Is Cancer the result of Karma, Diet or Luck of the Genetic draw?

1. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   I have a 23 year old nephew who is to all appearances a healthy happy guy. He is happily married to his high school sweetheart. They both recently graduated from college, are working, (she is a nurse!) and live in Colorado. He just had surgery to remove cancer from his lymph nodes and glands. In the past it was in his liver and they had to remove part of his liver.
   He seems fine now, thank goodness.
   
   Q. In the light of spiritual matters, is his case of cancer his own doing
   or God's?
   
   or something else ... such as luck of the draw and there is no rhyme or reason to life on earth?

   replyreport
   1. 58

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      KHL,
      The actual answer is both.
      
      God decrees for every man to experience every type of experience of both genders of man, thus, it is a part of our learning the whole man experience. If you were the front bumper of an auto and never experience the rear one, each of the four wheels, the steering, breaks, carburetor, doors and any other party of the car could the bumper know what what it is to be a car of only a car's bumper? Only the car's bumper is the answer, so it is with man, if we do not incarnate as every experience both genders do as man she don't know the full man experience.
      
      Engraved in the above is how the particular incarnation is destined to experience those experiences dictates for them to do the things which will bring it intro fruition. Therefore, if we are judging things we can not see the spiritual not physical cause of things, only our rejection or acceptance of them.
      
      Be at peace!

      replyreport
2. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   … or psychological conditions due to early childhood and family influences?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Michael-Milecposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Kathryn, this is difficult (even to me) to accept  the fact as it is established a principle in this orbit of cause and effects. The Creator did it for the "GOOD" of all His  creation. Please , do not  blame me for a quote:
      'The LORD...patient, forever loving.... He forgives wrongdoing and disobedience.... He never lets the guilty go unpunished, punishing children... for their parents' sins to the third and fourth generation....'
      Thus, no psychological conditions - but in early childhood might appear as a CONSEQUENCE past generations unrepentad (?!) wrongdoings. ..
      Imagine how extremely clean and godly we THE PARENTS ought to live blamelessly for the sake of our children; often then we see totally innocent, honest and good people "pay" the price with the highest "interest" - dying prematurely on cancer ...

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         This becomes a very touchy subject for people today. Did we not learn here in HP forums that indigenous people of this continent thought ahead seven generations?

         replyreport
   2. 58

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, early childhood experiences are engraved in our everything we are to experience as well as karma.

      replyreport
3. 71

   Aime Fposted 6 years ago

   Mostly genetic with some environmental factors contributing in some cases.
   
   If anyone says cancer is the result of karma they're a dick.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed. I'm not even an evangelical Christian but a spiritualist, and I believe that if anyone says that "God gave me cancer" they're a dick, too.

      replyreport
   2. 78

      lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You are correct.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I say karma is included in what our destiny has but unless one was the producer of the cause of a certain kind of cancer it would not be karmic justice.

      replyreport
4. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   I believe there is a reason on a stress level. Stress can contribute to a breakdown of the immune system.  The constant release of Cortisol is very damaging. This stress can actually be self-induced.
   
   Karma merely means the effect of a cause.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      And a baby with cancer? How do you explain that?

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         ~ have no idea what~so~ever.
         it doesn't seem fair though.
         Does it?

         replyreport
      2. 58

         The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         In another life that bad y may have e produced a cancer causing agent that caused another baby to be born with it so it the life-force is required to experience it as a baby.

         replyreport
5. 60

   Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

   Studies have shown that genetics play a large part in who gets cancer but, we live in a poisoned environment and even with genetics set to the side cancer will happen.  Karma has nothing to do with it and, I consider it unkind to assume this as if, somehow, the person suffering is responsible for their suffering.

   replyreport
6. 88

   MizBejabbersposted 6 years ago

   I believe that in most cases it is environmental, however, my family proves that there can be a genetic predisposition to certain types of cancer. My grandmother died of colon cancer (1939 before WWII) followed by my uncle (1973) and then my mother (2008). Now having said that, cases of and deaths from cancer have increased tremendously since WWII. Blame has been placed on such contributors as the atom bomb, DDT and other pesticides, factory wastes and even tobacco smoking. Cases of cancer among veterans have been blamed on cigarettes, Agent Orange exposure, and radiation exposure.
   
   Facts were released a few years ago that my generation (WWII and early baby boomers) were subjected to experiments by our own government to see how much radiation civilians could take. I do know that my hometown was one of the experimental towns, and I received the radiation. My ex-husband received "radiation therapy" in a Texas hospital when he was a baby. We have both had our thyroids removed due to pre-cancerous conditions. My friends started dying off in their early 20s, one while still in high school. Now in our senior years, I hear every so often of another friend or relative my age or younger with cancer, so the U.S. government can't be held blameless.
   
