No offense Geoff - but your 'Western' Medicine is QUACK medicine, always has been. Even America went 'insane' and came up with Psychology/Psychiatry. Do you think it's working? No - the USA is insane.

UK and USA are more apt at winning wars - their Medical reputation is only hanging in their by 'expensive' fees to financially keep itself afloat.
It's also 'highly feminised' as well.
Men = military. Women = Medicine.
That's 'Western' Medicine.

If people want to search 'beyond' just Western ego - then so they should.
There is a tree bark in Africa that has been known to the 'oggiddy-boogiddy' healers for centuries that was good with stopping tumors and cancers. Some far reaching white person who decided to step outside the box re-discovered it for the world beyond the witch-doctors and it is still used today by 'commercialised medicine' even if it is for just a few specific cancers.

The mentality of 'Western' (and 'Media') known Medicine is the be all and end all of Medicine is like only the USA knows what's best for the world. 

Oh wow. Thanks Geoff & Subby.
It looks a lot better than the stuff Monk drinks.
Next shop - it's on the list!

Any news of advancing more clinically effective
cancer therapy has to be seen as only good news.      

Jasin wrote on Apr 12^th, 2024 at 9:58am:


Yes, exactly what I thought… not just a one of treatment, but needing further follow ups… like booster shots etc.
And who wouldn’t do it! If it kept cancer/tumours under control…

Then I think… what makes a cancer comeback?
Do people change their lifestyle/eating habits?
What brought cancer on in the first place?
So many factors to consider.
Smoking, eating poorly nutritious, too much sugar, salt, etc drinking too much alcohol?
It all weakens the immune system… working against it from healing, not working with it.
Then I worry as on hubby’s side there’s cancer deaths, his mum was 57 with breast cancer, but worked on a farm with a lot of those chemicals that seem to be banned (or maybe just had a name change) and his grandparents in their 70s had leukaemia. His 1st cousin in her early 70s recently died after her cancer came back with a vengeance after she maintained it and was in remission, I know it appears coincidence seems to be a major contributer, but she did get the jab then died 2 months later with cancer that “came back” as her shocked hubby said.

There’s not been cancer on my side of family… we are more into high bp, heart probs, high cholesterol etc. yeah… normal stuff 
Then out of the blue, my brother got leukaemia. But his lifestyle was questionable.

I try to avoid chemicals (house cleaning, personal bathroom products etc)
I read labels in foods where it’s from, what it contains.
It’s a continual effort but why not?
Why let other factors take control of your health? We need to make the efforts!

Sometimes the cancers come because we are living longer, but some parts of the body fail to keep up or last longer. It's as simple as that.
After that, the many variations of Cancers are brought on by many things. From living near Power-line Towers, to moving into homes where Ice and Amphetamines were used and the residual fumes and toxins emanate from the walls for the next renter, to cooking pots and utensils made from toxic metals, to pollution, to narcotics, to stress, to genetic history to many more.
That's the hard thing about all this Cancer stuff - there is so much variation it can't be cured with just one answer.
Sometimes is just due to something like inbreeding, where there is low genetic diversity and thus a weak system to 'prevent' Cancers from developing.

I would take a guess though and say that beyond 'narcotic' use and pollution - people in clean, but 'simple' countries of simple stress free living, tend to have far less Cancers than what we see from so-called 'Civilised' nations with a lot of 'materialism'. Sure, people in these countries live longer, etc - but Cancer seems to be the monkey on these nation's backs.

Sophia wrote on Apr 12^th, 2024 at 11:27pm:


100 years ago, the average life expectancy would have been about 60. Although cancer does strike the young, it does have a tendency to develop moreso in elder people. If you could survive pass malnutrition and all manner of diseases that have since been cured through the development of modern medicine, you might succumb to cancer in your old age. The other 99 out of 100 people are going die because of what is now preventable diseases, or they go on to old age.

Putting it another way, you are not going to die of smallpox, tuberculosis, malaria, polio, etc., in this day and age because of the eradication or treatment to the point of cure of these diseases. So, what is left in the diseases department that you could die. Looking at the list of incurable diseases, cancer in the most common. But although there is a possibility of curing cancer, you are likely to just die with cancer from some other illness that your immune system no longer can adequately respond.

100 years ago, if you had cancer, you probably would not have been tested for it. You  might well be misdiagnosed with something else. Pneumonia or something. Doctors would have been able to figure out that you have cancer at some stage. But, how reliable were doctors with the technology that they had back in the 1920s compared to today? You probably did not even need to go to the doctors much, unless you were seriously sick.

Cancer has been around since the dawn of mankind. Except cancer is now readily diagnosed by highly trained and equipped medical practitioners. I don't know what causes cancer. But, I have read enough medical articles -- not that many though -- to say that sugar feeds the cancer cells better than other ingestions.

Let us face it: most diseases ever known to man have been cured. But, cancer being one of the few diseases yet to be cured is now taking up much of the resources of hospitals. If science did not cure half the diseases it has in the last 100 years, hospitals would be overwhelmed with patients. Cancer numbers would probably be less because potential cancer patients would probably develop and die of other diseases before they could have had cancer.

Keep in mind that the average life expectancy is 20 years older than it was 100 years ago. The amount of pollution in the air is less today than it was 35 years ago. Remember when leaded petrol was a thing for cars? The way cities stunk of fumes from massive car numbers? More cars on the road now than 35 years ago. But pollution is less now than it was due to pollution controls.

Perhaps our worsening diet in the last 40 years accounts for exacerbated cancer numbers. Perhaps not. But, seeing that we as a society are taking note to end the use of plastics, there may be some argument that microplastics ingestion could cause cancer. Research available online suggests that microplastics have caused various health problems, including infertility. It is not just a pollution issue that has societies changing their stance on using plastics.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 19^th, 2024 at 1:56pm:

For our lifespans to increase 40% in just the last 150 years of the entire history recorded. That's a phenomenal rate of accelerated change in evolution. I guess people want... to change and for the better by the look at this. It might be a higher percentage in the next 50 years.  Such a fast acceleration where many can live 'double' the lifespan of most 'just' 150 years ago recently compared to the thousands of years before that.
Sadly, when things are not taken in moderation, there are extreme side-effects and Cancer is one of those where parts of the body couldn't keep up to that speed and they implode within the body going cancerous like a necrotic infection from a poisoning.