– the pandemic that governments are doing nothing to prevent

Breast cancer.  A disease that has been killing women for as long as anyone can remember, and is now increasing exponentially.  Whose victims now put any other epidemic, or death by warfare, into the shade.  It is the greatest human disaster ever.

Once diagnosed, chances of survival, as in no further re-occurrence of cancer are virtually nil (with conventional treatment).

One has to ask therefore:

Why isn’t this headline news every day in every kind of media until it is resolved?

Why is no-one talking about finding the cause, only a cure?

Why isn’t it the number issue for parliament and the health service?

Why?  Why?  Why?

Because we live in a society run by men, based on their needs solely.  If it were the disease affected only them, the answers would have been found long ago.  Women still have no real status in society, and their getting ill is not only of no consequence to those who rule over us it is actually proving very good for business, just as wars keep the profits rolling in too.  I would even go as far as to say that if the cause were to be discovered it would never ever be made public, men stand far too much to lose.

This is crazy, obviously.  I would therefore encourage all women, and those who care about them, to use the next election as an opportunity to try and turn this balance of power around, even if it means bringing in a party who has previously had no experience of leadership, just so issues like this get put at the top of the list of priorities.  Women have the majority.  Don’t waste it.

And while you are reading this, I actually know what the cause is.  Money.  Plain and simple.  Get a copy of Herman Melville’s TYPEE and read about it for yourself.  As recently as the 1840s there were still communities that had not been touched by the greed and religion of the Europeans (this one in the South Seas) who had never known of an incidence of cancer, or any other illness either.  They lived a long healthy life, barring accidents.  Had no genetic defects.  Their populations remained stable for thousands of years without contraceptives.  There was no such thing as money, or ownership of property.  No notion of employment or work.  Nor did they even farm, but lived totally on what could be foraged.  The answer?  As I have been advocating all along, work at living without the need for money.  It will not only change your life, but will affect the profits of those who have created this evil and if enough follow their power will diminish accordingly.

Advertisements
2 comments
  1. MikeH said:

    Why? Why? Why? You say because we live in a society run by men, based on their needs solely. If it were the disease affected only them, the answers would have been found long ago.

    While I don’t dispute the relationship between men and women, I don’t think that’s the explanation. Prostate cancer is more common than breast cancer (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/commoncancers) with 1 in 6 men being diagnosed over a lifetime vs 1 in 12 women being diagnosed with breast cancer and yet there is no cure which there should be with men controlling the show. Medicine has evolved into treating symptoms rather than finding cures. Part of the reason is profit based but I suspect the largest reason is that cancers are predominantly environment based. That’s a hard nut to crack, maybe even impossible. Does what we take into our bodies through our nose, mouth and skin cause normal cells to become rogue cells???????????

    While cancer rates overall are declining in the US (http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2009/reportnation2009release), it’s interesting to note that for colorectal cancer, the third most frequently diagnosed cancer in both men and women, and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States aftert lung cancer, there is an increasing incidence in men and women under 50 years of age. Cancer rates in the UK are on the rise – http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence/commoncancers/#Trends

    Breast cancer gets more publicity than does prostate cancer not because of survival rates but because of the place of the breast in Western culture. Five year survival rates for breast and prostate cancer are quite good at 82-85% depending on age and over 99% respectively. (http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/features/who-gets-breast-cancer-who-survives and http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-survival-rates respectively).

    The four most common cancers in the UK are breast, lung, prostate , and bowel (also known as colorectal) (http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/incidence/commoncancers/). US stats are similar – http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/commoncancers.

    Of the four most common cancers in the US (in order) – prostate, breast, lung, and colorectal, 5-year survival rates are far worse for lung cancer: 49% at best and colorectal cancer: at best 74%. These rates deteriorate quickly based on delayed detection. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/commoncancers)

    • Thanks for the comment on this blog Mike, though in this case not very helpful. Using statistics to make any kind of point only serves to detract from the issue. But far more fundamental they (the ones that get published) are part of the conspiracy as well. Who produces them, and who decides what to publish/ when? The very same people, those in power, who represent the most corrupt elements of our society. The old saw, believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see is far more reliable. Nurse someone with cancer and witness what a pointless agony (and end) that is. Visit the corridors in hospitals where patients have to stand, there are now so many, waiting their turn for treatment.
      The cause? Money, plain and simple. Those whose life is to make more and more money have made sure they are sanctioned to use and manufacture carcinogen products/ processes regardless of the consequences.
      Though we are not entirely blameless either. We each still have a choice, if not many other freedoms. To live in urban areas, drink water that is contaminated deliberately, eat food dosed with lethal chemicals, use mobile phones and wi-fi, drive cars, fly around the world on pointless holidays, and all the other negative things I mention on the how to become healthier page of this site. If we choose to reject those, not expose ourselves to all these risks, change our life in a way which also doesn’t require to earn and spend money, then the chances are we will live a longer healthier life. It will also have the knock-on effect, in a small way, of destabilising those powerful forces that need us to continue subscribing to their products. What there isn’t though, is a middle way. You can’t have both. You can’t be an anarcho-syndicalist/ anarchist/ reiki master/ permaculturist/ yoga guru/Buddhist/ raw foodist/ frutarian/ vegan/ vegetarian/ ecologist/ conservationist/ pacifist/ atheist/ or whatever other save the world or be healthy ism that makes you feel you are doing something, and have money. The two simply cancel each other out. The poorest person with no values is more pure, causing the least distress to others/ ecological damage to the planet. Those who are richer than they are simply fooling themselves and compromising the future for us all.
      You also asked a question, whether homeopathy can cure cancer, and if so which. For those who don’t know what homeopathy is, it is an alternative medicine system which helps/ boosts the body’s own repair system to fight off disease/ illness. And with the right attitude it can cure anything, including cancer. It isn’t an easy or painless process, a cure can take as long as 2-3 years, during which the patient will often experience periods when they are totally unable to lead a normal life and intense pain/ discomfort/ depression/ and fear. It takes a very strong will to go along that road. However for the strong, you come out at the end with not just a total cure but having replaced all the body’s cells, you are in fact a completely new person, stronger and healthier than before. You have also undergone a deep spiritual change, from knowing that you can now cure yourself, this is an awesome experience and I can attest to this. As for using homeopathy as an example, I did this as it was my only personal experience of alternative medicine with treating cancer, but I am sure there are many others (not complementary) which have the same result. Not a claim that can be made by conventional medicine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s