The audacity of questioning the root cause of cancer.

Highlighted
Contributor

Re: The audacity of questioning the root cause of cancer.

It is reasonable to expect from what we know about cancer, that there should be some occurrences of ‘heart cancer’. The heart is a vital organ with access to an unlimited blood supply, just as the liver, pancreas, lung etc. Yet we never hear the term ‘heart cancer’. Hardening of the arteries could be accounted for by the immune system repairing the cells of the artery walls with the formation of scar tissue. Scaring can be observed in many of the heart attack victims. Postmortems and biopsies of heart attack victims have shown that there are both fat and fibrosis (scar tissue) replacing the muscle cells in the heart. Often a patient can be identified as having suffered a heart attack by observing scaring of the heart tissue, even if the patient is not aware that he or she has had a heart attack. A long drawn out fight with the disease is unlikely because any blockage or restrictions caused by the scar tissue will have immediate and severe consequences. Perhaps this is why we have not needed the term “heart cancer”. When we compare the similarities between the two diseases, we could deduce that the same element exist in heart disease, as in cancer. Both diseases were relatively scarce as recent as a century ago. According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, heart attacks caused less than three thousand deaths in the United States as late as the year 1930. The lifetime risk for North Americans of developing heart disease now is one in two if you are male and one in three if you are female, which coincidentally is identical to the lifetime risk of developing cancer. Cancer statistics have had an equally poignant escalation in numbers over the same period. It is also of interest to note the resemblance between global cancer events, and global heart disease. The latest available data from the World Health Organization (WHO) MONICA Project indicate that the coronary event rate (per 100,000) in men was highest in Finland (North Karelia,835) and lowest in China (Beijing, 81). A global map of coronary events show that you are more than ten times as likely to have heart disease if you are raised in Finland as opposed to being raised in China. These WHO global maps of cancer clusters show that you are four times more likely to acquire cancer from being raised in Denmark, as compared to being raised in Thailand. Both of these diseases have been attributed the term ‘modern disease’, and as a result, the goal of finding the cause has been confined to ‘modern’ practices (modern food additives, modern lifestyles, etc.) Practically every aspect of our modern lives has been studied and considered as a possible cause. But the one thing that has avoided being studied, and is most definitely a modern phenomenon, is the way in which we treat our immune system itself. This modern tendency to supply the body with these immunity enhancing pharmaceuticals is the one thing that has escaped being studied, primarily because such studies into the causation of diseases are conducted and financed to a large degree by the pharmaceutical industry itself. If it were to be true that we were doing harm to ourselves with this modern tendency to be reliant on pharmaceuticals, how would we ever come to know it? It is absurd for us to expect that the pharmaceutical industry would bring this to our attention.

At present, the three most promising treatments for cancer are Chemotherapy, Radiation Therapy, and Surgery. All other treatments are aimed at invigorating, boosting, stimulating, enhancing etc. the immune system into attacking the cancer. Paradoxically, the three most successful treatments all have one thing in common and that is that neither of these makes any attempt at employing the immune system in the fight against cancer. Another thing that they have in common is that they inadvertently cause stress to the immune system. In all of these three most successful cases, the immune system must come onto the scene to repair the damage that has been inflicted against the tissues at the cancer site. This ‘stress’ places a workload on the immune system which provides a workout, or exercise for it. Thus the three most successful treatments for cancer could be viewed as benefiting the cancer patient by increasing the workload and responsibilities of his or her immune system. The remaining less successful treatments all tend to actually “demote” the immune system by taking responsibility away from it. Any substance that claims to assist, invigorate, enhance etc. the immune system actually takes the workload away from it and , may inadvertently be causing the immune system to become weaker. From this new vantage point of understanding cancer, we can see why treatments that do not attempt to involve the immune system would be the most effective treatments in the fight against cancer. If the immune system were found to be ultimately responsible for this non requested tissue growth we call cancer, it would be absurd to expect it to attack itself. The fact that the list of the most effective tools to date in the fight against cancer all happen to be the ones that do not involve the immune system directly, adds support to the hypothesis that the immune system is responsible for this event.


