It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Man Cures Cancer with Apricot Seeds - FDA Arrests Man for Big Pharma
page: 8share:
reply to post by spikey
On "Earthclinic" Theirs a good bit on apricot seeds..I forget the name of the tribe ..but they take three or four a day as a matter of course and Cancer is unknown in their society.Remember the seed is in the kernal,like a nut.
On "Earthclinic" Theirs a good bit on apricot seeds..I forget the name of the tribe ..but they take three or four a day as a matter of course and Cancer is unknown in their society.Remember the seed is in the kernal,like a nut.
reply to post by CayceFan
Yeh and dont forget if your blood ph level is acidic all the nasties can get at you. But if you maintain it in the alkaline side disease dosn't get a chance..and funny that apple cider vinegar,is used for maintaining blood alkalinity along with honey for taste.They will be banning that soon no doubt...remember its only Monsanto that can get a patent on a vegetable.They cant get a patent on the natural ones so theirs no doe in it .While I'm at it..Their are 72 natural elements at present we only get eight out of commercialy grown vegies,Sea salt should make up the difference.
Yeh and dont forget if your blood ph level is acidic all the nasties can get at you. But if you maintain it in the alkaline side disease dosn't get a chance..and funny that apple cider vinegar,is used for maintaining blood alkalinity along with honey for taste.They will be banning that soon no doubt...remember its only Monsanto that can get a patent on a vegetable.They cant get a patent on the natural ones so theirs no doe in it .While I'm at it..Their are 72 natural elements at present we only get eight out of commercialy grown vegies,Sea salt should make up the difference.
Originally posted by Dr UAE
well Bill Maher sums it up
nuff said
I don't like everything the guy says, but he puts it very well in the video. Thank you Bill.
Troy
Originally posted by anonentity
reply to post by spikey
On "Earthclinic" Theirs a good bit on apricot seeds..I forget the name of the tribe ..but they take three or four a day as a matter of course and Cancer is unknown in their society.Remember the seed is in the kernal,like a nut.
The site looks cool. I'll have to dive in there some time soon.
Troy
Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by daddio
Any proof to back up your claim?
I am not going to post their names but one had cervical cancer and one had a tumor on his kidney. They used B-17 from Mexico and also Colloidal silver and a small amount of exercise. Read the thread...Cancer is Dead A-Z, it's all listed there too. I am so stnned that people don't know squat and are too afraid to try natural cures. Again, oxygen is the most corrosive natural element known, it rots steels and aluminums, that's why it's called oxydation, the oxegen breaks down the other elements. It work sthe same way in the human body, kills bad bacteria. Cancer is known to be a bacteria.
Show me YOUR evidence it doesn't work.
Originally posted by daddio
Show me YOUR evidence it doesn't work.
Just as an exercise, I have asked repeatedly that if any one of the 202,727 ATS members has...themselves...cured their very own cancer through alternative means, please say so and provide proof by submitting the paperwork to the Mods. No takers as of yet.
Now, should I ask if any of those 202,727 members have been cured of cancer through slash/burn/poison, I know I will get a response, because I'll put myself at the top of the list.
Then we can discus those who died using alternative means instead. I cite Steve McQueen as one who took the Laetrile path to nowhere. And then there is the lack of accountability for those who talk cancer sufferers out of the latter in favour of the former.
I went for radiation and it worked. And screw anybody who tries to talk anybody else out of it.
edit on 8-1-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because:
spelling
reply to post by oniris
Excuse me? Did you just threaten me? good ........please do backtrace me.......atleast ill know who it came from and have proof to make sure youre prosecuted
This has NOTHING to do with homeopathy, please go check it up on the internets before I back-trace you
Excuse me? Did you just threaten me? good ........please do backtrace me.......atleast ill know who it came from and have proof to make sure youre prosecuted
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Thanks for that video. I hope others who watch it can see how ridiculously biased it is. I won't even get into the misspelled and mispronounced words from the producer of this wild attack, but I think the fact that Dr. Clark is subjected to mostly ad hom nonsense, called the "scum of the earth", criminal, ludicrous, imbecile, a liar, etc., THAT should "speak for itself".
