I am a perfect example of the collapsing building analogy. My entire left side has been twisting and collapsing on itself. My perception is that my brain has engaged nerves to activate contractions in muscles that over time shorten and weaken all the soft tissues involved. One of many side effects of this is disruption of lymph flow on my left side. This would explain disruption of the detox process that obviously leads to many illnesses including cancer.
Researchers have consistently produced cancer in millions of organisms (like rats and mice) which are then used in research for treating cancer. In short, I do not agree that there is a lack of clarity or a presence of actual controversy over what produces cancer (or what prevents it, reduces it, or eliminates it).
There are indoctrination campaigns though, with medical professionals perhaps being the most important targets of those campaigns and the rituals of brainwashing. There may even have been a long list of innovators who have been targeted or jailed or perhaps even silenced by unnatural mortality… not just for their success in treating cancer, but for their initial success in publicizing their effective treatments of cancer. Consider this: if you can’t find it easily on a search engine… then maybe it never happened. ;)
To explore a bit further on the science, the diagnostic label of cancer Clearly references a metabolic phenomenon, the root cause may be as simple as “Excess protons.” This idea does not exclude physical structure as a factor, But also could explain cases when a certain physical structure issue by itself does not produce Cancer in every single case…. Even across many decades.
Next is a quote That references anti-oxidants As a factor in cancer prevention, Noting also that an antioxidant ultimately is simply donor of an electron (which Would then Balance an acidic pH, as in excess protons):
“This enhancement of UV skincarcinogenesis occurred in an arsenic exposure concentration-related fashion (Burns et al.,2004) and ***could be blocked by antioxidants*** in the diet (Uddin et al., 2005). ”
Is “excess protons” clear to you? Let me try to clarify.
Another way to say an excess of protons is a relative depletion of electrons (and it is technically the loss of electrons that leads to the “excess” of protons - as in relative to the total of electrons). That is also known as acidic pH (generally speaking).
As far as I know, any method of depleting electrons internally can produce the symptoms labeled as cancer.
There is a long list of modern chemicals known to be “carcinogens.” Arsenic is one of many.
The primary culprit though may be things like high powered radio waves and cell phones transmissions, AKA “ionizing radiation.” By ionizing, that means radiation which results in the loss of an electron from a molecule.
“Both epidemiological and animal studies have contributed to the scientific understanding of how dose rate affects health effects of radiation, especially cancer risk. Relevant epidemiological studies include those on nuclear workers (INWORKS [22, 23], Mayak [24] and Million Person Study (MPS) cohorts [25]), environmental exposures (Techa, Chernobyl, High Background Radiation Areas and radioactive fallouts) [20] and medical radiations (tuberculosis, computed tomography scans, etc.) [26].”
I’m not saying that I conducted laboratory research which establishes that arsenic is carcinogenic. I’m saying that I have seen the publications of hundreds of researchers who Presented similar conclusions to each other: ionization (electron depletion / excess protons / sub-7 pH) has predictable metabolic results.
So if you take a tissue that has a high concentration of certain things, like a certain type of substance classified as a metalloid, as in arsenic, and then you expose that tissue To high enough doses of ionizing radiation for a long enough time, Then you can produce measurable results. There are political controversies about these topics, but I’m not aware of any scientific controversy about them.
So, if you put a single grain of popcorn in a microwave, eventually, it will heat up and pop. I believe that is an example of oxidation, Meaning that you must have oxygen present for the heat effect to manifest.
But if you put aluminum and arsenic and mercury Into the same microwave with the same kernel of corn, The amount of time (or radiation dosage) Needed to produce the same amount of oxidation may be tiny relatively. Electrons are ripped from the Molecules in the corn kernel rapidly, producing an oxidizing of the metals, also known as rusting.
However, the presence of specific things like iodine can mitigate the risk. It reduces the electromagnetic damage to a cell caused by radiation.
Again, these things have been documented for many decades. Within the scientific community, they are very widely published.
However, policies to promote the health of a population and policies to deplete the health of a population or to reduce the size of a population Will be strikingly different. That includes policies for producing and dropping atomic bombs, but also policies for indoctrinating the public, and of course also policies for indoctrinating medical students and medical practitioners.
Interesting. I hadn't heard of this but I also haven't really dug very deep into this area.
In general at least from more of an outsider's perspective to cancer.. it seems like a lot of different researchers/medical practitioners are disagreeing with one another.
I also base it on my observations of the folks that i hear get cancer over some period of years. Almost all of them look compensated so my natural inclination is that there is likely some type of causal relationship involved.
There could be a strong correlation (between structure and cancer), but the specific methods that researchers use to give cancer to millions of rats and mice do not involve fascia or skull structure.
From a structural perspective, Researchers have established many factors that consistently contribute to good structure during gestation (fetal development). Beyond delivery, there are also many factors that can influence structure, Plus many factors that structure can influence.
So if we look at (for example) 100 subjects with a wide variety of structural symmetries and development, We might also find Certain (as)symmetries to be able to detoxify more efficiently, While other (as)symmetries Consistently accumulate various toxins without eliminating them efficiently.
