Qustioning The DNA Theory As Being The Origin Of Cancer

Discussion in 'General Health & Wellness' started by ricwally, Jan 17, 2004.

  1. ricwally

    ricwally New Member

    The following article is an attempt to put forward an alternate hypothesis from the present
    DNA model, for explaining cancer. It is regrettably long, and at times difficult to follow,
    but if you manage to persevere through it, I believe you will find it intriguing, or at least
    thought provoking.
    A brief ‘attack’ on the present model is a necessary starting point. If it were not for the
    fact that I am dissatisfied with the present hypothesis, there would be no need to propose
    a new one.
    The gist of this article, stems from the fact that there are two distinct methods for which
    a cell can reproduce itself, yet only one of these methods is being contemplated as the
    root problem in cancer.

    Cancer is the disruption of the orderly and regulated cycle
    of cell replication and division under the control of our genes.
    This is a terse synopsis of the what is presently held as the cause of this modern
    pandemic. “Control of our genes” has been attributed to our DNA. Any disruption with
    this process, must therefor lie with the DNA. The ‘faulty DNA’ model is the only model
    put forward to explain this disruption of the orderly regulated cycle. It has not been
    necessary to label this as a theory, because no other theories have been put forward. Thus,
    it has been taken as a ‘given’ that this disruption of the cell replication was the result of
    faulty DNA. All efforts have thus far been concentrated on determining what it is that is
    causing the DNA in some individuals to go astray. Various links to lifestyle, genetics, and
    environmental contaminants (carcinogens), have all been proposed as possible
    explanations. Yet as the lists of possible explanations grows larger, there appears to be no
    reduction in the amounts of patients acquiring some form of cancer. A considerable
    amount of money has been spent in the pursuit of finding a cure. Many new carcinogens
    or potential causes have been brought to light. Many strides have been made towards
    extending the lives of those afflicted with this misfortune. But much of this ‘deemed’
    success could be attributed to the ‘early detection’ alone. Consider two hypothetical cases
    of an identical cancer that has a duration of twelve years. The first case goes undetected
    until the tenth year of the ailment before it is discovered. We then have a documented
    case that will be deemed as an aggressive cancer, which took its toll within two short
    years. In the second case, the patient is detected early, let’s say in the second year. So this
    patient will be logged as having had a ten year survival rate, before finally succumbing to
    the disease. This scenario illustrates how the move towards detecting the cancer early, in
    itself has led to the appearance of great medical strides being achieved, even if this
    second hypothetical patient received no medical attention after his or her early diagnosis.
    I do not make this point to ridicule the medical profession. Rather, it is just one more
    example of one set of data having more then one conclusion. Early detection has been
    attributed to being of paramount importance in the survival rates of cancer. It could be
    that ‘early detection’ is merely giving a head start to the timepiece that measures cure
    success.
    Another critique that I have is the tendency to dilute the figures for cancer into an ever
    increasing number of categories. This tendency gives the appearance that the numbers of
    patients that are afflicted with a certain cancer type is on the decline. For example, in
    years past, there was but one type of breast cancer. All cases of the ailment fell into this
    one category. Presently there is a tendency to siphon off some of the occurrences of breast
    cancer into their own categories. Inflammatory Breast Cancer, and Male Breast Cancer
    are often removed from the big picture to be viewed as separate issues. The remaining
    cases are divided into ductile versus lobular categories; or invasive versus in-situ. Since it
    is not possible for a patient to simultaneously come down with both types, they must
    therefor fall under the category of one or the other. By virtue of the numbers now being
    divided, they are now being used to represent the appearance of a decline in cases of
    cancer for any one category. This gives a misleading impression that the medical
    community is making great strides in their efforts to combat this ‘disease’. However, it
    can be observed that the overall picture is getting uglier. If we sum these categories back
    together so that we can compare them with the earlier statistics of breast cancer, then we
    are forced into the grim realization that there is no progress being made. This trend can
    also be observed in the categorization of colon cancer patients. In earlier years, there were
    no individual categories of anal cancer, prostate cancer, rectal cancer, bowel cancer, and
    colon cancer. These were all under one category. As science became more
    knowledgeable, it could be detected that there were differences in these types of cancer,
    and as a result, new categories were required, and warranted. Since it is not possible to go
    back in time and properly re-categorize the earlier statistics into the new categories, we
    would need to sum these current categories together for comparison purposes, in order to
    see if any progress was being made in this sector of cancer research. These figures, too
    are discouraging.
    The long list of potential ’links’ to cancer, does not appear to be producing any better
    health. Knowing that asbestos dust, or a high fat diet, may be contributing to this
    epidemic; or that a high fiber diet, or sun block lotions have been attributed to the
    survival from this epidemic, does not appear to have much effect on the epidemic itself. It
    would be expected that as our knowledge increases as to which carcinogens we need to
    avoid, and which behaviors we need to adopt or promote , the resulting number of cancer
    cases should be on the decline. Yet the percentage of people who can expect to have to
    deal with some form of cancer in their lifetime, is on the rise. It could be argued that this
    is an unavoidable byproduct of our longer life expectancy. But we can factor out this
    retort by focusing on cancer statistics that are only inflicting those in the prime of their
    life. It can be observed that these figures too, are still on the rise. One might conclude that
    this is an overtly pessimistic interpretation of the statistics. If it does appear pessimistic,
    it is only to contrast optimism, and only after 120 years of being optimistic has led
    nowhere. Cancer has increased over this period from 1 in 8,000 to 1 in 2 persons. And yet
    we are being told that progress is being made. A quick look back into old encyclopedia
    articles confirms that there has been little or no progress over the years. The scientific,
    and medical communities are focusing exclusively on our DNA as being the culprit. It
    would be expected that after more then a century of pursuing this one angle, we could
    expect more progress then is presently seen.
    To illustrate the claim that there has been no significant progress in the field of cancer, I
    will include now a quotation from the American Council on Science and Health in which
    they defend themselves from there critics by outlining that :
    "A study published in ‘Cancer’, the journal of the American Cancer Society [1],
    reports findings that confirm what the American Council on Science and Health
    (ACSH) has long held: that the incidence and overall death rates from cancer have
    been declining in the United States. ACSH's position on U.S. cancer rates was set
    forth in detail in its 1995 booklet, "Update: Is There a Cancer Epidemic in the United
    States?"