The real problem is that there are those who will watch that video with less of an open mind, and they will conclude that Dr. Clark is a fool with a "bad wig" (just one more of their silly jabs at her). But that was the whole point of the production of course, to vilify her, and make her look stupid. Misquoting, twisting her words, trying to sound so smart (but somehow can't manage to pronounce words correctly!). Frankly, the interviewer and narrator came off as incompetent establishment stooges. Surely they can find better people than these? Yes, of course they were so "responsible", to cite only "official" sources, such as the National Cancer Institute!
It was nice to see that they were a bit more careful with their attack on Italian practitioners. Dr. Panfili, they pretended to give a pass to, but they sure trashed his wife! And of course, slamming the likes of Noble-class scientists like Linus Pauling? How exactly does that help their case?
That being said, I would still recommend that others watch your "Dodo" vid. Why? Because they make the outrageous claim that the official cancer medical establishment KNOWS the cause of cancer! Anyone want to learn what the "cause" of cancer is? NCI has it all figured out, because dodos gave the idiots $5 billion in donations!
EXCEPT that, they haven't figured anything out, which is why the disease is still a problem. And an understanding of some of the genetic mechanisms taking place in a disease process does NOT constitute a "cause", in the most important sense of that word.
Not that this is a surprise, because today's medical culture is actually about SYMPTOMS. Think about that. Is a genetic mutation really a "cause"? Or does it take place because of something else?
I think that "if" true causes were identified, solutions would likely be around the corner.
Does Dr. Clark have it all figured out? Of course not, nor does she pretend that she does. She does however have many case histories of success, and to imagine that they are all due to the "placebo effect" (yes, that's how lame the video producers got), that is perhaps far more "criminal", since the net effect is to discourage those who would otherwise see some "hope."
I realize this is a hugely emotional issue, especially for those who have gone through chemo, surgery, etc. There is a lot "invested" in believing that the best treatment was given, and the breasts, and testicles, etc., offered up on the establishment altar, was truly necessary. It is at least bothersome to have others come along and seemingly insinuate that perhaps someone had been taken for a very expensive ride. But we should all try to put that emotional investment aside, and remain open to alternatives.
An open attitude might make a huge difference for someone.
JR
Since you brought up Clark, I'd like to provide a counter point, from the ever-incredible Extant Dodos. She is not the martyr you make her out to be, but I'll let the video speak for itself.
Thanks for that video. I hope others who watch it can see how ridiculously biased it is. I won't even get into the misspelled and mispronounced words from the producer of this wild attack, but I think the fact that Dr. Clark is subjected to mostly ad hom nonsense, called the "scum of the earth", criminal, ludicrous, imbecile, a liar, etc., THAT should "speak for itself".
The real problem is that there are those who will watch that video with less of an open mind, and they will conclude that Dr. Clark is a fool with a "bad wig" (just one more of their silly jabs at her). But that was the whole point of the production of course, to vilify her, and make her look stupid. Misquoting, twisting her words, trying to sound so smart (but somehow can't manage to pronounce words correctly!). Frankly, the interviewer and narrator came off as incompetent establishment stooges. Surely they can find better people than these? Yes, of course they were so "responsible", to cite only "official" sources, such as the National Cancer Institute!
It was nice to see that they were a bit more careful with their attack on Italian practitioners. Dr. Panfili, they pretended to give a pass to, but they sure trashed his wife! And of course, slamming the likes of Noble-class scientists like Linus Pauling? How exactly does that help their case?
That being said, I would still recommend that others watch your "Dodo" vid. Why? Because they make the outrageous claim that the official cancer medical establishment KNOWS the cause of cancer! Anyone want to learn what the "cause" of cancer is? NCI has it all figured out, because dodos gave the idiots $5 billion in donations!
