Is the Tumor and the Cancer the Same Thing?

by , under Contemporary Cancer Topics, Conventional Treatments, The Cancer Industry

I recently had a discussion with an insurance agent, and as we talked, she revealed to me that she had lost her husband to cancer.  We immediately struck up an in-depth conversation about cancer and all of the alternative cancer treatments that they had tried, but to no avail.  She was very intelligent and appeared to be very knowledgeable about alternative cancer treatments. She was familiar with most of the treatments that I mentioned.

Luckily, it had been a while since she had lost her husband, so she wasn’t overwhelmed with emotions as we talked. But as we talked, I noticed that she thought that shrinking the tumor was the exact same thing as getting rid of the cancer. I told her that the tumor was NOT the same thing as the cancer. In fact, the tumor is merely a symptom of the cancer. When I said this, she disagreed with me, and said that the cancer and tumor were the same thing. I was astonished!  I tried to explain this to her repeatedly. But she could not grasp what I was saying. I ran out of time with her, but I was left feeling like I didn’t do her justice because I could not get her to understand that the tumor and cancer are not the same thing.

I think that this is a result of the focus of oncologists. In fact, they actually evaluate cancer treatments based on how much they reduce the size of the tumor.  In my studies, I have found that the tumor is merely a result of the metabolic state known as cancer. If the tumor is a symptom of the cancer, then merely shrinking the size of the tumor will not, and usually can not result in a cure from the cancer. Actually, the tumor is said to encapsulate the metastasis so that it doesn’t spread. This is how people can survive for years with tumors, either until the metabolic state of the body becomes overwhelmed and cannot be contained by the tumor, or until medical professionals release tumor cells into the body by piercing it during a biopsy.  In fact, some people actually call a tumor a survival mechanism of the body. Some say that the tumor is the body’s way of cordoning off toxins that cannot be processed or eliminated from the body.

In my opinion, any approach that only seeks to treat the tumor without addressing the cause of the tumor cannot result in a long-term cure for cancer. Maybe this is why the rate of cancer returning to conventionally treated cancer is very high. Conventional cancer treatments treat the body as a battlefield instead of as an integrated system. How can toxins and poisons that make healthy people sick be good for long-term health for people that are ill? Yes, conventional cancer treatment ‘works’ for some people, but how many people are harmed by it? And how many people does it fail for?  I’m not giving out medical advice, just asking people to think beyond the limits of conventional thinking. This isn’t for everybody, only for those people that may be considering alternatives to medical dogma.

 

  1. Karen Spencer

    A tumor may be a primary, cancerous tumor or a metastasis – or a non-metastatic tumor. (For example, meningiomas are non-metastatic – which does not mean that they cannot also be lethal.) Depending on the type of tumor and its location contemporary medicine attempts to shrink it 1) palliatively to reduce symptoms (eg. the tumor is causing an obstruction or preventing an organ or structure against which it is pressing to functioning properly) or to enable a surgeon to resect it and get what is termed “clean margins”. SOME tumors are “encapsulated” and can be resected in toto – hopefully without any of the cancerous cells from escaping and causing a recurrance, but not all are – and this is the reason why some cancers are hard to biopsy without risk – a single “escaped” cell that has the “on” switch permanently stuck, will reproduce itself no matter where it is – if the conditions are right.

    Cells of one type of cancer that metastasize to a remote location (and different types of primary cancers “prefer” to travel to particular remote locations: eg. breast ca cells “like” to travel to bone and brain; colon cancer cells “like” to travel to the liver,lung and brain, etc.), however they remain cells of the same type as their organ of origin. This is how a tumor, say found in the liver, can be identified as being a metastasis from, eg. the colon, as opposed to a primary liver cell tumor. The cells in each organ are organized in a different fashion, so look different under a microscope.

    I think you are asking the wrong questions. The questions oncologists and medical researchers are asking are; WHY? and HOW?: Why are the cells replicating themselves at an abnormal rate? Why are those cells unable to develop in a normal fashion? Why is the “reproduce switch” stuck in the “on” position? How can it be turned “off”? What can we do to fight this malfunction? Why are some people more prone to certain cancers than others? (Well, that’s at least partly genetics, as we now know.)

