If genetics predisposes one to developing cancer it hardly makes it the cause any more than if cancer develops concurrently with fungus, what caused the fungus? Cause is too final a word but for discussion's sake, providing we put the word in its proper place, it is OK to use it. If one uses a carcinogenic substance and doesn't develop cancer then is that substance the cause of cancer or does it simply have a causal relationship and the body's defense, or lack of it the cause? When cause of death is given in a medical report after a person is stabbed, it most likely will say, "massive bleeding of the XXXX as the result of a wound caused by a sharp instrument". The knife does not cause the death...........the loss of blood does and the knife has a causal relationship.
People will say that is just semantics, however, we are dealing with understanding vs. loose words with no meaning.
Hopefully people, living as natural as possible, can short-circuit the various paths along the way the pathology might be developing and we don't get to that 'end stage', however, there are many paths, emotions, food, metabolic waste, chemical assaults, heat, cold, anything that enervate the body checking normal elimination of waste and problems start. That is, if any of this is valid which, after fifty years of observance, seems to me to be valid.
Joe C.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cancercured/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cancercured/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:cancercured-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:cancercured-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cancercured-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar