer can be avoided. That makes me suspicious, for the Cancer Council has never shown a real interest in prevention. They just need people to keep getting cancer to keep the money flowing their way. So you can be sure there is a lot wrong with this study. Let’s have a look.
A healthier lifestyle and better diet reduces the chance to get cancer. Well, you don’t need to do a study for that, for that’s generally known. But it’s just as well known that such general statements won’t make the slightest bit of difference, for nobody will listen. That’s two points for the Cancer Council. It sounds like you care, when you know it doesn’t matter.
The study identifies six risk factors: smoking, UV radiation, body weight, poor diet and alcohol consumption. Oops, that’s five. Where is number six? I suppose we aren’t allowed to know. But let’s look at these five. Smoking is definitely unhealthy, though in most people it doesn’t cause cancer. But everyone knows that, so mentioning this as something new is a bit silly.
UV radiation is an absurd one. Sunshine doesn’t cause cancer. It has never been proven and when you start to think about it this theory doesn’t make any sense. The sun has always been there and people never got cancer from it. On the other hand, lack of sunshine most definitely contributes to cancer. It’s not just that we need sunshine to make vitamin D. Sunshine is essential for life and everything in nature knows that. It’s only scientists who have figured out that humans can’t cope with sunshine, though they have never had problems with it before.
Does a high body weight cause cancer? I would say that that’s highly questionable. Obesity is blamed for all kinds of diseases, but usually it’s the reason why people are overweight that is also the cause for the diseases. And that cause is indeed a poor diet. The standard Australian diet is full of sugar loaded crap, that lacks nutrition and contains truckloads of chemicals. I won’t even talk about GMO’s, which luckily are not too widespread here yet. It’s known that cancer feeds on sugar, so the first thing to prevent cancer is removing the sugar from the diet. But I haven’t heard the Cancer Council lobbying to remove all the sugary rubbish from the supermarket shelves.
The last risk factor mentioned is alcohol, but I don’t understand what they mean with that. There are many different alcoholic drinks and moderate intake of alcohol doesn’t increase the cancer risk. And even alcoholics are at risk for all kinds of diseases, but I don’t get the impression that they have a higher risk for cancer. I would like to see what they base this on, but it seems to be mainly another lose gesture to create the impression that the Cancer Council cares about people.
So what are the real risk factors, except for poor diet? I dare to say that the number 1 cause of cancer is….. medical treatments. Babies get their first two shots of cancer causing substances at the first day of life and many more follow after that. Antibiotics kill the gut bacteria, which is bad for the immune system, which gives cancer a chance. The widely prescribed statin drugs are known to cause cancer, but I don’t hear the Cancer Council about that.
And then of course we get a major player: cancer treatments. All conventional cancer treatments are highly carcinogenic. Surgery causes damage and easily spreads cancer. Radiation and chemotherapy are just insane treatments and only meant to keep the cancer industry in business. Many times that a patient hears that “the cancer has come back”, the cancer hasn’t come back. It’s not the old cancer that came back, but a new one that was caused by the radiation and chemotherapy a bit earlier.
So what does the professor conclude? “However, Professor Aranda urged people to stay away from “fad diets” and focus on eating less red meat, smaller portions and less processed foods.” What exactly does she mean with fad diets? That term is usually used for the latest weight loss diet, but that doesn’t apply here. Does she mean things like eating organic, unprocessed food? That’s not a fad, that’s the return of common sense. And since when is red meat the cause of cancer? I think the professor is mixing up the theories about heart disease and cancer. I admit that meat isn’t particularly healthy nowadays, because of the way the animals are treated. But you cannot make it a general statement that red meat is unhealthy. The smaller portions are also an absurd statement. Smaller portions of junk food won’t make you any healthier. Besides this is another statement that will never ever make any difference. “Don’t eat so much, for you will get overweight and then you might get cancer” is not something that anyone listens to. The advice to eat less processed foods is a good one, but what is the Cancer Council going to do about the availability of this junk? Nothing, I suppose.
So a summary of this research means that it’s a study that didn’t prove anything, won’t make a difference and was never meant to decrease the number of cancer patients. The only goal for this study was to make the Cancer Council look like they care about cancer patients and want to reduce the number of them. But it doesn’t work. It’s too obvious that this study is just more of the usual stuff. This study hasn’t done anything more than give some researchers a job. And that’s how the donations of good willing people are used. That money isn’t used to prevent cancer and it’s not used to find a cure. It’s used to keep business going and to convince people not to use any natural cancer treatments, no matter how effective. For if people would start to cure their cancer the Cancer Council would get out of business. And that’s the unpleasant truth: cancer is a many billions of dollars a year industry and those profiting from it have no interest to change it. When you want to prevent or cure cancer you are on your own. Don’t count on the conventional medical system to do anything for you. They won’t.