If the concentration of those toxins then correlates to frequency and severity of symptoms like cancer, Then we can add a biomechanical (structural) component to Our understanding of what produces or reverses “cancer.”
When we find certain toxins plus sufficient doses of certain frequencies of radiation, Then we might be able to predict the location where “cancers” would manifest.
However, to attempt to reduce all of physiology to structure (as if structure is Fundamentally isolated from all of the rest of physiology) would certainly be an over-simplification and indeed Might be useful therapeutically, but it would also be imprecise.
Good structure does not prevent freezing Or drowning or resistance to bomb blasts. But that’s not the point.
If improving structure could prevent or Reverse the symptoms labeled as cancer, that might be worth exploring. We can identify that structure definitely influences lots of important health outcomes. We can speculate on the potential ripple effects.
My assertion is that the modern medical model is a model of demon worship. The labels for symptoms, such as cancer, Are related to as causes. These linguistic “causes” are demonic labels that possess An organism and then (allegedly) produce effects.
Millions of lab rats and lab mice have been possessed by the demon of cancer. However, this demon is not a mysterious supernatural force. It is ionization, as in electron depletion, as excess protons.
But When people use a word like cancer unscientifically, That promotes the idea of the mythical mysterious Demon that possesses lab rats. Like so much of the mainstream religion of Pseudoscience, This model of demon worship may not be intended to be useful or effective, But precisely the opposite.
About the assymetries being able to detoxify more efficiently I would logically find that one a bit hard to accept from my line of thought.
I sort of think of the human body like a car motor. There is nothing genetic about symmetry. We should all have perfect symmetry. And can have it by using these biomechanics.
And so the car motor works best when it has zero damage.
Yes, perhaps there is some small possibility that it can work better when having some damage.. but my view would be that that is highly unlikely.
If I wrote that detoxification would be more efficient due to asymmetry, that could have been a typing error. As I recall, I was saying that asymmetry would be a factor in PREVENTING or at least slowing detoxification.
So each of these next factors alone might not very highly dangerous. But together they could be very dangerous. If one tissue or organ has a high concentration certain metals or metalloids within that living tissue, plus physical assymetry is slowing the efficiency of detoxification, plus sufficient ionizing radiation is present, then the confluence of those 3 factors together might very precisely predict various symptoms.
I’m kind of late to this thread.
I am a perfect example of the collapsing building analogy. My entire left side has been twisting and collapsing on itself. My perception is that my brain has engaged nerves to activate contractions in muscles that over time shorten and weaken all the soft tissues involved. One of many side effects of this is disruption of lymph flow on my left side. This would explain disruption of the detox process that obviously leads to many illnesses including cancer.
Researchers have consistently produced cancer in millions of organisms (like rats and mice) which are then used in research for treating cancer. In short, I do not agree that there is a lack of clarity or a presence of actual controversy over what produces cancer (or what prevents it, reduces it, or eliminates it).
There are indoctrination campaigns though, with medical professionals perhaps being the most important targets of those campaigns and the rituals of brainwashing. There may even have been a long list of innovators who have been targeted or jailed or perhaps even silenced by unnatural mortality… not just for their success in treating cancer, but for their initial success in publicizing their effective treatments of cancer. Consider this: if you can’t find it easily on a search engine… then maybe it never happened. ;)
To explore a bit further on the science, the diagnostic label of cancer Clearly references a metabolic phenomenon, the root cause may be as simple as “Excess protons.” This idea does not exclude physical structure as a factor, But also could explain cases when a certain physical structure issue by itself does not produce Cancer in every single case…. Even across many decades.
Next is a quote That references anti-oxidants As a factor in cancer prevention, Noting also that an antioxidant ultimately is simply donor of an electron (which Would then Balance an acidic pH, as in excess protons):
“This enhancement of UV skincarcinogenesis occurred in an arsenic exposure concentration-related fashion (Burns et al.,2004) and ***could be blocked by antioxidants*** in the diet (Uddin et al., 2005). ”
From page 10 of
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46123307_Cancer_in_Experimental_Animals_Exposed_to_Arsenic_and_Arsenic_Compounds
i'm not sure i fully understood.
But if there is a very clear cause to cancer... then what has triggered this massive growth of cancer in Americans in the chart above?
Are you saying that it is arsenic? And if so has our exposure to arsenic increased during this period?
Because my understanding was that regulations were put in place in the past to reduce it.
Is “excess protons” clear to you? Let me try to clarify.
Another way to say an excess of protons is a relative depletion of electrons (and it is technically the loss of electrons that leads to the “excess” of protons - as in relative to the total of electrons). That is also known as acidic pH (generally speaking).
As far as I know, any method of depleting electrons internally can produce the symptoms labeled as cancer.
There is a long list of modern chemicals known to be “carcinogens.” Arsenic is one of many.
The primary culprit though may be things like high powered radio waves and cell phones transmissions, AKA “ionizing radiation.” By ionizing, that means radiation which results in the loss of an electron from a molecule.