   To a certain extent unhealthy diets can be blamed, especially a link to smoked meats and barbecued meats. So I think we can blame most of the factors you named in your question. But I don't believe that cancer is "an act of God".

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Thank You, MizBejabbers. Me either.

      replyreport
7. 56

   tiniewinneposted 6 years ago

   Cancer is unpredictable disease, no relation with karma--. Although trigger is still not known, but few things like tobacco, UV , certain chemicals are definitely carcinogenic. But definitely eating color fresh raw fruit or vegetables everyday definitely keep you healthy.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      acid-alkaline balance of bloodstream and enough oxygen/iron/hemoglobin via green vegetables also factors, perhaps.
      Hemoglobin
      "a red protein responsible for transporting oxygen in the blood of vertebrates. Its molecule comprises four subunits, each containing an iron atom bound to a heme group."
      
      I wonder if the indigenous people had cancer?

      replyreport
      1. 88

         MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Kathryn, I don't think scientists and archaeologists have found much cancer among indigenous and ancient people. The rate seems to be going up with modern technology and Western fatty diets. Check on the statistics for the Japanese after they adopted a love for Angus beef and MacDonalds instead of their indigenous fish and rice. Of course my source is mostly the history channel, so my information might not be totally reliable if I quote statistics.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            There is little doubt (actually, zero doubt) that diet can contribute to cancer.  Personally, I suspect that our ubiquitous use of chemicals has an effect as well - we use large quantities of chemicals that are simply not found in nature to any real extent. But the indigenous, or ancient peoples - cancer usually strikes as we age, and those people didn't live nearly as long.  Skin cancer is an exception to some degree, but at the same time those ancient peoples (and indigenous) had more coloring as a protection, too.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               " … incidence was lower among Indigenous people for colorectal cancer, prostate cancer and lymphomas."
               
               "Some aspects of childbearing practices among Indigenous women may help protect against breast cancer. There may also be differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous women in relation to other actions and habits implicated in the development of breast cancer such as the use of oral contraceptives, hormone-replacement therapy, physical inactivity, a diet rich in fat and animal protein, and alcohol consumption."
               http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/chr … our-review

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  "At age 15, Mesoamerican life expectancies were extremely low... For those surviving to age 15, death came around age 28 through 44 on average."
                  
                  Can't say if that is really true, but if so, it isn't surprising they didn't have much of those cancers present in their society.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     "As a cultural area, Mesoamerica is defined by a mosaic of cultural traits developed and shared by its indigenous cultures. Beginning as early as 7000 BC, the domestication of cacao, maize, beans, tomato, squash and chili, as well as the turkey and dog, caused a transition from paleo-Indian hunter-gatherer tribal grouping to the organization of sedentary agricultural villages."
                     
                     Paleo-Indian
                     "The Mesoamerican Paleo-Indian period precedes the advent of agriculture and is characterized by a nomadic hunting and gathering subsistence strategy. Big-game hunting, similar to that seen in contemporaneous North America, was a large component of the subsistence strategy of the Mesoamerican Paleo-Indian."
                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica

                     replyreport
   2. 58

      The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      As a matter of fact, it has been proven and is recorded in at least one book how eating raw dark green leafy vegetables supplemented with raw berries, fruit, grain and nuts - organic if possible - not only keeps one healthy but heal most types of cancer.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Have you studied the results of re-introducing wolves into Yellowstone Park?  It is a vivid example of what happens when we try to circumvent the system nature has designed through millions of years of evolution with our own concept of how it "should" work.
         
         It is very difficult to live a healthy life as a vegetarian - we aren't equipped to do so, and all the wishing and morality cries will not change that fact.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I have read about reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone and that is another example of attempting to circumvent the environmental laws for man's law of greed. 
            
            Our bodies are designed to be vegans but civilization has so programmed us that we don't even believe that we are to be anymore. I discovered, should we reject having territory and houses as nomads we would more than likely return to being vegans. The real difficulty is in accepting civilization's comforts for environment's eco system of living.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               No, our bodies are not "programmed" to be vegans.  Thousands and thousands of years of evolution has programmed us to eat meat, and indeed it was at the time that we began that diet that we saw a jump in brain size.  That programming is why we have such a tough time getting the proper nutrition (vitamins, protein, etc.) from a vegetarian diet - we are "programmed" to require things that are rare in plant life.
               
