The answer requires an understanding of a much more advanced framework for health and the underlying causes of disease. Fundamentally, these diseases are fictitious in the sense that they are not caused by invading microbes -- thus, they are not diseases in the way we typically think of infectious disease like smallpox, malaria or influenza.
Rather than being such types of diseases, our most common so-called 'diseases' like cancer, diabetes and heart disease are actually metabolic disorders. They are the end result of specific causes, and when those causes are allowed to work their destruction over a long period of time, they create a series of effects. Those effects are diagnosed by doctors and given a name. And the name is something like 'cancer' or 'heart disease' or 'diabetes'.
If you'd like to verify this yourself, just ask any doctor for the name of the virus that causes osteoporosis. Or ask them: "What's the name of the bacteria that causes heart disease? What's the infectious agent for cancer?" And in all three cases, the answer will be "Well, there are none - these diseases aren't caused by infectious agents."
So what are they caused by? Frankly, conventional medicine can't really give you a satisfying answer on those questions. They don't know the causes. Sure, they can tell you what they think are causes, such as saying that diabetes is caused by insulin resistance. But all they're actually doing is describing another symptom. The cause of diabetes is not insulin resistance, that's just one of the cascading symptoms that leads to the ultimate diagnosis of the disease. The real question is: "What causes insulin resistance?"
So you see, if you backtrack from conventional medicine's explanations about the causes of disease, and you keep seeking deeper and deeper causes for the symptoms, then you fairly quickly get to a point where conventional medicine has no clue, because they can't tell you what causes insulin resistance. Yes, they can describe the biochemical mechanisms, but they can't tell you what causes that biochemistry to take place.
The bottom line is that the leading thinkers in conventional medicine don't understand the causes of these diseases at all. They keep looking for the biochemical interactions, and by doing so they're lost in the forest. They're looking at a microscopic level and losing sight of the big picture. It's classic myopia, and they reinforce that tunnel vision by automatically discrediting anything that might offer an alternative perspective. What they really need to do is to zoom out and look at the holistic picture.
You see, when a person has a cancer tumor, it's something that the body actually built. Conventional medicine tends to think of a tumor as some sort of alien invader, as if it swooped down from the sky and latched on to your body. But in fact, your body built the tumor. Cancer comes from within the body. There's no microbial invader responsible. Cancer is fundamentally a failure of the body to regulate its own metabolism and clean up unhealthy, mutated cells.
In fact, the very process of cancer -- the seemingly uncontrolled duplication of cells -- is quite natural. It is much the same process that a fetus undergoes when it is forming in the womb. Similarly, whenever you injure yourself, and your body has to heal that injury by rebuilding skin cells or other tissues, it is involved in a cancer-like action. In fact, cancer is just a name given to a normal metabolic function that has become abnormal in the fact that it is no longer restrained. Cancer, then, is really a normal biological process taking place in the wrong context. When cells are duplicating like crazy in a fetus, it's called a miracle of life. When cells are duplicating like crazy in the pancreas of a senior citizen, it's called a disease. Same process, different context.
As you can see, cancer is not caused by some outside invader. It is a normal human physiological function that's simply out of control and unable to be regulated by the body. Well, if the body has regulated and managed this process in the past (you're still alive, aren't you?), it only makes sense that the body is capable of figuring out how to regulate it again. And hence the claim that there are cures for cancer.
The U.S. medical establishment claims there's no such thing as a "cure" for cancer, and yet every person alive today is a walking cancer curing machine. I suppose next, the FDA will arrest people for exercising healthy immune system function because, to them, curing cancer is considered some sort of crime. (Read "When Healing Becomes A Crime" by Kenny Ausubel to learn more about the FDA's longstanding crusade to oppress and outlaw legitimate cancer treatments.)
The only time cancer gets diagnosed in your body is when your immune system is unable to do the job it already knows how to do. And the way your immune system fails is if you don't give it the tools it needs: if you're suffering from nutritional deficiencies or chronic dehydration, for example. It could also mean that you are poisoning your body with cancer-causing substances such as sodium nitrite or chemical sweeteners, artificial colors, refined carbohydrates and environmental toxins such as the toxic chemicals found around your home. Common antibacterial soaps, for example, contain a chemical ingredient known as triclosan that, when combined with chlorine in tap water, generates highly carcinogenic fumes. Merely eating processed meats, recent studies show, boosts your risk of pancreatic cancer by 7600%!
