Cocktail of chemicals may trigger cancer

Fifty chemicals the public is exposed to on a daily basis may trigger cancer when combined, according to new research by global task force of 174 scientists

No doubt that the issues reported are a part of the picture.
From my own experience since being diagnosed terminal cancer 5 years ago, I have no reasonable doubt left that dietary changes bought about by the need of supermarkets to have long shelf life foods, is the single major cause. We are not getting enough vitamin c and supporting phyto nutrients in our diets to allow our immune systems to function properly.

I cured myself of terminal melanoma with a vegan diet (free of refined sugars and oils) and high dose vitamin C.

I have met many others who have done the same.
I have been to a lot of funerals of others who didn’t stick to it.

Diet needs to be over 90% of calories coming from plant foods, and at least half of that raw.
There is so much evidence, and so much financial incentive to hide or obfuscate that evidence.

I put everything I did, and all my medical records, on my blog at for those who are interested in reviewing that evidence set.

About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see
This entry was posted in Ideas and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Cancer

  1. Ty Bollinger’s Truth about Cancer is to me almost as bad as what he sets out to attack.
    He is only telling part of the story. He doesn’t ask nearly enough questions.

    Sure, yes, our immune systems have evolved to deal with cancer, and if we provide ourselves with the sorts of environments that are similar in essential respects to those we evolved in, can continue to do so.
    But what are those essential respects?

    Sure, cutting out tumours doesn’t always work, and it sometimes does.
    Same goes for radio and chemo therapy.

    They don’t always work because cancer is not one thing, it is a general name for a huge class of things that involve many different mechanisms that can interfere with the signalling systems that stop cells growing, or the immune system responses to remove such aberrant cell lines. And in most cases it isn’t a simple on/off type response, but a response of degrees, often of degrees involving many different systems.
    So sometimes you can reduce the functionality of one system, and get away with it, but when you keep on reducing functionality, across many sets of systems, then eventually you run into some situation that gets away, and we experience tumours, visible cancer.

    There are many ways that are useful in conceptualising parts of the process.
    The idea of the repair system gone awry is a useful analogy in some sorts of cancer, but not all.
    The idea of the immune system having reduced capacity is a useful analogy in some situations, and again, not all.

    The idea that any human body is a massive cooperative of cells, all working together to ensure their joint survival, none of them aware of the whole, just each doing the roles they do, in the situations they exist in, and the result works – is another useful way of conceptualising what is going on.
    In this way of thinking about a body, a cancer is any group of cells that multiplies, and uses system resources, to the detriment of the body as a whole.
    Axelrod demonstrated clearly in Games Theory that all cooperatives require attendant strategies to prevent overrun by such cheating strategies. Our immune system can be usefully considered to be one such set of “anti-cheating” strategies. {One could use this analogy to consider most of the finance and capital sectors of our society to be cheating strategies on the loose in society – cancers on the body politic, and that is a separate topic}.

    So in this sense, I find that his interview with G Edward Griffin contains some aspects that contribute to a deeper understanding of cancer, and some that seem to hide or obfuscate such an understanding.

    When he talks to Dr Roby Mitchell in Amarillo, Mitchell has a reasonable understanding of many of the aspects above.
    I love Mitchell’s analogy of polyps and neoplasms being “canaries in the coal mine” – a signal that we need to change environments, as current environment is toxic.
    Question is, how far to we take that?

    To what extent do we remove stressors?

    Is our entire capitalistic system a toxic stressor for most people?
    I would answer that now, in our current technological age, the answer is clearly yes – though it was less clearly so even 50 years ago. The exponential changes in technology are making possible things that simply were not possible previously.
    We need to start thinking deeply about many of the assumptions that worked for us in the past, but are working exponentially less well in our current situation – the very idea of money and markets chief amongst them. I have no reasonable doubt left that it is the single greatest cause of unnecessary stress and poor diet, leading to all sorts of failures at many levels – and the massive increase in cancer high up the list of those failures.

    Dr Keith Scott Mumby – Las Vagas – in Victorian times lung cancer was exceptionally rare, now it is our number one killer – what has changed? Lifestyle, how we live, what we eat, and so on. The average Victorian walked more than 20 miles a day, which burned a lot of calories, and ate a lot of food as a result. Cancer is not native to humans, it is a disease of modern man. It is our bodies gone wrong.
    We can put the brakes on and reverse it.
    Which I can entirely agree with.

