There is a lot more than cancer to fear, Guns. We're mortal, and sooner or later, something will end our lives.
We'd rather for it to be later, most of us. So it makes sense do do what we can to minimize our risks. The link I provided in the text box of this video may help with that. (You have to click the box open to find it.)
But it's also a good idea to be philosophical about the coming end of your life. It will happen. Make the most of the time you have.
Urgelt,i think im speaking in the name of all the youtube community if i say that you are doing a great job esspecially answering most of the viewers questions is great !!
Hi Urgelt,I have enjoyed watching your vidios. here is a vidio I thought you might be interested in watching.Its called "run from the cure.The Rick Simpson story" My younger sister died a few years ago from oral cancer[healthy lifestyle]at the age of 30 and Im always searching for answers.
I'm sorry to hear about your sister, and I understand your need for answers.
The Rick Simpson story is anecdotal; anecdotes are not proof.
If THC (or something else in hemp oil) does cure one or more forms of cancer, clinical studies will show it, and we'll learn what we need to know about dosage and side-effects.
For what it's worth, I think clinical studies for hemp oil and THC are a good idea. We should leave no stone unturned.
Maybe you should give a talk on why power breeds corruption and not altruistic actions as it is meant to do! Why wealthy people yearn for more wealth and do bad things to get it?
My mother died of cancer, my brother has cancer, both in the throat.
Myself, I would not like to contract cancer. Living until 95yrs is not too much to ask surely?? (joke)
For the broccoli salad, one tablespoon of olive oil seems a bit stingy. In my family we tend to slather it on a bit more. is that a recommended serving?
Aside from advising you to avoid overconsumption of daily calories, I'd say it's not a problem.
I'd worry less about olive oil (but choose virgin!) than about the other oils you are consuming in other foods. I don't think the body has a nutritional need for corn oil, canola oil, soybean oil, and most of the other unsaturated oils. Olive oil is healthy, and you do need some saturated fats (I get mine from coconut oil, nuts, and cheese).
It has been observed that people who maintain a steady diet of nitriloside containing foods, whether it be WILD meats (such as the Eskimos who eat much Caribou and Caribou graze on high nitriloside containing grasses) or vegetables (such as the "Hunz" of Pakistan who consume many apricot seeds which contain a concentrated form of nitrilosides). Nitrilosides will prevent and has been known to fight off cancer.
Other explanations are possible for low cancer mortality rates among Eskimos or the Hunz, particularly less exposure to carcinogens and food additives in their diets.
Given the stridency with which advocates of B17 ("nitrosilides" is another word for the same thing) promote it in the marketplace, and the dearth of scientific evidence for its efficacy, it has been, perhaps deservedly, relegated to the "hoax bin" by mainstream science.
Yes, that thought had occurred to me even as I was typing in my comment.
Steering away from prevention techniques a bit, do you have any information on alternative cures for cancer. More recently, Paw Paw has been studied by some universities (Purdue) and there has been much excitement about the curing properties of this agent. However, I struggle to find any evidence (via personal testimonials) that it really works.
There are no alternative cures for cancer. There are no mainstream cures, either. Cancer can be cut out of a body or subjected to treatments of varying efficacy. Frustratingly, efficacy of a particular treatment varies not only from patient to patient but from cell to cell.
That's because cancer cells have lost the ability to repair DNA damage. Hence their DNA changes pretty much constantly.
I hasten to add, a cure might be found. It's not impossible, just difficult.
Paw Paws contain chemicals which can kill cancer cells in the laboratory. Many chemicals can do that, and some of them are under investigation for their clinical potential.
The big money is in research into patentable drugs, though. A potential treatment that isn't patentable is not gong to attract much research money.
By the way, there's a huge gulf gulf between "observing a drug property in the laboratory" and "showing efficacy in clinical treatment." Most promising drugs don't keep their promise; some obstacle is discovered that keeps them from working in human bodies. And then there are side effects; petri dishes don't have them, and lab animals are different from us.
Drugs are expensive to develop because so few can make the jump to clinical efficacy.
Well, I am not so sure I could be as dogmatic. I really believe there are cures that exist for cancer. For starters do a video search on Google/YouTube for "DCA Cancer" or how about trying "Salt Water Cancer". I think you'll be intrigued at what you find.
Oh, I've been following DCA since last February, or thereabouts. It's got potential.
Lots of drugs and chemicals kill cancer cells in a petri dish - even Vitamin C does, and it doesn't harm normal cells. Turning them into proven clinical therapies is a much tougher problem, as both Linus Pauling and his wife found out in the hardest way possible.
DCA shrinks tumors in animal studies, which is a good step forward. I'm waiting eagerly for results of clinical trials.
And yes, there is a researcher working on radio energy applied to salt water who is interested in cancer. From what I've seen, John Kanzius's work is what I would call "basic research." I don't think he has a specific therapy ready for clinical trials.
Mind you, I'm not dismissing his work or anyone else's. Basic research is the frontier of science. What he learns could unlock new developmental approaches - or something else entirely. It's all good.
I don't consider a cure to be proven until it has passed the gold standard of scientific review - double-blind peer-reviewed clinical trials with results that can be replicated. That's dogmatic, but it's scientific dogma.
But the cancer industry has never bothered to evaluate many treatments, such as Caisse's essiac tea. And we agree on the reason: no multi-billion dollar drug patents will come from the research. I agree, it's a big, big problem.
Yes, I gathered that this was your approach to the labeling of a cure.
Unfortunately, the more that I research, the more I am understanding just how non-objective much of so-called "science" truly is. And the more that I think on this matter, the more that I realize that it is really almost impossible to separate one's own biases from his or her understanding or interpretation of science is to them. Science is really not as objective as it is purported to be by definition.
It's an interesting point, and one I'll reluctantly concede. Science is only as objective as the people practicing and publishing it.
There are checks and balances in science, mostly having to do with peer-reviewed journals, which are intended to keep it honest. What I worry about is the prospect of corporations buying those journals and twisting them to their own purposes, as they have done with mass media. If that happens, whatever objectivity science can claim will be history.
And too, much of the so-called science throughout time has a long and dark history of squelching what would benefit humanity.
When scurvy became a problem to shipmates, science would not accept the cure given by an Indian medicine man (pine needles and tree bark which were high in Vitamin C) for another 300 years.
Science during the Enlightenment had not worked out many of the standards it follows today, such as study design and peer review. Printing and distribution of books was expensive, inhibiting the spread of ideas.
Science then also had to avoid running afoul of religious and political interests, which were extremely dangerous to anyone questioning the status quo. You could get tortured or hanged for heresy in those days.
The situation has improved. We don't hang scientists much. But there are still obstacles to the acceptance of new discoveries.
It's not going to be accepted until others replicate the results in their own studies. That's a real problem for non-patentable drugs and therapies, because the money is all in patentable drugs. No money, no studies.
I think the government should acknowledge this limitation and aggresively fund research where patents aren't involved.
Who, exactly, is doing the squelching in modern times? I don't think it's science, so much as corporate power.
For example, scientists have very little to do with what the FDA writes into its nutrition guidelines. That dogma comes straight from the food industry giants.
Lots of science exists to show harm from, say, aspartame. But science isn't in the driver's seat when it comes to government or special interests.
I'm not entirely sure we agree on what "squelching" means, either.
When a scientists says "that's not proven," he means replicable results haven't been demonstrated sufficiently to support a consensus. I don't consider that "squelching."
But if there is no money to study a potential cancer treatment... then it *is* a kind of squelching. But it's a political and economic squelching, not a scientific one.
True. Your right. I shouldn't put the blame on scientist really but mostly on corporate government and politics.
When I think of modern examples where science was stopped and experimentation and development on a particular project ended, a few examples that come to mind immediately include: Tesla's wireless electricity, Stanley Meyer's water powered car, and many other scientific projects that attempt to prove the process of over unity throughout history.
It seems like much of the history of science is also the history of free energy suppression. But you are right, this blame should mostly be placed on corporate government.
A little late to add to this debate, but I want to bring up the public. What can the public do to help the government regulate cancer and science find it's cures? I know we have to elect people into government who won't simply take money from the companies instead of stopping them, but... How do we know who will do these things and who won't? How can we really know what's best for our government when we are not the ones running for office?
Some of us could run for office ourselves, but not all of us can do that, and it's going to be difficult for non-corrupt people to get into office, because that's how our government works nowadays...
Some of us could run for office ourselves, but not all of us can do that, and it's going to be difficult for non-corrupt people to get into office, because that's how our government works nowadays...
We can research and learn about our candidates, but how do we know the info we research is not a lie? I really see no way of fixing our problems that the average person can do or help with doing. (Sorry for the one post that was the same as another. Made a dumb mistake while posting.)