               Nomads - what group of nomads (social group constantly on the move from one locale to another) can you point to that existed on a vegan diet.  Very difficult to do without the ability to grow crops.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Vegans always claim we were designed to be vegans. I don't  know where they get that from.

                  replyreport
               2. 58

                  The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Evolution's 84,000 years for this civilization didn't evolve us into omnivore, man's likes and dislikes made most to believe it has.
                  
                  I recognize the need for living individual nomad lives, group living is the major cause of most of our anguish of being controlled boy someone other than oneself. I am the nomad who exist on it for a time but destiny required my return to the borderline to share my understanding to any willing to hear it. That's why I post Hubs here.
                  
                  With everything in existence operating in cycles there is also a cycle to man on earth with two 84,000 year opposing civilizations, physical and spiritual, and two 7,000 year transitions between them for a 182,000 year cycle. During the transitions man lived like all other life on earth as vegans until developing a civilization. At this one's beginning man, following other animals, began eating flesh and after learning to cook it, for the most parts, most civil groups employed it for their diet then included cooking vegetables that shortened our lives.
                  
                  As for me, I wouldn't want the longer life is I were required to serve other man but since I've learned how to live like the other animals I don't mind living and watching the human movie lived in front of me.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     The fact is, we have teeth like grain eating animals; not like flesh eating animals. Our intestines are not short like the cats'.  For them, meat does not putrefy as it quickly passes out of their short intestines. Ours however, are very long. Meat remains in our digestive tract causing havoc for days.   
                     
                     Perhaps we really did originate in a "garden" where every fruit, vegetable, nut and grain was available. Was life on earth, at one time, a beautiful paradise for butterflies, bees, birds and hominids? Can you imagine humans or apes killing anything in such an environment?
                     
                     And before that time, some dinosaurs ate other dinosaurs, some did not. We should examine the differences between flesh eaters and plant eaters in the fossil records, if possible.
                     
                     Cows do not eat meat; either do horses. Why is it inconceivable that humans can be perfectly healthy, and maybe even cancer/disease-free if they do not eat meat? (… as long as they exercise, get enough, rest/sleep and live calm, happy substance-free lives, of course.)

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Sorry, Kathryn, but grain eating animals do not have canines.  We have the teeth of an omnivore, suitable for tearing meat as well as grinding grain.
                        
                        It's difficult to be healthy on a vegan diet because few plants have the vitamins, minerals and protein that our body requires.  It is possible, particularly in today's world where food from all over the world is available at the local grocery, but difficult.

                        replyreport
                        1. 79

                           Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           "One of the most common arguments made for humans to eat meat is that we have canine teeth. While we do have canine teeth, human canines are nothing compared to the canine teeth exhibited by carnivores. Human canines are blunt and wider; carnivorous canines are often inches or more in length."
                           https://vegaprocity.com/2014/10/human-c … -eat-meat/

                           replyreport
                           1. 94

                              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Good thing we are not a carnivore, then.  Instead we are an omnivore, meaning we eat everything, while a carnivore eats only meat. 
                              
                              Teeth are quite distinctive and tell an awful lot about the diet being consumed - as you point out they say we are not a carnivore.

                              replyreport
                              1. 79

                                 Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 and not all carnivores eat only meat!
                                 
                                 dogs for instance, have grinding teeth …
                                    
                                 and bears:
                                 
                                 "Bears also have short, small intestines and also like that of pure carnivorous animals exhibit a colon that is smooth, simple and short.  What is interesting is that even though bears have the incisors, large canines, and premolars similar to those of other carnivorous animals, they have adapted molars that have become squared with rounded cusps for crushing and grinding, but yet still have not evolved to possess the blunt nails seen in herbivores.  Instead they are still seen sporting the elongated, pointed claws of a carnivore."
                                 
                                 http://animalquestions.org/mammals/bear … omnivores/

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 94

                                    wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    The only bear considered to be a carnivore is the polar bear.  Most others are omnivores, with the panda being a herbivore (eats ONLY bamboo).  Omnivores can and do develop from both carnivores and herbivores, and most show that ancestry with some characteristics normal to that.  Humans, for instance, were herbivores at one time (or at least our ancestors were, if they were not fully human) and we still carry lots of those characteristics.  Not unexpected as some 3/4 of our diet comes from grain, not meat or fruit.  Nevertheless we do need what meat provides and we don't eat meat must go to considerable lengths to satisfy our needs through plants only.

