Very good stuff, H - though I hold echinacea in higher regard than you apparently do.  I do however agree that it is not something I would rely on by itself to try to beat cancer with, though I believe Unyquity when she states she has seen it work in many instances.  I favor the mulitple direction approach which attempts to addres all facets of cancer, killing off or reverting cancer cells and preventing their return (which is to say preventing them from ever again regaining a foothold).

I know that you feel strongly that most cancer is viral in nature - but I think that it would be more accurate to say that most cancer has a viral element.  The question is "which came first, the virus or the cancer".  It may well be that the cancer viruses we see are the result of pleomorphic changes caused by the cancer process itself.  I make the same observation to those who would contend that cancer if fungal in nature.  Which came first, the fungus or the cancer?  I do agree that once cancer has gained a foothold it then becomes viral in nature and spreads in great part due to the viral nature.

I also agree wholeheartedly that Moritz's idea of cancer being a survival mechanism of the body itself is bunk!

And I have to chuckle when I see you correctly observe that heating and alcohol extractions of herbs change the nature of the herb to something quite different in many instances than a "whole herb product" - though I am not dissing Unyquity, because I know from experience that she makes some wonderful extracts, tinctures and such.

If it weren't for an aqueous extraction method, we would not be able to have the wonderful benefits of oleander extract.  And,similar to some other herbs, as noted by the American Botanical Council, sometimes the aqueous extraction method is superior for certain herbs.  That is especially true for oleander because valuable non-polar compounds, such as the long-chain polysacharrides, precipitate out and are lost when an ethanol extraction method is used.

 Except for the fact that the guy does not have a clue of what he is talking about. For example a quote from  Andreas' Moritz book:

"By definition, a cancer cell is a normal, healthy cell that has undergone genetic mutation to the point that it can live in an anaerobic surrounding (an environment where oxygen is not available). In other words, if you deprive a group of cells of vital oxygen (their primary source of energy), some of them will die, but others will manage to alter their genetic software program and mutate in a most ingenious way: the cells will be able to live without oxygen and derive some of their energy needs from such things as cellular metabolic waste products."

First of all the definition of cancer goes way beyond an anaerobic cell. Cancer cells have a much different morphology that healthy cells. Here is a list of some of the differneces:

http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/viruses-and-cancer/characteristics-of-ca...

Pay special attention to the last part:

"It is possible that the high energy requirements of actively dividing cancer cells may result in the cell adapting anaerobic glycolysis as a supplement to normal aerobic respiration"

More evidence that cancer cells do not show complete anaerobic acitivty:

http://helacells.com/

"Hela cells (also called Hela) are highly stable immortalised cancer cells  widely used in scientific research. This cell line was isolated from a cancer of the cervix of Henrietta Lacks uterine who died of cancer in 1951."

Now read the quesiton and answer here:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/974586

A lot of this myth has to do with the misquoting of Otto Warburg who said that cancer cells will ferment rather than respirate REGARDLESS of whether or not oxygen is present. He NEVER claimed that cancer was caused from a lack of oxygen as many people claim he said.

As far as the claim that cancers will not lead to the death of the body, but rather that it is from a lack of nutrition, again this is false. Cancerous growths can kill the body through organ damage. Consider a brain tumor that basically crushes the brain. Or a cancer that causes a patient to bleed out. Or that causes so much damage to the liver that the liver fails.

Here is another ridiculous statement from his book:

"The body sees the cancer as being such an important defense mechanism that it even causes the growth of new blood vessels to guarantee the much-needed supply of glucose and, therefore, survival and spreading of the cancer cells."

The body is not stimulating the growth of those blood vessels. The tumor itself secretes those growth factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) so it can feed itself, just like a parasite. The tumor also secretes small amounts of angiogenesis inhibitors to suppress the growth of secondary tumors, survival f the fittest. This is why when the primary tumor is removed the secondary tumors start growing faster. The angiogenesis inhibitors have been removed.

"It is commonly believed that our immune system protects us against cancer. However, this is only partially true. On the one hand, the immune system readily destroys the millions of cancer cells that a healthy human body produces as part of the daily turnover of 30 billion cells. On the other hand, the immune system takes no action to eradicate cancer cells that develop in response to a build up of toxins, congestion and emotional stress."

More garbage. First of all the body does not produce cancer cells every day. Cancer cells have very little in common with healthy cells or even benign tumors. Cancer is generally defined as an uncontrolled growth of cells. So by definition if the immune system is controlling the excess cells then it is not cancer. Secondly, any overgrowth of cells is not cancer. A wart is an overgrowth, but it is benign.

And the immune system does not do a very good job of finding and destroying cancer cells because the cancer cells can hide from the immune system. Cancer cells use the same trick as the human fetus, which is a foreign protein to the mother's immune system due to the male DNA present. Both secrete human chorionic gonadotrophic hormone (HCG) as a shield to prevent detection from the immune system. The body is not aiding the cancer cells to help destroy  itself. 

Cancer is a disease, not a survival mechanism. If you do the research you will find that the vast majority of cancers are caused from viruses. I would put it at about 95%. In fact all of the so-called "hereditary" cancers, such as breast cancer, have been shown to be caused by viruses. No human oncogenes have ever been found that I have heard of. All of the oncogenes have been found to be viral. Other cancers can be from bacteria, fungi, parasites (extremely rare), radiation damage, and possibly carcinogens. Although I feel carcinogens are more growth promoters than causes. The body is not going to allow infection by viruses, or bacteria, of fungi, or parasites, or allow itself to be deliberately irradiated to produce cancer as a survival mechanism. That is totally ludicrous!!!!

You can see my response to Mortitz's latest book about cancer being a survival mechanism instead of a disease here:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1472370

I have to agree with Hveragerthi - what Moritz is saying is pretty much junk science.  If cancer is a survival mechanism then nature surely did get it screwed up!  Cancer is nature gone awry, a disease plain and simple. The novel idea of it being a survival mechanism may sell a lot of books, the same as Tullio Simoncinin's bogus claim that cancer is a fungus, Hulda Clark's mysterious flukes, and the fad book about all cancer being the result of past unresolved traumatic experiences, but it is not in my opinion a valid idea in any respect - other than perhaps one might correctly state that cancer is a defense mechanism on the part of cancer cells themselves, which seek to protect themselves from being destroyed by the natural immune system and in the process destroy the host.

The best cancer treatments are those that either destroy the cancer cells or else convert them back to normal cells so that they die a natural programmed cell death as well as addresses the root cause that enabled cancer to gain a foothold in the beginning to prevent its return.  THAT is a survival formula for the host and death for the cancer, which sees the host only as an organism to invade and feed off of.

DQ