If we make this simple adjustment in our model for explaining cancer, [by taking the blame away from the individual cell's DNA, (chromosome p53) and placing the blame on the immune system as a whole, or more specifically, the repair aspect of our immune system,] then we simplify things immensely. This phenomenon then becomes a candidate to apply Occam's razor. Why employ a complex set of beliefs when a simple explanation already exists? Unexplainable events become, for the first time, explainable. As to why the immune system leave the cancer cells alone would become straightforwardly explained if the cancer were a function of the immune system. Similarly we would be able to account for how the cancer can travel throughout the body undetected and take up residence in another part of the body without being detected or encountering resistance along the way. We would not require the use of imaginary antigens that set this mystery disease in motion, yet cannot be observed either at the site, or journeying to the site.

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor

Re: The audacity of questioning the root cause of cancer.

It has for some time been observed and recognized that people who are pet owners live longer lives than those who do not own pets. It was alleged that the satisfying feeling of well being as a nurturing caregiver to these pets was a stress release, and this ‘stress release’ was responsible for this longevity. It has more recently been proposed that the germs and bacteria that the caregivers are exposed to from their pets are more likely what is responsible for the difference. Pet owners have immune systems that get more of a workout relative to the non pet owners, and their exercised immune system is actually what is responsible for the increased health benefits.

Cancer is not limited to the human species. Farm animals and pets also have been diagnosed with cancer. But observe however, that the animals that are diagnosed with cancer all tend to be animals that routinely receive treatments from veterinarians, or care giving owners, who attempt to improve the animal’s health with enriched or fortified feed, medicines, vaccines and booster shots designed to assist the immune system. Animals such as raccoons, bats, foxes and skunks have all been diagnosed with rabies, but it is extremely rare to learn of these animals, which are outside of the domestic category (wild animals, who receive no treatment of any kind) being diagnosed with cancer. On the other hand, horses, cats, and dogs, have nearly the same rates of cancer as humans have. (There will always be exceptions. Just as an animal can be born with a defective heart, or defective liver, it is conceivable that there might also be cases in which an animal could be born with a defective immune system, but I would expect that such a defect would be self correcting, i.e. the animal would perish prior to passing this defect on to its offspring).
There have been studies undertaken to attempt to find out why squirrels don’t get cancer. They have a long lifespan and live among us, therefore are exposed to the same carcinogens as we are, yet they do not get cancer. Scientists are astute enough as to wonder why this is, but they are locked into the dogmatic restraints of looking inside the cell. They believe “that cells of long-lived, small-bodied rodents are hypersensitive to cues from the surrounding tissue. If the cells sense that conditions are inappropriate for growth, they slow down cell division. Such a mechanism would arrest tumor growth and prevent metastases.” quoted from article http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/squirrels_know_a_cure_for_cancer

The fact that squirrels don’t go to the medicine cabinet when they feel they are coming down with something, might also be a factor.
 

The following paragraph is an interesting excerpt from an article titled Buffaloes Don’t Get Cancer.
Buffaloes Don’t Get Cancer. An edition of The New York Times Sunday Magazine featured a story on the growing popularity of buffalo meat and its economic potential for cattlemen in the American Southwest. It also inadvertently shed light on the nature of diet, health, and natural resistance. The author pointed out that buffaloes are so hardy that ranchers don’t need to add hormones, artificial growth stimulants or antibiotics to their feed. A spokesman for the Bison Association (I don’t think bison are allowed to join) said that, “Bison are not susceptible to cancer… they’re the only mammal that isn’t. We don’t know why yet; the research has not been done.” end of quote. Here we have another truth standing on her head to get our attention. When the research is finally done, it will no doubt shed light on the connection between the absence of immune enhancing concoctions and the absence of cancer itself. The Bison fall under the category of semi domestic animals. Like squirrels, they have beckoned scientists to ask the question as to why they do not get cancer. Domestic animals receive health care from owners. Semi domestic and wild animals do not. Domestic animals get cancer. Semi domestic and wild animals do not. At first look one would think that it can’t get any more obvious than this. But the scientific community is locked into this dogmatic approach of thinking that the cure will be found inside the cell. They will dissect the bison and look at the cell structure through a microscope to try to determine how it differs from cattle that are susceptible to cancer. They will come up scratching their heads in bewilderment as yet again the answer cannot be found at the molecular level. It is difficult to imagine that there could be some antigen in our society that is affecting the DNA of domestic animals and humans yet avoiding having the same impact on semi domestic animals.
 

