Re: I believe that cancer is an aberration by individual cells

I think we've had this discussion before, you and I, when I posted about Andreas' book, and I see our points of view haven't changed :-) You seem determined to find Andreas' findings wrong, and to be looking too closely for "facts". perhaps missing the bigger view.


"However, in quite a few instances, the root cause may no longer be present - yet the cancer continues to advance. Consider for example cancers that have developed as a result of exposure to radiation, or other mutagens that are no longer present."


yes, well, very often a person has spent years adding a burden to something as distinct as, say, "radiation", (which is not something that is ever "over" I would suggest. That is, the effects may evolve, so to speak.)
There;s never enough attention paid to the pH and mineral levels of the body.

And let's not forget that even the radiation that is used to detect cancer, can itself "cause" it, in the sense that we all deal with cancer cells; just not everyone's system gets overloaded, and tipped over into pathology. So, doesn't that suggest it's not actually a dangerous disease, in itself, unless the condition's root causes aren't properly addressed? How can destroying the immune system possibly help the course of "treatment", unless said treatment's purpose is to actually wound and harm, and weaken the body?
(cancer survivors are not tracked past five years--this is a little like the warrenty running out just when the appliance fails)


Also, there are more subtle levels when it comes to "root causes" still being present... The body isn't exactly a computer with the immediacy of an on/off switch, (unless you are that rare person who can see it that way, and delete the faulty programs: sometimes called an energy healer), when it comes to any disease; esp. so long as humans have the freedom to choose what they would see, and know, and how they would fulfill their 'lesson plans' on this physical plane of appearances. It's clear though, that interfering with the body via invasive procedures that cut and burn is a major blow to the body's integrity and its ability to access its own healing powers.

And, while the phyical body can easily situate itself in health, (by following principles the Hygienists teach, for example), and it's actually harder to destroy its health,(but this can be done via toxicities introduced, and a subesquent deficit of mineralization, etc.) it is the mind, after all is said and done, that determines what is to be; and the mind too has several levels of consciousness, as well as what's called subconsciousness.

Too often we speak of the body as if it were a machine we could objectively view, (a sure sign of the tyranny of objectification and reductionism), and not simply a vessel for the larger body of Mind, Light, energy...

It takes time for anything to manifest in the body as threateningly pathological (unless we are going to talk flu vaccines and nanoparticles...but no), so, why should we think just 'turning off' radiation, for example, should result in a return to health, or, the abatement of "cancer"?


What about pH? It plays a huge role--and doesn't just fix itself once discerned. ( Well, it actually can, i am speculating, but this fits into the realm of higher thinking: as long as we believe everything takes time, and are working our way through time, then time is the master: it's our collective choice though, that makes it so).

pH is inextricably linked to proper levels of mineralization. Why do cancers return, after "treatment" and go to the bone? -- for example. (for that matter, why do we have the expression that something is "in the bone"? We know more than we know).

The bones are the last place the body can go to find minerals to alkalize the bloodstream: the river of life.

That's not a desperate attempt to preserve the life of the body?

A valient attempt, the way I see it. It humbles one. At the least, it encourages one to care for the body AS the vessel. And to think, some are then given stronger cell-destroying drugs at that point. That's just incredibly sad to me... Criminal, truly, for the ones who are aware of what they do.


However, people are free to determine whether they wish to have cancer or not, (and remember, not everything is "consciously cognized": it mustn't be judged), and many people have discovered that their cancers were the "greatest gift possible". These are people who discerned places of unlove in themselves, and often then healed themselves -on several levels- IN SPITE of the Drugs!

(how many are aware of that, and the power of their own forgiveness of self and others, etc. is hard to say)

Buit, about the pH aspect. Those that suggest you can simply alkalize with baking soda are mistaken, or any one thing are mistaken, in my view. The body is in dire need of good nutrition--and it can't just be gulped down. Minerals need mineral reserves in order to be assimilated. It is a balancing thing that takes "time".

(Though sometimes the good results are quick.) It is a little more complex, or subtle than forcing alkalinity.
Again, all these measures are only buying time. If someone has cured themselves that way, I would guess they must have also subtantially altered their life habits and nutritonal intake. (Or-- really shifted their mind and habitual thoughts. Or perhaps been "healed" of some energetic interference to the system. Again--there is more to time than this percveived 24 hour, mono-playing, linear system.)


Anyway--In no way can Andreas' information about the body's wondrous mechanisms of preservation be taken out of the larger context of his work and insight. He is not a reductionist by any means--and there are always many factors at play, as he has mnany times -with incredible sensitivity and grace- conveyed to people, on his forum.

Even in cases where the person dies "of cancer", it may be that the Spirit has been totally healed. That in fact, there is genuine cause for celebration, at the level of the truth of being.

That isn't considered enough, either.

We -in general- live in a cult of the body. (and assume that our current state of consciousness is the final word!) The physical body is not the whole of the person, or rather, not the whole of the picture of what's going on, and why.

But the principles of pleomorphism are sound, and the research exists that proves that cancer is only a symptom of a *state of 'dis-ease'.* Yes, it's radical thinking, when we have been indoctrinated for so many years to believe we are weak, and can be attacked by something "out there" that can then be 'killed', leaving us, the host
intact. Such a parts-and-pieces approach deeply dishonours the human being.


C