    Burton Goldberg – so much insanity in the medical profession, it is as corrupt as any third world nation! An opinion I have a certain sympathy with, but it is much deeper than the medical profession, they are as much tools in this as any of us in a sense. It goes right to the depth of our current societal paradigm, and the valuing of money over people, the quest for profit at any and all costs. That is our core insanity, that is our core societal cancer, and all other physical manifestations of cancer are secondary to that one in a very real sense.

    Yet the belief in markets, the idea that markets and freedom mean the same thing, are so fundamental to many people, that they cannot consider that there may not be any necessary link between markets and freedom, simply a historical association; which is now exponentially changing.

    Robert Scott Bell does a reasonable job on the 5 minute synopsis of history, from a certain perspective.
    Homoeopathy kind of works, but not in the way most homoeopaths claim. It seems clear now, beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, that homoeopathy works through the placebo effect. Benedetti et al have done some great work – many articles like this one on How Placebos Change the Patient’s Brain and books this one Placebo Effects: Understanding the mechanisms in health and disease.

    Placebo effects are very real. In most cases believing you can beat some disease is at least half the battle. The way modern doctors remove that from the equation is little short of criminal in most instances.

    The very least they could do is put people on high dose vitamin C supplements, as in the vast majority of people it is the rate limiting step to immune system response (all other things being equal – and sometimes other things are not equal, and other aspects of diet require change).

    K C Craichy talks of Bland – use of drugs in combination not studied – medicine relies on studies of drugs alone, and ignores the effects of drugs in combination because the combinations are just too numerous, and the cost of running such studies prohibitive. Most patients die not from cancer, but from complications resulting from cancer treatment.

    Ty talks about getting to the “root cause of disease” but he doesn’t actually do that.

    He only goes as far as his assumption sets will take him.

    He doesn’t look too closely at his assumptions.

    He speaks to Dr Rashid Buttar who does a good job of talking about the levels of addressing symptoms, but not causes, and has the light on the dashboard of the car analogy. When the engine warning light comes on, taking the fuse out stops the light, but doesn’t deal to the root problem of something wrong in the engine. He claims cancer is like that, and I agree, but he then fails to go anywhere near deep enough to get to anything like a “root cause”.
    In my understanding, he stays up in the symptom area, though somewhat deeper than medicine usually goes, still far from deep enough.
    He raises the dietary approach, which is one of the real issues, but why do we have the diet we do?
    That is the real issue!

    Dr Desaulniers spoke of chemo having only a 2% success at 5 year survival.

    Webster Kehr – also condemned chemo – he spoke of MSM going to DMSO as an adjuvenate to chemo. Most major types of cancer don’t respond well to chemo.

    Chris Wark accurately describes that most people don’t want to do chemo, but the experts tell them they need to, so they eventually agree, and there follows a short period of time where they are cancer free, and then they die from either drug complications or cancer return in over 90% of cases. And in most of those cases new tumours will form unless there are major changes to diet and lifestyle.

    Leigh Erin Connealy – there are lots of serious chronic diseases, heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc, but people fear cancer above all others. Most people have seen the devastation of the treatments – surgery, chemo and radiation – obviously many things have changed, and many diseases are much more common.
    We know we have circulating tumour cells and circulating stem cells and need to get them down to zero.
    Doctors do not necessarily have discussions about lifestyle. They give out pills, rather than changing the causes.
    She states and asks – Doctor means to teach, why aren’t doctors teaching how to live lifestyles for optimal health?

    For me the answer to that is clear, and deep – it is in the incentive structures provided by market values, and valuing money above all else – which is what our society generally does, at many different levels.

    I am clear that until we address that cancer on our society, then all the cancers of our bodies will remain common.

    Patrick Quillin speaks of the impact of nutrition on cancer. Wrote book – Beating cancer with nutrition – 5 main reasons why all cancer patients need to use nutrition as part of the treatment.
    1/ 40% of patients die from malnutrition.
    2/ Nutrition can make chemo, radiation and surgery more selectively toxic to cancer.
    3/ Cancer is a sugar feeder, so lowering gut and blood glucose slows cancer.
    4/ Immune system is failing in cancer patients.
    5/ Nutrients can become biological response modifiers.
    Have spent close to $50 Billion on cancer research, and the rate of cancer has gone from 3% to 40% in the last 100 years.

    Many nutrients can aid patients to restore defence mechanisms.
    The job of everyone should be to restore the ability of bodies to cure themselves.