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor

Re: The audacity of questioning the root cause of cancer.

Examine for a moment how we have treated our immune system since the industrial revolution (which preceded the chemical revolution, which gave birth to the medicines that we enjoy today). When we become ill, our immune system requires energy to do its job. Our immune system takes much of the energy normally used to fuel our muscles and heat our body, so we may feel fatigued, run down and chilled while our immune system is preparing itself for the ensuing fight. The stage is set for a classic battle between the immune system, and the offending foreign virus. So what do we do? It is at this point that we (Western Society/first world) start “assisting” our immune system. As the fight progresses, undesirable waste products are produced. The clinical definition refers to T cells secreting cytokines, and lymphokines being secreted by B cells and natural killer cells injecting acidic fluids, etc.. The immune system will employ one or more of the body’s orifices to flush out or eject these waste products, but it has become our practice to attempt to stop this. We take medications for nausea and upset stomach, hindering the body’s ability to rid itself of the stomach’s contents. We take pills or serums for diarrhea if the body attempts to rid itself of the contents of the intestinal tract. We take pills, sprays or ointments for runny noses; watering eyes; coughing; sneezing,... any and every endeavour that the immune system employs to rid itself of the by-products. When you consider that the ears naturally drain into the throat, the immune system has employed each and every orifice that the body has, and we have employed medications to stop or hinder the use of each and every one of them. We medically ‘handcuff’ the immune system from performing its job. Since this tendency of trying to assist our immune systems is a fairly modern phenomenon, it might help us understand why cancer has become classified as a modern epidemic.


One of the most bizarre anomalies in cancer in my opinion is with regards to melanoma. Melanoma has been linked to sun damage, and yet it is statistically less prevalent in the tropical regions of the globe. Dark skinned races seldom acquire this or any form of skin cancer, and yet skin cancers are the most prevalent form of cancer. In the rare cases in which a dark skinned person does acquire melanoma, it will be under the fingernails, on the palms of the hand, sole of the feet, or inside the mouth. These areas are tissues that do not possess the darker pigment, and due to the location, these cancer cases could not be attributed to sun damage. Those regions closest to the equator, have people whose skin has evolved or adapted to the more intense sunlight. Their darker skin is a consequence of the human melanin cells having had to develop in order to convert the sunlight’s harmful ultraviolet waves, into harmless heat waves. Thus, the people who reside in the tropical regions of the globe, have skin that has already adapted to a harmful attack (ultraviolet waves) and therefore, using this new model, we can view these cells as no longer being the easiest cells for the opportunistic cancer to ‘pick on’. People in the tropical regions who do posses defective immune systems will find that they have cells other than their melanin, which are easier for their (faulty) immune system to stimulate. Or if the cancer does choose to divide the melanin cells, it will be forced to attack the tissues that do not possess this modification (palms of hand, sole of foot, etc.).

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor

Re: The audacity of questioning the root cause of cancer.