EXCEPT that, they haven't figured anything out, which is why the disease is still a problem. And an understanding of some of the genetic mechanisms taking place in a disease process does NOT constitute a "cause", in the most important sense of that word.
Not that this is a surprise, because today's medical culture is actually about SYMPTOMS. Think about that. Is a genetic mutation really a "cause"? Or does it take place because of something else?
I think that "if" true causes were identified, solutions would likely be around the corner.
Does Dr. Clark have it all figured out? Of course not, nor does she pretend that she does. She does however have many case histories of success, and to imagine that they are all due to the "placebo effect" (yes, that's how lame the video producers got), that is perhaps far more "criminal", since the net effect is to discourage those who would otherwise see some "hope."
I realize this is a hugely emotional issue, especially for those who have gone through chemo, surgery, etc. There is a lot "invested" in believing that the best treatment was given, and the breasts, and testicles, etc., offered up on the establishment altar, was truly necessary. It is at least bothersome to have others come along and seemingly insinuate that perhaps someone had been taken for a very expensive ride. But we should all try to put that emotional investment aside, and remain open to alternatives.
An open attitude might make a huge difference for someone.
JR
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by daddio
Show me YOUR evidence it doesn't work.
Just as an exercise, I have asked repeatedly that if any one of the 202,727 ATS members has...themselves...cured their very own cancer through alternative means, please say so and provide proof by submitting the paperwork to the Mods. No takers as of yet.
Now, should I ask if any of those 202,727 members have been cured of cancer through slash/burn/poison, I know I will get a response, because I'll put myself at the top of the list.
Then we can discus those who died using alternative means instead. I cite Steve McQueen as one who took the Laetrile path to nowhere. And then there is the lack of accountability for those who talk cancer sufferers out of the latter in favour of the former.
I went for radiation and it worked. And screw anybody who tries to talk anybody else out of it.edit on 8-1-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because: spelling
I hear ya man, but radiation and chemo care has plenty of stories of people not living long afterword. There has to be a better way. There is a German method, I think, that "cooked" the cancer cells, it had some pictures.
I'm sure the proof is out there. I mean, I have no real pictures or anything, but I can tell you, good ol' vitamins, minerals, colostrum, etc has improved my health. (Not cancer, but..) For the most part, I can only tell you this. It's something I feel. I don't have pictures of patches of skin on my elbows and lower leg going away, but it happened. We don't always think to document this stuff, but I'm sure someone has documented it.
Troy
Originally posted by cybertroy
I hear ya man, but radiation and chemo care has plenty of stories of people not living long afterword. There has to be a better way. There is a German method, I think, that "cooked" the cancer cells, it had some pictures.
I'm aware of a new technique called HIFU for prostrate cancer that 'cooks' the cells, but it is not yet on the mainstream here...should be soon.
As to folks not living long after treatment, that's because cancer kills. Punkt. Any attempt to forstall its progress and affect a cure depends upon early detection and treatment. My beef about alternative pitches is that it can defer standard treatment while they still have a chance to work. I started out on essiac and budwig, along with zylamend and other alternative treatments, but in the six months between a hint of trouble and the radiation therapy, my PSA had not dropped. I went for the least invasive therapy while it had the opportunity to work, and it did.
If I'd a waited...it would have killed me like it did my bro-in-law. I know I made the right choice.
edit on 9-1-2011 by JohnnyCanuck because:
(no reason given)
Greed Greed Greed....
No man can find a cure and not seem to want to be paid for it...
Nature has left us so many scientifically stunning products and yet, someone always seems to want to use that to their own benefit...
No man can find a cure and not seem to want to be paid for it...
Nature has left us so many scientifically stunning products and yet, someone always seems to want to use that to their own benefit...
