"Viruses that can invade host cells, initiate cancer and then flee from their own trail of destruction could be stopped in their tracks, say researchers writing in the September issue of the Journal of General Virology.
Scientists at the University of Cambridge have not only provided the first unequivocal evidence for the 'hit-and-run hypothesis' -- explaining how some viruses might cause cancer and then mysteriously disappear -- but have also shown how a vaccine could arrest them. Equivalent vaccines could help prevent not only known virus-induced human cancers, such as Burkitt's lymphoma, but also cancers currently unsuspected of having a viral origin."http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205304.htm
is an article at ScienceDaily.
Although the article discusses using vaccines to "arrest" virusus, it seems to me that one would need to take a large number of vaccines (and vaccines don't even currently exist for the vast majority of virsuses) to have the desired effect. For example, There are over 100 types of HPV viruses and the HPV vaccine is effective only against two or three types. Vitamin C is known to kill virsuses and reduce the number of virsus-related diseases such as for the common cold (see The Healing Factor). Vitamin D reduces the incidents of the common cold and most flu illnesses by helping the body produce viral killing agents. NAC reduces the incidence of colds and flu. Selenium kills viruses. The list of natural substances goes on and on that we can provide to the body that result in killed viruses (less incidence of viral related diseases). The point of the article is killing virsuses result in reduction of a number of types of cancer cases. The scientists responsible for the article have become stuck on using vaccines to reduce cancer rates and completely ignored supplementation for avoiding viral diseases and cancer. These scientists are probably paid big bucks for their efforts. I wonder if the drug industry contributed financially to obtain the desired slant on the article?