Generic Cancer (Part 3): Love Your Cancer – Love It To Health!

Love-212th May 2013

By  Tracy  Kolenchuk

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

In the book: “Love Your Disease: It’s Keeping You Healthy”, John Harrison, MD explains that disease is both self-created and self-cured.

”To cure ourselves we need to take back the responsibility of loving and caring for our [selves]… from whomever we have entrusted the task.”

John explains that in many cases, our disease arises from activities that are meant to be and are in some ways actually healthy.

We each have unique healthy activities, which change over time through drift or deliberate actions. Our healthiness, our unhealthiness and our disease arise – for the most part – from our choices and our actions.

What about generic cancer?

In my first article on this topic, I defined generic cancers as:
– Carcinomas: cancers of the epithelial tissues
– Cancers where we do not know the individual cause
– Cancers that are caused by environmental factors
– Cancers that have not yet metastasized
Cancers that don’t usually result in death

In the second post, I recognized that generic cancers are diseases of the tissues not diseases of the cells. The progression of this disease was examined as it relates to the Hierarchy of Healthicine.

If you do any research into cancer you will find that cancer is often described as a cell ‘evolving’ in such a way that it becomes immortal. You will even find reports saying things like “Darwin’s Principles Say Cancer Will Always Evolve to Resist Treatment.” Put “evolution of cancer cells” into Google and you will find many, many articles and research documents describing how cancer ‘evolves’ from normal human cells.

But does it? What is evolution anyway? Wikipedia defines evolution as: “the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.”

Is cancer a change in ‘inherited characteristics over successive generations’?   No.

Does cancer develop because cells ‘evolve’ in a way that makes them immortal?   No.

Evolution is the natural process where organisms, not tissue cells, undergo constant change – and the survivors are generally those that are best adapted to the current environment. The survival of the ‘fittest right now’. Is it appropriate or accurate to apply this model to cancer cells?

Cancer cells don’t survive. They don’t get passed from human to human. They ultimately die when the human dies. There is no evolutionary advantage to being a cancer cell. There is only a short term advantage – like a corporation that has a few quarters of huge increases in sales – followed by a crash and bankruptcy when the system is over-extended. That’s not evolution, it’s disaster.

Why is this important?

If cells naturally evolve into cancer cells, then there is not much we can do to stop the development of cancer. All we can do is to try to kill those terrible cancer cells. That seems to be the current medical belief, and the current medical approach. But the clear facts are emerging – after 40 years of war on cancer – the techniques that aim to kill the cancer cells are not working, in many cases they are making things worse, not better.

However, if we clearly recognize that cancer is not a ‘natural evolution’ of tissue cells, then we can search for the cause. And as Dr. John Harrison points out, we need to search inside ourselves for the cause.

Generic cancers are cancers that have a cause. Most cancers are generic, and most cancers have causes that can be identified and tracked to personal choices. The basic cause of all generic cancers is ‘environmental’, and the environment for all cancer cells is the tissue where they live and grow. If we are to truly tackle cancer – we need to learn to health the tissues. To love our tissues. To love our bodies – not just emotionally – we need to show our love for our bodies.

There has been some research; even going back to the work of 1931 Nobel Prize winner Otto Heinrich Warburg, who suggested that cancer cells are ‘damaged’ cells, not evolved cells. He stated that “no cancer cell exists, the respiration of which is not impaired”. Specifically, cancer cells can only process sugar – not oxygen as processed by normal cells. The Wikipedia article on Warburg confirms: “The concept that cancer cells switch to fermentation in lieu of aerobic respiration has become widely accepted.” Cancer cells also suffer mutations, in a process of malignant transformation, resulting in uncontrolled growth of cells – according to Warburg.

Recently, more light has been shed on these concepts. First of all, we need to understand that cancers don’t act like ‘normal’ cell mutations. Cellular mutations happen often in the body – but they don’t survive. It is very unlikely for a cell to ‘mutate’ different genetics – and still be able to survive in the tissue.

Cancerous mutations survive. Why?

We need to go back in time and study how our tissues developed. When life first developed on the planet, it consisted of single cellular organisms. Some of these learned, through evolution, to cooperate and grow together into clumps of cells. Then they evolved to create tissues of multiple cell types – lichens are one of the earliest examples of different cells that cooperate for the good of the whole. Eventually, tissues structured themselves into bodies, which developed sophisticated organs and bodily systems, as we progressed up the hierarchy of healthicine.

Today, our tissues, where generic cancer cells arise, are comprised of very sophisticated cells that have evolved extensively to serve our health. But, if you strip away all of that evolution – you arrive at a cell that knows how to build a community – but not how to contribute to your healthiness. That is – a cancer cell, only growing to serve it’s own local needs, creating tumor. Recent research is beginning to demonstrate that cancer cells are cells that ‘lose’ part of this evolutionary advantage – and regress to ‘normal’ one-cellular animals, or clumping cellular animals – cooperating to get nutrients and get rid of waste products by subverting your blood supply.

