New test can predict cancer up to 13 yrs before it develops

Nope, no lab experience.  I was in Pre-med back in the seventies and if I would have continued I would have had all my tuition paid by knowing a person who sat on the board of the AMA.  I quit because I did not like what the instructor said about keeping the patients coming back so that you can become rich.  The class cheered to that.  I never went back to that class.

I went to work learning many professions till I got hurt then decided that since I couldn't work anymore I would try to learn my first interest.  So after I went through hell for five years taking meds that I could not tolerate, I decided to research why I couldn't take them.  Then I started studying anything remotely related since I get bored easily.  I was a builder for about twenty years and even then I took a break and took a job doing other things so I could learn.  I also worked with people in the trades and learned to do a lot of things.  I have always been OCD about learning.

Cancer can be started by viruses and there is also some evidence of the chemicals excreted from bacteria and fungus helping to create the environment for the cancer to grow.  If our body cannot get rid of these chemicals or neutralize them, then we damage cells.  A virus can do it more directly but some viruses also kill cancer cells by targeting the rapid growth.  So what is a good virus and what is a bad virus.  You are exposed to these things all the time, but our immune systems kill them off or the gut flora can kill them or scoot them out of the body.  If nothing ever gives you the runs, then start worrying.

Most of the food they say causes cancer has a companion food chemistry that can neutralize the bad part.  In the case of acrylamides, I don't know what it is.  If the acrylamides aren't absorbed by the body, they are of no harm.  If you eat a lead bb when eating a bunny, just eat eggs, the egg binds to the lead and it is not absorbed easily.  Woops, maybe I shouldn't be talking to you about eating rabbit.

We should get a craving for the companion or neutralizing food.  It is like eating a steak then having onion rings with it.  The onion rings can actually help with complications.  Or just sprinkle garlic salt on the steak when cooking it.  This will help to keep the beef from causing blood clots in many people.

Back to cancer.  We have eliminated some of the things our ancestors used to eat, this makes us more susceptible to cancer.  It is the companion food chemistry that is missing and the new chemistry that the body does not recognize that is added to foods.  If you stimulate the body to make enzymes to digest plants and you eat meat, then you might make problematic enzymes that need to be neutralized.  Hydrolyzed soy protein on meat can be a problem in my mind.  Naturally aged meats would be better.

I know of a lot of these inappropriate chemistries, but they don't work alone.  Some need genetic variances to give problems.  These variances may have been formed because a need in your family history.  They are differences and not diseases or shortfalls.  Nobody can eat all the foods that we have in the stores.  Some people cannot eat spinach too often without having a problem.  Others cannot eat a banana without creating too many histamines which can lead to excessive wear on the body at the cellular level.  I am not afraid of a food just because they say it has carcinogenic properties.  I have studied many of these things and companion food chemistry can actually cancel out the problem then the food tastes better.  But overconsumption of anything is bad.  We should cycle the foods.  If we feel that we need to eat something to excess for a week or so, that may be because we are using it as a medicine.  Then we get sick of it.

I've been studying this stuff for seven years now and think food chemistry all day long, trying to analyze possiblilites when someone says something about food.  I do no other lab work than to use myself as a labrat to test out some of the stuff I am learning and hearing about. 

Them saying it is a hundred percent is not right.  Things change just by observing them, light patterns even change when they are observed.  Only if a person believes that it will kill them in four years will they die in four years.  I would make the necessary changes, and I would not just believe what they are saying about carcinogens in food without researching the parameters of the research.  The methylization cycle is a very important cycle as related to cancer.  If it isn't working correctly either way, it can cause problems.  That is what I am seeing anyway.  I have no way of testing what I have found out though, because I do not have cancer.  I know how I could probably induce it, but that would not be very smart, I am not going to take unnecessary risks.

If you desire to live longer, and do stuff to accomplish this, you could wind up getting sick.  What is known about all this by science is far from complete.  I would rather stay healthy till the day I die instead of doing things to try to extend my life.  I have known people over a hundred years old, they are tired of seeing friends keep dying, even the kids of their friends and their own kids die.  What kind of a curse is that?