Thursday, 17 August 2017

Cancer-Preventive Measures - Cancer as Psychiatric Idea - Reiteration

The simple sentences describes this:

If the checksum is right, it's OK, it's a healthy cell. If the checksum isn't right, then annihilate.

The checksum is the controlled amount of electricity that ripples through your nerve lines and that goes between two or more nerve ends. It has been proved that any cell can conduct electricity. A study that was followed through because of the likelihood that it would benefit the research of therapeutic genetic engineering.

Based on the nerve sensations the body takes out everything that has been defined and verified as a not OK checksum. As known, cancer arises from uncontrolled cell development making it a not OK checksum.

The conclusion: Be conscious of your feelings. They're what is used for a readily available body assessment. The thesis is this: If you hold a good consciousness and sensitivity with a nice disciplinary touch to your body, cancer will never be a problem, because your mind will hold your cells in check.

It's my view that the feelings/nerve signals/neurology are helping/controlling the body and more or less telling the body where to attack and where to hold off. This is part of the theory that feelings are just an addition to the largely rational system of being a body, that is rational according to function!

I think one has devoted very little research on the issue of how the nerve signals work in the body and that I think there may be a "gold mine" there to be discovered in how nerve signals relate to the body, to the genes, to the immune system, to the whole...

This, first and foremost, preventive recommendation of mentality can also contribute to the explanation of benign cancers, that there's a mechanism in the body that sets the brakes on or limits the nature of the actual benign cancer in one way or another.

One should remember that the mode of one's relationship with one's own feelings/nerve signals/neurology are a quite big issue/factor in the actual person's and as such, I think this factor (feelings/nerve signals/neurology) may be decisive above rather minor factors such as diet.

This is not part of what can be described as "the tyranny of positive thinking". My theory doesn't necessarily contain such an element. I'd rather say that your mood should reflect realities!

The Cancer Registry shows a difference of about 60 points in the scope of 344,3 versus 283,8 in favour of women across cancer diagnoses. I take this to support my theory as women are known to care more about their feelings and despite they also make up the greater part of the older population. Older people are generally more susceptible to cancer than the younger counterparts. Is this due to decline of the neurological system or the efforts of maintaining the body in the face of aging? It may also be that when you grow old, the brain makes more mistakes and send these mistakes into the body as nerve signals. It can also be that the brain fails, because of this old age, deterioration of brain, to detect the wrong signals from the body and sending corrective signals back.

These are the latest numbers, 2003-2007 from the Cancer Registry of Norway, link for men and women. The link has been accessed 20. November, 2009.

My theory of women actually having a different relationship to their bodies in terms of feelings, making women avoid cancer in greater degrees than men, when indeed I think that most other factors are more or less the same. One should note that risky behaviour can indicate, also, such an inferior relationship to one's own feelings already in young age, ie. heavy drinking among young men.

Besides, modern women and men have almost the same patterns when it comes to "smoke, drink and work". Haven't you heard about "double-working" women? Also, the smoking has come down heavily before 2001 as this set (to which the link points) is from 2001 to 2007. You should also note that cancer strikes, predominantly, the older scope of the population so the fact of heavy drinking young men doesn't have any (particular) impact. I agree to "avoiding carcinogenic substances is the (best/[a significant advise]) you can achieve in the avoidance of cancer" [by chaz wyman]. This is not about the mental concept of "emotions", it's about neurologic signals, "feelings", in your body before cancer occurs! Thus, this writing is not about some kind of "magic" cure. No, it's about "Cancer-Prevention Measures"! So, what I try to point out, is the relation a person has to one's own feelings (in the body) and not some mental size of sensing sadness and so on. The claim is, simply, that when people care for a "natural" relationship to their feelings, they can in great parts avoid cancer. To internalise a "mechanistic body image"/"reject natural body feelings" can therefore lead to cancer/increased probability for cancer in my opinion! This should come in addition to other good advice such as a healthy diet, physical exercise and the avoidance of carcinogenic substances!

I agree to some extent with your [bytesplicer] emphasis on stress, even including possibly that hazardous environment also puts stress on your body ie. being subject to carcinogenics puts a load on the body to get rid of it, lowering the "energies"/electricity to sustain the feelings that support your immune system and against abnormalities by cell life (cell division, cell breathing, cell workings).