Cancer cells are cells that are ‘disabled’. They are unable to perform the function expected of healthy cells in the same tissue.

When a developing tissue cell finds itself in an unhealthy tissue – sometimes it cannot grow into a normal healthy cell. If it is damaged by toxins or radiation, it loses some of its genetic sophistication. If there are not sufficient nutrients, it cannot do the job and cannot even reproduce correctly. So, it does what it can.   It reverts to a simpler cellular state. To survive. From a cellular point of view, this is the only way to health. However, in this case, optimizing cellular health – for damaged cells – harms tissue healthiness.

How does this happen?

An article by P C W Davies and C H Lineweaver published in the journal of Physical Biology provides some interesting information, and suggests a new way of looking at cancer. This article is a very interesting read if you want some deep thoughts about cancers and how they function.

In summary, it says:

carcinogenesis is here seen as a process of de-speciation, a radical lack of differentiation back towards the ancestral proto-cell. If this is true, given the right (or wrong) conditions, normal cells may regress to a more primitive, far more individualistic cell phenotype in an attempt to survive (if not thrive) within the biochemical/bioenergetic adversities characteristic of the sickened, cancer-prone body. ”

That is to say, if your tissues are very, very unhealthy, the only way for some cells to survive is to revert back, to de-evolve, into more primitive cells. These primitive cells are not shackled to serving the needs of your body – and are thus free to reproduce without constraints.  Don’t confuse cancer cells with stem cells, they may look similar in many ways – stem cells are complete, healthy cells that can develop into many different types of cells.  Cancer cells are tissue cells that are damaged, stripped back to the point where they can barely survive. They cannot develop into useful cells.

This concept is also explored in a post on titled: “Is Cancer an Ancient Survival Program Unmasked”, which I referenced in a post on titled: What is Cancer? A New Theory Emerges.

If these theories are correct, what do they mean for our fight against cancer?

We need to recognize that cancer cells are not ‘rogue cells that evolved into new cellular monsters attacking our body’, they are our cells that are disabled and no longer able to do the work required.

What do we need to do? How should we react to cancerous cells?

We need to love them. Love them to death. We need to love our cancerous tissues to healthiness.

When we view cancer as a dangerous evolution, we take actions to kill cancerous cells. We poison them with chemotherapies; we attack them with radiation and surgery. And what happens if cancer cells die? Those cancer cells and the toxins are absorbed, eaten actually, by our body. They are used to create new cells.

When we kill cancer cells with toxins, the toxins in those dead cells are re-absorbed into newly developing cells. And guess what – chemotherapy drugs cause cancer damage. We are actually creating new cancers. When we kill cancer cells with radiation, we know that that very same radiation causes cancer. And when we cut cancerous tissues with surgery, we risk spreading the cancerous cells into other areas – including the bloodstream – where they can transfer to other parts of the body. Each of the three main treatments for cancer are treatments that damage our tissues, and make them less healthy.

When we learn to love our cancerous tissues and to love our cancer cells to death, our bodies will absorb the cancer cells and use them to build healthy tissue.

We need to health cancer, not to kill it. Only fundraisers speak of curing cancer. Your doctor is not allowed to claim to cure cancer.

If you ask your doctor how to health your cancer, you will probably get a blank stare. And if your doctor does know how to health cancer… they will still be quiet. It’s probably illegal for your doctor to speak of anything but the standard cancer treatments – chemotherapy, surgery and radiation. Telling you how to health your cancer may be grounds for losing their license.

So much for health – and health freedoms…

There is another reason your doctor cannot tell you how to health your cancer, or perhaps a few hundred of them. Many experts believe that you need to have over 200 imbalances, or unhealthinesses to create and sustain a cancer. You are probably expecting, and your doctor is tasked with finding ‘a cure’ – eg. one thing that will fix you and cure your cancer. If you have cancer, you have many serious unhealthinesses that need to be attended.  And you can’t afford to pay for your doctor’s time to find all of your individual causes – even if he could.  It’s up to you.

Our ‘health care’ systems ignore unhealthiness and focus on disease. It’s easier to cure disease, and easier to sell disease cures than to understand and improve healthiness. Only you can create your healthiness.

Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of healthiness.

To your health, Tracy

Previous articles by Tracy:

About the Author:

Canadian born Tracy Kolenchuk is the author of A New Theory of Cure and several other books.

Tracy is not a doctor. He is the founder of and where he works to change the way the world defines and looks at health, healthiness, healthicine, disease, and cure.

Soul to Soul

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.