Let鈥檚 start with some facts. Antiperspirants, cell phones, root canals or wired bras do not cause cancer. Sugar or dairy products do not 鈥渇eed鈥 the disease. You cannot cure cancer with an alkaline diet, crystals, juices, shark cartilage, apricot pits, magnets, mistletoe, soursop, chlorella, black walnuts, coconut oil, cesium chloride, reiki, psychic surgery, baking soda, antineoplastons, bioresonance machines, orgone accumulators, Rife frequency generators or coffee enemas.
All of this comes to mind now because I was forwarded a link to a document entitled 鈥淓veryday Products Linked to Cancer鈥 which also offers solutions to the problem. So, I clicked. I quickly learned that the discoverer of 鈥渢he missing link鈥 to 鈥渃onquering cancer鈥 is identified as a 鈥渘atural health researcher and certified holistic cancer coach.鈥 That immediately set my alarm bells ringing. This is not terminology that would ever be used to describe a legitimate scientist. And those bells really started to clamor when I encountered phrases like 鈥済roundbreaking,鈥 鈥渦nveil cancer care known only to a few,鈥 鈥渃hallenge the one-sided, conventional understanding and offer more effective ways to conquer cancer,鈥 鈥渄iscover the proven protocols that have helped hundreds of thousands of people prevent and conquer cancer,鈥 and 鈥渄iscover why many cancer treatments and prevention protocols fail.鈥
It seems Nathan Crane, also described as a 鈥減lant-based athlete,鈥 has found the secret that has eluded thousands and thousands of researchers around the globe and is now equipped to 鈥減ave the way for future generations to live cancer free.鈥 A search for this sage鈥檚 educational background reveals only that he went to Belgrade High School in Montana.
What is the key to living cancer-free? Staying away from 鈥渢oxic household and personal care products鈥 and 鈥渢urning to nature鈥 for replacements. Of course, we also need to fortify our body against toxins. How? By making use of 鈥渢he power of nature鈥檚 detoxifiers.鈥 Let me point out that the term 鈥渄etoxify鈥 is generally indicative of pseudoscience since the toxins being removed are never identified nor is the mechanism by which they are eliminated elucidated.
There is nothing novel in this 鈥淐onquering Cancer鈥 manuscript. The Internet and bookstores brim with articles and books about purported carcinogens in everyday products and secret cures hidden by 鈥淏ig Pharma鈥 for fear of losing profits from the sale of ineffective, toxic chemotherapeutic agents. The idea of secret cures is nonsense, but when it comes to chemicals found in consumer products, there are some legitimate issues. However, fear-mongering documents, such as this one, generally smack of an ignorance of dose-response relationships and claim to have greater knowledge of the impact of these chemicals on health than what actually exists. Suppositions are presented as facts.
Some personal care products and cleaning agents contain chemicals that can be classified as endocrine disruptors or carcinogens. Furthermore, some of these can be detected in our bloodstream and urine. But it is critical to understand that the presence of a chemical cannot be equated to the presence of risk. Labeling a substance as an endocrine disruptor or carcinogen is in general based on cell culture or animal studies that use amounts far greater than what humans can possibly encounter. This does not mean that concerns about the likes of phthalates, bisphenol A, dioxane and nonylphenol ethoxylates should be swept under the carpet, but proclamations that 鈥渨e鈥檙e poisoning ourselves鈥 by using products that contain traces of these substances magnify whatever risk they may pose in an unrealistic fashion.
While reducing our use of products that contain chemicals that have the shadow of carcinogen or endocrine disruptor hanging over them has merit, the claim that turmeric, ginger, cayenne pepper, cinnamon, frankincense, Camu Camu or blueberries are 鈥渘ature鈥檚 detoxifiers鈥 and protect us from cancer is not evidence-based.
However, my biggest problem with this publication is the simplistic view it presents about preventing cancer. This is a very complex disease in which genetics, diet, infections, overweight, smoking, alcohol consumption, certain chemicals, exposure to ionizing radiation, changes in hormone levels, physical activity and age can all play roles. Suggestions that cancer risk can be significantly reduced by adding turmeric to the diet or replacing a commercial cleaning agent with vinegar, or switching from store-bought shampoo to a homemade concoction of aloe vera gel, coconut milk and castile soap, are na茂ve.
Something else is bothersome about this publication. The talk about 鈥渄angerous鈥 everyday products and the use of herbs to 鈥渂olster our natural defenses鈥 seems to be just bait to hook people to click on a link to a docuseries about 鈥淐onquering Cancer.鈥 We are asked if we are 鈥渞eady to explore the hidden cause of cancer that has eluded experts for years鈥 and told that we will discover 鈥渉ow to starve your cancer cells without chemo, radiation or surgery.鈥 The latter is a hallmark of quackery.
I did not take the bait because I follow cancer research closely and know that there are no hidden causes or magical cures. Certainly not any that have been discovered by a 鈥渃ertified holistic cancer coach.鈥 I also suspect that if I were to click on the link for a 鈥渇ree ticket鈥 to the series that promises to reveal 鈥渉ow聽natural, proven methods聽have helped over 591,753 people prevent and treat this life-threatening disease,鈥 I might at some point be prompted to dig out my credit card for some over-hyped dietary supplement or a book with an assortment of twisted facts. But that鈥檚 just a guess.