“Both epidemiological and animal studies have contributed to the scientific understanding of how dose rate affects health effects of radiation, especially cancer risk. Relevant epidemiological studies include those on nuclear workers (INWORKS [22, 23], Mayak [24] and Million Person Study (MPS) cohorts [25]), environmental exposures (Techa, Chernobyl, High Background Radiation Areas and radioactive fallouts) [20] and medical radiations (tuberculosis, computed tomography scans, etc.) [26].”
From: https://academic.oup.com/jrr/article/64/2/210/7033748
I’m not saying that I conducted laboratory research which establishes that arsenic is carcinogenic. I’m saying that I have seen the publications of hundreds of researchers who Presented similar conclusions to each other: ionization (electron depletion / excess protons / sub-7 pH) has predictable metabolic results.
So if you take a tissue that has a high concentration of certain things, like a certain type of substance classified as a metalloid, as in arsenic, and then you expose that tissue To high enough doses of ionizing radiation for a long enough time, Then you can produce measurable results. There are political controversies about these topics, but I’m not aware of any scientific controversy about them.
So, if you put a single grain of popcorn in a microwave, eventually, it will heat up and pop. I believe that is an example of oxidation, Meaning that you must have oxygen present for the heat effect to manifest.
But if you put aluminum and arsenic and mercury Into the same microwave with the same kernel of corn, The amount of time (or radiation dosage) Needed to produce the same amount of oxidation may be tiny relatively. Electrons are ripped from the Molecules in the corn kernel rapidly, producing an oxidizing of the metals, also known as rusting.
However, the presence of specific things like iodine can mitigate the risk. It reduces the electromagnetic damage to a cell caused by radiation.
Again, these things have been documented for many decades. Within the scientific community, they are very widely published.
However, policies to promote the health of a population and policies to deplete the health of a population or to reduce the size of a population Will be strikingly different. That includes policies for producing and dropping atomic bombs, but also policies for indoctrinating the public, and of course also policies for indoctrinating medical students and medical practitioners.
Interesting. I hadn't heard of this but I also haven't really dug very deep into this area.
In general at least from more of an outsider's perspective to cancer.. it seems like a lot of different researchers/medical practitioners are disagreeing with one another.
I also base it on my observations of the folks that i hear get cancer over some period of years. Almost all of them look compensated so my natural inclination is that there is likely some type of causal relationship involved.
But i def haven't done any robust research here.
There could be a strong correlation (between structure and cancer), but the specific methods that researchers use to give cancer to millions of rats and mice do not involve fascia or skull structure.
From a structural perspective, Researchers have established many factors that consistently contribute to good structure during gestation (fetal development). Beyond delivery, there are also many factors that can influence structure, Plus many factors that structure can influence.
So if we look at (for example) 100 subjects with a wide variety of structural symmetries and development, We might also find Certain (as)symmetries to be able to detoxify more efficiently, While other (as)symmetries Consistently accumulate various toxins without eliminating them efficiently.
If the concentration of those toxins then correlates to frequency and severity of symptoms like cancer, Then we can add a biomechanical (structural) component to Our understanding of what produces or reverses “cancer.”
When we find certain toxins plus sufficient doses of certain frequencies of radiation, Then we might be able to predict the location where “cancers” would manifest.
However, to attempt to reduce all of physiology to structure (as if structure is Fundamentally isolated from all of the rest of physiology) would certainly be an over-simplification and indeed Might be useful therapeutically, but it would also be imprecise.
Good structure does not prevent freezing Or drowning or resistance to bomb blasts. But that’s not the point.
If improving structure could prevent or Reverse the symptoms labeled as cancer, that might be worth exploring. We can identify that structure definitely influences lots of important health outcomes. We can speculate on the potential ripple effects.
My assertion is that the modern medical model is a model of demon worship. The labels for symptoms, such as cancer, Are related to as causes. These linguistic “causes” are demonic labels that possess An organism and then (allegedly) produce effects.
Millions of lab rats and lab mice have been possessed by the demon of cancer. However, this demon is not a mysterious supernatural force. It is ionization, as in electron depletion, as excess protons.
But When people use a word like cancer unscientifically, That promotes the idea of the mythical mysterious Demon that possesses lab rats. Like so much of the mainstream religion of Pseudoscience, This model of demon worship may not be intended to be useful or effective, But precisely the opposite.
Interesting.
About the assymetries being able to detoxify more efficiently I would logically find that one a bit hard to accept from my line of thought.
I sort of think of the human body like a car motor. There is nothing genetic about symmetry. We should all have perfect symmetry. And can have it by using these biomechanics.
And so the car motor works best when it has zero damage.
Yes, perhaps there is some small possibility that it can work better when having some damage.. but my view would be that that is highly unlikely.
If I wrote that detoxification would be more efficient due to asymmetry, that could have been a typing error. As I recall, I was saying that asymmetry would be a factor in PREVENTING or at least slowing detoxification.
So each of these next factors alone might not very highly dangerous. But together they could be very dangerous. If one tissue or organ has a high concentration certain metals or metalloids within that living tissue, plus physical assymetry is slowing the efficiency of detoxification, plus sufficient ionizing radiation is present, then the confluence of those 3 factors together might very precisely predict various symptoms.