Evolution is not a scientific theory but ID is?

I am not a biomedical scientist. I am a retired industrial chemist, but I had done enough biology units to enable me to be able to read a medical journal and understand enough.

I first got cancer in 1993. The first doctors said uterine cancer and they were in a hurry to operate and remove my uterus. “Spare organ” they said, “you don’t need it”. I didn’t trust the doctor as I had been going to him with complaints for almost a year and it was his locum that picked up on the cancer. So, I decided to get a second opinion and left to go to Sydney (2,600Km south) and as events worked out it took a month and a half to get there. On the way I saw some symptoms lessen and a few disappear.

In Sydney I was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer with metastases to the uterus, cervix, bowel and both lungs. AND type 2 diabetes as there were high blood sugars. “Nothing we can do for you” they said. I wasn’t about to give up on my life so I went to a Chinese herbalist and I believed back then that they helped because by early 1994 after more tests the doctors found no evidence of disease. I really believed that the Chinese herbs cured me but a decade later I realized that I must have had a spontaneous remission of the cancer the first time.

So here are my findings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owoFpAzBock&feature=emb_logo and I will try to explain the science, which backs my findings 100%.

About “the science”. In the first 50 to 60 years of chemotherapy treatment they were targeting rapidly dividing cells because they “believed” that this is what cancer was. You could call me cynical if I say that maybe they had drugs that killed rapidly dividing cells and why not make some money.

Cancer in One Easy Lesson

Albert K. Harris, Professor of Biology, UNC-Chapel Hill

Under point #2. he says…

Please notice that cancer cells do not grow or divide faster than normal cells, although many people believe that, and most forms of chemotherapy were designed on the assumption that they grow faster.

This means that the early chemotherapy was NOT evidence based and the best example of faith healing by doctors… placebo!

This is critical information because the reality here is that the people who saw cancers shrink (i.e., the 54% because the rest died of the treatment) had experienced a placebo effect. If there is no conscious being in the meat robot then how does that happen?

They are trying to say that placebo is the expectation of getting well but this would hardly be the case. The person has to believe that whatever treatment they are given addresses an underlying problem because the reality is that there is foul game play and related, inhumane people with an agenda behind cancer. Only if the person believed that the underlying problem perceived owing to the foul game play, be addressed by whatever they are give, chemo or anything else, would the body clear away the cancer.

Have they told the public about this debacle? No. They are still talking about abnormal cells dividing out of control, only now they are supposedly dividing slower than normal cells.

Let’s see the medical experts, Mr Cancer Biology himself, Dr Rob Weinberg PhD. He and Dr Hanahan wrote the Hallmarks of Cancer. If we look closely then they are the hallmarks of stem cells. Did they realize it?

Here from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hallmarks_of_Cancer:

“" The Hallmarks of Cancer " is a seminal peer-reviewed article published in the journal Cell in January 2000 by the cancer researchers Douglas Hanahan and Robert Weinberg. The authors believe that the complexity of cancer can be reduced to a small number of underlying principles.”

And what do you know… they knew about cancer stem cells at the time: Cancer stem cell - Wikipedia

“Cancer stem cells were first identified by John Dick in acute myeloid leukemia in the late 1990s . Since the early 2000s they have been an intense cancer research focus. The term itself was coined in a highly cited paper in 2001 by biologists Tannishtha Reya, Sean J. Morrison, Michael F. Clarke and Irving Weissman.”

And we are to believe that Hanahan and Weinberb “jbrain stormed at a conference” and whalla the hallmarks of cancer were “conceived”. Who’s making it up. These guy have got to be big pharma lap dogs, who bark as need when given a bickie to munch on.

Just to give a couple of papers. Some of it is behind pay walls but enough to see that cancer is not about abnormal cells dividing out of control.

EMT in cancer | Nature Reviews Cancer EMT or epithelial to mesenchymal transition is a biological program seen in wound healing/ tissue regeneration and embryogenesis.

And where not convenient the science is “poorly understood”. See here: GINS2 promotes EMT in pancreatic cancer via specifically stimulating ERK/MAPK signaling | Cancer Gene Therapy

In the discussion: The current study offers convincing evidence that overexpression of GINS2 contributes to advanced clinical stage of PC patients in coordination with EMT signaling.

And all this can come about by genetic errors and DNA scramble. Give me a break.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67325-7?elqTrackId=84de0a579bc84069aa2feb9febdbdec8

“Cancer stem cell (CSC) has the ability to self-renew and initiate tumor formation. “

And what about here they admit cancer is an organ, albeit a rogue organ: https://jcs.biologists.org/content/125/23/5591

“Cancers are not just masses of malignant cells but complex ‘rogue’ organs, to which many other cells are recruited and can be corrupted by the transformed cells.” And as you can see they are trying to justify cancer cells as “transformed cells” that “recruit” other normal cells. Lol.

It was published in Journal of Cell Science 2012! Twelve or more years after they know about cancer stem cells and tumor initiation and progression.

The tumor microenvironment is seen purely from the point of view of therapy. Tumor Microenvironment as A “Game Changer” in Cancer Radiotherapy - PMC

The public story is like saying that a car cuts corners or runs the red light because of the make of spark plugs or the type of cylinders and cylinder head gaskets used etc., etc. The notion that there is a driver in the car is not acceptable in biology, far less in oncology.

If we look at the science of cancer in particular, but not only, then we see clear evidence that there is a conscious being involved without a shadow of doubt. They want to give a cause and effect for everything so they have a problem with consciousness because it can’t be shown as some physical cause of anything.