WHAT
CAUSES CANCER

Getting to the Root of the Problem

Cancer incidence is skyrocketing because the medical establishment is not addressing the underlying cause of most cancers. Most research is directed towards highly profitable drugs that target late stages of the disease and greatly enrich drug companies and universities, but simply do not prevent or for the most part cure cancer. The policies and priorities of the cancer establishment are narrowly fixated on damage control—diagnosis and treatment, not prevention.

However, if ever there was an area in which an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, it is cancer. Yet most Doctors ignore the fact that cancer is predominately a man-made disease caused primarily by chronic inflammation from toxic overload.

Like all revolutionary ideas, this challenges conventional belief (dogma) and we often see a knee jerk reaction from those who have an intellectual or financial investment in the status quo which includes berating or belittling us and our method in spite of our track record of success.

Our observations so enrage many zealots that they attempt to engage in ideological warfare without realizing that we are world-class researchers and clinicians.

There are legions who falsely claim that this theory of toxic overload is invalid and maintain their dogmatic ideas. They proudly state that cancer has been around since prehistoric times.

The evidence of prehistoric dinosaur cancer consists of a single fossil — a tumor petrified inside a bone.

Naturwissenschaften, 2003, Nov; 90 (11) pages :495-500
Epidemiologic study of tumors in dinosaurs.
By: Rothschild et al.
“Metastatic cancer was extremely rare, found in only 1 out of 548 (0.2%) Edmontosaurus vertebrae.”
Documentation

Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, Vol. 110, No. 3/4 (Fall, 2007), pp. 155-158. Bone Cancer
Rates in Dinosaurs Compared with Modern Vertebrates
By: Rothschild et al.
“A total of 10,312 vertebrae from 708 individual dinosaurs of varying families were examined, and one such tumor was found. The malignant Edmontosaurus tumor is metastatic cancer of unknown (primary) origin.”
Documentation

A single tumor…

The next argument is that ancient peoples got cancer and therefore this idea of toxic overload is without merit. Let’s examine the Neanderthals.

Journal of Human Evolution, 1980, Volume 9, Iss. 1, Jan., Pages 15–16, IN3–IN5, 17
Special issue on Paleopathology
Pathological changes in the morphology of the young paleolithic skeletal remains from Stetten (south-west Germany). By: Prof., Dr. Alfred Czarnetzki, Ph.D.
In studies of thousands of bones that represent the fossil record of Neanderthal man in Europe, the Stetten II skull bone from Stetten, Germany, (c.35,000 years bp) provides the only example of a lesion (new bone formation) that might be related to a neoplasm — possibly a meningioma.

The “only example”…..

Let’s move forward in time to see how the disease progressed because tumors sometimes occured and were seen in ancient mummies. What is not mentoned however is how RARE an occurence cancer was!

Nature Reviews Cancer 10, 728-733 (October 2010) | doi:10.1038/nrc2914
Cancer: an old disease, a new disease or something in between?
By: A. Rosalie David & Michael R. Zimmerman
“a chronological assessment of the occurrence of cancer in early fossil, animal and human remains demonstrates the rarity of malignancies in antiquity…How old is cancer? Evidence of cancer in animal fossils, non-human primates and early humans is scarce. Scientific literature has provided a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossils.”
Documentation

Journal of Paleopathology, 1998, VOL. 10 (3) pages 101-109
Survey and analysis of malignant tumours of past populations in England and Scotland. By: Prof., Dr. Eugen Strouhal, M.D., Ph.D., DrSc.
Dr. Strouhal tabulated a total of only 176 examples of skeletal malignancies, primarily metastatic, in the archaeological record.
“A comparison of the distribution of the cases of malignant tumours…increase in frequency after the birth of Christ…This increase was probably due to increasing amounts of carcinogenic agents.”
Documentation

