Not one mention of vitamin D and its anti-cancer implications, now that a voluminous body of studies are piling up. I guess the cancer industry just can't give up its endless research, historical investigations, and scientific proselytizing. There's no money in vitamin D prescriptions (unless they're somehow planning that through any future Codex legislation)...

With many billionaires pledging to give away part of their fortune, I've wondered how much of a donation would be required to cure cancer within 5-10 years.

Please ask Dr. Mukherjee if he has any opinions about the following:

1. Thermography for earliest detection.

2. The very successful work of Dr. Stanislas Burzynski and neoplastons in his Houston clinic for curing cancer.

Thanks,

There's a notion that wild animals don't get cancer, that it's a disease of modern humanity and civilization, how true or false is this idea?

It seems to me that the prevalence of cancer in the United States might be sensitive to a number of top-down policy initiatives--more stringent regulation of chemicals with unknown carcinogenic effects, for example. Thoughts on this? I would think that driving down the overall number of people who get cancer might be a higher priority than a cure.

Am I the only patient diagnosed with mesothelioma who, to the best of my knowldedge, has had no exposure to asbestos? I have heard of non-smokers getting lung cancer .