One in three of us will get cancer at some stage in our lives. From the moment of diagnosis, the common cry is, 'why me?' We blame our genes, our environment and our lifestyle, but could we... See full summary »

Director:

Writer:

Reviews
Edit

Storyline

One in three of us will get cancer at some stage in our lives. From the moment of diagnosis, the common cry is, 'why me?' We blame our genes, our environment and our lifestyle, but could we be overlooking another crucial cause of cancer? In Australia, a mysterious cancer cluster has led to an unusual investigation. Sixteen women working in one workplace have developed breast cancer. The majority are young, none have a family history of the disease and no environmental cause has been found for the illness. A team of scientists has begun to investigate if the cause could be a virus. It is a controversial idea, with extraordinary implications. In the United States, researchers are hunting a virus that triggers breast cancer in mice and asking, could it spread to people? In the United Kingdom, childhood leukaemia is under the microscope and infection is the prime suspect. 20% of all cancers worldwide are caused by infections. Now, across the planet, new evidence is emerging that links ... Written by Anonymous

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis

Taglines:

Viruses can cause cancer. And, believe it or not, that's good news.

Genres:

Documentary

Edit

Details

Official Sites:

Country:

Language:

Release Date:

22 October 2009 (Australia)  »

Also Known As:

Smittar cancer?  »

Filming Locations:

 »

Company Credits

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs

Runtime:

(original)

Sound Mix:

(RCA Sound System)

Color:

| (HD)
See  »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

 
CATCHING? The Implications Are Huge
10 February 2011 | by (Canada) – See all my reviews

This documentary is not only fascinating but, for me, this very topic raises many further questions, ones which, as it happens, apparently are not new at all & have been periodically raised for nearly a century, albeit ignored every single time. Worse yet, many pioneer doctors who HAVE raised this same question about cancer as infectious, as contagious, as fungal, as bacterial AND as viral, all were hounded & persecuted by the people in charge. How can they NOT already know this disease is transmissible? It is a matter of record that one doctor got an identical sarcoma after he accidentally injected himself with a biopsy needle containing the sarcoma cells of a cancer patient. More proof? If one has had NO chemical treatment for cancer, why is it still the rule that no one with cancer can be permitted to donate blood? The very idea of the establishment being aware that cancer seems to be potentially catching seriously begs the question of the claims for any efficacy of the standard pharmaceutical orthodoxy of the same old same old Big Three,- meaning the unchanged since inception protocol of chemotherapy, radiation, & surgery. Just rethink the implications here: Imagine cancer as an infection, granted a very serious infection, but therefore potentially as a condition which is quite curable. What POSSIBLE excuse would there be any longer for extreme toxins as a treatment at that point? OOOPS! There would go THAT multi trillion dollar a year non cure industry!


0 of 0 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Discuss Catching Cancer (2009) on the IMDb message boards »

Contribute to This Page