    Dr Linda Isaacs speaks of the impact of how research is funded, and what drives corporations – which is part of the story certainly, but the deeper issue is with the very concept of money and how markets set values, which has two components – how much we want something, and how scarce that thing is. Scarcity is essential to market value. Things that are universally abundant have no market value. So there is not, nor can there ever be, any incentive in a market based system to deliver universal anything – be it health care or whatever. Poverty is a necessary component of market systems, and most of our laws are more about enforcing poverty for many, so that a few can make a lot of money. It is the natural and necessary outcome of using markets to generate measures of value.
    If we instead chose to hold the values of self aware life, and the liberty of self aware entities as our highest values, and used markets appropriately in situations where scarcity is genuinely necessary as a means of meeting those higher goals, then we would have a very different set of incentives from those we see today.

    Ty does not address this “root cause” of cancer.
    It is so much an accepted part of current USA culture that it isn’t even seen for the assumption set that it is.

    I say it is the root cause, because it is the dominant driver in the sorts of things we do, the sorts of things we eat, and the sorts of stresses that are present in our lives, and these three things are the major determinants of cancer risk.

    Dr Irvin Sahni accurately describes what the system does – it incentivises chronic sickness, because that makes more money.
    He spells out the problem clearly, but does not explicitly address it.
    He describes it in terms of the way government interacts with corporations, which is an effect, not a cause.

    The cause is what we as humans choose to value.

    The cause is us accepting that money rules.

    The cause is us accepting the lies and half truths that economists and financiers and capitalists and politicians use to justify what they do – which is little short of outright theft in many cases.

    We need to take back our values.

    We need to have life as our highest value – which includes the lives of those in finance and government currently. They need to feel safe, even as they come to accept that the power and prestige of their current roles are evaporating.

    We need to ensure the freedom of individuals. Which is not licence to follow whim or desire, but includes the responsibility to act in ways that support the life and liberty of everyone else. So there are tests of reasonableness involved at all levels, and there will be exponentially expanding diversity in any measure one cares to look at. The one thing we must ensure is that all individuals have the means to survive and self actualise in whatever way they responsibly choose.

    And that must include limits on reproduction.
    We live in a finite universe.
    Unlimited expansion of numbers is not an option.
    We can slow the rate of growth gradually, and it does need to stop.
    We have a little room to manoeuvre, we are not hard up against that particular boundary condition yet, and we are not that far away from it either. It is not responsible to ignore it.

    So change certainly.

    Mike Adams – Health ranger – goes into a set of half truths. I am not at all happy with what he says, or where Ty takes it.
    Sure, we can all impact how our immune systems work with diet and behaviour – that is certainly true.
    Vaccines do work. Sure, there are things included in many vaccines that cause problems, that are there purely for economic reasons (like mercury) which are known to be toxic, and do cause severe complications in a very small number of people. So we know there are issues with the specific formulations used in some vaccines, and we know how to fix them, but economic incentives mean that we don’t do it. Valuing money over life strikes again.
    The natural world is not necessarily friendly. Nature can be hard and cruel.
    We can do better than that.

    We must do better than that!

    Certainly we have evolved many mechanisms that can deal with most of the things that are threats most of the time. And evolution is always something of a strategic arms race at many different levels. So we need to up the game and go well beyond the natural systems, if we really are committed to values like life and liberty.

    Sure we need to avoid known toxins, and we will never do that effectively if we allow money to dominate over the value of human life or human liberty.

    Certainly, natural systems are complex, and almost anything can be used to help cure something in some situations. That is true enough in a sense. And it is about knowledge, not about nature. It is the knowing what to use when that is important, not the fact that it is natural or otherwise.
    The problem is, most of what we know just aint so.
    The reasons for that are complex. Our brains are composed of millions of linear predictors. We are predisposed at many different levels to see pattern, even where pattern does not exist. That is one of the great dangers of being human. We tend to create beliefs based upon past associations, many of which are purely random.
    Humans are great at finding pattern, and not so great at finding or distinguishing randomness. This is a major driver of us having the sorts of cultures we do.
    The other major aspect I have already covered above, which is the power of belief – the placebo effect. Often things work for no other reason than we expect them to. We are starting to understand in depth the mechanisms that make this so.

    So there are some things in this that I can align with, and many things that I see as in accepting the root cause (money and market values), simply ensure it will continue.

    We can do stuff.
    We can change diet.
    We can change what we do.
    We can change what we believe.
    We can get rid of stress.