    The false claim that cancer rates are rising is a favorite of quackery promoters who
    want to undermine public trust in food companies, drug companies, chemical
    manufacturers, and the medical profession. ACSH's 1995 report concluded that, with
    a few exceptions -- primarily lung cancer (caused by cigarette smoking), melanoma (a
    skin cancer related to overexposure to sunlight), and AIDS-related cancers -- there
    had been little overall increase over the previous 40 years in either the number of new
    cases reported or the number of cancer deaths."(end of quotation)

    This claim, in my opinion does not represent progress. It would be equivalent to claim
    that the fleet gas mileage of domestic passenger vehicles was on the rise, so long as we
    exclude the SUV’s and pick-up trucks. When we start to pick and choose the statistics
    that we are going to include,(or in this case exclude) we are manipulating the data to say
    anything that we want it too. There is a self evident ‘fallacy’ with this practice. For this
    reason, I try to limit my use of numbers and percentages, since there are so many of them
    to choose from, and it is human nature to use the figures that support your claim, and
    dismiss those that do not.
    My quest into the subject of cancer begins before the industrial revolution, when cancer
    was an exceptionally unusual disease. I will start with a passage taken from an
    Encyclopedia Britannica article from 1949, in which the German pathologist Rudolf
    ‘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) but I can only speculate as to
    why.
    I will begin by re-examining the original explanation that was held back in 1860 in
    which; “chronic irritation” is the cause of the growth (cancer)(*1). 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 phenomena 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 phenomena 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 who 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 were
    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 had just become available in 1872. 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. 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. Then the chronic irritation principal would still remain applicable as a possible
    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 ‘gene’ 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 roles of the immune system, we might
    conclude that the original theory should not have been so quickly overlooked.
    It is presently believed that the immune system sits idle as cancer activity proliferates. Yet
    in occurrences of cancer activity, it is acknowledged that there is a corresponding activity
    in the lymph nodes. Often it is observed that the cancer has spread to the adjacent lymph
    nodes. The purpose of the lymph nodes is to “serve as the center for production of
    phagocytes, which engulf bacteria and poisonous substances”. Lymph nodes are a vital
    component of the immune system, and are always associated with immune system
    activity. In other words, with every ‘non cancerous’ situation, the enlarged lymph nodes
    indicates that the immune system is active and fulfilling its function. Yet we are told, in
    episodes of cancer, although it is acknowledged that the lymph nodes are active, the
    immune system is thought to remain inactive. The bewilderment that this event creates is
    made evident when we read the scientific explanation that attempts to account for why
    the immune system sits idle while the events that it is designed to prevent, take place in
    its domain. This anomaly has never been adequately addressed. It is not logical to accept
    that the immune system is doing nothing. A more credible explanation for this
    phenomena could be that instead of the immune system doing nothing, we may want to
    consider the possibility that the immune system is doing everything. This is not as bizarre
    as it sounds since all of the characteristics of the cancerous activity, also happen to be
    normal immune system functions.
    We need to first acknowledge that the immune system has three distinct components;
    i) to ‘identify’ foreign antigens that are deemed to be ‘enemies of the body’
    ii) to ‘destroy’ these enemies of the body; and
    iii) to ‘repair’ any damage that may have occurred during this onslaught.
    This theory will be re-examining the chronic irritation theory by focusing on this ‘repair’
    aspect of the immune system, which expressed simply, is the bodies ability to promote
    rapid cell division (the formation of scar tissue) to quickly heal over breaks, wounds or
    openings in the skin. The mechanism that starts this process is triggered when the body
    experiences some form of trauma. A mechanism must also be in place to inform the body
    of when the healing process has been completed. That is to say, the body must be made to
    know when the rapid formation of scar tissue is no longer required. If this process of
    repairing a wound is set in motion, there must also be some form of mechanism to inform
    the immune system as to when to cease this activity. It doesn’t require too much
    imagination to realize that the inability to shut off this repair process, would result in a
    situation similar to that which we presently attribute to cancer. For example, a trauma to
    the breast would trigger the immune response of repairing any tissues that may have been
    damaged. If the immune system lacked the ability to know when this process was
    completed, it would go on to repair the tissues in the breast, and a tumor resembling the
    scar tissue process(firmer density, different collagen alignment, different pigment, etc.)
    would be the result. Similarly, if this healing process were to begin without there first
    being a requirement for it, then this too would result in an activity that could only be
    described as cancerous.
    Since there are two distinct ways in which a cell can be reproduced, we should be
    considering both of these scenarios as possible explanations that might be the cause when
    something goes wrong. Thus far, only the DNA model has been investigated as being the
    cause of this affliction. This article will now examine scar tissue as a possible cause of
    this non-requested cell replacement that we call ‘cancer’.
    The immune system has in its arsenal, the ability to inflame an area with increased blood
    flow, and stimulate the neighboring cells into rapidly reproducing themselves, in order to
    quickly seal over an opening in the skin, which stops blood loss and prevent foreign
    antigens from entering the body by way of this new opening. This process is set in motion
    when the body experiences some form of trauma. When we analyze this activity more
    closely, we notice that there are similarities between cancerous activity; and the
    inflammation and formation of scare tissue. When we can readily observe scar tissue, as
    in the case of skin surface scars, we can readily detect that this is an altered form from
    that of the surrounding tissue. Because it was manufactured rapidly, and by a different
    process than that of normal tissue replacement (normal cell division, as outlined in that
    cell’s DNA), it has different characteristics. For example, scar tissue made from skin
    cells has a distinct appearance with a smoother surface, firmer density, (described as a
    waxy appearance) and a different pigment from that of the surrounding tissue. A clinical
    definition is as follows:

    Scar tissue formation is a ubiquitous feature of adult wound healing, with the resulting
    repair both functionally and cosmetically inferior to normal skin. At microscopic level,
    the main difference between scar and normal tissue is in the alignment pattern of the
    collagen fibers of which they are composed.
    www.google.com final report on Grant GR/K71394
    Mathematical Model of Scar Tissue
    This excerpt acknowledges that there are indeed two distinct ways that a cell can be
    reproduced. Firstly, by the well understood way of the cell’s natural means of replicating
    itself as outlined in the cell’s DNA code, which is referred to above as ‘normal’ cell
    replacement, and secondly, by a less obvious, and less understood process whereas the
    bodies immune system triggers the cells into this slightly altered scar tissue. Note that this
    second means of cell replacement (scar tissue) is described as “functionally and
    cosmetically inferior”. The rapid growth, and the inferior quality of tissues are two
    attributes shared by both the tissues manufactured by the immune system, and the tissues
    manufactured by cancer cells. The primary means of cell replacement does not have
    attributed these inferior qualities that the immune system replacement method has. In
    fact, the purpose of a ‘Burn Unit’ is to hinder the bodies tendency to rapidly heal over the
    burned area with scar tissue, when the trauma of a burn has set off this immune response,
    and allow the slower process (but cosmetically superior) of natural cell replacement to
    have enough time to heal the area.
