Does cancer *cause cancer? (& does acidity *cause low pH?)

SP wrote: I like J R’s take on cancer.

VS: What’s JR’s take?

SP: He wrote a lot on it, more recently he shared his exchange with a researcher. Maybe he can chime in….

VS: Aajonus Vanderplanitz said that cancer is just the body’s inability to discard dead cells. So..no matter what we do, if we don’t provide a pathway for the dead cells to get discarded it does seem they would win out eventually.

Many people who do [a certain diet] dislodge a lot of toxins and then don’t provide an exit by exercise, sweat, whatever is necessary…So if one “believes” in the diet but does not DO what is necessary, then this is not rational thinking anymore. At the same token when one gets overtaken by toxins in the body it is very difficult to rationally think and or take the steps necessary….

JR: “Inability to discard dead cells / materials as fast as they die / accumulate” is a simple idea that I certainly have referenced many times before. I will say more below…..

PE: The dead cells are the cancer? Or what? I’m sorry i still can’t get it

Cancer is a lost function? (& Is cancer ever good for the body somehow?)

JR:  If I went to 100 cancer researchers and asked them to take 200 rats each, then divide them into two groups of 100 rats each and subject one group of rats to conditions that would promote the effect of cancer, I think that most of them would be confident that they could do things to the test group which would significantly increase the rate of cancer for that group (relative to the “control group”).

So, the first issue is that cancer is an effect, not a cause. If I continuously produce that effect, that is malignancy. If I temporarily produce that effect but then stop producing it, that is a benign cancer effect.

What method could I use to produce cancer? Many people know that there have been instances of radiation exposure that have resulted in increased cancer rates. The specific issue with dangerous forms of radiation is that the organisms exposed to that intensity of radiation will have a large number of chemical bonds broken. It is kind of like they are standing in a wind of evaporated acid. The acidity keeps washing over them moment by moment. So, a huge number of electrons magnetically get “washed away” during an intense radiation exposure.

However, radiation exposure like that will produce widespread depletion of electrons throughout the entire organism. The specific issue with isolated tumors, like only in one specific area of the body, is related to broken (or compromised) electrical circuitry within the body.

Imagine injecting a small amount of acid into a particular region of the skin day after day and year after year. Eventually, that would produce the effect that we call cancer as well.

Acidity and voltage are ultimately just about the balance electrons to protons. So, instead of injecting a small amount of acid (or Mountain Dew, which is extremely acidic), I could produce the same result in the skin of rats or the skin of any other organism by exposing the same region of skin to a small negative voltage current.

Or, imagine a horseshoe shaped magnet. If I put a certain region of skin constantly under The positive pole of a magnet, that would produce the same effect.

Since the flow of electricity always creates a magnetic field, even just laying my head right next to a wall where there is a alarm clock and electrical wiring can produce consistent and predictable results.

So, there are many ways to produce the electromagnetic outcome called a tumor. If a rat has frequent doses of intense radiation exposure (for its whole body) plus always puts a cell phone up to its left ear, plus always sleeps with the left ear next to their alarm clock, we start to be able to predict the effects quite reliably.

We can make things even more interesting by performing a few root canal procedures on specific molar teeth not far from that left ear. The original need for the root canal will be because of the electromagnetic radiation from atomic weapons and industrial accidents and cell phone use and neglecting to follow strict Amish rules about electricity (not allowed near any bedrooms / sleeping areas).

The electrical circuitry or nerve connections in those teeth will already be damaged. The body will not be able to repair all of the tissue as quickly as it is damaged. So, in reaction to that symptom or effect, a dentist may go in and basically do further damage to the electrical circuitry. However, the circuit or fuse that is related to whatever specific tooth will also be related to a series of other locations in the body and often the place where the electromagnetic sensitivity is greatest is an organ. So we can specifically predict which organ or organs will be the location where we have produced the electromagnetic effect called cancer.

Can we cure cancer by adding electrons (like with an alkaline substances like baking soda)? We can counter the effect.

SP asked: What do you think, JR, about fats as a potential causative factor? What is the effect of fat on electrical conductivity?

JR: I am not aware of the presence of an abundance of fat ever causing the effect of cancer.

(Regarding electrical conductivity) First, all fats are not the same. Natural fats (the fats that are natural for us to produce and are also part of our ancient evolutionary diets) are the insulators in every cell membrane. If people start consuming only “very low quality fats,” (like refined seed oils) then the body may do its best to use those fats to build cell membranes (like so the cell walls do not simply collapse).

Imagine that there is a window opening on a building and there is no glass in the window. Someone might stick a piece of cardboard there in order to keep out flies or dusty wind. However, of course the cardboard is not going to work like glass and no light will be going through that window opening.

Likewise, it makes a difference whether we are using fully functional healthy fats for cell wall membranes or whether our cells are basically throwing in anything of a similar shape that will prevent the whole cell structure from collapsing.

PE: So, cancer cells are dead cells?

JR: You can research what people mean when they say “cancerous cells” (or what I might call “cancered” cells). … But I personally would not call them “dead.”

PE: What do you mean by cancerous cells?

PE: Cancered cells? Whats the difference between a cancered and a non cancered?

PE: If cancer is the inability to discard dead cells, where do the live cancer cells enter in to play?  Is a tumor composed of the cells that are not able to be discarded and other living cells that are also called tumor?

JR: Cancer is only a diagnostic label. Several different effects are grouped together and labeled “cancer.” (That is why I used the term “cancered” cells…. because we are talking about an “umbrella term” for a group of similar EFFECTS.)

How would I “give cancer” to some cells on the skin of a rat? I just listed several ways in the comments above and all of them involve “disrupting the healthy electromagnetism of the cells.”

PE: Ok. That makes it more clear. Do that cancer cells are bad and to be discarded from the body? Or they can be reverted back to the “healthy” state? What is the connection between cancer cells and dead cells being accumulated in the body?

When you give acidity and electromagnetism, are you killing cells and so the cancer cells appear as a response?

JR: I am not aware of any scientific merit to the phrase “cancer cells.” There are skin cells and blood cells and brain cells etc.

The idea of cancerous growth is apparently related to a rapid replication of cells that are not properly functioning. However, I have no interest in that.

Can cells be “cancered?” I believe that they can and further that there is no controversy about that.

Cells are dying and being produced constantly. The issues I value are “options for keeping the cells healthy” and (really just a subcategory of the first one) “options to promote the efficient removal of materials that are better expelled than retained.”