try and spend some time reading up on food sensitivities and cancer. The amount of research done on this is mind blowing.
Gluten does not cause cancer. Chemicals do not cause cancer. They are not living, breathing, or moving. So how do you suppose they have direct links to cancer? If you or anybody else did any hands on research on what I'm claiming, you will come to the same conclusion everyone else like me came to.
Everyone here that disputes me is very knowledgeable in the functionality of diseases. Much more than I am. This is in part because I turned my focus to the root cause/origin. I have done hands on research on what I claim. I have reversed diseases that Americans spend millions on, live with, and die from. I read tons of research on this but I also didn't believe it until I did it for myself. I know it's hard to believe but this is what comes up every time researchers focus on food.
Ps... T. Colin Campbell got the chance of a lifetime to witness many chronic diseases (including cancer) develop in, for the most part, disease free people. He wrote about it. It's called The China Study.
Chemicals do cause cancer. Why does something have to 'breathe' in order to cause cancer, in your mind? Everything just boils down to biochemistry at some point.
You can do mutagenesis assays to change DNA in a petri dish of cells without any immune system involvement. Take a bunch of skin cells, add your carcinogen, and voila, the normal epithelial cells transform into cancerous cells. I've worked in a lab that researched breast cancer, epigenetics, and the impact of diet on epigenetics. I have experience with these particular problems. I've done the hands on research you're urging me to do - not just pressing a few keywords into google and then finding what you want to find. There's plenty of misinformation to go around.
The China Study is often cited but ultimately proves nothing. It's a bunch of correlations between meat eating and cancer. I find it extremely unconvincing, in part because half of their conclusions simply do not make sense. An excerpt from wikipedia on their findings:
"They write that "eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy." They also recommend adequate amounts of sunshine exposure or supplements to maintain adequate levels of vitamin D, and supplements of vitamin B12 in case of complete avoidance of animal products."
Supplementation in order to stay healthy? Avoidance of cholesterol? Sure. I wonder what the Masai would think. Regardless, the real problem is that the authors of the China Study draw very strong conclusions from correlations only without any reasonable intervention studies to indicate any causation whatsoever. In fact, it's probably more likely that the correlations they saw between animal products and disease were caused by industrial contamination or food source.
Finally, you might have 'cured' any number of diseases through dietary modification, but that doesn't mean that diet was curing the diseases in the way you think it was. I too believe that food is medicine, and diet has helped me greatly. However, suggesting that some things like cancer are caused by food allergies is absurd. Diet is the cause of many cancers; but it does not cause cancer via food allergies except in maybe 1 or 2 cases. Biochemistry is a lot more complicated than that.