Tag Archives: Cancer

New Biology – Are Science And Spirituality More Interlinked Than We Think? PART II

Additionally, many would presume that diseases spur either from toxins, or as a result of inherited genes. This is not the case. Only 5% of diseases are hereditary, the majority instigating as a result of the mind. Consider the following:

A man found a black mark on his neck; he thought nothing of it. 22 years later, that black mark remained and a companion of his told him that it was a sign of lung cancer. He went to get it checked out. His friend had been right. He died two weeks later.

Is there not something to say here? The misfortune of lung cancer is put upon a man, who is only diagnosed 22 years later. He manages to lead a happy life in oblivion to his illness, but upon hearing the bad news, negative thoughts and fields of energy begin to take over, perhaps even become programmed into his subconscious mind in the limited time of 14 days. It is most likely that he so strongly believed that he would die very soon of the cancer that it became a truth, so much so that his body gave up the fight two weeks later.

When an individual says that they will get breast cancer because they have inherited the gene, this is strictly untrue. A predisposition to cancer means that the gene, which will most likely lead to the illness is present, however it does not guarantee the presence of said illness in the individual. If what the individual had said were true, why then, did they not begin to develop breast cancer from the moment they were born? The gene was not activated. And if it has been proven that the largest cause of disease is the mind, is it not dangerous to presume that one will get cancer if one has “the gene for it”? Perhaps the man with lung cancer would have died much later had he never found out.

Now, I do not mean to throw you off track by giving a very small introduction to physics, as I am no physicist myself. The two theories of physics that I want to discuss are Newtonian physics (Newton) and Quantum mechanics (Einstein). Newtonian physics is something that most biologists are very fond of, and essentially what they abide by. It focuses on all material things – matter. This is a very straightforward and clear way of thinking, whereby one step follows the next, and where anything that isn’t physical is ignored. Quantum physics, on the other hand, concentrates on the concept that all things are made up of three miniscule particles: protons, electrons and neutrons. These particles are waves of energy, and are therefore invisible. Quantum physics interlinks many different concepts and theories so that, contrarily to Newtonian attitude, there is no clear and strict direction of thought to be followed – it is holistic. So whereas Newtonian physics focuses on all solid, material and visible things, quantum mechanics focuses on energy; what is invisible. Is it fair to decipher our universe and everything on it by ignoring what it is principally made up of (energy)? The New Biology shows us that there will continue to be gaps in our knowledge and limits to our research unless we begin to consider quantum mechanics.

If we were to follow the line of quantum mechanics, for this purpose, we can conclude that every separate entity is in fact merged to create one complex system (reference to Gaia’s hypothesis, Lovelock 1965). Hence one entity affects the next and so on and so forth. The energy, thoughts and signals, emanated by one enter the next.

To conclude, if our brain and our environment control our cells so much more than we thought, but perhaps much less consciously than we thought, should we not be putting much more effort into the state of our mind and the state of our environment in order to maintain a healthy life with a flourishing community of cells? Perhaps the Western society of today places too much emphasis on pharmaceutical companies and not enough in what we consider to be Eastern remedies – those that are more spiritual and concentrate fundamentally on the self-renewal of cells.

Leave a comment

Filed under Books, General Knowledge, Illness, Independent Learning

Will There Ever Be A Cure For Cancer?

Centre of the Cell, an educational charity at the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel, is hosting a series of “The Big Question” lectures held every season (at the end of which you receive a certificate – obviously the true object of everyone’s affections!). It’s beneficial for anyone interested in science as well as philosophy. The first one was on 3rd March on the topic stated where they spoke about the progression made so far.

The first and foremost advancement in the research of cancer was the comprehension of how cancer develops – before, biologists were investigating blindly, thinking it was caused by depression but the true origin is the damage of genes which results in cells multiplying uncontrollably, forming a tumour (which is how cancers are usually detected).

At least they weren’t like The Daily Mail, who think that basically being alive will result in cancer!

There are different types of cancer according to the type of cells affected which is the main problem when producing treatment – it’s not a single disease so you can’t have one overall cure. This means the new treatments found are specific to one particular cancer which can even become resistant to the remedy over time.

What’s grabbed the attention of experts at the moment is ways of avoiding getting cancer in the first place and identifying it earlier on so it doesn’t reach its critical stage. This they recommend you can achieve by the same age-old means: not smoking, exercise, vaccinations, screenings for genetic risk etc.

So, in conclusion, give up hopes for a cure for cancer because there’ll never be one due to it being numerous different diseases categorised together, the cancer cells being just like normal cells but just too many and because cancer evolves resulting in becoming immune to medication. However, scientists are coming up with further prevention and detection methods to ensure fewer deaths occurring because of cancer, which certainly seems to be working!


If interested in going to any of the lectures, check out: The Big Question Lecture Series


Filed under Illness, Independent Learning, Natural Sciences