Another tip you might consider worthy of adding to your blog: Eat foods that are high in Nitrilosides and B17. These foods contain known cancer fighting agents.
I have watched your Cancer talks on YouTube with great interest. You are a very articulate person and I can tell you have pondered considerably on the topics you discuss. I also read your cancer prevention tips from your blog. Excellent. It is good to see confirmed the lifestyle that I have already been practicing.
Well done, Urgelt. Your tips on preventing cancer have inform me plenty. You are a very knowledgeable man and your contributions towards YouTube are appreciated and useful.
I recommend skipping the middleman and donating directly to university cancer research programs - especially if you know they are looking into nonpatentable therapies.
Here's one: do a Google search on "DCA cancer research." You'll turn up a university research program in Canada that looks promising. A relatively small amount of money ($1.5 million Canadian) would pay for human trials. Donations are easy.
My father died on May 17 of this year. He had been suffering from colon cancer as well. I want to find out more about ways to prevent this awful disease, so the rest of my family members and I don't go through what my dad did. dudenamejames, I send my condolences to you- I KNOW what you're going through.
I'm sorry to know of your father's death, James. You aren't alone. It's a lucky family in the industrialized world who hasn't lost family members.
It's hard to say "toxins caused a particular case of cancer." It's at the broad statistical view that we realize the role toxins play in driving the cancer rate ever higher.
I can't get over how smart you are. I've seen it in many other videos...
2.7% mercury in cigarettes? One pack would be severe overkill. And I think even Urgelt is off a little bit in his estimate.
I know it might sounds cruel, but I think in for every.. say, fifty packs of cigarettes, one should be a trick pack that explodes with the same force as a firecracker when you open it.
And thank you, Urgelt, for sharing your knowledge with us. It's apprecialted.
That amount of mercury would quickly kill a human.
My sources suggest that typical - and dangerous - amounts of mercury in cigarettes is more on the order of 30 +/- 10 ng (nanograms) per cigarette. It's there primarily because of mercury in fungicides used by tobacco growers.
The problem with cancer is that many people really don't understand the physiology of it, and thus do not understand how to make simple lifestyle changes to avoid carcinogens. Cancer is simply a manner of cumulative oncogene failure via deleterious mutation, and while natural mutation and predisposition play a large role in the onset of various cancers, by exposing ourselves constantly to substances that adversely affect our genetic structures we essentially make cancer an inevitable reality.
The only thing I'll add is that even scientists and medical doctors have only a superficial grasp of the detailed workings of cancer. But that is changing, and as it changes, better treatments will arise.
But even if we cure all cancer, toxins will take a toll in other diseases. We need to clean up our act.
My grandfather smoked cigarettes for 72 years before he died at 83 and many Chinese citizens have explained that their elders have lived longer than that without cancer. The food that Chinese people eat opposed to Americans are completely different and the amount of extra exercise they get is more too. I have heard people beat cancer on diet and exercise alone.
No-one doubts that risk of cancer and other diseases is considerably elevated by smoking.
But you raise valid points. There are a great many variables besides smoking. Some of them, like exercise and diet, are amenable to our direct control.
I value your insight, and wish to apply even the smallest percentage of it to my life. Sadly I simply can't afford the luxury of prolonged survival through all of the suggestions on your blog. Long life seems to be the sole privelege of the enlightened middle class, as always. At least we can all afford to exercise, there's no beating the cost of free.
Money is indeed a constraint. Quality nutrition has been priced up because so few people demand it. The economies of scale are favoring junk food and industrially processed foods.
But there are inexpensive healthy foods. Takes some work, but you can identify them and make the best of what you can afford.
I'll tell you right here and now, since I know about the project. It's a wonderful thing. We've sequenced the human genome; now protein-folding is a big part of the puzzle, understanding how genes are expressed, how the cascade of cellular biology works at the chemical level. Lots of answers to diseases will come out of this, in time.
And PS3 is a pretty awesome computational platform. Perfect for the immense number crunching required.
its also the threatment of every nations who can contribute that the cancer grows or disappears, in europe especially western we have a real good medical care for cancer, we pay nothing for the threatment but even so people died especially because of the tabaco thats why now in europe its forboddiden to smoke in public or in restaurants :-)(not all nations but germany, uk and spain are one of those who make that experimental decision) now wemust wait for 5 years and we will see...
Banning smoking in public or in restaurants should help a bit with the cancer rates. There's a lot more toxic sources to worry about, though. Thanks for your comment, Tino.
i know its especially in the food, but also mercury is very very very nadgeours thats why since 1991 europe forbidee batteries with high quecksivler(mercury)
you know mercury is in a lot of food like dose food (where they keep the fish) or in metal bottles.. ( i dont know exactly the word for that in english lol)
It's in our teeth, too - dental amalgam used for fillings. And until recently, it was still being used as a preservative in vaccines - and is suspected of producing autism in thousands of children. Mercury is dangerous stuff.
we dont use amalgalm anymore in europe there is now somehting called poli...what ever i forgott lol....take care amigo
wont forgett you :-) and you dont forgett me :-)anyway.. its tstrange how noone make a video forme i use tomake a lot of videos for people but no one caresabout me :-( thats the best example that i dont regret to close my tinotrivino account :-( anyway take care amigo
I'm starting to believe that Google has not only saved the Internet, but may also save our world. My TV is long dead and I've been YouTube'ing for quite some time. Without mass media and the motivation to sell, there is more truth digitally available than I could have ever imagined. We appreciate the insight, Urgelt.
"Saving the world" is an awfully big idea. But the internet has certainly begun to change the rules by which the game is played. Whether we can seize on that and do something useful with it remains to be seen.
The efforts of one poster won't make much of a dent. But if enough videographers begin to make educational videos and tell the unvarnished truth, that could be a very interesting development.
Well. It's a drug, and it's not without risks, particularly when smoked. Burning any organic matter creates carcinogens and toxins. Breathing smoke is risky.
But I don't much like the state getting in citizens' faces about it, or coming between doctors and patients. Guess I have some slight libertarian leanings there.
wow, poor people, i hate stuff like that, i dont smoke, drink or do drugs :) good..... hey make a video of what gives you cancer (answer on a private message cause its too hard to look through all your comments for my answer)
This is great...but for preventing cancer I really recommend tea. And for high blood pressure...cocoa.
But Cancer is increasing because of the pollutants in the air...especially from second hand smoke. Lung cancer is by far the "greatest killer" of all Cancers. I also can't believe how some people are feeding on these peoples lives...so many factories pumping toxins in the atmosphere. Great video.
Actually to be specific GREEN TEA is being studied. Rutgers University has a whole cancer institute where they experiment with green tea and its anti-caner therapeutic benefits...
Depressing/frightening statistics! Thank you for sharing your studies/findings. The musical selection was excellent, too. Geebz is very talented and a great guy!
Yes, it's frightening, what we are doing to ourselves. It's time for a change.
As for Geebz, besides being a broadly talented composer, he's on the cutting edge of music licenses. His DollarTracks site is a real eye-opener for 'tubers, especially if they might eventually go commercial with their videos. Very cool guy.
I'm too researching this subject for quite some time, and I must say your list is really good from what I can tell.
I strongly recommend to all your subscribers to seriously heed these recommendations, and be sure that you're not dishonest to yourself concerning your eating habits...!
There are probably dozens of things I didn't list in the text blog that should be listed, but I think that's not critical. What's important is getting people to think, and then make smart choices about the food, beverages and products they are buying and using.
We don't live in a safe society, and should be making our way as if through a minefield.
Wow...the percentage for under 55's is higher than i expected!
I guess this isn't exactly on the topic of cancer but if u have time maybe do a google search and type in Earth hour sydney. Every little bit helps..would be good if more people would try doin something like this..tho obviously it won't prevent or fix everything. *HUGS*
I checked out the links you suggested. I agree, Naomi. Conservation is *easy.*
We're so used to convenience that we don't pay any attention to lights on we don't really need, AC power converters left plugged in when unnecessary, wearing an extra layer in winter and turning down the thermostat a couple degrees, keeping tires inflated properly, etc. I'm glad Sydney is showing the way.
Thanks, Claire. Yes, Geebz' track adds some punch, doesn't it?
Most people don't realize the numbers are so high. Mass media avoids talking about the numbers. Their income depends on advertisers, and advertisers are largely selling toxic products. It's created a huge blind spot in our culture.
Those statistics are not only alarming, but a little frightening...especially the stats for people under 55 years of age. I had no idea they were that high.
Thanks for the information link to your blog, which I'll investigate further (when I have more than a few minutes to examine it).
