might "cure it"
No offense but the might seems to be dispelled.
There are thousands and thousands of documented "mights" and the one thing that sort of stood out for me is that there are multiple solutions that work.
There were numerous statistics given (I know about statistics) where conventional treatments increased life span days, weeks and months but seldom years.
Like most medicine, they treat symptoms not causes and that's another reason a cure eludes them.
For something to be a Cure, it needs a real controlled study - with actual success and failure numbers. I confess I did not watch your video series, so maybe that was included. Otherwise spontaneous remissions, acts of God and other factors may account for the cures, even if they number in the thousands. You have those for conventional treatments, but seldom for homeopathic ones. That doesn't mean the homeopathic ones don't work. It just means that we don't fully understand when and under what conditions they work, and when they don't. Even conventional medicine "cures" or common ailments fail some percentage of the time due to other complications and factors. I lost a good friend to a routine knee-surgery because a blood clot formed, went to her brain and killed her in minutes. That operation had a 99.999% success factor. So that is what I mean by "might" - they might work some of the time, most of the time, almost always, or so often that there is almost no change of failure, but that chance of failure is always there, and 1000s documented cases of something working do not tell us how man times it was tried and failed, or tried while doing something else and failed and so on. If 10,000 people tried it and 1000 were cured is it a "cure"? Its certainly something to consider, but I would sure like to know what the other 9000 people did that might have negated it..
I don't disagree with your assessment about the toxicity of modern life
Why? Cancer is caused by one of two things : 1) Radiation being absorbed by a DNAstrand in just the right way to make the result a malignant cancer or 2) a Chemical or Physical change ( Asbestos needles actually change DNA physically) bring about an error in DNA sequencing that causes a malignant cancer.
The Radiation is all around us. Taking an airplace flight increases exposure. Living at altitude increase exposure. Radon in the basement increases exposure. Living near certain type of geological formations increases exposure. The Background at my Teotwawki place is nearly 3 times that of the farm. It is still low - as in you chances of developing a cancer from it are low. But each and every day all of us play the radiation induced malignant cancer lottery with different chances of "winning"
The carcinogen factor is similar. Depending on where you live and what is being done around there you exposure to compounds that might induce chemical or physical changes will vary. Its probably NOT zero and you chance of getting a change to your DNA that causes a malignant cancer is very low. But each exposure is another chance to play the lottery.
I am NOT saying our environment is inherently TOXIC. Only that the more time you spend in it the larger the change you have of something going wrong in your body chemistry. That doesn't mean it will happen. Just that it might. Its just a chance. You can smoke your entire life, live to 110 and never get lung cancer. You are just upping your chances at winning the lottery.