It is astonishing that conventional medicine fails to recognize the true nature of cancer. To say that there's no cure for cancer is to deny the healing potential of the human body. It is, in a sense, to deny one's very own human nature.
It's not surprising to hear this, though, since conventional medicine is often about separation from nature, or even separation from self. If you think about the way conventional medicine looks at the body, it's all about separation and isolation. We see doctors dealing with body parts: we have foot doctors and eye doctors and ear doctors, but we have very few holistic doctors who look at the whole person -- the body, the mind and the spirit -- and then prescribe a healing strategy that takes into account that holistic existence.
At one level, though, I agree with the defenders of conventional medicine, because when they say that there is no cure for cancer, what they mean is that there is no "cure" if you continue to look at human beings as an accumulation of isolated parts. You can't cure cancer if you keep peering through your microscopes trying to understand the subtle biochemistry of angiogenesis and tumorigenesis. That's why the whole "cure for cancer" fundraising system in this country is a sham. What they're seeking is more research dollars to become even better-funded technicians who attempt to tear apart the secrets of biochemistry... but yet who have no knack for seeing the big picture.
The scope of so-called "cancer research" as practiced today is far too narrow to have the necessary understanding to even believe in a cure for cancer. Thus, from their point of view, they are indeed correct: there is no cure for cancer if you view the body as a collection of parts. Similarly, some doctors think human behavior is fully accounted for by nothing more than varying levels of neurotransmitters. And get this -- some artificial intelligence geeks think human beings are nothing more than complex computers (Turing machines).
In contrast to all this, if you believe that the universe is holistic in nature; if you believe that a human being is more than the sum of body parts -- that we're more than Frankenstein monsters who happen to stumble into doctors' offices with various complaints, then it is not difficult at all to understand that the cure for cancer is within each and every one of us. And in fact, it's built right into our DNA. The very blueprint of life on which our biological systems are based is, in fact, imprinted with the cure for cancer. In a very real way, we are preprogrammed to be cancer-free.
Trying to find a chemical cure for cancer is sort of like asking some poor sop to find the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. If he thinks the rainbow is physical (and not made of light energy), then he's going to chase that rainbow endlessly. Sure, the rainbow looks real, but it's actually a projection of vibrational energy.
A holistic view of health is much like recognizing the true nature of a rainbow -- the interaction between sunlight and small particles of water, and the varying angles of refraction that split full-spectrum light into strands of visible colors.
But organized medicine (pharmaceutical companies, medical doctors, the FDA, and other similar players) still think there's a pot of gold at the end of that research rainbow. They think they can understand the rainbow by building bigger and better tools of observation to measure rainbow properties at a microscopic level. And in time, they will create all sorts of new technical terms to describe all the rainbow observations they have made, and they will justify huge budgets to continue the rainbow research, and yet all along, they'll still miss the fact that the entire rainbow isn't physical at all.
It is in fact this subtle energy that I believe will be the primary focus of the future of medicine. It's called vibrational medicine, and it encompasses not just the energetic nature of matter itself, but also homeopathy and the energies exhibited by water as well as acupuncture, sound therapy, phototherapy, non-local healing and many other energy-based therapeutic modalities with proven healing benefits.
In the holistic medicine world, curing cancer is an everyday event. Not because we're better technicians than those in organized medicine (we aren't), but because we operate at a deeper level of understanding about the nature of disease, the nature of human beings, and the "big picture" of healing.
If you have cancer and you want a highly technical explanation of the biochemistry of your disease, visit an M.D. or an oncologist. If you want to actually be healed, on the other hand, visit a naturopath.
Don't let organized medicine send you on a fool's errand chasing rainbows. Cancer is not a pharmacological problem. It cannot be solved by applying more synthetic chemistry (prescription drugs) to the body. And it most certainly cannot be solved by poisoning the body (chemotherapy).