And further thanks for the time and effort that you took to make the two videos...much appreciated!
I'm not trying to scare anyone with those stats. But awaken, yes. We're killing an awful lot of people... and ourselves... by our inattention.
We're inattentive because we rely on mass media to tell us what we should know. Mass media can't address toxins much; advertisers have too much influence.
Exactly. Heck, Google cancer risk and food dyes, artificial sweeteners, cosmetics, toothpaste, soap, shampoo, sunblock, you name it. Carcinogens have found their way into almost everything we buy, unless you buy organic. And even then, it's just less. Organic farms can't control toxins wafting in on the breeze, and there's plenty of those.
I'm glad I'm not the only one using Google this way.
Thanks Urgelt for making another informative video!
In you information link you point out that foods treated with high temperatures are more likely to produce cancer, like coffee. I agree. I also know a very informative website about this subject: waisays dot com that is. Maybe you already knew it
Thank you for taking the time to share all of this information with us, Urgelt! I was hoping I would have time to read it last night when I first saw the video. I didn't get to do so, but I've got plenty of time tonight. :)
Urgelt, don't get me wrong here, not saying you are wrong only that's only a piece of the puzzle. Only thing an individual can do is choose for themselves. Trying o change society is difficult and IMO your better off changing your own personal habits.
That was the point of the video: there are things we can do to reduce risk, and I've put a fair bit of effort into summarizing them on the text blog which this video points to.
But we can't reduce risk *enough.* Because as long as our society swims in a sea of toxins, a good deal of them are unavoidable. We'll have to make some changes to our industrial habits, as well as our personal ones.
Exactly there are toxins in certain animals such as pork and shellfish for one, that cause problems with the human body. Fats can be toxic in the wrong forms as well. Certain creatures are made to clean up the enviroment and if you eat em guess what? You ingest the toxins as well.
It helps in the long run, Maraljan. In the short run, cutting fat may liberate some of those toxins and make a person feel worse. That's one reason pushing fluids is a very good idea, especially when losing weight, to help with detoxification.
Our minds are schooled to think of dangers that we can see. Toxic molecules are an invisible abstraction, beyond the reach of our senses. But it's sure hard to ignore the body count.
People have been using caffeine for centuries. People don't work as much as they used to. They sit indoors most of the time at a desk or a computer. You have to look at all the factors, you can't just blame a couple sources. IMO eating unclean foods and lack of exercise are a big part of the problem.
There's not much scientific evidence for a view that cancer is caused by laziness.
The growing prevalence of toxins in food, water, air and commercial products in our civilization tracks along pretty well with rising cancer rates. It's true that there are other causes of cancer, such as viruses, bacteria, and radiation. But no-one has proposed that these other causes have driven the cancer rates sky-high.
You wouldn't eat a vulture so why eat a pig? Or a Lobster the "searoach". Not saying I eat perfect, I do eat some fried foods like chicken and french fries lol those aren't "unclean" just fatty. I try not to do it too often though. I've completely cut out eating scavengers and have felt better since.
There are meats that are fine to eat such as beef, lamb, chicken and fish with fins and scales. You shouldn't gorge yourself on them even though they are meant for us to eat, but you don't have to be a vegetarian. Also, don't eat mushrooms! They are NOT a vegetable or a plant but a fungus. If you choose to be a vegetarian that's great but I couldn't do it lol.
The Biblical prohibition against mushrooms was wise in its day, because there were no taxonomic classifications for mushrooms in Biblical times by which poisonous varieties could reliably be avoided.
Science has rectified that problem.
Many mushrooms are quite good nutrition, and some even have demonstrable health benefits, such as the Chinese reishi mushroom.
See that's the thing. People say the same about pork and shellfish etc that they didn't have refrigeration blah blah blah. Pigs don't sweat, toxins stay in the fat. Shellfish and the like absorb toxins like catfish, they're the cleanup crew. Mushrooms grow from dung! Yummy lol. I feel it's important to throw that out there as many things that are harmful to the body are said to be healthy by "experts". God made these bodies he knows what to feed em.
Olive Oil is one of the best things you can put in your body. It has a very high fat content but the good fat like the fats found in fish. Not like the fat from baked goods and fried foods.
The truth is in order for our economy to remain good, commerce has to take place and that requirees transporting goods all over. Nature also has it's own pollution sources such as volcanoes. Eating the foods that God said are fit for us to eat, is one of the best things you can do for yourself. As far as the artificial sweeteners go, use sugar! Just use it in moderation.
Are you arguing that we are incapable of devising non-toxic and economically-sound methods of operating our technological society?
In my lifetime I have seen so much ingenuity and invention, so much evidence of the cleverness of our species, I would find it impossible to agree, were that to be your premise.
Man's grasp of the universe is minute. We are still using fossil fuels mainly because that is the way it is for now. I don't deny change is possible and the new technoligies emerging are encoraging. However, until the power required by the engines that drive our economy can be met by alternative fuels, this is something that won't be changed for decades. It costs a lot of money to change over and that simply won't happen for quite some time.
I'm not a radical, Testekleez, arguing we must give up our combustion engines and live in shrines on mountaintops.
But we can plan for an orderly transition. We're going to have to, anyway, oil isn't going to last forever.
And many of the other carcinogens will be far easier to remove. Aspartame. Carcinogens in make-up. Food additives and coloring. Stuff like that, there are already safe alternatives on the market, and it's not that disrupting to make a switch.
I'm far from the first to raise an alarm, and I certainly won't be the last. If enough of us give voice to our concerns, perhaps we can bring about a sea change in our political systems - and live better.
Urgelt, i think cancer is the heir of AIDS back in the late 80´s / 90´s ...it is the sickness of our time. But one thing is puzzling me. The government DO have possibilities to ease AIDS, or get it better controlled. They do NOT give those medicaments to where they are most urgently needed. The government doesn´t want us to smoke anymore (so it occurs these days in Germany.) But they allow those toxins in our food...i think you get my point there...this is weird.
I think what happens is that media attention makes certain toxins politically unacceptable, and so they are sacrificed by politicians and industry. The problem is that only a handful of toxins receive that kind of media scrutiny. There is no political base for controlling *all* carcinogens. That's something we should wish to change.
Very good work. To the point with statistics placed next to beautiful and dark music. I had my childhood in the 1980s and my parents knew then that cancers were caused by chemical and environmental toxins and would protest at Diablo Canyon, a nuclear power plant that was built on the CA coast near earthquake faults. Now, living in the city and knowing that I am overexposed to toxins, the most I can do is try to think positive and eat well.
Don't smoke cigarettes or drink excessive amounts of any alcohol on a regular basis. Exercise. Avoid excess sugar intake. These will reduce your odds of getting a serious illness dramatically.
Man has poisoned the Earth no doubt, with cars all over the place and inustries pumping out toxins into the atmospehre. However, I believe unclean foods people often eat also increase the risks to get cancer or some other nasty disease. The bible is pretty clear about what to eat and what not to eat. Don't eat Pork, or any scavengers such as Catfish or Lobster, shrimp etc. If it comes out of water and doesn't have both fins and scales, don't eat it. Eat beef, lamb, chicken don't eat mushrooms.
Toxins in food and beverages are certainly a big part of the problem, as you will see if you click the text blog link.
The Bible is, alas, quite silent about the dangers of aspartame, MSG, caffeine, hormone-mimicking chemicals weeping out of plastic, formaldehyde exuding from new synthetic carpets, cigarette smoke, or thousands of other toxins we've ingeniously invented.
Obviously, man makes his own problems. The point being, there's not much we can do about automobiles. The new biofuels coming out are a start but the transition will take years.
I'd call it a "small" service, Kenny, and I'll be contented with that appraisal. Not many people will wade through the information I've collated in the text blog. But a few will, and they may find it useful. That's plenty good enough for me.
Thanks for that video. We should really be focusing all of our concentration on these issues rather than some petty tit-for-tat dilemmas that never get solved anyway.
Yes. Many politicians are happy with left wing-right wing divisive issues precisely because they rivet our attention on things that can't be resolved. Agreed, Mike.
im aged 59,and when i was a child i never heard or saw anyone with child cancer,is this a new phenomenon.. children havent done anything disruptive to there health to warrant getting cancer,as in adult life style choices such as smoking, alcohol abuse, and drugs etc..could the problem be in pesticides used in food production,and when such parents have children their childrens DNA is somehow changed.its a scary thought,and i hope im wrong..maybe "independant" scientists could look into it
my then 8 year old daughter was poisoned by pesticides,her appendix burst,her eyesight was temporarily affected,and she lost the use of her legs for nearly 2 months,and was confined to a wheelchair,shes now 18 and has been on painkillers since aged 8,she has been home schooled as she couldnt manage the steps at school,she still has aching bones,her doctor has diagnosed pesticide poisoning,but this is new zealand and no one here is interested in her welfare or problems
could the answer be sharks, MOTE MARINE laboratory's center for shark research is trying to find out why sharks rarely get cancer and what it might for humans who do. a time will come when we will live with out cancer !! and I hope it is within my lifetime.