                                    replyreport
                              2. 58

                                 The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Omnivores have more Canine teeth than man, our "eye teeth" that looks like canine are for ripping things like cane for our consumption, thus, man are not omnivores.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 94

                                    wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    "The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat."
                                    
                                    It seems that the experts disagree with you.  From the vegetarian resource group.
                                    
                                    https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 58

                                       The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                       Omnivores' body design closely resembles those of carnivore instead of herbivore. Because man can consume limited amounts of flesh without immediate consequences doesn't mean we are omnivores.
                                       
                                       The major problem with many speakers, most have not experience what they are talking about, I would think that is true of the speakers in your link since it reads like it.

                                       report
                                       1. 94

                                          wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                          Sorry, but the "body design" of omnivores varies greatly, more so than either carnivores or herbivores, because eating what is available means that some eat primarily plants while others of the same species eats primarily meats.  The term "primarily" is paramount here; the environment plays a huge part and will, eventually, determine that body design.
                                          
                                          You're right, though, in that many speakers try to force a philosophical, religious or moral judgement onto humanity without regard to reality.  It sounds wonderful that we needn't kill animals to survive and be healthy, but the reality is that we do (barring modern science and technology).
                                          
                                          As far as my link: I was unable to find ANY link (outside of philosophical ones) that defined humans, biologically, as herbivores.  The reality is that our body design enables us to eat anything and as a result we not only do but have evolved to the point where we must if we are to remain healthy.

                                          report
                           2. 58

                              The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              I didn't want to used that argument but I am aware of the truth of it. Thank you, I figured someone would present that somewhere along the way.

                              replyreport
                        2. 58

                           The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Wilderness,
                           That is because man NO LONGER replenish the earth with our bodies and its waste which would also produce vaccinations for disease prevention [man uses porta-toilets' refuge to coproduce medicines, copied from plants] nor do we leave our waste in and around our drinking water for the same reason. If we lived like the animals and eliminated all man made chemicals from our environment we would live [as was in China before westerners introduced their unhealthy purification process] long lives.
                           
                           By Westerners' sanitizing we have caused the Eco System to not produce what our bodies need, we are at fault for thinking ourselves above what is termed god. Ecology can't do its "medicine making" for us if we refuse to let it knows what we need, we send our earth's food to the oceans filled with chemicals to reduce the ability of the water creatures to live. Man's concept of pure is man's health downfall, because we do not do what the Eco System require of us.
                           
                           Blame our ill health on us, not on plants we disallows to medicate us.

                           replyreport
                           1. 94

                              wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              Then the nomad society you mentioned earlier as vegan would not survive because they don't stay in one place long enough to put enough vitamins and minerals into the ground to make it into the plant growth.  You can't have it both ways - either we require what plants do not produce or we do not. 
                              
                              There is the additional problem that putting all the vitamins and protein in the world into the ground isn't going to get it into plants.  Which again points to the fallacy of your theory.

                              replyreport
                              1. 58

                                 The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 I survived very well or the time I lived on it. The wider the verity of vegetation we consumes makes up for what we lack when eating in one general area.
                                 
                                 That is no problem, it doesn't have to, insects' cross-pollinating transmits it from one plant to others to spread it out. I can tell, you know little about the environment or playing "devil's advocate."

                                 replyreport
8. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   This is why smoking marijuana may be a bad thing for those who are of child bearing age. It is very acidic in nature and so acidifies the bloodstream. What we do today might affect future generations. We were built with the cells and substance of our ancestors. The DNA of our ancestors contributed to the makeup of our bodies according to the diet and environment they experienced.
   Maybe.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      There is evidence in the tombs that ancient Egyptians grew and used marijuana, and the Arabs used hashish (opiates). I'm not sure what that means to modern society, but I'm not trying to contradict you. My children's father, unknown to me, was on drugs when our youngest son was conceived. I was not. Today, at least at one time, there were studies of children conceived while their fathers were using drugs. I don't know how these studies turned out or if any conclusions were made. I only know that this son was born angry and foul tempered. His personality was entirely different from his placid brother. He became addicted to drugs at an early age, thirteen or maybe younger. He died last year two days before his 51st birthday of complications from heart problems and pneumonia. I think his drug use contributed to his premature death.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         I am sorry for your loss. "Life is but a dream." the nightmares come and go. I wish it could be merrily merrily merrily all the time. Where is that boat?

         replyreport
      2. 79

         Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Interestingly enough, the wall art of the Egyptians became more and more sloppy and casual as time went on.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            So did the Pyramids. That is interesting to bring up Kathryn.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               "There is … evidence that the ancient Egyptians regularly ingested cannabis. This is because its presence has been discovered in many mummified remains, including the remains of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses the Great who reigned in 1213 B.C."
               
