Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month (Winning the War on Cancer) is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

[Nick_A]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month (Winning the War on Cancer) is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

Hi Scott

From Jacob Needleman's book: "Lost Christianity."

Acornology

I began my lecture that morning from just this point. There is an innate element in human nature, I argued that can grow and develop only through impressions of truth received in the organism like a special nourishing energy. To this innate element I gave a name - perhaps not a very good name - the "higher unconscious." My aim was to draw an extremely sharp distinction between the unconscious that Freud had identified and the unconscious referred to (though not by that name) in the Christian tradition.

Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful!

The question before us, therefore, is whether or not modern psychology is only a version of acornology.

Technology will serve the needs of the outer man (husk of acorn). but how many will be left to serve the needs and development of the inner man (the healthy kernel of life within)? If this doesn't happen, I cannot see how our species will survive this imbalance.

[Sculptor1]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month (link]Winning the War on Cancerlink) is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

Cancer is a perfectly natural system whereby cell division is, like everything, less than perfect. To live we must replicated our cells continually else we die. When cells mutate they most often die leaving the immune system to mop up. A healthy body with a healthy immune system is possibly the best way of coping with cancer cells - we all have cancer cells all the time. but as we grow older it becomes increasingly difficult to cope.
Cancer is not one thing, but a huge series of ailments whose common factor is the excessive growth of cells. It's onoly when these tumours become to big for the immune system to cope and when they start to invade other systems does cancer become a disease.
Cancer is a disease of old age.
I do not think he war on cancer can ever be won. The battle will continue and the front lines can be pushed back, but eventually for each of us the likley hood is that eventually we will die with a cancer in our body that contributes to our demise, even whem the primary cause of death is some other factor.

[Sushan]

I too believe that anything is possible. The technological advancements that we see today were mere ideas in science fiction several hundred years ago. But the humans managed to fulfill those dreams. If there is a will there will always be a way, and someone will definitely find that too. With the studies going on related to stem cells I do not think that the title of the book is an entire dream. But we have to wait and see as I do not think that it will happen in very near future. But with the current pandemic situation people are more towards the research and development related to healthcare, so such dreams won't be too far either.

[LuckyR]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month Winning the War on Cancer is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

Cancer is a perfectly natural system whereby cell division is, like everything, less than perfect. To live we must replicated our cells continually else we die. When cells mutate they most often die leaving the immune system to mop up. A healthy body with a healthy immune system is possibly the best way of coping with cancer cells - we all have cancer cells all the time. but as we grow older it becomes increasingly difficult to cope.
Cancer is not one thing, but a huge series of ailments whose common factor is the excessive growth of cells. It's onoly when these tumours become to big for the immune system to cope and when they start to invade other systems does cancer become a disease.
Cancer is a disease of old age.
I do not think he war on cancer can ever be won. The battle will continue and the front lines can be pushed back, but eventually for each of us the likley hood is that eventually we will die with a cancer in our body that contributes to our demise, even whem the primary cause of death is some other factor.

Very important point. If all cancers were eliminated tomorrow, the human lifespan would only increase 3 years, since so many cancer patients are already beyond the average lifespan.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

OTOH, if you could cure suicide, homicide and accidents, the human lifespan would increase dramatically since those are killers of young people.

[Sushan]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month (Winning the War on Cancer) is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

Hi Scott

From Jacob Needleman's book: "Lost Christianity."

Acornology

I began my lecture that morning from just this point. There is an innate element in human nature, I argued that can grow and develop only through impressions of truth received in the organism like a special nourishing energy. To this innate element I gave a name - perhaps not a very good name - the "higher unconscious." My aim was to draw an extremely sharp distinction between the unconscious that Freud had identified and the unconscious referred to (though not by that name) in the Christian tradition.

Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful!

The question before us, therefore, is whether or not modern psychology is only a version of acornology.

Technology will serve the needs of the outer man (husk of acorn). but how many will be left to serve the needs and development of the inner man (the healthy kernel of life within)? If this doesn't happen, I cannot see how our species will survive this imbalance.

If this inner man, as I understand, is the soul or spirit or whatever the thing that is referred to as a human's driving force, then yes, it too have to be healthy for the longevity of human life. But when physiologically speaking I believe that that soul or spirit is only a production of the activity of our brain. So ultimately the longevity of human life will depend on the expiry date of the human body.

[Nick_A]

At first glance, some may feel that the title of July Philosophy Book of the Month (Winning the War on Cancer) is too optimistic.

However, a deeper more thoughtful and careful philosophical consideration may result in an opposite conclusion.