Using this model we would predict that similar cultures would produce similar cancer statistics. This fact has eluded no one. We have always been aware that people who share the same culture, same lifestyle, same access to health services and facilities, same documentation methods etc. would have the same life expectancy, and the same mortality rates for diseases. If however, one group of a society were to be immune to one form of cancer, then mathematically, we would expect, (using this new model) that the numbers would have to be made up for in other forms of cancer. We see a prime example of this prediction by observing cancer in African Americans. These people share the same culture as the North American Caucasians, and yet they could be considered to be ‘genetically immune’ from acquiring skin cancer. Thus we see African Americans with alarmingly higher rates of lung cancer, for instance. The slight deviation in smoking habits cannot account for the vast deviation in cancer statistics. It has been acknowledged that “African Americans suffer disproportionately from chronic and preventable disease compared to the White Americans.” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998.) Similar anomalies have been observed in American Indians, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Island minorities. It has been recognized statistically that these groups all smoke less cigarettes per day then there Caucasian counterparts, yet these groups all have alarmingly higher incidents of lung disease, and lung cancer. No justifiable explanation can be put forth by the present DNA model for this anomaly, although many presumptions are advanced such as “they smoke less, but they inhale deeper”. It could be expressed that the North American culture is the common denominator, and as a result, a certain percentage of these people are going to acquire a defective immune system. Since some of these people are going to be ‘exempt’ from falling under the category of ‘skin cancer’, they will then have to be placed into one of the remaining categories. Thus we see this ‘disproportionate’ level of other cancers. If we examine the statistics from the point of view that from the next 100,000 babies born, the American culture is going to produce 225 of which will go on to acquire some form of cancer. If some of these 225 citizens are genetically immune from acquiring the number one type of cancer (skin), then they therefore must fall into one of the other categories of cancer, in this case, the number two category of cancer (lung). From this perspective it can be understood why these groups of individuals can have higher lung cancer statistics then the remaining members of their society, even though they smoke less. It is necessary to view cancer as the fulfillment of two requisites. We must first examine what this society is doing to have 225 of its members go on to develop a faulty immune system that is capable of generating unwanted cells, and then we must examine factors which account for the category of cancer that each of the 225 citizens are ultimately going to be placed. This relationship cannot be understood from the perspective of the DNA model which tries to link the 225 cancer victims to a cause within their society which distinguishes them from the remaining 99,775 non cancerous citizens. Prior to this new model, we were at a loss as to how to account for the vast discrepancies in these numbers. This phenomenon can only be explained when we step outside of the existing DNA framework. I would expect that this phenomenon could be observed by viewing statistics between Australians, and Aborigines as well. Consider the plight of the Australians. Here we have a culture of exiled Europeans. They do not possess the required genetically modified skin to live in this more tropical environment. Thus we now see, as this modern trend of possessing weaker immune systems takes effect, the skin of the Australian and New Zealand Caucasians is coming more and more under heavy attack. If a certain percentage of a culture were to posses the requisite faulty immune system, and they resided in a tropical region without the benefit of the darker melanin, then it would be expected that a disproportionate number of these people are going to acquire skin cancer. This is exactly the plight we are now observing in Australia and New Zealand. This trend can also be observed by studying the cancers of Northern Europe and comparing these with countries closer to the equator in Southern Europe. This explanation accounts for countries nearer to the equator, although their incidence of melanoma is lower, do have a higher incidence of other types of cancer. Liver cancer for instance, is six times more prevalent in Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, and Italy) than it is in Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland and Norway). This same principal (cancer cells ‘picking on’ the easiest target.) can be used to explain childhood cancer, and help to explain why the list for adult cancers and child cancers is so different.

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor

Re: The audacity of questioning the root cause of cancer.

This principle can be applied across the board in explaining why some types of cancer are rarer than others. The uncommon forms of cancer have a cell structure that is more difficult for the immune system to stimulate into scar tissue.
One tissue type that has shown to be among the easier tissues to mutate is the mucus membrane tissue. These tissues are located throughout the body, but not arbitrarily throughout the body. Polyps are an abnormal growth from these mucus cells and have been attributed with being a precursor to cancer. Notice that polyps that grow out of the mucus membrane tissue only grow on these specialized tissues which are always located adjacent to a body orifice; Colon polyps, Oesophageal polyps, Endometrial polyps, nasal etc. If the repair arm of our immune system is allowed to roam free and stimulate any tissue into the formation of scar tissue, then there will be a tendency for this activity to take place where the immune system exists in higher concentrations. Since one of the functions of the immune system is defending the body from foreign invaders, it is logical that it be fortified at the borders. The body orifices are the borders as these are the gateways to the outside world, and the most likely portal from which a foreign antigen could enter the body. It is conceivable that the body’s immune system would have these mucus membrane tissues surrounding the body orifices heavily fortified with defence cells designed to identify and destroy foreign antigens that tried to enter the body through these portals. A defective immune system, therefore, is most apt to commence work where it is located. When we include the female breast (since it is also a body orifice during child bearing years), this too would have these defence mechanisms in place. Prior to the woman reaching puberty, the breast is not an orifice, and does not require the extra defence strategy from the immune system. Thus the incidence of breast cancer in both men and women are about the same, and very uncommon. Once this portal requires an immune defence, (child bearing years) the statistics for female breast cancer raise alarmingly. But again the DNA of the cell did not change. If the root cause of cancer were to be caused from a flaw in our tumor suppressor gene, why is there any difference at all in the list if childhood cancers versus the list of adult cancers? As far as I can tell there has never been an attempt to account for why there is any difference between adult and childhood cancers. This is simply one more anomaly in a list of anomalies that surround this disease. If however the cancer were to be caused from a defect in our immune system, there would be a viable explanation as to why there was a difference between adult and childhood cancers. This same principal (cancer cells ‘picking on’ the easiest target) can be used to explain the entire list of childhood cancer, and help to explain why the list for adult cancers and child cancers is so different. During the initial development of the body, all organs, muscles and bones undergo a growth period which lasts until adulthood. All tissues in the body undergo development during this time. A newborn baby boy starts out at 6 pounds, and 18 years later he weighs 180 pounds. Thus each pound of mass must multiply itself 30 fold. Because of this ongoing development, these tissues are constantly being fabricated and revised. The observed phenomena indicate that these cells are less susceptible to being stimulated by a faulty immune system, due perhaps to this elevated activity. That is to say, the defective immune system will not assess these cells as requiring accelerated cell division, because these cells are currently undergoing accelerated cell division, which is a natural part of development of the body during adolescence (a wound that would result in a scare formation on an adult is less likely to form scar tissue when a similar wound is received by a child, due in part to the fact that a portion of the cell generation was performed naturally by the DNA method of cell regeneration, which is not “functionally and cosmetically inferior“.).