So, I'm looking for the best range of feelings, not being below a certain value and not, possibly, being too high either.

(I've been thinking that my writing is on a stage where the next step is to actually enter the field and develop techniques like making a measuring device that measures the electricity between the fingers with a person who is typically resting and calm (for steady signals) and so on (making a data bank on these data gathered from "high and low" in society.)

Concerning protests to my theory on the basis of the cases of cancer in kids, i.e., below 18 yo., I write this:
in the case of cancer in kids I think one should move the search to epigenetics from the parents and combine this with the conditions (incl. epigenetics) of the children.

The children are also mostly struck with leukemia of what I understand.

Children are also (only) one percent or less of the total of cancer-struck patients whether malignant or benign...

As a remark. There's something more also: There are the perspectives of idealism into biological manifest as a form of evolution or forming a frame for evolution.

Comments:
For faster diagnostication of cancer in the body here and there, one may use radiology by photon emitter and -detector set at special frequency and by "signature", of course, as usual (also in for example quality control of food in food industry or restaurants).

To live life according to principles of life (ref: Hinduism, Veda?), the health and the Objective Ethics that I may add my own neuro-value (from between the fingertips or more technically, with the needle and meter attached). This level is presupposed to stay on top of the own awareness of neurology/feelings and that this too represents at the very end as theory for countering the cancers of all types.

The idea from the original writing is of course to create a debate that may kill various stupid ideas in society, such as the blatant suppression of others and further push for better medical practices and better health campaigns much like fitness campaigns for avoiding artery-diseases. In addition, of course, that people are made able to record privately or by doctor, their neuro-values with a very simple device.

As such, by summary, we have then these three levels:
1. The life according to life principles, to health and more.
2. The Healthy Neuro-Values, the awareness of own neurology, of own feelings.
3. The dangerous values and, possibly, a person's growing ignorance to life and cancer alike.

I suspect it's even common now to measure these cancer-relevant values in USA! So, go ahead and try to be stupid about it, you other people...!

Also, the neuro-values are NOT supposed to reflect stress, they are supposed to reflect a person in "neutral state", relaxed and "ordinary".

Perhaps we are looking for a kind of "core"-spectrum value. I think so as I lack the finishing opportunities for getting the data-set together, clinically, science-worth speaking...

There can't be a cure for cancer because a cure necessarily relies on the neural/electrical signals of the body and they are in the cases of cancer WRONG in the first place. The thing to hope for, though, is for cancer to turn benign... But the wrong signals, the wrong signals...

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/badcom/ writes "Cell growth and division is such an important process that it is under tight control with many checks and balances. But even so, cell communication can break down. The result is uncontrolled cell growth, often leading to cancer. Cancer can occur in many ways, but it always requires multiple signaling breakdowns. Often, cancer begins when a cell gains the ability to grow and divide even in the absence of a signal. Ordinarily this unregulated growth triggers a signal for self-destruction. But when the cell also loses the ability to respond to death signals, it divides out of control, forming a tumor. Later cell communication events cause blood vessels to grow into the tumor, enabling it to grow larger. Additional signals allow the cancer to spread to other parts of the body."

So the case with an imagined cancer in the arm (maybe not the usual, but let's imagine), I happen to think that one has, in one's mind, severely abused the arm of a person to such an extent that in one's own mind this arm has become "neurologically marked" by symptoms of cancer (warts) in the arm and a repugnance in the mind where the arm is no longer considered as a good part of the body, but still used! Thus, there is actually a kind of correspondence in both the mind and the physical part that's the arm. This is a hypothesis for investigation.

The case is clear! The body-electric value/bio-value of people with cancer is lower than in people of a sound mind/very reliable people! Yet society fails to publish such studies that may enable people to take a course of intelligence/wisdom, living the good life! Thus, feelings are moral after all?

Given the special mindset of people with cancer, there should be rich possibilities with getting confirmations by "swimhat"-fMRI!

Thus we have: moral people in the best sense will never become affected by cancer! On the other side: the immoral will generally become affected, it becomes their "religion"! To psychology and psychiatry!

The study for the initial 1000 people, laying down an examination schema, can be reliably completed in 1-2 years! Given the troubles of the World, the case should be completed and crystal clear in 10-20 years time. Which is to say that the investigation is well-defined and certainly not pseudo-scientific.