Journal of Paleopathology, 1997, VOL. 9 (2) pages 107-114
Cancer in Ancient Egypt, By: Spigelman & Bentley
“…of the tens of thousands of mummies and bodies examined, only 44 cases of neoplasms of bones and soft tissues appear in ancient Egypt.”
Documentation

PLoS One. 2014; 9(3): e90924.
On the Antiquity of Cancer: Evidence for Metastatic Carcinoma in a Young Man from Ancient Nubia (c. 1200BC) By: Binder et al.
“Cancer, one of the world’s leading causes of death today, remains almost absent relative to other pathological conditions, in the archaeological record, giving rise to the conclusion that the disease is mainly a product of modern living…To date, only around 200 skeletons and mummified individuals from around the world have been reported with different primary and secondary malignancies.”
Documentation

So from the tens of thousands of remains from antiquity that have been analyzed, all we have is 200 or so incidents of cancer?! This demonstrates how extremely rare up until recent times cancer was, when pollution and poor diet became such significant issues. It must also be remembered that, in modern populations, tumours arising in bone primarily affect the young, so a similar pattern would be expected in ancient populations.

Yet it is noticeably absent…

Therefore, let’s look at the turn of the last century. Cancer statistics point to the subsequent advancements of industry, cigarettes, a chemically toxic environment and over-processed foods as cancer’s predominant root causes.

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 54 (1893), pp. 209-242
On the Alleged Increase of Cancer, By: George King and Arthur Newsholme
“During the last few years the minds of medical men and of the general public have been exercised over the rapid and striking increase in the mortality of cancer…That cancer has really increased in this country appears to be now generally assumed in medical circles.”
Documentation

Journal of Cancer Research, (1917);2:267-365. On the Alleged Increase of Cancer
By: Walter Francis Willcox
“Is cancer mortality increasing? In nearly all parts of the civilized world the reported mortality is increasing rapidly…There is no denying that the figures make out a strong case for this conclusion, and that it cannot be rebutted by general statements about improvements in the diagnosis of cancer, or about the increasing proportion of the population consisting of elderly persons especially liable to cancer.”
Documentation

Cancer, Volume 40, Issue 3, pages 1358–1362, September 1977
An experimental study of mummification pertinent to the antiquity of cancer

By: Dr. Michael R. Zimmerman M.D., Ph.D.
“The virtual absence of malignancies in ancient tissues can only be interpreted as indicating their rarity or possible absence in antiquity. It has been estimated, on epidemiologic considerations, that up to 75% of human cancers are related to environmental factors. This study suggests that such factors are limited to modern industrialized society.”
Documentation

1 in 25

In 1900, cancers were the eighth leading cause of death in the United States and accounted for one out of every 25 deaths. 12,769 Americas died of cancer in 1900. On average, for every 100,000 people in the U.S. population, 64 people died of cancer in 1900. Americans consumed about a half cup of sugar per person per year in 1900.
Documentation

1 in 4

In 2013 cancers were the second leading cause of death in the United States and accounted for one out of every 4 deaths. 584,881 Americans died of cancer in 2013. On average, for every 100,000 people in the U.S. Population, 185.0 people died of cancer in 2013. Americans now consume on average a half cup of sugar per day.
Documentation

There are those who say we’re making an “apples to oranges” comparison with the above facts. They claim cancer is a disease of older adults, and that people are living considerably longer now than they did in 1900, which is why the cancer rates have exploded.

In 1900 life expectancy was around 47 whereas today it is around 79. This does not mean that we are living three decades longer, but the inclusion of infant and child mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age. Americans were not dropping dead left and right at age of 47 in 1900! Indeed in Victorian times if you made it to adulthood you would be expected to live a ‘normal’ length of time (65+). Therefore without the downward bias of high infant and child mortaility the average life expectancy has increased substantially.