    And the existing system of money and markets does not make any of those things easy for the vast majority of human beings.

    So for me Ty goes part way – but fails to look anywhere near deep enough.


  2. Pingback: Added Comment on cancer video | Ted Howard NZ's Blog

  3. Marc Sanders says:

    Hi Ted.

    It’s been awhile since I’ve communicated with you – I’ll try this public medium rather than the emails we’ve exchanged in the past.

    As usual, I find your analysis much more ‘on target’ than almost anyone else’s (that I’ve come across). The primary purpose of my contact today, however, is to offer something for your consideration for your future communications with the world.

    As I’ve followed your writings for the past year or so, I’ve noted that you’ve enhanced the clarity of your stated value of “life”, by adding the modifiers “self-aware” or “sapient”. I feel these to be helpful additions, as they capture the notion (indirectly) of the importance of intelligence (the capacity to understand). As I’ve stated in prior communications with you, I place “intelligence” at the top of my value hierarchy (closely followed by “compassion”, to try to avoid any superintelligence that might perceive human life as a waste of mass or energy).

    So now I’d like to suggest that you might try modifying the statement of your other key value, “liberty”, when you write about it. Again, as you may recall, I’ve got strong reservations about ‘absolute’ freedom – as do you. So, without being too long-winded about it, how about adding the words “contextually constrained”, whenever you mention “liberty” as a core value?

    I believe that you’ve purposely chosen to use a somewhat vague term (“reasonable”) to provide the greatest flexibility, but to me, adding a layer of freedom to the concept of “freedom” as a way of explaining constraints, is not helpful (to me).

    I guess that I’m just looking for something that will cause those who read your generally excellent posts to pause – to think – just a little bit more than the more familiar (and, subjective?) term “reasonable”.

    So, just my “two cents”. I’m curious to see what you think.

    Thanks Ted.

    Marc Sanders

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Marc,

      Got a busy day today, so haven’t the time to respond to this in the depth your thoughts deserve right now. Will do so later. Not sure why it is a comment to this particular post, may move it somewhere else, perhaps to it’s own thread.

      Spent a lot of time yesterday driving, listening to some discussions on the nature of freedom, and the nature of value – and am now confident of the mistake that most philosophers have made in those respects. And it is going to take me a few hours to get those thoughts into a form that has any sort of probability of being understood by any reasonable sized set of other people.

      My choice of the familiar term “reasonable” was very deliberate, as it is another of those terms that expands exponentially upon recursive reflection and abstraction – it doesn’t have any easy answers. And I am going to stop writing now – more later.




    • Hi Marc

      Ploughing my way through Yudkowski’s Rationality A-Z, and also been listening to discussions on values from a philosophical viewpoint from the ancient notion of swaraj through the various western treatments of the idea.
      Part of the process has had me looking closely at the notion of values.
      Where does the notion of value come from?
      There is a notion long accepted by many in philosophy, that one cannot derive an ought from an is. The argument seems to me to be based on false set of assumptions about what is.
      It seems clear that all our values, all of our preferences, are some function of survival over genetic or mimetic evolutionary time.
      When you think clearly and deeply enough about it, all of our likes and our dislikes can be traced back to differential survival of variations on some theme in some set of contexts, or something derived from those values. So in this sense, all of our “oughts” derive from the “is” of selective survival.

      There is another sense of confusion in the ought is argument.
      The proponents of the argument point only to the “is” of the physical, without looking at the “is” of the strategic – the relationships between things.
      When one accepts that level of “is”ness, as Wolfram explores, then much of philosophy dissolves.

      So I am a little reticent to use the term intelligence as a major value, because there are so many senses of intelligence.
      I’ve met many people at Mensa meetings that were so short term self centred in their interests that I did not like being near them – they were a threat.
      And I have also met people at Mensa who were great humanists.

      It seems clear to me that all people have many different types of intelligence.
      I think Minski defined about 26 different types. I suspect there are many more.
      We all have most of them in some measure, and display them at different levels in different contexts.
      So, like you, I value both intelligence and compassion, and that doesn’t mean that I will necessarily like someone more because they are quicker at any particular type of reasoning or set of skills.
      And some of my best friends are very high IQ, and some are not.

      I’m clear now that all understanding is necessarily limited, as are all perceptions.
      I have some amazingly complex models, and I know that even the most complex of them contain necessary simplifying heuristics.
      The trick in life seems to be finding maps that are fit for purpose.