Lots of animals don't get cancer, and it hasn't, by itself, proved much of a clue. All it tells us is that our genome is particularly vulnerable; but then, so are most mammals.
The next cancer video will answer whether we can expect to see cancer cured any time soon. My answer might surprise you.
Those pollutant industries and most industries for that matter, care only about the bottom line...money and holding onto/making it. There is no *tangible* profit in adjusting or cleaning up their sludge. *sigh*
Capitalism is the most powerful economic engine yet invented, but it does have its flaws. A system which leaves corpses in its wake like a threshing machine through corn isn't quite what we want in a human civilization.
Adjustment is required. The capitalists do not have the motivation to do it. We can reduce risk somewhat, but not enough by ourselves. Political action is the only remaining option.
The industrial revolution in it's birth, did not foresee a dangerous future (at least I believe that.) It saw progress and an easier way to live but, as with anything in life, there is always a con to a pro, unfortunately.
I wonder, if the world wasn't run on money/currency, would our day to day life right now as it is, be different?
Yes, and when you think about it in relation to the age of our earth, that's a drop in the bucket in time. What we have *progressed* to do is destroy our world at warp speed. Strange how things are. 200 years ago Man only had the lifespan of about 35-40 years but the earth was clean, pure and natural. We now have doubled that with the use of technology but is that such a good thing? I am thinking more and more...not.
I would not turn back the clock, myself, Bea. I'd wind it forward by defining a technological, industrial society that isn't poisonous to either humans or the world in which humans live. It's possible, I'm convinced.
I'm glad you are speaking out, so few people know or stop to think about these things. The numbers are insane yet we don't get the paniced nightly news reports to wake people up. ;) I'm glad you're doing it!
Actually the chemical industry responsible for so much of the toxins which permeate our civilization really got its start in Germany, but that was well before the fascists arrived on the scene.
I don't think you can get much of a radiation dose from a microwave, but then, I don't hang around right by the thing when it's on, either.
I realise this might sound somewhat ridiculous given the seriousness behind this subject. But. I sense it is the strength of the voice which makes many of us sit up and listen. Even be guided by. I have never failed to be moved by the, & now this is the difficult bit but by the person delivering the message because it makes me listen. It makes me value the message. Although i know i should be doing that anyway. Thanks to you, as ever.
I understand your point, and I'll return to a more conventional videographic approach in the third cancer video.
But sometimes we need to see the information, raw, you know? Unfiltered, just the facts. At least I do. It's a sanity check.
Perusasion has its place, and I've used persuasion and will use it again. But the facts should stand on their own, too. Otherwise, it's just hype and self-inflation.
My apologies. I dont think i made myself clear Urgelt. I did not mean to devalue this video, on the contrary my attention was keenly focussed but yes. I guess the 'why' was because of your guidance, your person which i have got to know in a small way, presented with such deliverance. Its a respect, like the school teacher i once had who could inspire me to run like no other. He lifted the worlds spirit. Like you, inspired. Sadly he passed away at 43 but his 'him' i have never forgotton.
I gratefully acknowledge your point, Lloyd, thank you.
I'm very concerned about the cancer pandemic that grips our society, believing it is unnecessary and, at its foundation, cruel. I think of myself as an amateur pitcher in a ballgame, varying his pitches in hope of a good result: a rant, followed by cold hard facts.
The best teachers vary their methods, I think. I'll be very satisfied to be thought an adequate one.
I'm really scared...i wish i could do something to help the prevention of cancer
GUNSFOREVER1 1 year ago
There is a lot more than cancer to fear, Guns. We're mortal, and sooner or later, something will end our lives.
We'd rather for it to be later, most of us. So it makes sense do do what we can to minimize our risks. The link I provided in the text box of this video may help with that. (You have to click the box open to find it.)
But it's also a good idea to be philosophical about the coming end of your life. It will happen. Make the most of the time you have.
Urgelt 1 year ago
@Urgelt Thanks
GUNSFOREVER1 1 year ago
Urgelt,i think im speaking in the name of all the youtube community if i say that you are doing a great job esspecially answering most of the viewers questions is great !!
ThePKscene 2 years ago
Hi Urgelt,I have enjoyed watching your vidios. here is a vidio I thought you might be interested in watching.Its called "run from the cure.The Rick Simpson story" My younger sister died a few years ago from oral cancer[healthy lifestyle]at the age of 30 and Im always searching for answers.
4evasugarfree 3 years ago
Thank you for the reference, 4evasugarfree.
I'm sorry to hear about your sister, and I understand your need for answers.
The Rick Simpson story is anecdotal; anecdotes are not proof.
If THC (or something else in hemp oil) does cure one or more forms of cancer, clinical studies will show it, and we'll learn what we need to know about dosage and side-effects.
For what it's worth, I think clinical studies for hemp oil and THC are a good idea. We should leave no stone unturned.
Urgelt 3 years ago
Hi Urgelt,
Maybe you should give a talk on why power breeds corruption and not altruistic actions as it is meant to do! Why wealthy people yearn for more wealth and do bad things to get it?
My mother died of cancer, my brother has cancer, both in the throat.
Myself, I would not like to contract cancer. Living until 95yrs is not too much to ask surely?? (joke)
Halboy10 3 years ago
Clinical studies only serve to protect the pharma companies income...
You know that by now....
Although the average human being has no right to say what works and what dosent,, We still have the ability of trial and error..
Happily , In the herbal world,, Errors have little consequence as a rule.
Hemp has had its human trials and deemed to be safe so i would try it without hesitation..
Apricot Kernels althugh are more targeted to cancer according to trials....
vince2468motorway 3 years ago
The text link is great, very informative, thank you Urgelt, good to know
nedkellyinireland 4 years ago
I'm glad you enjoyed it, Ned.
Urgelt 4 years ago
For the broccoli salad, one tablespoon of olive oil seems a bit stingy. In my family we tend to slather it on a bit more. is that a recommended serving?
nedkellyinireland 4 years ago
Aside from advising you to avoid overconsumption of daily calories, I'd say it's not a problem.
I'd worry less about olive oil (but choose virgin!) than about the other oils you are consuming in other foods. I don't think the body has a nutritional need for corn oil, canola oil, soybean oil, and most of the other unsaturated oils. Olive oil is healthy, and you do need some saturated fats (I get mine from coconut oil, nuts, and cheese).
Urgelt 3 years ago
Wheres the link Urgelt? sorry I dont see it
freedomtou 4 years ago
It's in the text box, upper right hand part of the page.
Urgelt 4 years ago
It has been observed that people who maintain a steady diet of nitriloside containing foods, whether it be WILD meats (such as the Eskimos who eat much Caribou and Caribou graze on high nitriloside containing grasses) or vegetables (such as the "Hunz" of Pakistan who consume many apricot seeds which contain a concentrated form of nitrilosides). Nitrilosides will prevent and has been known to fight off cancer.
sumstew 4 years ago
Other explanations are possible for low cancer mortality rates among Eskimos or the Hunz, particularly less exposure to carcinogens and food additives in their diets.
Given the stridency with which advocates of B17 ("nitrosilides" is another word for the same thing) promote it in the marketplace, and the dearth of scientific evidence for its efficacy, it has been, perhaps deservedly, relegated to the "hoax bin" by mainstream science.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Yes, that thought had occurred to me even as I was typing in my comment.
Steering away from prevention techniques a bit, do you have any information on alternative cures for cancer. More recently, Paw Paw has been studied by some universities (Purdue) and there has been much excitement about the curing properties of this agent. However, I struggle to find any evidence (via personal testimonials) that it really works.
sumstew 4 years ago
There are no alternative cures for cancer. There are no mainstream cures, either. Cancer can be cut out of a body or subjected to treatments of varying efficacy. Frustratingly, efficacy of a particular treatment varies not only from patient to patient but from cell to cell.
That's because cancer cells have lost the ability to repair DNA damage. Hence their DNA changes pretty much constantly.
Urgelt 4 years ago
I hasten to add, a cure might be found. It's not impossible, just difficult.
Paw Paws contain chemicals which can kill cancer cells in the laboratory. Many chemicals can do that, and some of them are under investigation for their clinical potential.
The big money is in research into patentable drugs, though. A potential treatment that isn't patentable is not gong to attract much research money.