Assuming humans do not soon go extinct, presumably by their own hand such as through nuclear war or a man-made catastrophic biological virus, then is it inevitable that we will soon win the war on cancer?

It is hard to overestimate the exponential growth of technology. Some humans used to laugh about the idea of airplanes and human flight, but so soon after their laughter it was that man has walked on the moon, quickly exceeding the idea of mere human flight here on Earth.

I've heard some people predict that not only will we soon win the war on cancer, but we will effectively end human aging altogether, or defeat all human disease, not just cancer.

Hi Scott

From Jacob Needleman's book: "Lost Christianity."

Acornology

I began my lecture that morning from just this point. There is an innate element in human nature, I argued that can grow and develop only through impressions of truth received in the organism like a special nourishing energy. To this innate element I gave a name - perhaps not a very good name - the "higher unconscious." My aim was to draw an extremely sharp distinction between the unconscious that Freud had identified and the unconscious referred to (though not by that name) in the Christian tradition.

Imagine, I said, that you are a scientist and you have before you the object known as the acorn. Let us further imagine that you have never before seen such an object and that you certainly do not know that it can grow into an oak. You carefully observe these acorns day after day and soon you notice that after a while they crack open and die. Pity! How to improve the acorn? So that it will live longer. You make careful, exquisitely precise chemical analyses of the material inside the acorn and, after much effort, you succeed in isolating the substance that controls the condition of the shell. Lo and behold, you are now in the position to produce acorns which will last far longer than the others, acorns whose shells will perhaps never crack. Beautiful!

The question before us, therefore, is whether or not modern psychology is only a version of acornology.

Technology will serve the needs of the outer man (husk of acorn). but how many will be left to serve the needs and development of the inner man (the healthy kernel of life within)? If this doesn't happen, I cannot see how our species will survive this imbalance.

If this inner man, as I understand, is the soul or spirit or whatever the thing that is referred to as a human's driving force, then yes, it too have to be healthy for the longevity of human life. But when physiologically speaking I believe that that soul or spirit is only a production of the activity of our brain. So ultimately the longevity of human life will depend on the expiry date of the human body.

The inner man are the talents and tendencies a person is born with. (the kernel of life within) At the center of the inner man is the seed of the soul and its potential for conscious evolution. Around the age of five or so a person begins to develop a personality and gradually this personality develops and lives the life of a human being. (the husk of the acorn).

Does the husk of the acorn create the acorn or does the healthy kernel of life within create the husk? That is the question. Is it better to concentrate on nourishing the husk or the kernel of life within the husk?

[Areopagite]

Winning the war on cancer is indeed inevitable because cancer cures are already available. The issue, as always, is exposure of this information. People with healthy immune systems fight and win the war on cancer every day. There are already a myriad of cancer treatments for those willing to take the time to look. What is quite certain, though, is that if you follow conventional modes of treatment and nutrition you will find yourself losing this battle. Your body is designed to heal if given the proper materials and absent subsequent poisoning. The cancer industry is a well documented for-profit corporate interest which benefits from creating a public perception that cancer is not curable. Mirko Beljansky bumped into this reality, and, his experience and research should not be ignored for those who want to actually see people healed rather than virtue signalling their moral superiority by buying something pink.

[LuckyR]

Winning the war on cancer is indeed inevitable because cancer cures are already available. The issue, as always, is exposure of this information. People with healthy immune systems fight and win the war on cancer every day. There are already a myriad of cancer treatments for those willing to take the time to look. What is quite certain, though, is that if you follow conventional modes of treatment and nutrition you will find yourself losing this battle. Your body is designed to heal if given the proper materials and absent subsequent poisoning. The cancer industry is a well documented for-profit corporate interest which benefits from creating a public perception that cancer is not curable. Mirko Beljansky bumped into this reality, and, his experience and research should not be ignored for those who want to actually see people healed rather than virtue signalling their moral superiority by buying something pink.

Oh yeah, poor Mirko. Too bad he died of cancer. Something tells me he didn't have the cure...

[Areopagite]

Umm, yeah, did you read the book? Effective cancer treatments and cures are available for those who would care to do the research and look. That governments often stand in the way of effective treatments cannot be denied, as happened to Mirko. Kind of like banning the use of hydroxychloroqine and ivermectin for another health crisis we know of, wherein people died who might have lived with proper treatment. But hey, don't let me spoil your kool-aid. Enjoy!

[LuckyR]

Umm, yeah, did you read the book? Effective cancer treatments and cures are available for those who would care to do the research and look. That governments often stand in the way of effective treatments cannot be denied, as happened to Mirko. Kind of like banning the use of hydroxychloroqine and ivermectin for another health crisis we know of, wherein people died who might have lived with proper treatment. But hey, don't let me spoil your kool-aid. Enjoy!