    The easiest cancers to observe are the surface cancers. Notice that Basil Cell
    Carcinoma has all of the characteristics of scar tissue (smother, denser, waxy.). This
    common skin cancer could conversely be described as a slow formation of scar tissue that
    is both unnecessary, and unyielding. This cancer is not considered to be a dangerous
    cancer because it is slow growing and easily removed surgically. With this new model,
    we could regard this cancer to be different in that; although it has the cell division
    element,( cells being divided by either faulty DNA, or a faulty immune system) it does
    not have the accompanying blood supply (inflammation) which is necessary to support
    the existence of these newly formed cells. Note that the shape of the basil cell carcinoma
    would indicate that it can only grow to a size that can be supported by the existing blood
    supply, and as it grows, the center cells cannot receive oxygen or nutrients, and as a
    result, these center cells die off, leaving a hollow in the middle. If this tumor were to have
    its own blood supply, it would become considerably more dangerous.
    Both the original ‘chronic irritation theory’, and the ‘embryological remnant theory’
    are able to adequately account for the cancer cells having shared characteristics from the
    ‘host’ cells, however the latter theory becomes much more complex by virtue of the fact
    that it must also account for the modification of the existing blood supply. The chronic
    irritation theory, (which herein will be called the Scare Tissue Theory,) is not required to
    account for the accompanying increased blood supply, because the same elements that
    brought about the reproduction of the cells, also caused the accompanying blood supply
    (inflammation). Both of these events are normal functions of the immune system
    responding to a trauma. The embryological remnant theory, (herein called the DNA
    theory,) must further account for the presence of the accompanying blood flow to support
    the life of these newly generated cells. I can imagine how the DNA of an individual cell
    might go astray, and start to reproduce itself repeatedly, but would it not be logical to
    assume that this event should be limited to grow only to the size that could be supported
    by the existing blood supply? It should yield a ‘pea’ sized growth. The scientific
    community acknowledges the need to address the blood supply issue, and with great
    difficulty they have theorized a complex chain of events that is both mathematically and
    logically absurd. If this chain of events were to occur, the first step would be the cell
    replicating itself. It is reasonable to expect that there would be a number of occurrences in
    which this chain of events did not complete itself. That is to say, there should be
    occurrences in which the cell did reproduce itself, but the accompanying blood supply did
    not happen. There are instances when this does occur, however mathematically, we
    should all be riddled with small pea sized lumps, if every occurrence of a cancerous
    tumor represented the minute fraction of cases in which the spontaneous cell reproduction
    also had the development of a corresponding blood supply. When you 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, you would wonder about the mathematical likelihood of this occurring even
    once. It requires much less credence to simply hold that the immune system is causing the
    lawless proliferation of growth, (since it is its job to do so,) and the immune system is
    also supplying the essential blood supply to support this new growth, by way of
    ‘inflammation’. If we make this simple adjustment in our model for explaining cancer,
    (by taking the blame away from the individual cell’s DNA, and placing the blame on the
    immune system as a whole, or more specifically, the repair aspect of our immune system,)
    then we clarify things immensely. This phenomena then becomes a candidate to apply
    ‘Ockham’s razor’. Why employ a complex set of beliefs when a simple explanation
    already exists? Unexplainable events become, for the first time explainable. We now will
    not have to address why the immune system makes no attempts at attacking the cancer
    cells. If the cancer were to be shown to be a legitimate product of a defective immune
    system, we would not expect these cells to be attacked. It should be included here that the
    only occasion in which our immune system permits the existence of any non-legitimate
    cells in its domain, is when the foreign cells are from an identical twin. To explain why
    cancer is being left alone, the scientific community has had to resort to a multitude of
    special events taking place. We are told that these cancer cells take on an ‘immortal’
    status, and acquire the ability to ‘disguise’ themselves, and ‘recruit allies’ in there
    defense, and a multitude of other special powers that are attributed only to cancer cells.
    The belief that cancer cells somehow become unrecognizable by the immune system is a
    necessary stratagem of the present DNA theory. To give credence to the concept that
    some cells are unrecognizable to the immune system, we could phrase this phenomena to
    read; “ cells from an identical twin are unrecognizable to the immune system.” We would
    then have at least one natural occurrence of this ‘unrecognizable’ phenomenon. But this
    begs the question, why? The answer I believe is intuitive. These cells go unrecognized
    because they have the same characteristics as the bodies own cells, and therefor the
    immune system lacks the ability to distinguish these foreign cells from the body’s own
    cells. Therefore it could be concluded that since cancer cells are also treated in a like
    manor to cells that are not recognized as being different, then they too are deemed to be
    not foreign. To say that they are not foreign, is equivalent to saying that they are
    domestic, or rather, a legitimate part of the body. If there were other occurrences in which
    living cells were granted the same privileges as the cancer cells, then this conclusion
    would not be as incontestable. Since there are no other occurrences (outside of an
    identical twin) in which this phenomena can be observed to occur, then I feel that this
    conclusion is warranted, namely that cancer cells are a legitimate product of the body, and
    their function asserts that they are a part of our immune system. If we do not yield this
    point, then we are still faced with having to explain why our immune systems leave the
    cancer cells alone. Similarly, we would still be faced with the burden of accounting for
    how cancer manages to travel throughout the body and take up residence in a new
    location, without being detected or encountering resistance along the way. If we accept
    the cancer cell as being a legitimate body cell, all these perplexing problems go away. We
    would no longer have to consider how cancer spreads from one cell to another, or how it
    overcomes the multitude of safeguards that the body has in place to prevent the sporadic
    mutation of cells, and the proliferation of this defect into neighboring cells. Cancer
    becomes much simpler (and mathematically feasible ) when we adapt this new
    framework.
    The immune system can make scar tissue by dividing cells from tissues other then the
    skin cells. The immune system repairs broken bones by rapidly stimulating the
    regeneration of bone mass at the break site. Similarly, muscle tissue, tendons, or cartilage
    tissue can undergo this immune systems rapid repair process. Again this scar tissue is
    different from the original tissue. In fact, the body has over 200 different types of cells, so
    in theory there could be, and probably are, over 200 different types of scar tissue.