The white blood cells, on the other hand, have previously been manufactured in the bone marrow, and now have left this factory of origin. This circulatory system is best described by using an analogy of a manufacturer with a recycling and maintenance department. Our body continues to manufacture blood throughout our lifetime in this continuous ‘loop’ system. Newly repaired or manufactured blood cells leave the factory (bone marrow) and will not be seen by the maintenance department again, until they re-enter the kidney and liver at the other end of the loop. These individual white blood cells commence their journey through the body in the state of decline (no longer being maintained). They have a short life span of between several days, up to two weeks. These cells are not receiving ongoing development, and therefore would become the easiest targets for a defective immune system to divide. Thus leukemia becomes the most common form of childhood cancers. Once the body is fully grown, the organ tissues no longer have this inherent advantage of the ongoing development, and so these organs become susceptible to cancerous activity to the same extent as the rest of the adult population. The observed phenomena supports the hypotheses that developing tissues are less prone to cancerous activity then the matured tissues are.
In the developing years, the human brain undergoes the least amount of mass variance. The brain starts out between 350 and 400 grams and grows to a weight of between 1300 and 1400 grams. Thus, the brain undergoes a mass increase of 3.6 times its original (in contrast to a 30 fold average for most of the other tissues). This fact denotes that the development of the brain tissue is considerably slower or less intense then the development of all remaining tissue types in the body. This helps us to understand why brain tumors are the principal form of cancer of a solid mass in children. Brain tissue is the ‘low man on the totem-pole’ as far as cell activity is concerned. Thus, it becomes the easiest tissue for the defective immune system to ‘pick on’. The combination of leukemia, and brain tumors, represent the majority of all childhood cancers.
 
Using this same principle we can address the eyeball of a newborn which is about 75% of the size of an adult’s eye. Thus this organ undergoes a mass increase considerably less than the remaining body tissues. Retinoblastoma (eye cancer) is almost exclusively a childhood disease with 90% of all cases being diagnosed before age 4. In all scientific literature there has been mention of only 20 cases of adult (20 years or older) retinoblastoma in a world population of over 6 billion people. The DNA theory does not attempt to account for the different statistics between adult and childhood cancers. By definition, the cell DNA is constant and does not change over time (with the exception to the aging process which is accounted for in the DNA model as being subtle changes to the length of the telomere which take place at the tail end of chromosome splitting and introduces a predetermined end to the division process). Yet the list of cancer that can inflict children is utterly different than the list of adult cancers. One more truth standing on her head to get attention. I can conclude from this point alone, with mathematical certainty that the DNA theory is wrong. From the vantage point of this new theory we can at least set out to explain why there is a difference between childhood and adulthood cancers.
No such attempt has ever been put forward from the DNA model.

