Cancer doesn't exist: the theory challenging oncology and its numbers

Cancer doesn't exist: the theory challenging oncology and its numbers

If cancer were a response of the immune system, patients with immunosuppression should have fewer tumors. A study published in JAMA in 2011 with 175,732 solid organ transplant recipients proves exactly the opposite: double the risk of cancer and 32 different types occurring more frequently. This paradox is the starting point of a debate that denies the existence of the disease and reduces it to a pharmaceutical business.

---

The thesis: fighting cells and a trillion-dollar business

Some claim that cancer cells are not enemies, but soldiers fighting an external aggression. That chemotherapy is a poison that kills rapidly dividing cells, without distinguishing between healthy and diseased ones. And that behind it all lies a trillion-dollar business: 9.8 million deaths a year worldwide sustain 83,000 oncologists who, according to this line of thought, live lavishly off poisoning and radiating their patients. The figure of 120 patients per oncologist per year is repeated like a mantra. They are angels of death, some go so far as to say.

The evidence that dismantles the theory

But the scientific evidence points in another direction. The 2011 JAMA study, which trinc 175,732 solid organ transplant recipients in the United States between 1987 and 2008, found that those with lifelong immunosuppression had twice the risk of cancer of the general population, with increased risk in 32 different types. If cancer were an immune response, suppressing immune surveillance should lead to less cancer, not more. Moreover, some point out that "cancer" is an umbrella word covering many different diseases, like fever, and that speaking of a single cure is a dangerous oversimplification.

Alternative therapies: baking soda, fasting and conflicts

The proposed alternatives range from sodium bicarbonate, which according to Italian doctor Tullio Simoncini dissolves candida albicans tumors, to prolonged fasting, which activates autophagy and "starves" defective cells. There is also Ryke Geerd Hamer's Germanic medicine, which links cancer to unresolved psychological conflicts. But real-life accounts temper the optimism. A patient with an ampulloma in the head of the pancreas describes how he was operated on in a seven-hour surgery, lost 15 kilos and was offered preventive chemotherapy. His story is that of thousands: conventional medicine saves lives too. And Simoncini himself faced lawsuits from patients he failed to cure, and his theory never prevailed.

Economic interest, or simply that it doesn't work?

The question left on the table is uncomfortable: if baking soda cures, why isn't it used? Why do the world's richest people, like Amancio Ortega's vvife, also die of cancer? The answer from the theory's defenders is censorship and economic interest. The official medicine's answer: it simply doesn't work. Meanwhile, the business does exist: the pharmaceutical industry turns over trillions, and oncology is a lucrative specialty. But it is also true that cancer survival has increased in recent decades. Is the price of life a business, or is it business that sometimes decides who lives?

Perhaps the answer lies in the middle: criticizing the industry's abuses without denying the disease. But meanwhile, the theory that cancer doesn't exist keeps gaining trinc. Why? Perhaps because it is easier to believe everything is a lie than to accept that death also comes from within.