Urgelt 4 years ago
By the way, there's a huge gulf gulf between "observing a drug property in the laboratory" and "showing efficacy in clinical treatment." Most promising drugs don't keep their promise; some obstacle is discovered that keeps them from working in human bodies. And then there are side effects; petri dishes don't have them, and lab animals are different from us.
Drugs are expensive to develop because so few can make the jump to clinical efficacy.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Well, I am not so sure I could be as dogmatic. I really believe there are cures that exist for cancer. For starters do a video search on Google/YouTube for "DCA Cancer" or how about trying "Salt Water Cancer". I think you'll be intrigued at what you find.
sumstew 4 years ago
Oh, I've been following DCA since last February, or thereabouts. It's got potential.
Lots of drugs and chemicals kill cancer cells in a petri dish - even Vitamin C does, and it doesn't harm normal cells. Turning them into proven clinical therapies is a much tougher problem, as both Linus Pauling and his wife found out in the hardest way possible.
DCA shrinks tumors in animal studies, which is a good step forward. I'm waiting eagerly for results of clinical trials.
Urgelt 4 years ago
And yes, there is a researcher working on radio energy applied to salt water who is interested in cancer. From what I've seen, John Kanzius's work is what I would call "basic research." I don't think he has a specific therapy ready for clinical trials.
Mind you, I'm not dismissing his work or anyone else's. Basic research is the frontier of science. What he learns could unlock new developmental approaches - or something else entirely. It's all good.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Rene Caisse's work can't be avoided either. She treated 500-600 people per year with a record that can't be beaten.
Yes, there are cure's available. But the cures are free. And that is a BIG, BIG problem.
sumstew 4 years ago
Our views are slightly divergent.
I don't consider a cure to be proven until it has passed the gold standard of scientific review - double-blind peer-reviewed clinical trials with results that can be replicated. That's dogmatic, but it's scientific dogma.
But the cancer industry has never bothered to evaluate many treatments, such as Caisse's essiac tea. And we agree on the reason: no multi-billion dollar drug patents will come from the research. I agree, it's a big, big problem.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Yes, I gathered that this was your approach to the labeling of a cure.
Unfortunately, the more that I research, the more I am understanding just how non-objective much of so-called "science" truly is. And the more that I think on this matter, the more that I realize that it is really almost impossible to separate one's own biases from his or her understanding or interpretation of science is to them. Science is really not as objective as it is purported to be by definition.
sumstew 4 years ago
It's an interesting point, and one I'll reluctantly concede. Science is only as objective as the people practicing and publishing it.
There are checks and balances in science, mostly having to do with peer-reviewed journals, which are intended to keep it honest. What I worry about is the prospect of corporations buying those journals and twisting them to their own purposes, as they have done with mass media. If that happens, whatever objectivity science can claim will be history.
Urgelt 4 years ago
And too, much of the so-called science throughout time has a long and dark history of squelching what would benefit humanity.
When scurvy became a problem to shipmates, science would not accept the cure given by an Indian medicine man (pine needles and tree bark which were high in Vitamin C) for another 300 years.
sumstew 4 years ago
Science during the Enlightenment had not worked out many of the standards it follows today, such as study design and peer review. Printing and distribution of books was expensive, inhibiting the spread of ideas.
Science then also had to avoid running afoul of religious and political interests, which were extremely dangerous to anyone questioning the status quo. You could get tortured or hanged for heresy in those days.
Urgelt 4 years ago
The situation has improved. We don't hang scientists much. But there are still obstacles to the acceptance of new discoveries.
It's not going to be accepted until others replicate the results in their own studies. That's a real problem for non-patentable drugs and therapies, because the money is all in patentable drugs. No money, no studies.
I think the government should acknowledge this limitation and aggresively fund research where patents aren't involved.
Urgelt 4 years ago
But that is just one small example. I have many, many more. It would take a book to list as many.
sumstew 4 years ago
Who, exactly, is doing the squelching in modern times? I don't think it's science, so much as corporate power.
For example, scientists have very little to do with what the FDA writes into its nutrition guidelines. That dogma comes straight from the food industry giants.
Lots of science exists to show harm from, say, aspartame. But science isn't in the driver's seat when it comes to government or special interests.
Urgelt 4 years ago
I'm not entirely sure we agree on what "squelching" means, either.
When a scientists says "that's not proven," he means replicable results haven't been demonstrated sufficiently to support a consensus. I don't consider that "squelching."
But if there is no money to study a potential cancer treatment... then it *is* a kind of squelching. But it's a political and economic squelching, not a scientific one.
Urgelt 4 years ago
True. Your right. I shouldn't put the blame on scientist really but mostly on corporate government and politics.
When I think of modern examples where science was stopped and experimentation and development on a particular project ended, a few examples that come to mind immediately include: Tesla's wireless electricity, Stanley Meyer's water powered car, and many other scientific projects that attempt to prove the process of over unity throughout history.
sumstew 4 years ago
It seems like much of the history of science is also the history of free energy suppression. But you are right, this blame should mostly be placed on corporate government.
sumstew 4 years ago
A little late to add to this debate, but I want to bring up the public. What can the public do to help the government regulate cancer and science find it's cures? I know we have to elect people into government who won't simply take money from the companies instead of stopping them, but... How do we know who will do these things and who won't? How can we really know what's best for our government when we are not the ones running for office?
TearsOfBlood1793 4 years ago
Some of us could run for office ourselves, but not all of us can do that, and it's going to be difficult for non-corrupt people to get into office, because that's how our government works nowadays...
TearsOfBlood1793 4 years ago
Some of us could run for office ourselves, but not all of us can do that, and it's going to be difficult for non-corrupt people to get into office, because that's how our government works nowadays...
TearsOfBlood1793 4 years ago
We can research and learn about our candidates, but how do we know the info we research is not a lie? I really see no way of fixing our problems that the average person can do or help with doing. (Sorry for the one post that was the same as another. Made a dumb mistake while posting.)
TearsOfBlood1793 4 years ago
Another tip you might consider worthy of adding to your blog: Eat foods that are high in Nitrilosides and B17. These foods contain known cancer fighting agents.
sumstew 4 years ago
I have watched your Cancer talks on YouTube with great interest. You are a very articulate person and I can tell you have pondered considerably on the topics you discuss. I also read your cancer prevention tips from your blog. Excellent. It is good to see confirmed the lifestyle that I have already been practicing.
sumstew 4 years ago
Someone actually read the blog? Great! :-)
I commend you for your lifestyle!
Urgelt 4 years ago
Well done, Urgelt. Your tips on preventing cancer have inform me plenty. You are a very knowledgeable man and your contributions towards YouTube are appreciated and useful.
Thank you and continue sharing your knowledge!
BlackhawkPR 4 years ago
Most welcome, Xach.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Part one was so on target about corruption it hurt.
I wonder if there are any organizations one could donate to that aren't corrupt? I've lost three family members over the years.
repblcnsuck 4 years ago
I recommend skipping the middleman and donating directly to university cancer research programs - especially if you know they are looking into nonpatentable therapies.
Here's one: do a Google search on "DCA cancer research." You'll turn up a university research program in Canada that looks promising. A relatively small amount of money ($1.5 million Canadian) would pay for human trials. Donations are easy.
Urgelt 4 years ago
My father died on May 17 of this year. He had been suffering from colon cancer as well. I want to find out more about ways to prevent this awful disease, so the rest of my family members and I don't go through what my dad did. dudenamejames, I send my condolences to you- I KNOW what you're going through.
jellydrop 4 years ago
I'm sorry to know of your father's death, James. You aren't alone. It's a lucky family in the industrialized world who hasn't lost family members.
It's hard to say "toxins caused a particular case of cancer." It's at the broad statistical view that we realize the role toxins play in driving the cancer rate ever higher.
Urgelt 4 years ago
I can't get over how smart you are. I've seen it in many other videos...
2.7% mercury in cigarettes? One pack would be severe overkill. And I think even Urgelt is off a little bit in his estimate.
I know it might sounds cruel, but I think in for every.. say, fifty packs of cigarettes, one should be a trick pack that explodes with the same force as a firecracker when you open it.
And thank you, Urgelt, for sharing your knowledge with us. It's apprecialted.
Sykoze 4 years ago
I'd be happy to have you point me to a more accurate source, Ben.
Mixing in exploding cigarettes, eh? Heh, it won't go anywhere, but it's a darned good idea.
Urgelt 4 years ago
american cigarettes are 2.7% mercury,
ppapazia 4 years ago
What's your source?
That amount of mercury would quickly kill a human.
My sources suggest that typical - and dangerous - amounts of mercury in cigarettes is more on the order of 30 +/- 10 ng (nanograms) per cigarette. It's there primarily because of mercury in fungicides used by tobacco growers.