My sister had a brain tumor, cant quite remember the details of it but she has been taking apricot seeds for 3 years and the cancers gone and shes
perfectly healthy!
B-17 is amazing. No doubt at all that apricot seeds can cure cancer!! I have seen it with my own eyes!
B-17 is amazing. No doubt at all that apricot seeds can cure cancer!! I have seen it with my own eyes!
reply to post by spikey
Baking Soda has been used even back in the old days. I have meet a lot of people when selling insurance (yeah, bad job) that went to Italy and
were cured some with only months to live. The doctor has videos on youtube, just put in "baking soda cancer cure" Armon Hammer knew this, and said
" I have a cup of warm water and baking soda every night" then winked. Look it up on google too
reply to post by 4nsicphd
Thank you for your post. If this man had wanted to use apricot pits he could have gone to Mexico and recieved treatment there. It doe not cure cancer and is basically fraud as you pointed out.
I would also like to know what exactly is B17? In so far as I know, there are only 12 B vits. I know you did not post about this topic, but I thought maybe you had some information.
Thank you for your post. If this man had wanted to use apricot pits he could have gone to Mexico and recieved treatment there. It doe not cure cancer and is basically fraud as you pointed out.
I would also like to know what exactly is B17? In so far as I know, there are only 12 B vits. I know you did not post about this topic, but I thought maybe you had some information.
This has been around for numerous years its called Laetrile, derived from apricot seeds and b17 its not a cure to cancer, but it slows it down
enormously. So, if you were given 3 months to live in a conventional hospital, Laetrile is supposed to give you 15+ years on average. Very
interesting stuff, if you really want something interesting look at www.wewant2live.com that will get the brain buzzing. Ill be starting his diet in
the spring, Ill post how it goes.
Originally posted by KingKrunk101
This has been around for numerous years its called Laetrile, derived from apricot seeds and b17 its not a cure to cancer, but it slows it down enormously. So, if you were given 3 months to live in a conventional hospital, Laetrile is supposed to give you 15+ years on average. Very interesting stuff, if you really want something interesting look at www.wewant2live.com that will get the brain buzzing. Ill be starting his diet in the spring, Ill post how it goes.
awesome post, I needed that info, now I have it
-B.M
FDA outlawing injectable vitamin C to further destroy health of Americans
source
In an age where tens of millions of Americans are already vitamin C deficient and suffer from colds and other infections that can be prevented with vitamins, the FDA appears to be acting on what can only be called a death wish for the American people. But really, it's more likely a targeted attack at the alternative cancer industry that frequently uses injectable vitamin C to help patients eliminate cancer tumors and heal from various cancers.
If there's one thing that the health authorities in the United States absolutely cannot tolerate, it's natural cures for cancer. That's why (nearly) all the natural cancer treatment clinics have been chased out of the country, leaving only toxic chemotherapy centers (poison clinics) in their place. And that's probably why the FDA is going after vitamin C right now as well. Take away enough natural cures and the people will be forced into accepting conventional medicine, regardless of whether it works or not.
edit on 10-1-2011 by Mdv2 because: (no reason given)
This is interesting to see. I mean if the apricot seeds do actually cure cancer then maybe this dude is the first to step a revolution.
reply to post by JR MacBeth
Ok, care to point out where exactly it's wrong? I mean, it's sort of...got a bunch of references. 19 of them in a 25 minute video. Can you actually show that it's wrong? I'll give you that it's biased in favor of reason and evidence based science, but how is it wrong?
No, it shouldn't. If you see someone lying, then she is a liar. If she takes people's money for false treatment, she is a criminal as defined by US law, she is the scum of the Earth for spreading her lies. Now, that doesn't speak for itself, because the claims that are based in evidence that are actually made speak for themselves.
No, it'll be because they opened their mind to reason and evidence based science rather than quackery.
No, she does a good enough job on her own.
Give me an example where they misquoted her.