So your point is Mirko didn't care to look?

[Areopagite]

Maybe. Mirko did not have access to his own stuff, and there are other things he might have used. He was not able to exercise his options. The irony is that his treatment actually mitigates the side effects of conventional treatment if used in conjunction with it. He was denied this option and wasn't really capable at that point of developing something else. So he died. But that doesn't mean what he developed doesn't work. The real question is, why wasn't he allowed to use his own treatment, esecially if, as some say, it doesn't work. Also, let's posit that he used it and he still died. That doesn't mean that it was not helpful to him. Chemotherapy and radiation treatments are highly lethal on their own. He might have had healing occurring when the other treatments killed him, as they often do. Mirko did have long standing results in effectively treating difficult conditions over time. So, why wasn't he allowed access? If you wanted to disprove it would be easier to let him take it and claim it didn't work if he died. The 'if' is the problem, because if he lived, you may have proven something else. The clinical trials at Colombia show good results. There are other treatments like Beljansky's that also have good success. But you rarely hear of them, and most doctors will only recommend conventional treatment. The recent docuseries The Truth about Cancer was an attempt at helping to educate the public about cancer and show effective treatment and cures that they would never hear from their doctor. Cancer is very treatable and not an automatic death sentence. The war on cancer is really an individual fight, and those suffering from it need to have good information and be allowed to exercise all their options. Those who do often have great outcomes. Dr. Huber's practice in AZ has a documented 93% success rate with cancer patients. I would say she is winning.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Winning the war on cancer is indeed inevitable because cancer cures are already available. The issue, as always, is exposure of this information.

To play devil's advocate, knowing the cure alone does not make the war winnable.

For instance, we know the cure to morbid obesity. Even those dying from morbid obesity know the cure. However, we are likely to win the war on cancer long before we win the war on obesity, or even truly start the latter. Arguably, most of the work that is currently being done to make technological advancements in battling obesity is for mere aesthetics rather than health. In other words, people are more than willing to overeat themselves to death, but if possible they would pay good money to look more physically attractive while they do.

Nonetheless, despite people's addictions and they way for-profit companies like Pfizer and McDonalds cater to those addictions for profit, I do think that winning the war on cancer is inevitable.

The delay is because we need to win the war on cancer without winning the war on addiction (e.g. smoking cigarettes, overeating to morbid obesity and death, etc.) because the other (a war on addiction) is not going to be winnable nearly as soon if ever.

[Tegularius]

On an individual basis winning the war on cancer depends a lot on whether you can pay for it. Not everyone has a great health plan.

Also, cancer among the young are very much on the rise due to life style and bad habits. It used to be that the old were more vulnerable but that's no longer the case especially in North America.

At any age, give cancer a chance and you just may get it.

[LuckyR]

Maybe. Mirko did not have access to his own stuff, and there are other things he might have used. He was not able to exercise his options. The irony is that his treatment actually mitigates the side effects of conventional treatment if used in conjunction with it. He was denied this option and wasn't really capable at that point of developing something else. So he died. But that doesn't mean what he developed doesn't work. The real question is, why wasn't he allowed to use his own treatment, esecially if, as some say, it doesn't work. Also, let's posit that he used it and he still died. That doesn't mean that it was not helpful to him. Chemotherapy and radiation treatments are highly lethal on their own. He might have had healing occurring when the other treatments killed him, as they often do. Mirko did have long standing results in effectively treating difficult conditions over time. So, why wasn't he allowed access? If you wanted to disprove it would be easier to let him take it and claim it didn't work if he died. The 'if' is the problem, because if he lived, you may have proven something else. The clinical trials at Colombia show good results. There are other treatments like Beljansky's that also have good success. But you rarely hear of them, and most doctors will only recommend conventional treatment. The recent docuseries The Truth about Cancer was an attempt at helping to educate the public about cancer and show effective treatment and cures that they would never hear from their doctor. Cancer is very treatable and not an automatic death sentence. The war on cancer is really an individual fight, and those suffering from it need to have good information and be allowed to exercise all their options. Those who do often have great outcomes. Dr. Huber's practice in AZ has a documented 93% success rate with cancer patients. I would say she is winning.

You are correct, lots of cancers are curable and cancer is not an automatic death sentence... with conventional treatment. Maybe with alternative treatments too. We can't say because there aren't any studies, just books in the lay press and posts online from believers.

Who exactly is preventing researchers (like Mirko) from using his own product?

Oh right, the baking soda and vitamin C queen in AZ. Who would have thought the cure for cancer is in your kitchen! Go for it.