Urgelt 4 years ago
The problem with cancer is that many people really don't understand the physiology of it, and thus do not understand how to make simple lifestyle changes to avoid carcinogens. Cancer is simply a manner of cumulative oncogene failure via deleterious mutation, and while natural mutation and predisposition play a large role in the onset of various cancers, by exposing ourselves constantly to substances that adversely affect our genetic structures we essentially make cancer an inevitable reality.
nblarson 4 years ago
Yep.
The only thing I'll add is that even scientists and medical doctors have only a superficial grasp of the detailed workings of cancer. But that is changing, and as it changes, better treatments will arise.
But even if we cure all cancer, toxins will take a toll in other diseases. We need to clean up our act.
Urgelt 4 years ago
I have a bet with my friend from school. Whoever gets first loses. The forefeit? One keg of Coca-Cola.
manicpanda 4 years ago
My grandfather smoked cigarettes for 72 years before he died at 83 and many Chinese citizens have explained that their elders have lived longer than that without cancer. The food that Chinese people eat opposed to Americans are completely different and the amount of extra exercise they get is more too. I have heard people beat cancer on diet and exercise alone.
drwalepen15 4 years ago
No-one doubts that risk of cancer and other diseases is considerably elevated by smoking.
But you raise valid points. There are a great many variables besides smoking. Some of them, like exercise and diet, are amenable to our direct control.
Thank you for your comment, drwalepen15.
Urgelt 4 years ago
I value your insight, and wish to apply even the smallest percentage of it to my life. Sadly I simply can't afford the luxury of prolonged survival through all of the suggestions on your blog. Long life seems to be the sole privelege of the enlightened middle class, as always. At least we can all afford to exercise, there's no beating the cost of free.
oneofthefew82 4 years ago
Money is indeed a constraint. Quality nutrition has been priced up because so few people demand it. The economies of scale are favoring junk food and industrially processed foods.
But there are inexpensive healthy foods. Takes some work, but you can identify them and make the best of what you can afford.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Thanks to my Playstation 3, I have access to Folding@Home. Please Google Folding@Home and let me know your views on it.
metalgear8871 4 years ago
I'll tell you right here and now, since I know about the project. It's a wonderful thing. We've sequenced the human genome; now protein-folding is a big part of the puzzle, understanding how genes are expressed, how the cascade of cellular biology works at the chemical level. Lots of answers to diseases will come out of this, in time.
And PS3 is a pretty awesome computational platform. Perfect for the immense number crunching required.
Urgelt 4 years ago
TABAK, FATFOOD, ENVORINMENT (ESPECIALL IN BIG CITIES OR NATIONS WHERE IS STILL LEGAL NOT USE CATALITHERS FOR THE CARS AND SUN (Last one is old)
tinotrivino 4 years ago
I don't know what tabak is, Tino.
Are you making a point about catalytic converters in cars?
Urgelt 4 years ago
tabak, tabaco cigarettes :-) you dont have cigarettes in america? :o
tinotrivino 4 years ago
Heh, tobacco. :-)
Urgelt 4 years ago
its also the threatment of every nations who can contribute that the cancer grows or disappears, in europe especially western we have a real good medical care for cancer, we pay nothing for the threatment but even so people died especially because of the tabaco thats why now in europe its forboddiden to smoke in public or in restaurants :-)(not all nations but germany, uk and spain are one of those who make that experimental decision) now wemust wait for 5 years and we will see...
tinotrivino 4 years ago
Banning smoking in public or in restaurants should help a bit with the cancer rates. There's a lot more toxic sources to worry about, though. Thanks for your comment, Tino.
Urgelt 4 years ago
i know its especially in the food, but also mercury is very very very nadgeours thats why since 1991 europe forbidee batteries with high quecksivler(mercury)
tinotrivino 4 years ago
Mercury is a big worry of mine, too.
Urgelt 4 years ago
you know mercury is in a lot of food like dose food (where they keep the fish) or in metal bottles.. ( i dont know exactly the word for that in english lol)
tinotrivino 4 years ago
It's in our teeth, too - dental amalgam used for fillings. And until recently, it was still being used as a preservative in vaccines - and is suspected of producing autism in thousands of children. Mercury is dangerous stuff.
Urgelt 4 years ago
we dont use amalgalm anymore in europe there is now somehting called poli...what ever i forgott lol....take care amigo
wont forgett you :-) and you dont forgett me :-)anyway.. its tstrange how noone make a video forme i use tomake a lot of videos for people but no one caresabout me :-( thats the best example that i dont regret to close my tinotrivino account :-( anyway take care amigo
KarateWithTino 4 years ago
I'm starting to believe that Google has not only saved the Internet, but may also save our world. My TV is long dead and I've been YouTube'ing for quite some time. Without mass media and the motivation to sell, there is more truth digitally available than I could have ever imagined. We appreciate the insight, Urgelt.
conquesimo 4 years ago
"Saving the world" is an awfully big idea. But the internet has certainly begun to change the rules by which the game is played. Whether we can seize on that and do something useful with it remains to be seen.
The efforts of one poster won't make much of a dent. But if enough videographers begin to make educational videos and tell the unvarnished truth, that could be a very interesting development.
Urgelt 4 years ago
i cherish your opinions. But i would like to know where you stand in the whole aspect on marijuana in our society.
syphon819 4 years ago
Well. It's a drug, and it's not without risks, particularly when smoked. Burning any organic matter creates carcinogens and toxins. Breathing smoke is risky.
But I don't much like the state getting in citizens' faces about it, or coming between doctors and patients. Guess I have some slight libertarian leanings there.
Urgelt 4 years ago
wow, poor people, i hate stuff like that, i dont smoke, drink or do drugs :) good..... hey make a video of what gives you cancer (answer on a private message cause its too hard to look through all your comments for my answer)
reggaetonrapper 4 years ago
On Cancer, Part I addresses causes of cancer.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Well , then i guess the best way is to live in a mountain , far away from the industrial world.
MrBatata 4 years ago
I'm not sure that would do it either, really.
I think the answer is to begin the heavy lifting of changing our industrial lifestyles, methods and products.
Urgelt 4 years ago
This is great...but for preventing cancer I really recommend tea. And for high blood pressure...cocoa.
But Cancer is increasing because of the pollutants in the air...especially from second hand smoke. Lung cancer is by far the "greatest killer" of all Cancers. I also can't believe how some people are feeding on these peoples lives...so many factories pumping toxins in the atmosphere. Great video.
CsalbertCs 4 years ago
Thank you, SsalbertCs, for adding your thoughts.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Actually to be specific GREEN TEA is being studied. Rutgers University has a whole cancer institute where they experiment with green tea and its anti-caner therapeutic benefits...
maraljan 4 years ago
Awesome.
Sandguy99 4 years ago
Thank you, Sandguy99. I hope you'll help spread the word.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Depressing/frightening statistics! Thank you for sharing your studies/findings. The musical selection was excellent, too. Geebz is very talented and a great guy!
youngatheartinAZ 4 years ago
Yes, it's frightening, what we are doing to ourselves. It's time for a change.
As for Geebz, besides being a broadly talented composer, he's on the cutting edge of music licenses. His DollarTracks site is a real eye-opener for 'tubers, especially if they might eventually go commercial with their videos. Very cool guy.
Urgelt 4 years ago
hey, just read your list mentioned here.
I'm too researching this subject for quite some time, and I must say your list is really good from what I can tell.
I strongly recommend to all your subscribers to seriously heed these recommendations, and be sure that you're not dishonest to yourself concerning your eating habits...!
ega1mann 4 years ago
Thanks, ega1mann.
There are probably dozens of things I didn't list in the text blog that should be listed, but I think that's not critical. What's important is getting people to think, and then make smart choices about the food, beverages and products they are buying and using.
We don't live in a safe society, and should be making our way as if through a minefield.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Thank you once more Urgelt for a very enlightening video. Peace.~Moonchime
Moonchimes 4 years ago
Most welcome, Moonchimes, I'm glad you got something from it. Peace to you, too.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Absolutely sobering. I'll definately pass it on.
MUMMAB25 4 years ago
Sobering is a good word for it.
Urgelt 4 years ago
hey urgelt!! very good video, good choice of music, very informing, thanks!
Daveyolous 4 years ago
Glad you found it useful, Davey.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Wow...the percentage for under 55's is higher than i expected!