    You are correct in that the treatments offered today are highly toxic, but they are developing more targeted therapies all the time. Also, we are all individuals, and no matter what the “statistics” say about a particular treatment, it won’t work for everyone – at least not completely in the same way. Another thing: cancer isn’t just ONE disease -the thing all cancers have in common is unregulated cellular reproduction, but the causes are not necessarily the same – although there may be causes in common.

    And more and more oncologists are interested in supplementing their treatments with alternative approaches. Check out the Memorial Sloan Kettering website and go to the Integrative Medicine Dept.

  2. admin

    I understand the things you’re saying about tumors and cancer, and I agree with most of what you say. Some tumors do need to be removed or reduced in size if they are causing obstructions that are damaging to an organ’s function or are causing pain. If a tumor is malignant, a biopsy will almost always result in metastasis. This is why doctors tell patients that if they find that a tumor is malignant after biopsy, they must start treatment immediately.

    I think that oncologists and medical researchers are too focused on the cancer/tumor, with no regard for other factors that are just as important. They are actually missing the bigger picture. From what I’ve seen from the scientific research, they are doing all of this super intense research on metabolic pathways, cellular triggers, etc., but it hasn’t resulted in any cure to date. This is because they focus on minutia that isn’t the critical factor. The cancer/tumor isn’t the main issue. The body is, and this is what Bechamp referred to as the ‘internal millieu’. They can keep studying the cancer/tumor as much as they want, but if the approach does not take the entire body function into consideration, we will keep coming up with cancer treatments that are not cures. You can’t cure cancer, but you can assist the body to return to normal function.

    Also, due to profit considerations, pharmaceutical companies have no financial incentive to look for wholistic approaches to cancer treatment. They can’t patent healthy diets or natural substances that assist the body to return to normal function. In fact, the chemical industry is highly related to the cancer industry because they have a synergistic relationship. The high amount of chemicals (toxins) released into the environment increase cancer rates, and then these same companies manufacture more chemicals that are supposed to treat the cancers that result from exposure to the first set of chemicals. It’s like double-dipping, profits from the chemicals and profits from treating the diseases that are caused by these same chemicals with more chemicals.

    So your slew of questions do make sense on a micro level, but in order for meaningful progress to be made in this cancer fight, the paradigm must be updated and modernized. We must take the blinders off to see the big picture. Targeting and ‘treating’ the cancer is a focused approach, and has not brought us any closer to a cure than when modern research began. When oncologists start taking the entire body and metabolism into account, and start addressing other elements in the person’s life (such as how many toxins and chemicals the person has in the body, environmental factors, diet, sugar intake, emotional makeup and traumas, spiritual factors, patient’s will to live, etc.), they will continue to fail to find a practical cure for cancer, and other chronic diseases. Oncologists must stop thinking that cancer cells are like alien invaders from space, and realize that a cancer cell is a normal cell from the body that has declared mutiny from the body’s control. The paradigm that views them as invaders is what has led to the strategy of going to war with them with chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. We are losing the ‘War on Cancer’ because the body was not designed to be a battlefield. If you give the body what it needs to function, and you remove the chemicals and other stuff that poisons it, it will function correctly and bring the body back to a state of health.

  3. nettee

    thank GOD FOR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO TRULY HELP ONE ANOTHER. wE ARE BEAUTIFULLY AND WONDERFULLY MADE, WE JUST NEED TO BE MORE SPIRITUALLY AWARE OF WHO WE ARE ,THANK- YOU FOR ALTERNATIVES.

  4. Nicolas F. Johnston

    The test procedure included with the Test Kit has an impressive method to made doubly sure that you found the best treatment based on the patient’s body by finding the same treatment by two different approaches. It makes performing the test procedure one of the most proactive ways to interest someone in alternative cancer treatments.

Leave a Reply