    Under this new theory, we can view cancer cells as an integral part of the immune system,
    similar in nature to the B cells , T cells or natural killer cells, but with a different
    function. Whereas the B cells are involved in the ‘identify’ process, and the T cells and
    natural killer cells are involved in the ‘destroy’ process, the cancer cells function is in the
    ‘repair’ aspect of the immune system, specifically the formation of scar tissues. It copies
    the surrounding tissue, and then making copies of the copies, until the wound is
    impervious. With over 200 different types of cells, there is a potential for that many
    different cancer types. To date, just over 100 cancers have been documented. If we use
    this new model to describe Proteus Syndrome (i.e.. Joseph Merrick known as the
    Elephant Man) as the immune system starting to relentlessly reproduce the bone mass in
    some individuals, then this too might be categorized as a cancer. I believe that the same
    elements are at work that cause this disease as are any cancerous tumors. But because this
    disease effects the skeletal system , and has no adverse effect on any vital organs, or their
    blood supply, it has never resulted in a direct cause of death, and therefore has avoided
    being labeled as a cancer. Another disease that I believe has avoided the classification are
    some forms of heart disease and strokes. It is reasonable to expect from what we know
    about cancer, that there should be incidents 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, nor have we needed the term ‘heart cancer’. Using this new model, I would
    deduce that the same element exist in heart disease, as in cancer. Hardening of the arteries
    would be accounted for by the immune system repairing the cells of the artery walls with
    the formation of scar tissue. Similarly, scaring can be observed in many of the heart attack
    victims. Post mortems and biopsies of heart attack victims have shown that there is 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. It is of interest to note that myocardial
    infarction (heart attacks) were rare at the start of the twentieth century; as was cancer.
    According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, heart attacks caused less then three thousand
    deaths in the United States as late as the year 1930. Your lifetime risk of developing heart
    disease now is one in two if you are male and one in three if you are female. It would
    therefor be logical to entertain the possibility that whatever is causing our cancer statistics
    to skyrocket, might also be contributing to, or causing these escalating heart disease
    statistics. If we adapt this new ‘scar tissue theory ‘, then both of these anomalies become
    grouped together, and are construed as one disease.

    One could point out that cancer activity can be clinically observed. If it were in fact, a
    normal body function, then how come it shows up on tests designed to indicate cancerous
    activity? In most cases, the cancer tests show thermal heat being generated. This “heat”
    being generated, is then interpreted as the immune system battling with the foreign
    carcinogen that is believed to be causing the cancer.( As to why this ‘battle’ did not take
    place previously while the carcinogen journeyed to the present post, is dismissed as a
    ‘mystery’.) However; it could be viewed that this ‘heat’ is not from a fight, but rather, a
    bi-product of the unauthorized work that is taking place by this arm of the immune
    system; namely the cancer cells stimulating the rapid cell division and inflaming the area
    with increased blood flow (the lifeblood of these new cells that are being created.). If
    there were no activity, the area would operate at body temperature, and register as cold
    (not register). It is never observed that a foreign antigen is present. Every cell that can be
    observed in the cancerous area is legitimate. Yet the present explanation for cancer is that
    some type of antigen has journeyed to this location and is causing the DNA of these cells
    to lawlessly divide. But neither of these phenomena (the antigen or the cancer cells
    themselves) has ever been observed as it flows through the body. The cancer activity can
    only be observed when it takes up residency and starts to inflame and stimulate the cell
    division in a new area. Under the DNA model, if this ‘heat’ was in fact the immune
    system objecting to the presence of a foreign antigen, then we could expect to be able to
    follow this reaction (between the antigen and the immune system objecting to its
    presence) along its route, and not just when it materializes at a new site. Why would the
    immune system wait until this antigen stopped at a location in the body, before it begins
    to object to the antigen’s presence? The inability to explain why cancer can travel
    undetected, is a major defect in the present DNA model. It is not reasonable to accept that
    the antigen too, is given the same superpowers and abilities that are awarded to the cancer
    cells themselves, in order to avoid detection. The DNA model does not address this
    anomaly. In fact, when you probe more deeply, one must question the need for a ‘cancer
    cell’ at all in the DNA model. If the antigen is causing the proliferation of the cell’s DNA
    to suddenly mutate, then there is no role for the cancer cell. This tumor growth has
    already been accounted for. The existence of the cancer cells is acknowledged, only
    because they can be observed. They are attributed with the task of spreading this DNA
    flaw to the surrounding tissue cells. As to why the cancer cells are there, the present DNA
    model has conceded that they have always been there, and they are in all of us. On these
    two points, I would agree, but with this new model, these two points become inferences
    of the original theory. Under the DNA model, the reason for the cancer cell is not fully
    explained. This is more or less an acknowledgment that the cancer cell exists, and then
    assigning it with a function. Is there a difference between the cancer cell, whose presence
    and existence has not fully been accounted for, and the repair aspect of the immune
    system, whose presence and existence has fully been accounted for? The immune system
    is a legitimate part of the body with a specific function. The cancer cell is reluctantly also
    acknowledged as legitimate (because to account for how it spontaneously came into being
    without being able to say that it always was there, is too incomprehensible). The cancer
    cell is deemed to be fulfilling the same function as the repair aspect of the immune
    system. If there is no distinction, then there is no need for both terms. We could therefor
    regard the term ‘cancer’ to represent when something goes wrong with the immune
    system’s repair aspect. Specifically, when the system fails to ascertain that the repair is
    required, or when the system fails to ascertain that the repair is completed and therefor no
    longer required. When the immune system starts to relentlessly divide the surrounding
    tissues, without this event first being deemed to be necessary, then this would become a
    phenomenon that would be labeled as cancer. If it repairs a wound, and doesn’t stop, then
    this too is cancer. This phenomenon can be observed in thyroid cancer patients. Often the