I guess this isn't exactly on the topic of cancer but if u have time maybe do a google search and type in Earth hour sydney. Every little bit helps..would be good if more people would try doin something like this..tho obviously it won't prevent or fix everything. *HUGS*
nayomee77 4 years ago
I checked out the links you suggested. I agree, Naomi. Conservation is *easy.*
We're so used to convenience that we don't pay any attention to lights on we don't really need, AC power converters left plugged in when unnecessary, wearing an extra layer in winter and turning down the thermostat a couple degrees, keeping tires inflated properly, etc. I'm glad Sydney is showing the way.
Urgelt 4 years ago
thank you for posting this .. i didn't realize the numbers were so high!
nice choice of music :)
sonolamiacanzone 4 years ago
Thanks, Claire. Yes, Geebz' track adds some punch, doesn't it?
Most people don't realize the numbers are so high. Mass media avoids talking about the numbers. Their income depends on advertisers, and advertisers are largely selling toxic products. It's created a huge blind spot in our culture.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Those statistics are not only alarming, but a little frightening...especially the stats for people under 55 years of age. I had no idea they were that high.
Thanks for the information link to your blog, which I'll investigate further (when I have more than a few minutes to examine it).
And further thanks for the time and effort that you took to make the two videos...much appreciated!
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
I agree, it's gotten very serious.
I'm not trying to scare anyone with those stats. But awaken, yes. We're killing an awful lot of people... and ourselves... by our inattention.
We're inattentive because we rely on mass media to tell us what we should know. Mass media can't address toxins much; advertisers have too much influence.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Google "fabric softener cancer risk" Thanks for helping us get or stay alert.
kazl1m 4 years ago
Exactly. Heck, Google cancer risk and food dyes, artificial sweeteners, cosmetics, toothpaste, soap, shampoo, sunblock, you name it. Carcinogens have found their way into almost everything we buy, unless you buy organic. And even then, it's just less. Organic farms can't control toxins wafting in on the breeze, and there's plenty of those.
I'm glad I'm not the only one using Google this way.
Urgelt 4 years ago
It's great that you put out these informative videos! :)
SavannahLioness 4 years ago
I'm pleased you think so, SL, thank you.
Urgelt 4 years ago
going to the linky-o
shebitch 4 years ago
Did you obtain a hall pass? :-)
Urgelt 4 years ago
Thanks Urgelt for making another informative video!
In you information link you point out that foods treated with high temperatures are more likely to produce cancer, like coffee. I agree. I also know a very informative website about this subject: waisays dot com that is. Maybe you already knew it
Adios de España!
pack78 4 years ago
Thank you for the link, Pack78, it was one I'd not stumbled across yet. Gracias!
Urgelt 4 years ago
Thank you for taking the time to share all of this information with us, Urgelt! I was hoping I would have time to read it last night when I first saw the video. I didn't get to do so, but I've got plenty of time tonight. :)
LadySeneca 4 years ago
I hope it doesn't put you to sleep! Unless, of course, you are fighting insomnia and *want* to go to sleep. :-)
Urgelt 4 years ago
Urgelt, don't get me wrong here, not saying you are wrong only that's only a piece of the puzzle. Only thing an individual can do is choose for themselves. Trying o change society is difficult and IMO your better off changing your own personal habits.
testekleez 4 years ago
That was the point of the video: there are things we can do to reduce risk, and I've put a fair bit of effort into summarizing them on the text blog which this video points to.
But we can't reduce risk *enough.* Because as long as our society swims in a sea of toxins, a good deal of them are unavoidable. We'll have to make some changes to our industrial habits, as well as our personal ones.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Exactly there are toxins in certain animals such as pork and shellfish for one, that cause problems with the human body. Fats can be toxic in the wrong forms as well. Certain creatures are made to clean up the enviroment and if you eat em guess what? You ingest the toxins as well.
testekleez 4 years ago
Yes that is true, toxins usually are stored within the fat...not only in animals but in our bodies...loosing weight will always helps.
maraljan 4 years ago
It helps in the long run, Maraljan. In the short run, cutting fat may liberate some of those toxins and make a person feel worse. That's one reason pushing fluids is a very good idea, especially when losing weight, to help with detoxification.
Urgelt 4 years ago
It is sobering, Reid.
Our minds are schooled to think of dangers that we can see. Toxic molecules are an invisible abstraction, beyond the reach of our senses. But it's sure hard to ignore the body count.
Urgelt 4 years ago
People have been using caffeine for centuries. People don't work as much as they used to. They sit indoors most of the time at a desk or a computer. You have to look at all the factors, you can't just blame a couple sources. IMO eating unclean foods and lack of exercise are a big part of the problem.
testekleez 4 years ago
There's not much scientific evidence for a view that cancer is caused by laziness.
The growing prevalence of toxins in food, water, air and commercial products in our civilization tracks along pretty well with rising cancer rates. It's true that there are other causes of cancer, such as viruses, bacteria, and radiation. But no-one has proposed that these other causes have driven the cancer rates sky-high.
It's the toxins.
Urgelt 4 years ago
You wouldn't eat a vulture so why eat a pig? Or a Lobster the "searoach". Not saying I eat perfect, I do eat some fried foods like chicken and french fries lol those aren't "unclean" just fatty. I try not to do it too often though. I've completely cut out eating scavengers and have felt better since.
testekleez 4 years ago
Heh, you're arguing with a vegetarian. No scavangers in my diet. :-)
Urgelt 4 years ago
There are meats that are fine to eat such as beef, lamb, chicken and fish with fins and scales. You shouldn't gorge yourself on them even though they are meant for us to eat, but you don't have to be a vegetarian. Also, don't eat mushrooms! They are NOT a vegetable or a plant but a fungus. If you choose to be a vegetarian that's great but I couldn't do it lol.
testekleez 4 years ago
The Biblical prohibition against mushrooms was wise in its day, because there were no taxonomic classifications for mushrooms in Biblical times by which poisonous varieties could reliably be avoided.
Science has rectified that problem.
Many mushrooms are quite good nutrition, and some even have demonstrable health benefits, such as the Chinese reishi mushroom.
I'll respectfully disagree with your advice.
Urgelt 4 years ago
See that's the thing. People say the same about pork and shellfish etc that they didn't have refrigeration blah blah blah. Pigs don't sweat, toxins stay in the fat. Shellfish and the like absorb toxins like catfish, they're the cleanup crew. Mushrooms grow from dung! Yummy lol. I feel it's important to throw that out there as many things that are harmful to the body are said to be healthy by "experts". God made these bodies he knows what to feed em.
testekleez 4 years ago
thanks man.
marjet 4 years ago
Most welcome, Marjet.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Olive Oil is one of the best things you can put in your body. It has a very high fat content but the good fat like the fats found in fish. Not like the fat from baked goods and fried foods.
testekleez 4 years ago
Agreed!
Urgelt 4 years ago
The truth is in order for our economy to remain good, commerce has to take place and that requirees transporting goods all over. Nature also has it's own pollution sources such as volcanoes. Eating the foods that God said are fit for us to eat, is one of the best things you can do for yourself. As far as the artificial sweeteners go, use sugar! Just use it in moderation.
testekleez 4 years ago
Are you arguing that we are incapable of devising non-toxic and economically-sound methods of operating our technological society?
In my lifetime I have seen so much ingenuity and invention, so much evidence of the cleverness of our species, I would find it impossible to agree, were that to be your premise.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Man's grasp of the universe is minute. We are still using fossil fuels mainly because that is the way it is for now. I don't deny change is possible and the new technoligies emerging are encoraging. However, until the power required by the engines that drive our economy can be met by alternative fuels, this is something that won't be changed for decades. It costs a lot of money to change over and that simply won't happen for quite some time.
testekleez 4 years ago
I'm not a radical, Testekleez, arguing we must give up our combustion engines and live in shrines on mountaintops.
But we can plan for an orderly transition. We're going to have to, anyway, oil isn't going to last forever.
And many of the other carcinogens will be far easier to remove. Aspartame. Carcinogens in make-up. Food additives and coloring. Stuff like that, there are already safe alternatives on the market, and it's not that disrupting to make a switch.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Very sobering.
pnkdragn 4 years ago
That it is, Trena.
Urgelt 4 years ago
People need to be better informed of this - Thanks for your efforts!
kenrg 4 years ago
Welcome, Kenrg.
I'm far from the first to raise an alarm, and I certainly won't be the last. If enough of us give voice to our concerns, perhaps we can bring about a sea change in our political systems - and live better.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Urgelt, i think cancer is the heir of AIDS back in the late 80´s / 90´s ...it is the sickness of our time. But one thing is puzzling me. The government DO have possibilities to ease AIDS, or get it better controlled. They do NOT give those medicaments to where they are most urgently needed. The government doesn´t want us to smoke anymore (so it occurs these days in Germany.) But they allow those toxins in our food...i think you get my point there...this is weird.
schantifreund 4 years ago
Yes, it's weird.