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor

Re: The audacity of questioning the root cause of cancer.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon symbolically declared war on cancer. The scientific community was caught off guard and had not even settled on a definition for the fundamental root cause of the disease. They hastily came up with a definition of what they were up against, and officially adapted what has come to be the present day DNA model. The “DNA model” label had not been necessary because no opposing models had been introduced, and this DNA theory was taken as a given. 140 years ago, however; there was competing theories for cancer. Only one survived. But the theory that was overstepped was never disproved. The birth of the DNA model was laid out years earlier. The following is an excerpt from Encyclopaedia Britannica 1949
‘Virchow laid great stress upon the importance of chronic irritation in the causation of new growth ...The rival theory put forward by Cohnheim about 1880 that new growth arises from embryological remnants included within the tissue owing to some slight error in development.’
 
Here we learn that the first views on cancer (prior to 1880) were thought to be caused by the body repairing cells that were subjected to “chronic irritation”. Evidently, this original theory fell out of favour to the ‘new’ rival theory (the Cohnheim theory which has evolved into the present day DNA theory because DNA had not been discovered yet). This chronic irritation would imply the breakdown or continuous damage inflicted on one group of cells, or one tissue type. It had long been observed that betel-nut chewing had been linked to oral cancer. This phenomenon was originally accounted for with the claim that the abrasive quality of these nuts caused an irritation in the cheek tissue of the mouth. When the new theory came along, this phenomenon was attributed to arecoline, one of the properties that could now be scientifically identified to this plant, as being responsible for the oral cancer. Similarly, connections were made between scrotum cancer and soot by observing the high percentage of chimney sweeps that came down with this ailment. As time progressed, it could be isolated that it was benzopyrene, an ingredient in coal tar that was causing the irritation. This new ability to isolate the specific element that was responsible for this ‘cause-effect’ relationship coincided with the new proposed theory from Cohnheim (which held that the cancerous growth was caused from “embryological remnants included within the tissue owing to some slight error in development”). The newly discovered technique of microscopical staining, lent itself remarkably well to the belief that there was something going on inside the individual cell that was causing it to lawlessly reproduce itself, and this new scientific tool had just become available in 1872. This was a critical time in the fight against the disease, and we found ourselves at a ‘Y’ in the road. I can well imagine how this new ability to examine carcinogens at the molecular level, helped this new ‘molecular theory’ win favor over the older chronic irritation theory. Nevertheless this does not invalidate the original theory. The original theory was never revoked, or flat out rejected, but rather it was passed over when these new scientific tools came on line. From the ‘Y’ in the road, everyone went down the same path (DNA model). It would have been preferable for the supporters of the original theory to concede that it was not the soot that was causing the irritation, (or more specifically the benzopyrene in the soot,) as opposed to overturning the theory altogether. It should have been conceded that it was not the abrasive irritant of the betel nuts that was ‘physically’ weakening the tissue, but rather something in the nut that was ‘chemically’ weakening the tissue at this location. In either case, the damaged or weakened tissues require a response from the immune system. Then the chronic irritation principal would still remain applicable as a plausible cause for cancer. This adaptation would have allowed the ‘chronic irritation’ theory to co-exist with the ‘embryological remnant’ theory until more was known about the disease of cancer, and the cells that it attacks. If we concede that it is a ‘chemically’ weakened tissue, as opposed to a ‘physically’ weakened tissue; what then is the difference between the chronic irritant theory( read: chemically weakened tissue that begins this uncontrolled growth,) and the Cohnheim theory for cancer, which holds that the growth stems from a flaw within the tissue owing to some internal flaw? (Although the model for DNA was only discovered fifty years ago, it had previously been understood that there must have existed some form of information transfer that was responsible for passing along the genetic information from parent to offspring.) The major distinction between these two theories is in the role of the immune system. The immune system plays no role in the Cohnheim theory (which places the blame solely on the DNA of the affected tissue cells.). If we re-investigate the chronic irritation theory now, with our new found knowledge of the complexity of the various roles of the immune system, we might conclude that the original theory should not have been so quickly overlooked.
 