Let's imagine a different case of cancer/warts: what if one case of cancer arises on the penis of a man because he has used it to suffocate women and children numerous times, perhaps reviving them multiple times. Let's also say he has in some way taken part in torture by using his penis pervertly. Let's say further his penis falls off by the consequences of the cancer/warts.

Now, shouldn't the public know how this cancer arises, these warts arise by this case? I mean, if there is a clear causal relationship between disgusting acts of immorality and cancer/warts then my opinion is that the public/the World has a definite right TO KNOW THIS!

"Concerning protests to my theory on the basis of the cases of cancer in kids, i.e., below 18 yo., I write this:
in the case of cancer in kids I think one should move the search to epigenetics from the parents and combine this with the conditions (incl. epigenetics) of the children."

So, we have the (emotional) moral leadership from parents to children and the feelings-exchange from a parent to the child may mean A LOT to the child. Again, there's not much said in this regard (research/science).

So I conclude with that children with cancer are in one way or another "emotionally abused" toward having their feelings the wrong way. They may learn to behave "mechanically", disregard their own feelings and so on. Some (few?) may even have been abused/tortured by "specialists" and become affected by cancer/warts (even "warts" in the blood) "over night" as one way to survival/ending the abuse/torture against them, but I have no estimate for this. Cancer in children is already rare.

Either way, children with cancer can or should be examined with "swimhat"-fMRI and given input-response checks by a given set of pictures, but this is "limited"/given by the intelligence of the examiner. For instance, one picture may hold various instances of cancer directly as one suggestion, to check what "signals" or "firings" take place in the child. No matter what, whether signals for pains or other, the child's brain is _modular_! And this can prove very useful for the examination of the child.

One step further? Toward the end of the schematics (for my Nobel Prize, thiii-hiii-hii)? In every respect, I hope the research community takes this to heart, whether in Chile, South Africa, Pakistan or India (or "the Western World") as ordinary cancer research has had at least 50 years already! ("Shame on you!")

Over cancer: By my perspective on cancer, the World has a chance to become cancerfree in some 200 years because of the heavy work with culture or so.

To this investigation, under Personality Psychology:
To identify factors of common traits of psychology that generates cancer in the body.
It is my theory that a lack of moral psychology has such bearing on the nervous system that the body looses control and that cancer results, also depending on the corresponding signature in the mentality of the given person.

Means:
"swimhat"-fMRI
device for identifying bio-electrical value, a "stick", generates mA outcome from the nerves, I think, almost like a USB-stick in size
qualitative interviews, revolving around morality, feelings, harmony of mentality to the body

-------------------

22.02.2003, 20.11.2009, 04.02.2010, 05.02.2010, 07.02.2010, 28.10.2010 and 20.02.2011

Terje Lea©2003, ©2009, ©2010, ©2011
Note: a comment concerning cancer in children has been added today, 20.02.2011, but written to the Philosophy Now forum 18.02.2011.

13 comments:

  1. As Google Blogspot (Norway dept.?) f*cks up again, I write this from a back-up file:
    I've been having these "wild" thoughts as philosophical speculation. Whether cancer in a person and the corresponding view on oneself as "I" can relate to Dualism.

    Now this may seem out of the ordinary and I'm trying to tie it together in this fashion: if one has cancer, does this cancer relate to one's own view of the "I"?

    Let's say a confirming investigation could give something like this: one has cancer (always the case, only the ones who get questions) and then maybe answers such that "I" is of lesser importance or neglible.

    So, "hopefully", one can find a correlation in cases of cancer (physical expression) and rather negative self-views on one's own "I" (the immaterial expression)! At least, this is what the investigation "aims" for, in that cancer can be seen as expression of a kind of negative impact on the (central) nervous system and therefore a negative impact on the self, the "I" correspondingly. Thus yielding insights to a dualistic view.

    Sure thing, mind doesn't get cancer, thankfully, but it could be exciting to find a parallel expression in the mind if one exists. Maybe we are getting close to it above. No?