    thyroid is completely removed, yet the patient has recurrences of tumor growth at the site
    previously occupied by the thyroid. The most plausible explanation for this is that, after
    the faulty immune system has healed over the surgical cut made to remove the thyroid, it
    simply does not stop repairing the tissues at this site and as a result, there is the formation
    of a new tumor made solely of fibrosis tissues (since the thyroid tissue had previously
    been removed). These tumors cannot be detected by the iodine method which was used to
    detect the original thyroid cancer, because the fibrous tissue has different properties then
    the thyroid tissue, and does not absorb the iodine. The failure of the radioactive iodine to
    detect this new growth is proof that this is not a reoccurrence of the original thyroid
    cancer. This is a continuation of the faulty immune system which has not been addressed
    by surgically removing the thyroid. There is an important distinction to be made here. Did
    the tumor produce the cancer, or did the cancer produced the tumor. Note that it was
    earlier pointed out that the present DNA model holds that an antigen causes the lawless
    proliferation of cells. Under the present DNA model, I can appreciate that the objective of
    removing the tumor, is to rid the body of the offending cancer cells as well (and any
    carcinogens that might be at the site). This objective can only be achieved so long as the
    premise holds true that the cancer is contained within the boundaries of the tumor. If
    these faulty tissues contain the cancer cells that made them, then by removing these
    tissues, should render the patient cured, and with the same bill of health as someone
    whom had never acquired the disease. Unfortunately the evidence does not support this,
    and gives rise to questioning the original premise; which holds that the cancer is
    contained within the cells themselves. When medical professionals discovers an active
    tumor being produced, they may opt to surgically remove the tumor and the offending
    cancer cells that made it (excision biopsy). As this radical surgery has not yielded the
    desired success rates, the medical profession has expanded the scope of the surgery to
    include the surrounding tissues (margin), believing that this tissue might also contain
    some stray cancer cells. They test this removed tissue and may confirm that it too was
    cancerous. They then close up the wound and hope that they have managed to remove all
    of the cancerous tissue. Now they must wait until the immune system has had time to
    heal up the surgical wound before testing the area, because the activity of the
    inflammatory nature of the healing process will read as ‘hot’. We then have the defective
    immune system, which may turn out to have caused the tumor to begin with, being
    invited back to the site, and being expected to heal up this surgical cut. Healing is what
    the immune system does. Therefore, this is an exercise for it. Often, the immune system
    heals over the surgery and then stops. The surgery was a success. Sometimes, however;
    the immune system doesn’t stop. The immune system continues to produce scar tissue,
    and rapidly divide the adjoining tissues without receiving the message that the task has
    been completed. The poor surgeon is mystified that he or she could have missed some of
    the cancer cells, and now they appear to have merely taken up where they left off. This
    patient, now rid of the offending tissues, should mathematically be given the same bill of
    health as a non patient. But the statistics do not support this optimistic outlook. Quite
    often, the cancer patient who undergo surgery, have recurrences. The apparent failure of
    the surgery has given birth to the suspicions that exposing the cancerous tissue to the air,
    helps it to spread. Or exposing the cancer to the light of the Operating Room, perhaps, is
    what causes it to flourish. Exposing the cancer to the light and air is a byproduct of the
    fact that these cells have been operated on, and as a result, the immune system is
    re-invited back to the region to repair the surgical wound. The suppositions that the light
    or air has anything to do with any reoccurrence can be dismissed because surgeries that
    are performed on patients who have not been diagnosed with cancer, are not subject to
    similar reoccurrence of tumors, despite also being subjected to the light and air.
    Even the supporters of the DNA model, acknowledge that cancer cells are in all of us,
    because the ‘spontaneous existence of matter’ is a hard sell. Even if we attributed this
    reaction to the light or air as two more mystical features enjoyed only by cancer cells, we
    would still need to account for why every surgery was not subject to the same level of
    reoccurrence. The non cancerous patients have properly functioning immune systems
    which still have the ability of knowing when to stop the healing process. In the cases of
    cancer patients, since the immune system may have already shown to be defective, it
    should not be surprising to find out that sometimes it does turn out to inflict the area with
    a new cluster of cancerous activity, despite how diligent and careful the surgeon had
    performed.
    Biopsies are tests that examine the cell structure at a tumor site. From the removed
    cells the medical professional can determine whether this tissue is currently undergoing
    non requested cell division, or whether it had previously undergone cell division.
    Cold-Hot ; Inactive-active; benign-malignant. These are the differences between non
    life-threatening benign tumors, and life-threatening malignant tumors, specifically one is
    active (cancerous) and one is benign (scar tissue). The benign scar tissue has already been
    manufactured by the immune system, and is now dormant. Everyone freely accepts that
    the inactive scar tissue was previously manufactured by the immune system. It should
    therefore be easy to accept that cancer, or active scar tissue, or perhaps ‘runaway scar
    tissue’, is currently being manufactured by the immune system, though be it a defective
    one. The immune system accepts this benign tumor (or malignant tumor, if it is currently
    undergoing development) as part of the ‘self’, because it possesses all the characteristics
    of the legitimate body cells. This point could also be used to explain why the bodies own
    immune system is useless against fighting cancer, which in turn makes sense of the fact
    that all attempts to employ the immune system into attacking the cancer cells have thus
    far failed. The cancer cells that created the tumor, and then stopped, have either been
    reclaimed by the immune system, and may function normally in the future, or they may
    resume there non- requested work in the future, or perhaps travel to another part of the
    body and start to stimulate cell division at a new location.
    When the immune system is healthy and functioning properly, these cancer cells are
    kept at bay and in harmonious balance with the rest of the system (identify and destroy),
    so most of us live out our lives oblivious to their presence. It is only when something
    goes astray that we come to know of their existence. Thus, cancer cells have the
    connotation of being ‘bad’.
