Pathology - and its relation to Breast Cancer, for example

Someone, on her blog, posted an article on Breast Cancer and some things that can be taken for it, such as vitamin D or something. This is how I commented on the article:

The way you word your post, reflects, if I may feel free to say, a wrong perspective on the targeted disease. You see, by thinking that cancer of the X needs therapy X, and cancer of the Y needs therapy Y, etc., means that you see ALL the cancers as DISTINCT entities, each with their OWN, UNIQUE ETIOLOGY. This is a mistake. ALL cancers are really ONE problem - and that is that the body has been accumulating toxins for so long that , finally, the "weakest link in the chain", finally snaps. No body is like another, and so the most vulnerable organ or tissue can vary, given the onslaught of toxicity.

By viewing each cancer as its own unique illness - you are playing into the hands of Organized, "Conventional", "Standard Practice", "NON-QUACK" medicine. Because this is exactly what they want you to believe, and have programmed people AND DOCTORS (from medical school on) to believe.

And, by the way, that's why the "TREATMENTS" used by conventional medicine just don't work. For example, one of the jobs a pathologist must do is determine whether or not the surgical specimen he was handed, e.g., a surgically removed breast, has been cleanly removed, in its entirety. That is, he must ascertain that all the EDGES of the tissue removed show NO CANCER CELLS at these peripheries.

That is, the supposition is - that if the removed breast tissue shows no cancerous cells at the edges of its borders, then the ENTIRE cancer mass can be presumed to have been removed, without any residual cells left over in non-resected tissue to spawn any new cancerous growth.

Well, you tell me. Do you really believe this theory of resection of the entire mass, with NO residual cancerous cells left over in the "good", remaining tissue - is a successful strategy? Have you not heard of the millions and millions that continue to get cancer again, and again, DESPITE MASSIVE RESECTIONS and MUTILATIONS of womens' bodies? You tell me - is their theory worth anything?

NO and NO! You know why? Because cancer is a generalized disease of the body that derived from incorrect food intake, for the most part.

So, do they continue to do mastectomies? Of course. It's big money. Surgery is one of the standard 3 "conventional", and federally approved (by those on the take) means to "TREAT" cancer. The other two worthless methods are burning by radiation and poisoning by chemotherapy.

People have to start understanding this if we are going to change our medical system once and for all.