Consider the practice of acupuncture. Thousands of years ago, it was observed that warriors, who were inflicted with non-lethal spear and arrow wounds, would go on to recover from their wounds and then experience superior health to what they had prior to the event. Health practitioners then began to intentionally inflict the body with similar wounds hoping for similar results. They would insert bamboo sprigs and shells into the skin of patients. They got what they were after, and acupuncture has survived through the ages despite being viewed as barbaric and not fitting into the realm of explainable events from the point of view of modern day medicine. Over the years, the practice has been refined and has become less barbaric, with sterilized equipment; however, the immune system must still address the tissue damage inflicted by these needles, thus subjecting it to an ‘exercise”. At the bare minimum the immune system undergoes an exercise of the ‘start’ and ‘stop’ code productions. The resulting health benefits could therefore be attributed to the exercised immune system.
Another type of immune system fallibility is with arthritis. I have heard about people treating arthritis with wasp stings. They apply bees or wasps in a jar to the offending joint, and then agitate the jar causing the insects to attack the exposed flesh. The immune system currently being misguided into producing antibodies to attack the joint is given something constructive to do. The arthritis sufferers notice a temporary ‘cure’ from their ailment as the immune system must now address the poison from the bee sting. This process must be re-applied as the immune system will eventually revert back to its misguided activity once the bee sting has been completely addressed. The relief from their arthritis can last several months however.

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor

Re: The audacity of questioning the root cause of cancer.

It would seem foreign, or perhaps even absurd to introduce infectious contaminants into the human body. It would seem ludicrous to do this to someone who is already ill. Yet this inverse line of thinking would help to explain why a successful cure has eluded so many, for so long. It would be difficult to find a solution to a problem that lies in the opposite direction from where everyone is looking. The concept may sound ludicrous, but from the perspective of this new model for cancer, this is still a logical supposition. If we can produce a remission from inadvertently exercising the immune system once, with poison (as in a chemotherapy session), imagine the results of setting out to systematically exercise the immune system repeatedly, without harming the entire body in the process. I believe that the successful protocol will not stimulate, but rather, aggravate the immune system. Instead of trying to invigorate, we should irritate. Assisting becomes tormenting. Helping becomes hurting. Hurt your immune system like you hurt your muscular system during a vigorous workout. Hurt your immune system like you would hurt your cardiovascular system running a marathon. Helping the immune system has shown to be counter-productive. If you are getting the opposite results to what you desire, than logic dictates that you should do the opposite to what you are doing to get that which you do desire. The by-product of helping the immune system is to weaken it, which allows the cancer cells to go out of control. It should then follow that the by-product of hurting the immune system would be to strengthen it, and thus, allow it to regain control over these maverick cells. Under this new model, it is conceivable that the successful treatment would take the form of ‘clinically torturing’ the body, which is precisely what chemotherapy is doing, but on an unnecessarily exhaustive scale. A series of allergy tests would discover some things that the immune system reacts to, but would avoid the full spectrum attack that is presently provided by chemotherapy. Why do we even have allergies? Everything in nature has a purpose. Things that irritate the immune system would be a good exercise tool. I have a strong suspicion that these alternative medicines that seem to miraculously cure some individuals, and mystify the professionals, are by chance exercising that patient’s immune system. This individual is simply allergic to one or more of the ingredients in these concoctions. This would explain why some cancer fighting cocktails respond miraculously in some patients, and yet can be utterly useless or unresponsive in the majority of patients. The patients who are not allergic to any of the ingredients, unfortunately, do not get the workout. Likewise, the evidence supports that combination strategies have been shown to be more effective then single treatments. This could be accounted for using this same logic. Introducing a greater number of ingredients mathematically increases the chances that the cancer patient will be allergic to one or more of these ingredients. I suspect that finding out what a patient is allergic to, and then provoking an immune response with this antigen, would be a productive approach if this new model holds any merit. This line of thought is consistent with the observable data that shows that few allergy sufferers ever acquire any form of cancer. Albert Einstein was quoted for having said “When the solution is simple, God is answering”



In probability theory, the ‘Borel-Cantelli lemma' is a theorem about sequences of events that is a fundamental maxim of the theory of natural selection. The theorem is perhaps best exemplified with the cliché that if an infinite number of monkeys sat at an infinite number of typewriters and randomly press keys, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. If we grant that this would eventually happen, then the same logic used to conclude this, would compel us to admit that there would in the process be generated an unfathomable volume of typewritten gibberish.
 