    This model does not yet attempt to account for the various forms of cancer that a
    defective immune system may opt to take. Why does the defective immune system start to
    randomly multiply the tissues of the breast in some individuals, and the lung tissue in
    others? In order for us to address this anomaly, we need to recognize that there are
    different types of tissues in the body, and the observable data supports that some of these
    tissue types are easier then others for a defective immune system to stimulate into
    unnecessary formation of scar tissue. The evidence tends to support that there is a
    hierarchy amongst tissue types. The evidence also tends to support that the cancer activity
    takes place where the immune system happens to be located. Although the immune
    system is free to be located throughout the body, due to its function it tends to be in
    higher concentrations on the surface and near body orifices in adults. The immune system
    is designed to protect the body from foreign antigens (carcinogens). A carcinogen can
    enter the body in one of two possible ways, either through the skin, or through an opening
    in the skin. The skin is the body’s largest organ, and the immune system must be located
    throughout this organ to defend the body from carcinogens that try to enter by way of this
    route. In many cultures, skin cancer is the #1 form of cancer. If a carcinogen is to enter
    the body, and cannot do so by way of the skin, it must then do so by way of one of the
    bodies orifices. When you consider that the lungs are subjected to the outside world with
    every breath that we take, it would be understandable that this organ, too would require
    an intense presence of the immune system’s arsenal of defenses. The lung takes its
    rightful place in the #2 position of likely locations for cancerous activity. We then move
    down the list of the various body orifices, all of which require defending by the immune
    system. Another tissue type that has shown to be amongst the easier tissues to mutate is
    the mucus membrane tissue. These tissues are located through out the body, but this
    tissue is not located arbitrarily throughout the body. Notice that polyps that grow out of
    the mucus membrane tissue, only grow on this specialized tissues that are always located
    adjacent to a body orifice. All of the body orifices have adjacent mucus membrane tissues
    which house the immune systems defense mechanism (‘T’ cells, ‘B’ cells, natural Killer
    cells etc.). The existence of polyps is often observed at these sites (adjacent to body
    orifices, we find Colon polyps, Esophageal polyps, Endometrial polyps, nasal etc.). I am
    not clear as to weather these polyps are normal immune system tools, or a sign of
    something going amiss. Different cultures have different rankings as to the various cancer
    types associated with the various orifices, however there is a noticeable correlation
    between cancer and the positioning of the immune systems defense mechanisms. The
    female breast is not an orifice to the outside world until the woman reaches puberty. Thus
    this portal does not require an immune system defense until this time. This is precisely
    why pre-pubescent breast cancer is as scarce as male breast cancer. Once the woman
    reaches adulthood, however, this new orifice requires the presence of the immune systems
    defense mechanism as much as the other orifices. It is worth mentioning that oral
    contraceptives have been linked to breast cancer. Oral contraceptives are a method of
    birth control that works by chemically ‘tricking’ the body into not ovulating by supplying
    hormones that cause the body to behave as though it were already pregnant. When the
    body behaves as though it is pregnant, it makes a number of changes, one of which is to
    prepare the breast for nursing. This then becomes an orifice that requires a defense
    strategy from the immune system, because it is now a new portal to the outside world. If
    the immune system is defective, and takes up residency at this new location, then by using
    this model, we can now understand how the oral contraceptive could have ‘caused ‘ the
    breast cancer. This relationship can not be explained using the DNA model.
    The present DNA model does not account for the differences in childhood cancers and
    adult cancers. What is more troubling is the fact that the DNA model can not, and will
    never be able to account for these differences. Our DNA does not change from childhood
    to adulthood, but the list of cancers that can affect us certainly does. This point alone,
    causes me to believe that the answers to this disturbing paradox will ultimately be found
    outside of the DNA model. To look more closely at our immune systems (the only other
    means by which a cell can be reproduced) makes complete sense to me.
    The internal organs that do not have a direct association with a body orifice, have
    rates of cancer that are far down the list of likely tissues to come under attack from
    cancerous activity. This is understandable using this new model when you consider that
    the immune system would have a smaller presence at these locations. This phenomena
    can be best observed by studying childhood cancers. We need to also recognize that the
    immune system would exist in infants, but would have to be located deep inside the
    infant, as any presence of the immune system that were located on the surface, would be
    forced by design to attack the foreign tissues that surrounded it in the womb.(recall that
    the only instance when the immune system accepts the existence of a foreign cell, is when
    it is from an identical twin. Thus even the surrounding tissues of the womb would be
    subject to being rejected. The mothers system produced the cells of the fetus, so these
    would not be identified as foreign.) It could also be that there is no call for the immune
    system at the surface of newborns because the mothers immune system has previously
    dealt with any and all foreign antigens. In either case, it appears that the immune system
    is not located on the surface of an infant, but has a tendency to ‘migrate’ from the center
    of the trunk of the body at birth, to the perimeter (skin and orifices) as the immune system
    develops. This helps to explain why there is a list of over one hundred rare cancers that,
    for the most part have only been observed in children. Infants and toddlers have an
    immune system that is both undeveloped, and not yet assigned specific functions. This
    undeveloped immune system would not have a tendency to be directed towards any
    specific tissues at the beginning of the child’s life. If a defective immune system were to
    exist in this child, and the immune system were not located on the surface, it would be
    expected to arbitrarily start to reproduce any tissue that it came into contact with. This
    would account for the list of over one hundred strange sounding tissue types that can
    come under attack only in childhood cancer cases. As toddlers become older, this long list
    becomes shorter, and the tissue types that can come under attack become more refined.
    Eventually the list of over one hundred is reduced to a shorter list of familiar sounding
    names, and as a result the majority of all childhood cancers fall into one of two
    categories; leukemia, or brain tumors. (Note that the childhood cancers still do not have
    the orifice association that is prevalent in adult cancers.)
    I will address how leukemia and brain cancer fit into this theory later.
    DNA defects could play a role in some individuals immune systems being more prone
    to defect then others, however if this was a genetic defect, I would expect it to be self
    correcting, by causing the carriers of the defect to parish prior to being of age to
    reproduce themselves. Since cancer appears to be more of a modern epidemic, I tend
    to lean towards the belief that it is something that we are doing to ourselves in modern
    times that is causing it (specifically, this modern tendency to ‘assist’ our immune
    systems.).
    We now need to modify this new model to include a provision that points out that
    cancer appears to be an ‘opportunistic disease’(2*). That is to say, the immune system
    will ‘pick- on’ or stimulate the tissue that it finds to be the easiest tissue to do so with.
    This revision allows us to move on to understand many of the other anomalies
    surrounding this disease. We can now look at the various links (environmental links;
    lifestyle links; heredity links; etc.) as carcinogens that either promote a tissue type
    towards being the easiest tissue from which the defective immune system can operate on,
    or the link may demote a certain tissue away from being the likely candidate from which
    the defective immune system can operate. Tobacco smoke, or asbestos dust have been
    linked to cancer of the mouth, esophagus and lung. Using this new model we can view
    these tissues as having been chemically weakened by these carcinogens, and now
    represent the easiest forms of tissue that this individual is in possession of. If this
    individual also possesses the requisite faulty immune system, then this person will get
    cancer, and it will be cancer of one or more of these weakened tissues. Conversely, a high
    fiber diet has been linked to a decrease in the number of colon, prostate and bowel cancer
    patients. Using this new model we can view the high fiber diet as having physically
    strengthened the tissues in this region away from being the easiest tissue from which the
    defective immune system can operate.
