TED Conversations

Yavor Hadzhiev

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Isn't it important to speak about what causes or propiciates cancer?

People and specialists mainly speak about finding a cure for cancer (or cancers because there are many different ones). There seem to be alot of efforts to find cures and hopefuly it will happen. But is that enough? I think that while the fight is being done on one front, another front isn't given the due attention. Pollution, societies organized in a way that stresses constantly individuals, lives in concrete boxes and so on. I am not sure whether cancer is caused by pollution and low quality of pesticide and hormone filled food, but I am totaly sure that these propiciate cancer and other serious ilnesses and make it easier for it to survive. Why nobody pays real attention to the relationship between pollution (water, air, etc.) and cancer? Is it that people prefer to drive their petrol fed cars and remain into a self induced ignorance about the consequences of their behaviours? Isn't it worth seriously reducing or ending pollution for the sake of peoples and animals health?

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Jun 27 2013: May be the cure exists, but it dobtful they will make it publick. Also may be the cure requires things we can`t support, such as to drop current lifestyle and go to live a village life.
    I was told pet`s (cats, even ats) cancer also exists, several friends of mine tryed to cure their pets but fail. What is it? A profitable business for vet or real desease? If it`s real, it could be an informational pressure as the reason for cancer, because all pets in cases I know was caddled nicely and has no reasons for personal stress.
  • thumb
    Jun 27 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin
    Please don't take vitamin B17 as it is not a vitamin as it has no Amine group. It has a cyano group in stead, which your body digests to form Cyanide. Many many clinical studies can be found with a 5min google search that demonstrate its toxicity.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 27 2013: .
      Yes!

      You are right that
      "The problem we have is humans want what they want with no real responsibility for their own health".

      10,000 years ago, "humans want what they want" is "a-step-better for keeping our DNA alive".
      Today, "humans want what they want" is most probably "a-step-WORSE for keeping our DNA alive"
      because our "instincts" do not adapt to it.
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2013: Why do you say that research is not done into environmental and genetic factors that may cause or increase the likelihood of cancer?
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2013: Thinking the answser is complicated. There are still undeveloped societies where the people don't drive cars, even in today's world, but I think their life span is often shorter than the developed countries where people do have them.
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2013: This website reckons that cancer is caused by a lack of vitamin B17 in the same way that scurvy was caused by a lack of vitamin C. They make a compelling case, citing a long history of battling the disease & the authorities. The pharmaceutical industry makes billions from cancer 'cures', but, as B17 is a natural product, there is little profit in it.
    Interesting for conspiracy theorists & cancer sufferers alike. Personally, taking daily b17 is a cheap insurance.

    http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/

    :-)