According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, October 01, 1999 / 48(38);849-858
“At the beginning of the 20th century, for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year.” That is 10%! Imagine what having so many infants dying does to the life expectancy tables?
“In 1900 in some U.S. cities, up to 30% of infants died before reaching their first birthday.” 1 it also states, “The decline in infant mortality is unparalleled by other mortality reduction this century. If turn-of-the-century infant death rates had continued, then an estimated 500,000 live-born infants during 1997 would have died before age 1 year; instead, 28,045 infants died.”
Documentation

1. Meckel RA. Save the babies: American public health reform and the prevention of infant mortality, 1850-1929. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.
2. Loudon I. Death in childbirth: an international study of maternal care and maternal mortality, 1800- 1950. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
3. Hoyert DL, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL. Deaths: final data for 1997. Hyattsville, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, 1999. (National vital statistics report; vol 47, no. 20).

The mathematics behind the terminology “life expectancy” includes all ages of all live-born people in the population pool, including infants.
But it’s not just the significant reduction in infant deaths that skewed life expectancy tables, it’s also the massive reduction in

child mortality too.

2010- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Child Mortality in the United States, 1935-2007
“Child mortality in the United States has declined dramatically over the past century. The mortality rate for children aged 1-4 years declined from 1,418.8 deaths per 100,000 population in 1907 to 28.6 in 2007. The mortality rate for children aged 5-14 years declined from 307.5 in 1907 to 15.3 in 2007. In 1900-1902, 90.2% of U.S. children aged 1 year survived to age 15, compared to 99.7% of children in 2007.”
Documentation

4. Singh GK, Yu SM. US childhood mortality in the United States, 1950 through 1993: Trends and socioeconomic differentials. Am J Public Health. 1996;86(4):505-512.
5. Singh GK, Kogan MD. Widening socioeconomic disparities in US childhood mortality, 1969-2000. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(9):1658-1665.
6. Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: final data for 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010;58(19).
7. Grove RD, Hetzel AM. Vital Statistics Rates in the United States, 1940-1960. National Center for Health Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1968.
8. National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2009 with Special Feature on Medical Technology. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.

IMR declined 2.3% to a record low 582.1 infant deaths per 100,000 live births in 2014 from 596.1 in 2013.
Documentation

graph-deaths

The modern cancer epidemic cannot be explained away on the basis of increasing longevity, because people really aren’t living significantly longer now than they did in 1900 once you understand the real data and the roles that infant and childhood mortality played. Besides, incidence and mortality rates are adjusted (age-standardized) in cancer registries to reflect this trend.

1900-2000: Changes in Life Expectancy in the United States

Summary: Tables showing the changes in expected remaining years of life at age 65, and age 85 for black and white men and women from 1900 to the year 2000.

table-black-white

Data Sources:

National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 63, No.3.Life expectancy at birth, at age 65, and at age 75, by sex, race, and Hispanic origin: United States, selected years 1900–2011.
Documentation

CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 49, No.12. Deaths, Preliminary Data for 2000.;
Documentation

U.S. Census Bureau. P23-190 Current Population Reports: Special Studies. 65+ in the United States.
Documentation

Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2011 by Dr. Farrah Bunch, M.D.
Documentation

This clearly illutrates that Americans are living just single digit years longer after an entire century of “progress”.

What about the “progress” against cancer since 1900?

Cancer death rates 1900–2011 (per 100,000 population)

malignant-neoplasms

Source: 1900-1970, U.S. Public Health Service, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual, Vol. I and Vol II; 1971-2001, U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, annual; National Vital Statistics Report (NVSR) (formerly Monthly Vital Statistics Report); and unpublished data.

The facts simply cannot be ignored. As we “progress” as a society, our toxic burden becomes greater, which leads to higher incidences of cancer.

Increasing cancer rates also cannot be attributed to genetic factors, which are directly implicated in, at most, 10 percent of all cancers. Genetic susceptibility to cancer due to genetic polymorphism cannot have changed so dramatically over a few generations, and actually favours the role of exogenous factors through gene–environment interactions.