Give me an example where they twister her words.
Um...which words did they mispronounce? And pronunciation doesn't indicate intelligence, it indicates other things like regional dialect.
The interviewer? That's from a video they didn't make. The narrator is from the ExtantDodos, the interviewer is someone Clark hired herself.
Well, I guess Ms Clark could with that money she scammed off people.
Well, they did cite sources that have peer review, open access, and actual support. Ms Clark, on the other hand, doesn't have any scientific research to back up any of her claims.
You keep attacking the tone, but you've yet to actually address a single claim made within the video.
Winning two Nobel prizes doesn't make anyone infallible. His ideas about Vitamins have been thoroughly refuted, and he ended his career slightly tarnished in the eyes of his peers due to his insistent attachment to already debunked ideas.
What? Now you're actually blatantly misrepresenting exactly what is said. Please, show me exactly where this is stated in the video.
They've figured quite a bit out actually. There are mountains of scientific papers on the issue. Unfortunately, cancer isn't a single disease, and each form is complicated. Unlike Ms Clark, the scientists are working on actual cures.
I'm sorry, but the thing that directly results in the cancer forming is the cause in the most important sense of the word.
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand how genetic mutation works. How could a mutation be a symptom of something? What could it be a symptom of? Not enough cyanide in your diet?
So...your opinion is that the scientific establishment is wrong simply because of your personal incredulity? I'm sorry, but that's logically fallacious. Show me evidence that the establishment is wrong here.
I'm sorry, but she claims in her own book:
That's...sort of claiming to have it all figured out.
There isn't actually any study or documentation in proper scientific fashion of these cases.
Yes, we should remain open to alternatives, so long as they go through proper scientific testing and have some sort of evidence as their basis rather than the stupid claim that a single parasite causes all cancer.
As for emotional investment, you seem to be projecting here. Your immediate reaction was to point out tone rather than content of this video and you actually seem to show more investment in thinking that the medical establishment is wrong than you do in the facts of the matter.
An open attitude will do no good unless tempered with reason, skepticism, and evidence.
Originally posted by JR MacBeth
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Since you brought up Clark, I'd like to provide a counter point, from the ever-incredible Extant Dodos. She is not the martyr you make her out to be, but I'll let the video speak for itself.
Thanks for that video. I hope others who watch it can see how ridiculously biased it is.
Ok, care to point out where exactly it's wrong? I mean, it's sort of...got a bunch of references. 19 of them in a 25 minute video. Can you actually show that it's wrong? I'll give you that it's biased in favor of reason and evidence based science, but how is it wrong?
I won't even get into the misspelled and mispronounced words from the producer of this wild attack, but I think the fact that Dr. Clark is subjected to mostly ad hom nonsense, called the "scum of the earth", criminal, ludicrous, imbecile, a liar, etc., THAT should "speak for itself".
No, it shouldn't. If you see someone lying, then she is a liar. If she takes people's money for false treatment, she is a criminal as defined by US law, she is the scum of the Earth for spreading her lies. Now, that doesn't speak for itself, because the claims that are based in evidence that are actually made speak for themselves.
The real problem is that there are those who will watch that video with less of an open mind, and they will conclude that Dr. Clark is a fool with a "bad wig" (just one more of their silly jabs at her).
No, it'll be because they opened their mind to reason and evidence based science rather than quackery.
But that was the whole point of the production of course, to vilify her, and make her look stupid.
No, she does a good enough job on her own.
Misquoting,
Give me an example where they misquoted her.
twisting her words,
Give me an example where they twister her words.
trying to sound so smart (but somehow can't manage to pronounce words correctly!).
Um...which words did they mispronounce? And pronunciation doesn't indicate intelligence, it indicates other things like regional dialect.
Frankly, the interviewer and narrator came off as incompetent establishment stooges.
The interviewer? That's from a video they didn't make. The narrator is from the ExtantDodos, the interviewer is someone Clark hired herself.
