Anyway, regarding the metals. Why do you disagree?
I should have been a little more specific saying my main point of disagreement was the statement "no amount of herbs will do the trick". Regardless of the cause of cancer there are herbs that can still address the cancer.
But the other part is that some metals can contribute to cancer formation, but this is not always due to oxidation. Free iron can lead to oxidative damage, which can contribute to cancer. But oxides, which do not cause oxidation can also contribute to cancer. Magnesium oxide and calcium oxide for example can burn tissues that can lead to chronic inflammation and cancer. Then there are toxic metals that can cause DNA damage without oxidation. And there are radioactive minerals that can deposit in tissues and cause radiation induced DNA damage.
This is in combo with another question I have/topic of discussion which is, is ALL cancer linked to viruses?
No, not all. But the vast majority have been linked to viruses. There are other causes though. There is a bacterial form of Kaposi's sarcoma for example. Mycoplasmas are also linked to some other cancers. The fungus Aspergillus niger produces aflatoxins that can cause liver cancer. Parasitical cancers are extremely rare but do occur. Radiation induced cancers, such as radon induced lung cancer, also exist, but again are rare. Then there are carcinogens. But few have actually been shown to cause cancer. Many simply promote the growth of existing cancers.
I happened to have found one of your posts on this matter and am reading through the links and the first link mentions that about 10-20% is viral linked. Depending on the virus and cancer. Is your opinion that ALL cancers are caused by viruses?
Based on what I know of human biology as well as medicine, the oncogene insertion into the host DNA does not necessarily become expressed unless there are mutagens or oncogens that turn them on.
Yes, exposure to a cancer virus does not necessarily mean the person will develop cancer from the virus. Viruses can be present in the body and not be active. Take herpes viruses for example, which generally only pop up when there is immune suppression. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is another great example. It is estimated that about 80% of the population is infected with CMV but are asymptomatic. People do not become symptomatic with the virus unless severely immunosuppressed.
This mechanism is still not very well understood of gene expression but I would categorize heavy metals and metal toxicity as a mutagen. Mercury for example, among others like lead, cadium, etc. literally work in the body as if you would drop a wrench into an engine. It binds and destroys everything, and puts the body under heavy oxidative stress.
But these are things that we are exposed to on an daily basis but not everyone is getting cancer. So again there is a lot more to the story.
We all know the damage that oxidative stress puts on genetic material and if heavy metal toxicity is the TRIGGER that expresses the oncogene, then treating the virus or immune system is only half the battle. Metals suppress the immune system as well. From a metabolic standpoint, I cannot see how any amount of herbs or immune boosting drugs can help a body that is not functioning properly on the cellular level due to literal blocks in the cellular processes.
Again different herbs have different properties. But many herbs actually make pretty good antioxidants. Especially amla berry, which also raises levels of the antioxidant superoxide dismutase and has been shown to help protect DNA from heavy metal damage. And some plants contain metal binders such as alginates, pectins and phytates.
Also, there is SO much medical literature on the link between metal toxicity and cancer and Dr. Buttar touches on cancer and metals all the time. I believe the truth lies somewhere in between.
Getting rid of metals and chelation therapy alone is not going to cure cancer. But if the cancer is caused from that particular toxicity which hinders the cells from doing its basic functions, it's another layer of problems that need to be addressed.
I read somewhere where you stated that there is NO human oncogene and that all oncogenes (over 100) are all viral. Do you have any literature or links I can read on this topic?
I first read this a while back in Scientific American article on cancer viruses. They stated that EVERY oncogene that had ever been discovered was viral. Since then I have yet to see any reports of any human oncogenes.
Given the fact that viruses are everywhere and the manner in which it spreads, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone had an oncogene of some type in their DNA.
We have to keep in mind though that viruses have a difficult to impossible time of infecting healthy cells. So exposure does not mean infection. If this were the case then we would be screwed since some cancer viruses have been shown to be airborne transmitted, including the HIV virus. It has been a while since I looked at this article, but I think this was reported in either the British Medical Journal or the Lancet. US medical journals were really bad about reporting findings on transmission routes of the HIV virus. But it was also reported that researchers were unable to infect healthy CD4 cells, even with direct manipulation. The only cells they were able to infect were those of leukemia patients who already had severely compromised immune systems.
And oncogenes can very well be passed on if it is incorporated into the germ cells. My idea is that oncogenes are a problem, yes. If they do indeed come from viruses, addressing the immune system to react better to the virus would only be preventative. Once the virus has incorporated the genetic material into the host DNA, it is only a matter of bodily dysfunction before it becomes virulent and capitalizes on the body's weakened state. The WEAKENED state, can be due to all sorts of things including heavy metals, pesticides, adrenal, leaky gut, antibiotics, you name it.
But these would be co-factors, not causes. It is like estrogens do not cause cancer, but they can promote cancer growth once it is started.
At THIS point, addressing the virus doesn't seem like a viable option to me but I'm open to enlightenment if you feel otherwise.
Why do they use protease inhibitors to address the HIV virus, which is a cancer virus? In fact why are antivirals used for any viral disease if they are not going to have any benefit? Keep in mind that not all the viral particles are going to be within the cells. And infected cancer cells can easily be dealt with through other means such as ozone that destroys cancer cells and viruses or herbs that inhibit mitosis such as chaparral or black walnut hull.
Basically I dont think its a matter of the virus being active once you are diagnosed in late stage cancer. It has already done its job and the reason the oncogenes are expressed and causing cellular issues is due to the MULTITUDE of carcinogens and mutagens in our environments, AKA "toxicities" (which i avoid cause it has a quackery connotation/ring to it).
Actually the virus is still active because it is still doing things such as increasing cellular division hormones and enzymes targeted by the chemotherapy. Look in to some of the research done by Naessons, which validates a lot of this.
Alert Webmaster & Moderators|