               But they treated cancer and glaucoma with Marijuana.

               replyreport
         2. 94

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            So did our own art.  The beauty of the renaissance is gone, perhaps forever.
            
            (Do you get the feeling I'm not a fan of "modern art"?)

            replyreport
            1. 79

               Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Actually, Our modern day art is fantastic and you can see it everywhere, if you look.  EVERYWHERE that is, but art galleries.
               We are not lacking in ability or talent.
               
               For instance:
               http://www.cityroom.com/alexander-kanev … ce-artist/
               
               Here is someone, (a doctor) who has exhibited in Italy:
               "Having had several exhibitions in Italy this year, as well as being featured on Italian TV, Kanevsky has found his place on the peninsula that brought us Michelangelo, Donatello, Raphael and Leonardo Da Vinci.
               Whereas most 21st century painters have rejected popular movements of the past several centuries, Kanevsky’s style combines the high renaissance art of Michelangelo and the aforementioned Da Vinci.  Indeed, Alexander Kanevsky’s male figures are highly evocative of Michelangelo.
               
               Kanevsky’s paintings also evoke the romanticism of William Blake, the surrealism of Marc Chagall, Salvador Dali and Edward Burro, Fauvist impressionism and German expressionism — all with a modern and extraordinary vision."
               
               http://www.cityroom.com/alexander-kanev … ce-artist/

               replyreport
9. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

   "Around 2000 BC it was documented that cannabis was used to treat sore eyes and cataracts. It is also claimed that Egyptian women used cannabis to relieve sadness and bad tempers.
   
   Amongst other things cannabis was used for:
   
   Inflammation
   In suppositories to treat hemorrhoids
   For the relief of excessive menstrual bleeding
   Glaucoma and inflammation.
   Written prescriptions for cannabis have been discovered in ancient Egypt.
   
   And although the use of cannabis dates back thousands of years to ancient China, it was the ancient Egyptians who first identified cancer as an illness and then treated it with cannabis."
   
   From: http://www.newstarget.com/2016-02-26-ma … egypt.html

   replyreport
10. 79

    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

    [Cannabis sativa, family Cannabaceae (or Cannabidaceae):
    
    two subspecies (sometimes considered two species), C. s. sativa, which is chiefly used for hemp, and C. s. indica, from which the drug is usually obtained.] D.
    
    The article did not specify what type of "cannabis" the Egyptians used medicinally.

    replyreport
    1. 78

       lovetherainposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       Evidence has suggested that cannabis was present in Egypt since circa 3000 BP.[3] However, whether or not it used for psychoactive purposes during this time has not been documented- Wikipedia

       replyreport
11. 79

    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

    Here is an interesting article:
    "Can Cannabis Cure Cancer?"
    https://www.leafly.com/news/health/can- … ure-cancer

    replyreport
12. 79

    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

    Art contributes to our health.
    
    "Painting or drawing for healing is different than creating a work of art that might be displayed in an art gallery.
    The focus of an art therapy session is on you alone. The purpose is to allow you to express your feelings, begin to understand your feelings, and hopefully reduce stress in the process. In this sense, there is not a specific technique that is recommended. Whatever tools and whatever style of painting bring you joy and peace is the goal. In many of the studies on art therapy, landscapes were a common theme for people living with cancer. But abstract drawing or even finger painting might be what appeals to you. Everyone is different."
    
    From: Art Therapy for People with Cancer
    https://www.verywell.com/art-therapy-fo … b-0-ab_tsb

    replyreport
13. 79

    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years ago

    Furthermore:
    "Carnivores have strong hydrochloric acid in their stomachs that facilitates digestion of meat, fur and bones. This is a large part of what allows felines to simply attack their prey and start eating once the kill is made.
    
    Human stomachs contain gastric acid to break down food. Gastric acid is composed of potassium chloride, sodium chloride and hydrochloric acid that is 20 times weaker than that of carnivores. This means the natural digestive abilities of humans depends on the foods we select."
    From link above

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Kathryn L Hillposted 6 years agoin reply to this

       It is best for humans to eat raw vegetables, (which contain enzymes,) when eating meat to help break down/digest it.

       replyreport
       1. 58

          The0NatureBoyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Thank you for the science lessons I know because I haven't studied in as much depth as you. Let us get the message of science and life experiences out to "cultivated into ignorance" man.

          replyreport