Reply
0 Kudos
Highlighted
Contributor

Re: The audacity of questioning the root cause of cancer.

If a single case of cancer is the culmination of a series of events, then where is the corresponding gibberish? It would be expected that there should exist a multitude of occurrences in which the entire chain of events did not occur. To get around this dilemma, the scientific community has placed the blame on our p53 chromosome. If the orderly reproduction of our DNA is the responsibility of our p53 gene, then a defect in this one gene could be the ‘common denominator' and then be used to account for all cases of mutated cell growth. That is to say; if the gene responsible to oversee the orderly division of cells is itself damaged, then the non orderly division of cells could occur. This then becomes the ‘root cause' of cancer. It is mathematically comprehensible how the DNA of an individual cell might go astray, and starts to reproduce itself repeatedly as outlined in our present cancer theory, but this event would be limited to grow only to the size that could be supported by the existing blood supply. It would yield at best, a 'pea' sized growth. There should therefore be occurrences in which the cell did reproduce itself, but the accompanying blood supply did not happen. The scientific community acknowledges the need to address the blood supply issue, and with great difficulty they have postulated a complex chain of events that is both mathematically and logically absurd. This ‘root cause' of cancer must therefore also have the attributed powers of being able to induce pathological angiogenesis. These cancer cells, we are told, release molecules that attract our endothelial cells, which then set out to successfully build a blood vessel system to get the much needed nutrients to the site. This amazing task is performed by a cell that is already deemed to be defective and in a nutrient and oxygen starved environment. All this must be identified as needed, set in motion, and accomplished before the cell succumbs to its seemingly perilous situation. We are further told that these cancer cells take on an immortal status, and acquire the ability to disguise themselves, and recruit allies in their defence, and a multitude of other special powers that are attributed only to cancer cells. When we examine this supernatural chain of events, and the obstacles that the cancer must overcome, and the safeguards that are in place to prevent these occurrences from happening the way they are described, one must wonder about the mathematical likelihood of this occurring even once in a species with just over six billion members. Cancer has been described as a ‘modern pandemic’. Yet throughout the ages, mankind has always been in possession of an immune system that was 'equal to the occasion' with the exception of a few pandemics, which tended only to thin out our numbers. Since the Industrial Revolution, which gave way to the Chemical revolution, the pharmaceutical industry has managed to convince the western world /first world (people with disposable income) that their immune system is no longer good enough to provide for their health and well being. They have been selling us a barrage of pills, shots, serums and ointments to cure a growing and seemingly endless list of new ailments. I frequently see commercials advertising a list of symptoms and assigning a name to this syndrome, then offering a product/prescription that will cure this new ailment. This seems to be the world in which we now live. This point brings to mind a quote from John Dryden “God never made His work for man to mend.” Third World countries do not have access to, nor the means to obtain these modern pharmaceuticals that the rest of us have access to, and perhaps as a result of this, third world countries do not have anywhere near the cases of cancer that the modern western world has. Obviously no one had access to them a century and a half ago, because they did not exist at all, and cancer back then was a rare disease. We now find ourselves frantically looking for an explanation as to why this is predominantly a western disease, and also why this is a modern disease. Two more truths standing on her head to get attention. Pharmaceutical use is one of the last remaining subjects that has thus far, avoided being studied as a possible cause of this modern pandemic. As more and more studies point out the various things we need to avoid and things we need to practice in order for us to be able to maintain our health, it would be expected that the statistics of cancer would be getting better. But it is the pharmaceutical industry that funds these studies that seek to find a cure for this and other diseases. It would not be reasonable for us to expect the pharmaceutical industry to turn the microscope on themselves.

 

Reply
0 Kudos
Post new topic
Talk to a health professional
Cancer Council support and information 13 11 20Mon - Fri 9am - 5pm
Cancer Information and Support

Online resources and support

Access information about support services, online resources and a range of other materials.

Caring for someone with cancer?

Find out what resources and support services are available to assist you.