Surely they can find better people than these?
Well, I guess Ms Clark could with that money she scammed off people.
Yes, of course they were so "responsible", to cite only "official" sources, such as the National Cancer Institute!
Well, they did cite sources that have peer review, open access, and actual support. Ms Clark, on the other hand, doesn't have any scientific research to back up any of her claims.
It was nice to see that they were a bit more careful with their attack on Italian practitioners. Dr. Panfili, they pretended to give a pass to, but they sure trashed his wife!
You keep attacking the tone, but you've yet to actually address a single claim made within the video.
And of course, slamming the likes of Noble-class scientists like Linus Pauling? How exactly does that help their case?
Winning two Nobel prizes doesn't make anyone infallible. His ideas about Vitamins have been thoroughly refuted, and he ended his career slightly tarnished in the eyes of his peers due to his insistent attachment to already debunked ideas.
That being said, I would still recommend that others watch your "Dodo" vid. Why? Because they make the outrageous claim that the official cancer medical establishment KNOWS the cause of cancer! Anyone want to learn what the "cause" of cancer is? NCI has it all figured out, because dodos gave the idiots $5 billion in donations!
What? Now you're actually blatantly misrepresenting exactly what is said. Please, show me exactly where this is stated in the video.
EXCEPT that, they haven't figured anything out, which is why the disease is still a problem.
They've figured quite a bit out actually. There are mountains of scientific papers on the issue. Unfortunately, cancer isn't a single disease, and each form is complicated. Unlike Ms Clark, the scientists are working on actual cures.
And an understanding of some of the genetic mechanisms taking place in a disease process does NOT constitute a "cause", in the most important sense of that word.
I'm sorry, but the thing that directly results in the cancer forming is the cause in the most important sense of the word.
Not that this is a surprise, because today's medical culture is actually about SYMPTOMS. Think about that. Is a genetic mutation really a "cause"? Or does it take place because of something else?
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand how genetic mutation works. How could a mutation be a symptom of something? What could it be a symptom of? Not enough cyanide in your diet?
I think that "if" true causes were identified, solutions would likely be around the corner.
So...your opinion is that the scientific establishment is wrong simply because of your personal incredulity? I'm sorry, but that's logically fallacious. Show me evidence that the establishment is wrong here.
Does Dr. Clark have it all figured out? Of course not, nor does she pretend that she does.
I'm sorry, but she claims in her own book:
All cancers are alike. They are all caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal fluke. And if you kill this parasite, the cancer stops immediately. The tissue becomes normal again.
That's...sort of claiming to have it all figured out.
She does however have many case histories of success, and to imagine that they are all due to the "placebo effect" (yes, that's how lame the video producers got), that is perhaps far more "criminal", since the net effect is to discourage those who would otherwise see some "hope."
There isn't actually any study or documentation in proper scientific fashion of these cases.
I realize this is a hugely emotional issue, especially for those who have gone through chemo, surgery, etc. There is a lot "invested" in believing that the best treatment was given, and the breasts, and testicles, etc., offered up on the establishment altar, was truly necessary. It is at least bothersome to have others come along and seemingly insinuate that perhaps someone had been taken for a very expensive ride. But we should all try to put that emotional investment aside, and remain open to alternatives.
Yes, we should remain open to alternatives, so long as they go through proper scientific testing and have some sort of evidence as their basis rather than the stupid claim that a single parasite causes all cancer.
As for emotional investment, you seem to be projecting here. Your immediate reaction was to point out tone rather than content of this video and you actually seem to show more investment in thinking that the medical establishment is wrong than you do in the facts of the matter.
An open attitude might make a huge difference for someone.
An open attitude will do no good unless tempered with reason, skepticism, and evidence.
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Your avatar looks so intelligent! Just a compliment here, don't take that the wrong way.