    Far out? Long shot? What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. So the case with an imagined cancer in the arm (maybe not the usual, but let's imagine), I happen to think that one has, in one's mind, severely abused the arm of a person to such an extent that in one's own mind this arm has become "neurologically marked" by symptoms of cancer (warts) in the arm and a repugnance in the mind where the arm is no longer considered as a good part of the body, but still used! Thus, there is actually a kind of correspondence in both the mind and the physical part that's the arm. This is an hypothesis for investigation.

    Dr. Psychologist further! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. The case is clear! The body-electric value/bio-value of people with cancer is lower than in people of a sound mind/very reliable people! Yet society fails to publish such studies that may enable people to take a course of intelligence/wisdom, living the good life!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Given the special mindset of people with cancer, there should be rich possibilities with getting confirmations by "swimhat"-fMRI!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thus we have: moral people in the best sense will never become affected by cancer! On the other side: the immoral will generally become affected, it becomes their "religion"! To psychology and psychiatry!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The study for the initial 1000 people, laying down an examination schema, can be reliably completed in 1-2 years! Given the troubles of the World, the case should be completed and crystal clear in 10-20 years time. Which is to say that the investigation is well-defined and certainly not pseudo-scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let's imagine a different case of cancer/warts: what if one case of cancer arises on the penis of a man because he has used it to suffocate women and children numerous times, perhaps reviving them multiple times. Let's also say he has in some way taken part in torture by using his penis pervertly. Let's say further his penis falls off by the consequences of the cancer/warts.

    Now, shouldn't the public know how this cancer arises, these warts arise by this case? I mean, if there is a clear causal relationship between disgusting acts of immorality and cancer/warts then my opinion is that the public/the World has a definite right TO KNOW THIS!

    I'm getting back to cases in children.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Concerning protests to my theory on the basis of the cases of cancer in kids, i.e., below 18 yo., I write this:
    in the case of cancer in kids I think one should move the search to epigenetics from the parents and combine this with the conditions (incl. epigenetics) of the children."

    So, we have the (emotional) moral leadership from parents to children and the feelings-exchange from a parent to the child may mean A LOT to the child. Again, there's not much said in this regard (research/science).

    So I conclude with that children with cancer are in one way or another "emotionally abused" toward having their feelings the wrong way. They may learn to behave "mechanically", disregard their own feelings and so on. Some (few?) may even have been abused/tortured by "specialists" and become affected by cancer/warts (even "warts" in the blood) "over night" as one way to survival/ending the abuse/torture against them, but I have no estimate for this. Cancer in children is already rare.

    Either way, children with cancer can or should be examined with "swimhat"-fMRI and given input-response checks by a given set of pictures, but this is "limited"/given by the intelligence of the examiner. For instance, one picture may hold various instances of cancer directly as one suggestion, to check what "signals" or "firings" take place in the child. No matter what, whether signals for pains or other, the child's brain is _modular_! And this can prove very useful for the examination of the child.

    One step further? Toward the end of the schematics (for my Nobel Prize, thiii-hiii-hii)? In every respect, I hope the research community takes this to heart, whether in Chile, South Africa, Pakistan or India (or "the Western World") as ordinary cancer research has had at least 50 years already! ("Shame on you!")

    ReplyDelete
  9. Earlier to Twitter:
    #Cancer: By my perspective on cancer, the World has a chance to become #cancerfree in some 200 yrs b/c o the heavy work with culture,thereof

    ReplyDelete
  10. To this investigation, under Personality Psychology:
    To identify factors of common traits of psychology that generates cancer in the body.
    It is my theory that a lack of moral psychology has such bearing on the nervous system that the body looses control and that cancer results, also depending on the corresponding signature in the mentality of the given person.
    Means:
    "swimhat"-fMRI
    device for identifying bio-electrical value, a "stick", generates mA outcome from the nerves, I think, almost like a USB-stick in size
    qualitative interviews, revolving around morality, feelings, harmony of mentality to the body

    ReplyDelete
  11. Correction: looses -> loses, that body control is lost due to the lack of moral psychology (Kantianistic type, no insincerity or play with moral ideas such as Utilitarianism allowed).

    ReplyDelete
  12. As a consequence from the above, there's a good chance that cancer can be fought with schizophrenia medicine (and ECT, I suppose) in helping cancer patients to live longer.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The short story is thus:
    Immoral mentality implies schizophrenia and cancer where cancer is symptom of schizophrenia.

    ReplyDelete