    This hierarchy of tissue types tends to show that our melanin cells appears to be one of
    the easiest cells from which a defective immune system can wreck havoc. One of the best
    ways to demonstrate this principle, is to look closely at malignant melanoma (3*)
    One of the most bizarre anomalies in my opinion, is in regards to melanoma. Melanoma
    has been linked to sun damage, and yet it is 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 surface tissues that do not posses the
    darker pigment, and due to their location, these cases of cancer could not be caused from
    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 adapted 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 then their melanin, which
    are easier for their immune system to stimulate. Or if the cancer does choose to divide the
    melanin cells, it will be the tissues that do not poses this modification(palms of hand, sole
    of foot, etc.).
    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 we would expect, mathematically, that the numbers would have to be made
    up for, in other forms of cancer. We see a prim example of this theoretical prediction by
    examining cancer in African Americans. They 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 can not 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. Similar anomalies have been observed in American Indians, Hispanics, and
    Asian/Pacific Island minorities. It has been acknowledged statistically that these groups
    all smoke less cigarettes per day then there White counterparts, yet these groups all have
    alarmingly higher incidents of lung disease, and lung cancer. No justifiable explanation is
    offered by the present DNA model for this anomaly. The explanation that perceptively
    follows from this new model, makes far more sense to me. Prior to this new model, we
    were at a loss as to how to account for the vast discrepancies in these numbers. I would
    expect that this phenomena could be observed by viewing statistics between Australians,
    and Aborigines as well. Consider the plight of the Australians. Here we have a culture of
    displaced Europeans who were originally placed there as a penal colony. They do not
    posses 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 Caucasians is coming more and more under heavy
    attack. This trend can also be observed by studying the cancers of Northern Europe and
    comparing these to 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 principle can be applied across
    the board in explaining why some types of cancer are more rare then others. The rarer
    forms of cancer have a cell structure that is more difficult for the immune system to
    stimulate into scar tissue.
    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. I will now attempt to explain how childhood leukemia and brain cancer fit into
    this new model.
    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. An infant boy starts out at 6 pounds, and 18 years later he weighs 180
    pounds. Thus each pound of mass must multiply itself approximately 30 times. 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, undoubtedly as a result of 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 scare tissue when a similar wound is
    received by a child, due to this phenomenon.) 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 reenter the kidney and liver at the other end of the loop.
    These individual white blood cells begin there 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. Since all the other cells in this adolescent are undergoing intense
    development, these are the cells that 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 30 times, for all other tissues). This fact means that the development of the
    brain tissue is considerably slower, or less intense then the development of the rest of the
    body tissues. This helps us to understand why childhood brain tumors are the principal
    form of cancer of a solid mass. 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 vast
    majority of all childhood cancers.
    If it does turn out to be a defective immune system that is causing cancer, and not some
    environmental agent, as is the present focus, then it should be possible to show a concrete
    ‘cause-effect’ relationship between cancer and a defective immune system. A concrete
    relationship has thus far proven to be impossible using the present model for cancer.
    Under the new model, it would be predicted that a concrete relationship could not be
    found using the present DNA model, because it is missing half of the equation. They will
    only be able to compile lists of suspected cancer causing substances and activities. To
    defend the tobacco industry, a lawyer needs merely to produce one or more ‘healthy’
    individual, all of whom have smoked for a long period of time, in order to show that
    there is not a concrete relationship between their product and cancer. It will always be
    possible to find a healthy smoker, or a healthy asbestos miner. If however, this healthy
    individual were to have their immune system become weak (the other half of the
    equation), the resulting maverick cancer cells are most apt to attack the weakened lung
    tissues of this individual (thus showing further support to an identified link to cancer).
    Therefore, tobacco becomes an environmental ‘link’ that has been shown to cause cancer
    in some individuals. Smoking cigarettes does not guarantee that you will get lung cancer.
    Sun-tanning does not guarantee that you will get skin cancer. But as was stated earlier,
    while the list of ‘links’ to cancer becomes longer, there is no real progress being made.
    Immunosuppressant medications are the exception to this, and this fact lends itself
    beautifully to add support to the theory that the immune system contains the cancer cells,
    and is responsible for cancerous activity. These medications were developed to
    intentionally decrease the effect of the immune system in organ transplant patents, so that
    the bodies defense mechanism would not attack (reject) the foreign tissue. If the patient
    survives the transplant operation, and overcomes the rejection, they will live longer lives
    then they would have, had they not had the transplant operation. However, the transplant
    patient will ultimately succumb to a bout with cancer. This phenomenon has scientists
    struggling for an explanation:

    “Scientists believe transplant recipients were already at risk for cancer because their
    weakened immune system could not keep healthy cells from becoming malignant”.

    “ The use of immunosuppressants(cyclosporine) increases the chance cancer cells will
    divide and invade surrounding tissue. However it is not clear if cyclosporine can change
    normal cells into cancer cells researchers say”
    web search for ‘organ transplants’
    Organ Transplant Drug Increases Cancer Risk
    Friday, Feb.12, 1999

    Here we have a conclusive ‘link’ between cancer cells, and immunosuppressants
    (tampering with, or weakening the immune system). Thus we find that a deliberately
    weakened immune system will doubtlessly, cause the patient to succumb to cancer.(4*) It
    would be anticipated that this fact is what scientists have been yearning for.
    This phenomenon begs the question; If a weakened immune system has been shown to
    causes cancer, would it not therefor follow that a strengthened immune system, should
    overcome, or at least prevent cancer? This incident clearly establishes that there is a
    cause-effect relationship between cancer and a weakened immune system, and by using
    this new model for explaining cancer, we would predict that by creating a defective
    immune system, we can expect that some form of cancer will result. All the other ‘links’
    and ‘markers’ merely help to ascertain which of the numerous types of cancer the patient
    is likely going to acquire. That is to say, the numerous lifestyle links, environmental links,
    and dietary links all have a tendency to either promote, or demote, any given tissue in the
    body, towards, or away from cancerous activity. I believe that these patients were
    pre-determined to obtain cancer merely by having an immune system that had lost control
    over their cancer cells. Regrettably, it then became only a question of which type of
    cancer they would ultimately acquire. If colon cancer can be averted by implementing a
    high fiber diet, then I believe that this is merely a pyretic victory. The patient who avoids
    colon cancer by eating a high fiber diet, will unfortunately succumb to some other type of
    cancer, if they already posses the requisite weakened immune system, and do nothing to
    change this. Again, the evidence tends to support this belief, which has led to the
    dilemma whereby doctors manage to overcome one type of cancer, only to have the
    patient succumb to another type. Often this phenomenon has been dismissed similar to a
    child who acquires wills’ tumors. That is to say, the patient was merely allowed to live
    longer, and thus was permitted the time necessary to acquire some other type of cancer
    (blind optimism on the defense). Some changes in life style and life habits would become
    necessary. To go into surgery and have the offensive tissues removed, or attacked by
    radiation and/or poison, and then return to living as before, is not producing impressive
    statistics. It is ludicrous to think that one could continue to keep on doing the same old
    things and then expect to get different results.

