A US team were trying to explain why some tissues were millions of times more vulnerable to cancer than others.
The results, in the journal Science, showed two thirds of the cancer types analysed were caused just by chance mutations rather than lifestyle.
Cancer Research UK said a healthy lifestyle would still heavily stack the odds in a person's favour.
3 comments:
A healthy life style is too costly for most people, even if it is even more costly not to lead one... And all the while 70 percent of what Americans eat is incipiently poisonous.
'from-the-horse's-mouth' on this 'sciencey'study:
My name is Chris Wark.
I was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer
in 2003, at 26 years old.
I had surgery, but refused chemo.
Instead I used nutrition and natural therapies to heal myself.
By the grace of God, I'm alive and kicking, and cancer-free!
http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/study-claims-65-of-cancers-are-caused-by-bad-luck/
...Prescribing powerlessness
Yes friends, apparently bad luck is now a scientific phenomenon.
We no longer live in a cause and effect world, rather, one that is mostly governed by random chance and luck, which of course is how our infinitely precise and perfectly ordered universe was created right?
Bad luck is perhaps the most dangerous idea to permeate the cancer community because it renders the patient powerless. Nothing you did caused cancer, therefore nothing you can do will make any difference in healing it. Now you are completely dependent on early detection to prevent cancer, and if that doesn’t work, your only hope is surgery, chemo and radiation to save you. There’s no use in changing your diet or lifestyle. So go ahead and enjoy another supersized McRib combo meal.
This is an oncologists dream study and will be cited ad infinitum to cancer patients when they ask about nutrition and natural therapies, and changing their diet and lifestyle to promote healing...
The US study sounds like reworked tobacco industry apologist material. Because of its unfortunate release in a popular periodical, it could be used to exempt polluting industries from accountability where safety is critical.
Fracking lobbyists can cite it, agribusiness can use it to pile on the pesticides, food standards can be lowered further still, war weapons can become more deadly, and the medical community can make their $Billions more, while continuing to blame the populace for an unhealthy lifestyle, as Chris points out.
U.B.C. conducted a new study proving that diesel exhaust fumes alter DNA in a matter of two hours time. This supports countless other studies suggesting that our toxic environment plays a huge role in undermining physiological well being.
With the sharp rise in cancer cases in the last 60-70 years, it's not rocket science to co-relate ubiquitous polluting industries with worsening health.
Of course cancer involves greater mutations--that's how it's come to work. But the environment has to be toxic enough for anyone's predisposition to predicate cancer growth.
Natalia Kuzmyn
Post a Comment