Pharmaceutical Research, Vol. 25, No. 9, September 2008
Cancer is a Preventable Disease that Requires Major Lifestyle Changes
By: Anand et al.
“Only 5–10% of all cancers are due to an inherited gene defect.”
Documentation

The New Orleans Advocate, Sept. 27, 2015 Genetics make up just a small portion of cancer causes,
By: Kyle Peveto
Documentation
“…cancers caused by a gene inherited from your family make up only 5 to 10 percent of cancers.”

The New England Journal of Medicine, 2000; Vol. 343:78-85
Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer, By: Lichtenstein, Holm, Verkasalo, et al.
“We conclude that the overwhelming contributor to the causation of cancer in the populations of twins that we studied was the environment.”
Documentation

Cancer and the environment
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NIH Publication No. 03–2039 Printed August 2003
Written by scientists at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
“Several genes that greatly increase a person’s chance of developing certain cancers (e.g., colon, breast, and ovary) have been identified. Only a very small percentage of people in the general population have abnormal copies of these genes. Cancers caused by these genes, known as familial cancers, account for only two to five percent of all cancers.”
Documentation

U.S. President’s Cancer Panel, 2008-2009 annual report, “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now”, April 2010
“Single-gene inherited cancer syndromes are believed to account for less than 5 percent of malignancies in the United States.”
Documentation

Carcinogenic environmental exposure factors have been linked for over 50 years to up to 90% of human cancers 9-11, and the rarity of cancer in antiquity suggests that such factors are limited to societies that are affected by modern lifestyle issues such as tobacco use and pollution resulting from industrialization.12, 13

9. Cancer Epidemiology: Methods of Study (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967). Lilienfield, A. M., Pedersen, E. & Dow, J. E.
10. Environment and cancer. Higginson J Practitioner. 1967 May; 198(187):621-30.
11. Cancer incidence in the Bantu and “Cape Colored” races of South Africa: report of a cancer survey in the Transvaal (1953-55). Higginson J, Oettle AGJ Natl Cancer Inst. 1960 Mar; 24():589-671. [PubMed] [Ref list]

12. A brief history of cancer., Radiology 34, 597–608 (1983). Deeley, T. J.
13. The Archaeology of Disease Roberts, C. & Manchester, K. 338 (Sutton, Sparkford, UK, 2005).

These days additional environmental and lifestyle factors are increasingly being pinpointed as the primary culprits fueling our cancer epidemic.

  • Processed and artificial foods (plus the chemicals in the packaging)
  • Wireless technologies, dirty electricity, and medical diagnostic radiation exposure
  • Pharmaceutical drugs
  • Obesity, stress, and poor sleeping habits
  • Lack of sunshine exposure and use of sunscreens
  • Pesticide and other chemical exposures
Cancer Known Carcinogens

 

The University of Manchester Press Release, “Cancer is a modern, man-made disease caused by environmental factors such as pollution and diet, a study review by University of Manchester scientists has strongly suggested.”

Daily Mail, October 23, 2010, Why modern life DOES cause cancer: The fascinating research which backs what we all feared
“Our research supports the views of medical campaigners and experts who have long argued that mounting ­incidence of cancer is caused by factors present only in the modern world.”
Documentation

CNN, October 26, 2010, Just ask Mummy: Cancer the least of their worries
“…industrialization, pollution and the ills of modern life are to blame for the epidemic of cancer now seen sweeping around the globe.”
Documentation

PLoS One. 2014; 9(3): e90924.
On the Antiquity of Cancer: Evidence for Metastatic Carcinoma in a Young Man from Ancient Nubia (c. 1200BC) By: Binder et al.
“…the apparent absence of cancer in antiquity is related to the fact that the main causes for cancer, estimated to account for up to 80% of cancer-related deaths today, are associated with a modern life style such as smoking, dietary habits, and a lack of physical activity. The sharp increase of palaeopathological cancer evidence over the past centuries in the wake of increasingly modern living conditions provides ample support for this claim.”
Documentation

Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Volume 53(2):117-124, 2009
Malignant tumors in osteoarchaeological samples from Hungary, By: Molnár et al
“According to the generally accepted view, current high rates of malignant tumors in industrialized Western populations have been ascribed to an increase in life expectancy and increasing influence of environmental factors, particularly nutritional intake of potentially carcinogenic substances and air pollution.” 14-19

14. Aufderheide AC, Rodriguez-Martin C (1998) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 478.
15. Ortner DJ (2003) Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains. Academic Press, Amsterdam-Tokyo.
16. Capasso LL (2005) Antiquity of Cancer. Int J Cancer 113: 2-13.
17. Jo—zsa L (2006) Paleopathologia. El™deink betegsŽgei. Semmelweis Kiad—, Budapest.
18. Nerlich AG, Rohrbach HG, Bachmeier B, Zink A (2006) Malignant tumors in two ancient populations: an approach to historical tumor epidemiology. Oncology Reports 16:197-202.
19. Thillaud PL (2006) Paleopathology of cancers. Bulletin du Cancer 93(8):767-773.
Documentation

International Journal of Health Services, Volume 30, Number 2, Pages 353–371, 2000
Legislative Proposals for Reversing the Cancer Epidemic and Controlling Run-Away Industrial Technologies. By: Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
“our total environment—air, water, consumer and medicinal products, and the workplace—has become pervasively contaminated with a wide range of often persistent industrial carcinogens.”
Documentation

Scientific American, Environmental Health News on May 21, 2010
How Many Cancers Are Caused by the Environment? By Brett Israel,
“More than 60 percent of U.S. cancer deaths are caused by smoking and diet.”
Documentation

Pharmaceutical Research, Vol. 25, No. 9, September 2008
Cancer is a Preventable Disease that Requires Major Lifestyle Changes
By: Anand et al.
“Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle.”
“Instead of our genes, our lifestyle and environment account for 90–95% of our most chronic illnesses.”
“The percentage of cancer-related deaths attributable to diet and tobacco is as high as 60–70% worldwide.”

Documentation

Science, 347, 727 (2015) Cancer risk: role of environment. By: Ashford, N. A. et al.
“…a large fraction of cancers are influenced by environmental factors.”
Documentation

Study: Up to 90 percent of cancers not ‘bad luck,’ but due to lifestyle choices, environment

Nature, 529, 43–47 (07 January 2016)
Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development
By: Song Wu, Scott Powers, Wei Zhu & Yusuf A. Hannun

ABC News Radio Study: Cancer Is Usually Your Fault
The Telegraph Nine in 10 cancers caused by lifestyle
The Washington Post Study: Up to 90 percent of cancers …due to lifestyle choices, environment
The Times Modern life causes 90 per cent of cancers
Daily Record Cancer not caused by ‘bad luck’ but down to environment and lifestyle
Fortune Up to 90% of Cancer Cases Caused by Lifestyle or Environment, Study Says
National Post Up to 90 per cent of cancers due to lifestyle choices, environment, study says
MSN Study: Up to 90 percent of cancers not ‘bad luck,’ but due to lifestyle choices, environment
Montreal Gazette Up to 90 per cent of cancers due to lifestyle choices, environment, study says
The Independent Researchers blame modern lifestyles for causing 90 per cent of cancers

“At least two-thirds of the cases of cancer are caused by environmental factors.”– U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Cancer and the environment
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NIH Publication No. 03–2039 Printed August 2003
Written by scientists at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)
“…it is estimated that inactivity and obesity account for 25 to 30 percent of the cases of several major cancers…At least two-thirds of the cases of cancer are caused by environmental factors.”
Documentation

CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2011; 61: 67–68.
Avoidable Cancer Deaths Globally, By: Dr. Otis W. Brawley, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, American Cancer Society
“…75% of US cancer deaths could be attributed to lifestyle and other environmental factors that are in principle avoidable.” Avoidable Cancer Deaths Globally
Documentation

Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 103, Supplement 8, November 1995
Estimating Avoidable Causes of Cancer, By: Davis and Muir
“Many researchers have estimated that environmental factors, broadly conceived, account for about 75 to 80% of all cancer in developed countries.”
Documentation

The New England Journal of Medicine, 2000; Vol. 343:135-136
Cancer — Nature, Nurture, or Both, By: Robert N. Hoover, M.D., National Cancer Institute
“From this work has come the widely accepted estimate that 80 to 90 percent of human cancer is due to environmental factors.”
Documentation

‘The Diet and Cancer Connection’, publication 348-141, Virginia Tech, Nov. 1997.
By: Dr. Kathleen Stadler-Thompson, Ph.D., Professor of Human Nutrition at Virginia Tech.
“Lifestyle factors are involved in most cancers, with controllable factors estimated to be as high as 80 to 90 percent of all causes.”
Documentation

Many catastrophic events can also demonstrate significant environmental cancer causations.

New York Post – Number of Ground Zero responders with 9/11-linked cancers hits 3,700. 44 first responder FDNY personnel have died of cancer thus far. NY POST FDNY
Documentation

The environmental factor is further illustrated shown in the table; Variation Between Countries in the Incidence of Some Common Cancers, in the Medical textbook;
Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition.
Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, et al.
New York: Garland Science; 2002.
Documentation

Geography is also noted for playing a significant role in cancer.

U.S. President’s Cancer Panel, 2008-2009 annual report, “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now”, April 2010
“For example, Louisiana and Mississippi are known as “Cancer Alley” because of the more than 100 chemical plants and oil refineries in the area and the high concentration of poor populations with limited health care access. The cancer rate in Louisiana in 2005 was approximately 17 percent higher than the national average.”
Documentation

Diet as a source of cancer

Many of the prominent hypotheses for effects of diet on cancer risk have been derived from examination of the associations between dietary patterns and cancer rates in different populations around the world. It was noted in the 1970s that developed Western countries have diets high in animal products, fat and sugar, and high rates of cancers of the colorectum, breast and prostate. In contrast, developing countries typically have diets based on one or two starchy staple foods, low intakes of animal products, fat and sugar, low rates of these “Western” cancers, and sometimes high rates of other types of cancer such as cancers of the oesophagus, stomach and liver.20

Other studies have shown that cancer rates often change in populations which migrate from one country to another, and change over time within countries. For example, the formerly low rates of colorectal cancer among Japanese people have increased both on migration to the USA and, more recently, with the increasing “Westernisation” of the diet in Japan. 21

20. International Journal of Cancer, 1975; 15: 617–31. Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries, with special reference to dietary practices. By: Armstrong B, Doll R.
Documentation

21. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cancer: Causes, Occurrence and Control. IARC Scientific Publications No. 100. Lyon: IARC, 1990.

If ethnicity were to play a significant role in determining cancer risk, then immigrants should retain the cancer incidence rates of their country of origin. Yet, immigrants to a new land acquire the cancer rates of their new home within one to two generations. 22-27

22. Liao CK, Rosenblatt KA, Schwartz SM, Weiss NS. Endometrial cancer in Asian migrants to the United States and their descendants. Cancer Causes & Control. May 2003; 14(4):357-360.
23. Flood DM, Weiss NS, Cook LS, Emerson JC, Schwartz SM, Potter JD. Colorectal cancer incidence in Asian migrants to the United States and their descendants. Cancer Causes & Control. May 2000; 11(5):403-411.
24. Herrinton LJ, Goldoft M, Schwartz SM, Weiss NS. The incidence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and its histologic subtypes in Asian migrants to the United States and their descendants. Cancer Causes & Control. Mar 1996; 7(2):224-230.
25. Rosenblatt KA, Weiss NS, Schwartz SM. Liver cancer in Asian migrants to the United States and their descendants. Cancer Causes & Control. May 1996; 7(3):345-350.
26. McCredie M. Cancer epidemiology in migrant populations. [Review]. Recent Results in Cancer Research. 1998; 154:298-305.
27. MT Redaniel et al., Cancer survival in developed and developing countries. British Journal of Cancer (2009) 100, 858 – 862