      My objective, my explorations over these last 42 years, has been to find ways of thinking and being that allow potentially very long lived individuals to live in security for very long periods (many thousands of years) with as much freedom as possible.

      The Question I quite explicitly asked myself in October 1974 was – What sort of social political and technical institutions are required to allow potentially very long lived individuals to actually live a very long time?

      And it seems that the answer really is very simple.

      It seems that all that is necessary, is that one has a hierarchy of values, that one lives to consistently that has sapient life (intelligent life if you will, life that is capable of modelling the world around it, and modelling itself as an agent in that world that is essentially similar to all the other intelligent agents present) as the highest value, and the freedom of those sapient lives as the next highest value.

      All else can flow from those two.
      Those values must take us beyond markets and money.
      Both life and freedom value universal abundance, but markets can only ever value universal abundance at zero. So markets are antithetical to longevity and freedom in this sense.

      If everyone has the possibility of long life, then everyone has the incentive to think about the consequences on their actions on the longest term possible.
      In that set of conditions (and only in that set of conditions) self interest and community interest become indistinguishable.


      • Marc Sanders says:

        Ted, you wrote: “If everyone has the possibility of long life, then everyone has the incentive to think about the consequences on their actions on the longest term possible.”

        I cannot disagree with what you wrote – specifically, the way you wrote it, meaning you postulated the mere existence of such an incentive – rather than indicating the the size, or import or inescapability of the incentive.

        This is where I (and I’m reasonably certain you, as well) feel the constraints of the relative primitiveness of communication via text (and asynchronously, at that). That is, you’re trying to convey a topic with ‘thousands of moving parts, that alter their positions, velocities, and perhaps other both internally and externally significant characteristics in relation to their environment’, in a small number of, simple, chronologically linear words that you hope will elicit a somewhat specific understanding on my part (, I know if I deemed it important enough to communicate synchronously, there are many options open to me… mini-rant over).

        So, my point is that the mere possibility of the existence of such an incentive is not both necessary and sufficient to assume that all future humans will be constrained by it.

        But, that’s not why I chose to reply to your reply (and why I agree that this comment thread no longer is best positioned following your cancer post (I chose to respond here, simply because it was your latest post and contained the relevant stimulus for my suggestion). I’d like to know whether you’re interested in attempting to design and transition to a society/culture where your values have the best chance of survival. I guess that’s my greatest uncertainty: whether you wish to actively take steps to bring about the change or you believe it more prudent to observe events as they unfold (or attempt intellectually-based, ‘gentler’ forms of persuasion), from your relatively safe vantage in New Zealand (I can add that currently I have a relatively safe position near the center of the United States and have not sought out the ‘hot spots’ of potential revolutionary change in my country, or the world…)?

        Sorry to be rambling, but it appears to me (generally) that there’s a much greater disparity in humanity’s use of their mental faculties than the much more publicized “wealth gap”. This is one of the root causes of my concern about an evolutionary (i.e., unintelligent, as epitomized by a giraffe’s laryngeal nerve) transition to our future. I strongly agree with you that replacement of our current market-based mindset with one geared towards universal abundance (primarily cooperatively, not competitively driven) is probably the best, first step we can take, as a species. But, it is only the first step that still might lead us to extinction if other dominance hierarchies (e.g., elitism, of almost any sort) are not intelligently addressed.

        Okay, I know. Way, way too much for you to respond to. So, pick a subtopic – any subtopic – from my response if there’s something you’d like to ‘talk’ about.

        Thanks Ted.


        P.S. – apropos of nothing, I recently read my first sampling of David Brin, in a Lifeboat Foundation ebook “Visions of the Future” – and found it worthwhile.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Marc,

      Async has a lot going for it – and it has some constraints.

      Yes – lots to address, will do so in a few days.

      Yes – I have been consciously working on designing memes to achieve transition for 38 years. Design, test, refine, retest,……..

      I don’t see revolutionary change as being safe.
      I see that we need to find a way through that is seen as truly beneficial by everyone.

      Yes there are vast differences between individuals in the paradigms that are present and in use – and I had a very interesting discussion with a corporate executive today, that showed more promise than any previous discussion I’d had. Still didn’t quite get to where I wanted it to go, and got a lot closer than any prior attempt.
      So I am clear that there will need to be many levels and many contexts of explanatory framework, developed in parallel, and as coherent as the framework disjunctions allow.

      Interesting times!!!

      Later – Arohanui



Comment and critique welcome

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s