Public figures/icons/stars vs. the Cancer and Dementia pandemics: the new normal?Watch
In the last week the much loved and lauded mathematician Maryam Mirzakhani perished, apparently due to breast cancer, at just 40 years of age. Now we hear that US Senator John McCain has developed glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), an aggressive (almost always terminal) form of malignant brain tumour that has seen a six-fold rise in incidence in the generation since mobile phone networks went live in the UK (90s)
In recent years, we have also learnt that Gene Wilder died due to Alzheimer’s disease, that Robin Williams, Ian McCaskill, and Andrew Sachs were suffering with dementia around the time of their deaths, and that the following souls were among those lost, often all too soon, to cancer:
• The husband and wife from the Wirral who were hospitalised and died within days of each other
• Rio Ferdinand’s wife and mother
• David Bowe
• Alan Rickman
• Patrick Swayze
• Paul Newman
• Dennis Hopper
• Pete Postlethwaite
• John Hurt
• Roger Moore
• Victoria Wood
• Caroline Aherne
• Terry Wogan
• Tom Clancy
• Ted Kennedy
• Steve Jobs
Public figures who are reported to be battling/have battled cancer include:
• Maria Menounos and her mother
• Nelson Mandela
• Colin Powell
• Robert De Niro
• Dustin Hoffman
• Michael Douglas
• Val Kilmer
• Hugh Jackman
• Mark Ruffalo
• Ben Stiller
• Mr. T
• Jennifer Saunders
• Olivia Newton-John
• Lance Armstrong
• Rod Stewart
• Sheryl Crow
• Sharon Osborne
• Kylie Minogue
It is deeply perturbing to see that these trends are becoming ‘the new normal’. Not least because a large and mounting body of science, along with a growing number of world-renowned health experts, increasingly points the finger firmly in the direction of anthropogenic sources of geno/neuro-toxicity. In other words, the elite appear to be content to permit mankind to render many gravely ill by way of avoidable poisoning e.g. via exposure to dietary/environmental (risk) factors of our own making
Particularly problematic exposures include those involving air pollution from combustables (smog), heavy metals (industrial production), and chemical pesticides (agriculture/horticulture), as well as ionising (nuclear) and non-ionising electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiation (EMR): at both high (RFR i.e. wireless mobile/data coms) and low (ELF i.e. regular alternating current live mains electricity) frequencies (‘electrosmog’)
Big name ‘charities’, the government, and private firms appear collectively content (crony capitalist clubs) to milk disease stakeholder groups, and society more broadly, and to funnel funds into fighting fire with fire (e.g. more chemicals and radiation, as treatments), rather than focusing on earnestly exploring meaningful, sustainable, and scientifically up to date integrative prevention and recovery strategies
It can seem premature, not to mention insensitive, to speculate as to the underlying factors in any given case as soon as we hear news of relevant illness but nevertheless I believe we should cautiously welcome related enquiries, like The Atlantic’s recent article, which at least beg the question. To me it is clear, as these stories and fresh victims of these diseases stack up by the day, that the time is now and that, if anything, this conversation is long overdue
Also the fact that nowadays people don't seem to care about their health, with 1/3 of adults and 1/4 children (I think, correct me if my figures are wrong) being overweight or obese (a contributing factor to some cancers). People seem to live off processed foods with little to no exercise, and loads of people smoke too.
I agree with what you're saying, and it's kind of scary actually. I'm only 15 but I've noticed more and more people around me suffering with these diseased as I've grown up. In the past 5 years I've personally known 17 people who have had/do have cancer, whereas when I was 8 I knew 1 person with it.
Why not talk about scientifically accepted problems, e.g. trans-sexual fish being caused by hormones we dump into the water (birth control etc.)?
You could link that example to our growing population of trans-genders, lowering sperm counts in men, lowering fertility rates, and reasonably suggest that there has been a large corporate cover-up.
Why are you posting when some random celebrity dies and linking it loosely to mobile phones? It just detracts from whatever point you think you have, it looks like clutching at straws.
Unfortunately most of the graph you included accounts for periods in which (relatively modest) growth in 'old people diseases' does not cover the period under scrutiny, as per the OP (i.e. further back into the past, and also projected way beyond the present). As such, it is both inappropriate and misleading, unlike the following, which you may find instructive
This graph of yours is interesting, why not continue here?
Only one problem with that theory: life expectancy has now gone into reverse, and with these two diseases, along with cardiovascular complaints (also affected by EMFs: see below), among the top causes of mortality, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why that might be
Bear in mind that the reversal of the trend goes against the grain of ever-more soft and sedentary lives, with constant advances in bioscience and medical care, and constant improvements in public norms and knowledge pertaining to health and wellness
No doubt in 30 years we'll be talking about why we used mobile phones despite them being unhealthy - but I get the feeling the cancer stats are still only rising because of heart disease, early diagnosis etc.
Soft and sedentary means obesity and diabetes are growing. Public norms are debatable, isolation is more common now (depression) and while smoking is down I'm not sure alcohol is. We also overmedicate so the rise in the number of antibiotic resistant organisms is concerning, plus alot more babies in utero that would have previously died are now born, even though they may well have life limiting issues