Nearly all countries heavily influenced by Western society have high incidences of cancer. Why is that? Most of the very prosperous have far higher incidences of cancer. Of the exceptions to this apparent rule (those which are prosperous but low incidence of cancer), the majority of these are non-Western-aligned countries—for example, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

WHO cancer map

It seems also that poor countries with high incidence of cancer are heavily aligned with the West. For example, New Caledonia and French Polynesia are both French.

How could prosperity and alignment with the West cause more cancer? Could the cancer rates be based upon what the majority of the population eats?

The 3 maps demonstrate Cancer incidence, Gross Domestic Product, and Gross National income. Notice the striking similarities between the two maps. Does this tell you something? The facts of cancer being a disease of modern living cannot be denied.

So why are the medical and science communities, by and large, ignoring these very basic facts on cancer causes?

The pharmaceutical researchers would like you to believe they’re doing everything they can to come up with a solution. Yet all we see is research into newer and pricier drug therapies. Clearly they’re not digging close enough to the root of the problem, because if they did, they’d touch on some of these lifestyle issues we mentioned.

From our perspective, you ignore lifestyle factors at your own peril when it comes to cancer… Because, clearly, drug-based “advances” are not making a dent in this increasingly prevalent disease.

On the contrary, cancer drugs are notoriously toxic and come with devastating, including lethal, side effects. Conventional medicine is so desperate to give the illusion of fighting the good fight that many of these drugs are used despite the fact that they’re not really doing anything to prolong or improve the quality of life of those diagnosed with cancer. Just today I consulted with a patient who just completed her 9th round of chemotherapy. HER 9TH! Her tumor is larger now than when she started!

The best-selling (and extremely expensive) cancer drug Avastin, for example, was recently phased out as a treatment for metastatic breast cancer after studies concluded its benefits were outweighed by its dangerous side effects. Treating a disease primarily caused by poisonous toxins with carcinogenic poisonous toxins seems pretty stupid to us.

“Modern Medicine” can and should do better than that.

three-graphs

virchow-normal-cells-to-cancer-cellsAll cancers started as normal cells

we-all-develop-cancer-cells-everydayWe all develop cancer cells everyday

less-than-10-percent-of-cancer-are-geneticsLess than 10 percent of cancer are genetics

failed-immune-system-leads-to-cancerFailed immune system leads to cancer

house-hold-food-environmental-carcinogensHouse hold food environmental carcinogens

lifestyle-factors-as-causes-of-cancerLifestyle factors as causes of cancer

obesity-as-a-cause-of-cancerObesity as a cause of cancer

plastics-cancer-causationPlastics cancer causation

plastics-cancer-causation-2Plastics cancer causation 2

health-care-products-that-cause-cancerHealth care products that cause cancer

cancer-is-not-genetic-this-explanation-could-change-your-lifeCancer Is NOT Genetic This Explanation Could Change Your Life

dna-mutations-lead-to-cancerDNA mutations lead to cancer

flouride-causesFlouride Causes Cancer

dental-work-as-a-cause-of-cancerDental work as a cause of cancer

environmental-cancer-causationEnvironmental Cancer Causation

a-million-cells-die-every-secondA million cells die every second

diet-as-a-cause-of-cancerDiet as a cause of cancer

dealing-with-the-cause-of-cancerDealing with the cause of cancer

cancer-is-not-a-death-sentence-is-a-change-your-life-sentenceCancer is not a death sentence it is a change your life sentence

cancer-cell-biology-intra-cell-signallingCancer-cell-biology-intra-cell-signalling

animation-how-cancer-spreads-through-the-bodyANIMATION How cancer spreads through the body

all-cancer-cells-are-basically-the-sameAll cancer cells are basically the same