I think what happens is that media attention makes certain toxins politically unacceptable, and so they are sacrificed by politicians and industry. The problem is that only a handful of toxins receive that kind of media scrutiny. There is no political base for controlling *all* carcinogens. That's something we should wish to change.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Thank you for sharing this information with us.
losetogain 4 years ago
I'm glad you found it helpful, Losetogain.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Very good work. To the point with statistics placed next to beautiful and dark music. I had my childhood in the 1980s and my parents knew then that cancers were caused by chemical and environmental toxins and would protest at Diablo Canyon, a nuclear power plant that was built on the CA coast near earthquake faults. Now, living in the city and knowing that I am overexposed to toxins, the most I can do is try to think positive and eat well.
AsertyDances 4 years ago
Yes. For many there is no option of avoiding cities.
It's small consolation that toxins are, literally, everywhere. There is no escaping all of them, not without political action.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Don't smoke cigarettes or drink excessive amounts of any alcohol on a regular basis. Exercise. Avoid excess sugar intake. These will reduce your odds of getting a serious illness dramatically.
testekleez 4 years ago
Man has poisoned the Earth no doubt, with cars all over the place and inustries pumping out toxins into the atmospehre. However, I believe unclean foods people often eat also increase the risks to get cancer or some other nasty disease. The bible is pretty clear about what to eat and what not to eat. Don't eat Pork, or any scavengers such as Catfish or Lobster, shrimp etc. If it comes out of water and doesn't have both fins and scales, don't eat it. Eat beef, lamb, chicken don't eat mushrooms.
testekleez 4 years ago
Toxins in food and beverages are certainly a big part of the problem, as you will see if you click the text blog link.
The Bible is, alas, quite silent about the dangers of aspartame, MSG, caffeine, hormone-mimicking chemicals weeping out of plastic, formaldehyde exuding from new synthetic carpets, cigarette smoke, or thousands of other toxins we've ingeniously invented.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Obviously, man makes his own problems. The point being, there's not much we can do about automobiles. The new biofuels coming out are a start but the transition will take years.
testekleez 4 years ago
I think this is an important subject and that you are once again doing a great service for the community by talking about this. Thank you!
KennyWrites 4 years ago
I'd call it a "small" service, Kenny, and I'll be contented with that appraisal. Not many people will wade through the information I've collated in the text blog. But a few will, and they may find it useful. That's plenty good enough for me.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Thanks for that video. We should really be focusing all of our concentration on these issues rather than some petty tit-for-tat dilemmas that never get solved anyway.
Stay well,
~Mike
BigBrotherMateyka 4 years ago
Yes. Many politicians are happy with left wing-right wing divisive issues precisely because they rivet our attention on things that can't be resolved. Agreed, Mike.
Urgelt 4 years ago
im aged 59,and when i was a child i never heard or saw anyone with child cancer,is this a new phenomenon.. children havent done anything disruptive to there health to warrant getting cancer,as in adult life style choices such as smoking, alcohol abuse, and drugs etc..could the problem be in pesticides used in food production,and when such parents have children their childrens DNA is somehow changed.its a scary thought,and i hope im wrong..maybe "independant" scientists could look into it
fredwykes 4 years ago
There is no doubt in my mind that industrially-produced toxins are driving this deadly plague.
A child can inherit susceptability to cancer, but a child cannot inherit cancer. It still takes a source of DNA damage to produce the disease.
Urgelt 4 years ago
my then 8 year old daughter was poisoned by pesticides,her appendix burst,her eyesight was temporarily affected,and she lost the use of her legs for nearly 2 months,and was confined to a wheelchair,shes now 18 and has been on painkillers since aged 8,she has been home schooled as she couldnt manage the steps at school,she still has aching bones,her doctor has diagnosed pesticide poisoning,but this is new zealand and no one here is interested in her welfare or problems
fredwykes 4 years ago
Fred, that is a story of woe to break a father's heart. You have all of my sympathy, for what it's worth.
Urgelt 4 years ago
could the answer be sharks, MOTE MARINE laboratory's center for shark research is trying to find out why sharks rarely get cancer and what it might for humans who do. a time will come when we will live with out cancer !! and I hope it is within my lifetime.
medinadan 4 years ago
Lots of animals don't get cancer, and it hasn't, by itself, proved much of a clue. All it tells us is that our genome is particularly vulnerable; but then, so are most mammals.
The next cancer video will answer whether we can expect to see cancer cured any time soon. My answer might surprise you.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Those pollutant industries and most industries for that matter, care only about the bottom line...money and holding onto/making it. There is no *tangible* profit in adjusting or cleaning up their sludge. *sigh*
Urgelt, another mind opening video. Ty :)
baybea 4 years ago
Capitalism is the most powerful economic engine yet invented, but it does have its flaws. A system which leaves corpses in its wake like a threshing machine through corn isn't quite what we want in a human civilization.
Adjustment is required. The capitalists do not have the motivation to do it. We can reduce risk somewhat, but not enough by ourselves. Political action is the only remaining option.
Urgelt 4 years ago
The industrial revolution in it's birth, did not foresee a dangerous future (at least I believe that.) It saw progress and an easier way to live but, as with anything in life, there is always a con to a pro, unfortunately.
I wonder, if the world wasn't run on money/currency, would our day to day life right now as it is, be different?
baybea 4 years ago
Very different, I'm sure, Bea. A barter economy could not produce the sweeping technological progress we've witnessed in the last two hundred years.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Yes, and when you think about it in relation to the age of our earth, that's a drop in the bucket in time. What we have *progressed* to do is destroy our world at warp speed. Strange how things are. 200 years ago Man only had the lifespan of about 35-40 years but the earth was clean, pure and natural. We now have doubled that with the use of technology but is that such a good thing? I am thinking more and more...not.
baybea 4 years ago
I would not turn back the clock, myself, Bea. I'd wind it forward by defining a technological, industrial society that isn't poisonous to either humans or the world in which humans live. It's possible, I'm convinced.
Urgelt 4 years ago
I am so glad you are posting these! :)
mejpye 4 years ago
Thank you, Mejpye. I'd hoped at least some viewers would be interested.
Urgelt 4 years ago
I'm glad you are speaking out, so few people know or stop to think about these things. The numbers are insane yet we don't get the paniced nightly news reports to wake people up. ;) I'm glad you're doing it!
mejpye 4 years ago
Scary! :o I blame it on the microwaves invented by the Nazis.
celestialsam 4 years ago
Actually the chemical industry responsible for so much of the toxins which permeate our civilization really got its start in Germany, but that was well before the fascists arrived on the scene.
I don't think you can get much of a radiation dose from a microwave, but then, I don't hang around right by the thing when it's on, either.
Urgelt 4 years ago
I also blame the processed ingredients and additives manufacturers use in our food to make it cheaper. Keep away from them microwaves:P
celestialsam 4 years ago
I agree! But you can forget the microwave, keep 'em away from your mouth. :-)
Urgelt 4 years ago
I realise this might sound somewhat ridiculous given the seriousness behind this subject. But. I sense it is the strength of the voice which makes many of us sit up and listen. Even be guided by. I have never failed to be moved by the, & now this is the difficult bit but by the person delivering the message because it makes me listen. It makes me value the message. Although i know i should be doing that anyway. Thanks to you, as ever.
lloydhb 4 years ago
I understand your point, and I'll return to a more conventional videographic approach in the third cancer video.
But sometimes we need to see the information, raw, you know? Unfiltered, just the facts. At least I do. It's a sanity check.
Perusasion has its place, and I've used persuasion and will use it again. But the facts should stand on their own, too. Otherwise, it's just hype and self-inflation.
Urgelt 4 years ago
My apologies. I dont think i made myself clear Urgelt. I did not mean to devalue this video, on the contrary my attention was keenly focussed but yes. I guess the 'why' was because of your guidance, your person which i have got to know in a small way, presented with such deliverance. Its a respect, like the school teacher i once had who could inspire me to run like no other. He lifted the worlds spirit. Like you, inspired. Sadly he passed away at 43 but his 'him' i have never forgotton.
lloydhb 4 years ago
I gratefully acknowledge your point, Lloyd, thank you.
I'm very concerned about the cancer pandemic that grips our society, believing it is unnecessary and, at its foundation, cruel. I think of myself as an amateur pitcher in a ballgame, varying his pitches in hope of a good result: a rant, followed by cold hard facts.
The best teachers vary their methods, I think. I'll be very satisfied to be thought an adequate one.
Urgelt 4 years ago
Lots and lots of good information in that blog Urgelt, thanks a lot.
ghostpos 4 years ago
I'm glad you enjoyed it, Ghostpos.
Urgelt 4 years ago