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 favor 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. 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.  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 un-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 disease. It would not be reasonable for us to expect the pharmaceutical industry to turn the microscope in onto themselves. Unfortunately the hundred year interval between Copernicus and Galileo will perhaps be repeated with this new model as well. ... View more

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.   ... View more