OK, let me address the obvious here at least. "Understanding how genetic mutation works" doesn't seem to be that "important" in this case, as evidenced by the lack of an establishment "cure". Of course, it's nice to know lots of things, but if your patient comes in complaining about not being able to breathe, it wouldn't be the time to lecture her on how much you know about lungs and breathing.
I'm not sure why this isn't clear, let me try again with this example.
A doctor examines a patient, who is complaining of pain in his fingers. Upon examination, it is clear there is infection present.
STOP! You're done!! "CAUSE" identified!!
Actually, Dr. House has a message for you...YOU'RE FIRED.
As it turns out, there is a reason for the infection. Of course, it could be a lot of things, perhaps the small cuts you observed were a hint, an entry point.
But there's more. You finally decide to ask the patient what the hell happened. He tells you that he went snow camping, and his hands got really cold...for a while, he couldn't even feel his fingers...
Hopefully, I don't need to spell it out. See how this applies yet?
Infection, necrosis. Why would you call these things "causes", when they are clearly symptoms of something else? No, not cyanide! In this case, the fingers got too cold. Frostbite. THAT is the "cause" of the original complaint, which was "pain".
Genetic mutation? No, still not cyanide! How about radiation? That should be mainstream, I would think. If you discovered that genetic mutation was occurring in one of your patients, might you consider radiation as a possible "cause" for the mutation? Certainly, if you found that they had heroically volunteered to help with the Chernobyl disaster, I would think that you might be entitled to think you have found the likely cause for what was observed. Or would you have stopped your investigation long before asking such a question?
Let me quote you:
"How could a mutation be a symptom of something?"
Maybe we should let others comment here as well...
JR
And an understanding of some of the genetic mechanisms taking place in a disease process does NOT constitute a "cause", in the most important sense of that word.
I'm sorry, but the thing that directly results in the cancer forming is the cause in the most important sense of the word.
Not that this is a surprise, because today's medical culture is actually about SYMPTOMS. Think about that. Is a genetic mutation really a "cause"? Or does it take place because of something else?
I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand how genetic mutation works. How could a mutation be a symptom of something? What could it be a symptom of? Not enough cyanide in your diet?
Your avatar looks so intelligent! Just a compliment here, don't take that the wrong way.
OK, let me address the obvious here at least. "Understanding how genetic mutation works" doesn't seem to be that "important" in this case, as evidenced by the lack of an establishment "cure". Of course, it's nice to know lots of things, but if your patient comes in complaining about not being able to breathe, it wouldn't be the time to lecture her on how much you know about lungs and breathing.
I'm not sure why this isn't clear, let me try again with this example.
A doctor examines a patient, who is complaining of pain in his fingers. Upon examination, it is clear there is infection present.
STOP! You're done!! "CAUSE" identified!!
Actually, Dr. House has a message for you...YOU'RE FIRED.
As it turns out, there is a reason for the infection. Of course, it could be a lot of things, perhaps the small cuts you observed were a hint, an entry point.
But there's more. You finally decide to ask the patient what the hell happened. He tells you that he went snow camping, and his hands got really cold...for a while, he couldn't even feel his fingers...
Hopefully, I don't need to spell it out. See how this applies yet?
Infection, necrosis. Why would you call these things "causes", when they are clearly symptoms of something else? No, not cyanide! In this case, the fingers got too cold. Frostbite. THAT is the "cause" of the original complaint, which was "pain".
Genetic mutation? No, still not cyanide! How about radiation? That should be mainstream, I would think. If you discovered that genetic mutation was occurring in one of your patients, might you consider radiation as a possible "cause" for the mutation? Certainly, if you found that they had heroically volunteered to help with the Chernobyl disaster, I would think that you might be entitled to think you have found the likely cause for what was observed. Or would you have stopped your investigation long before asking such a question?
Let me quote you:
"How could a mutation be a symptom of something?"
Maybe we should let others comment here as well...
JR