    I believe that the real problem is that the doctors and scientists are devoting their efforts
    in treating the attacked tissues, while ignoring what is attacking them, namely the
    immune system itself. It is of interest to note here that the two treatments which have thus
    far shown to be the most promising in the fight against cancer have been chemotherapy,
    and radiation therapy. But with our present definitions and the role we have assigned to
    the immune system, it makes no sense at all to use chemotherapy and other treatments
    that damage cells and tear down and weaken the immune system if we believe the cancer
    is a result of this system already being too weak. But inarguably, these methods have
    shown to be the two most promising weapons known to modern science in the fight
    against cancer.

    Aside from being the most successful treatments, these two strategies have one other
    thing in common, and one thing that differentiates them from all the other cancer
    treatments. The one thing they have in common is that neither treatment makes any
    attempt at employing the immune system to help with the attack on the cancer cells.
    These treatments attack the cancer cells themselves, directly. This is also the one thing
    that differentiates these (most successful) treatments from all the others. All other
    treatments attempt to trigger the immune system into attacking the cancer. They all try to
    stimulate; enhance, activate, invigorate, boost, assist, etc., the immune system. With our
    present definition of the disease ‘cancer’, and the role we have attributed the immune
    system to be performing, it is rational to expect that a cure would come from finding a
    way to arouse or provoke the immune system to go after these rogue cancer cells. But if
    the cancer cells are a part of the immune system, it becomes easy to see why all these
    attempts have so far failed, and why the attempts that do not involve the immune system
    have shown to be the most promising.
    Since the illogical approach is succeeding where the logical approach has failed, we
    need to question the original premises and definitions, or question the concept of logic
    itself.
    I believe we will not discover a cure for cancer, so long as our efforts are focused on
    employing the immune system to attack itself. The immune system is designed to
    ‘recognize’ and not attack itself. Perhaps this explains why there are presently only
    treatments for cancer, and not yet any cures.
    It is acknowledged that cancer is a modern disease. Although there are incidences of
    cancers being documented a hundred or more years ago, they were a rare occurrence.
    Thus most inquiries into the causation have been limited to modern tendencies. Science
    has looked at an overload of toxins, pollutants, stress, poor quality and wrong types of
    food, food additives, food processes, electromagnetic stress, lights and just about
    anything that wasn’t around a few hundred years ago. It is presently believed that all these
    things combined, have weakened the immune system and altered internal body
    conditions, clearing the way for cancer to develop. I will presume that all of these
    subjects have been studied exhaustively, and therefor do not need to be further looked at
    here. But the one thing that has avoided being studied, and is most definitely a modern
    phenomenon, is our treatment of the immune system itself.

    It is conceivable to think that the many labor saving devices that we enjoy today,
    have lead to our muscular system being weaker then those of our ancestors. The remote
    control for a television set, saves the operator the task of having to get up to change the
    channel. The price that is paid, is less exercise, and therefore a weaker muscular system
    then if the person did not have this labor saving devise. Any ‘labor saving devise’, by
    definition, saves labor, and thus evades the exercise that otherwise would have occurred.
    In a similar manner, we could consider pharmaceutical medications as ‘labor saving
    devices’ for our immune system, which have lead to our immune system being weaker
    then those of our ancestors. Modern pharmaceuticals are the one thing that has avoided
    being studied, primarily because such studies into the causation of diseases are conducted
    and financed by the pharmaceutical industry. I do not wish to sound like an alarmist, with
    yet another ‘conspiracy theory’, but realistically, 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. I believe that it is this failure or refusal to fully develop our
    immune systems, which has led to this modern epidemic of cancer patients. Our modern
    Western Society has led us to believe that we are doing ourselves a favor by ‘treating’ our
    bodies to these health enhancing concoctions.
    One could point out that modern science has permitted us to experience a longer life span
    then that of our ancestors. Even with this modern epidemic of cancer, we are living longer
    lives then before the industrial revolution. Inarguably this is a fact. I believe however that
    the pendulum has swung too far. I hold that cancer is an unnecessary byproduct of our
    modern lifestyle, which is now attempting to bypass nature in this endeavor to provide for
    our health through the use of the vast array of pharmaceuticals. This phenomenon brings
    to mind a quote from John Dryden, “God never made His work for man to mend.”
    The consequence of this action, is a weaker immune system, which I believe can lead to
    the development of cancer (which I define as a defect in the ‘repair’ aspect of our immune
    system). Further, this helps to explain why cancer is less prevalent in undeveloped
    countries, and more prevalent in developed countries. Third World countries do not have
    access to anywhere near the amount of immune enhancing medications that are available
    to Western Societies. As a result, they don’t have near the incidents of cancer either.
    Some studies show Thailand as having the lowest incidences of cancer. Bangkok, the
    capital of Thailand, and one of the largest cities in the world, has a population density of
    3,292 people per square kilometer. This is a city that grew around a river and canal
    system which provides for its transportation needs, its waist removal needs, as well as its
    bathing and drinking needs. Those famous/infamous photographs of traffic police
    wearing respirators, were taken in Bangkok. Thus these people would possess an immune
    system that is accustomed to a good workout, having to fight off a higher frequency of
    circulating antigens in their culture. A strong immune system would be mandatory to
    endure in this environment. These global maps of cancer clusters show that you are forty
    times more likely to acquire cancer from being raised in Denmark, then you are if you’re
    from Thailand.
    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 animals health with enriched or fortified feed,
    medicines 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.)
    What can we do about this dilemma?
    Nature provides us with many examples which illustrate that it operates on a “Use it or
    Loose it” philosophy. If you are presently able to lift heavy objects, and stop lifting
    anything heavy for a long period of time, your ability to lift those objects will become
    lost. If you can run a mile in five minutes, and stop running, your ability to run at that
    pace will eventually be gone. The body will stop, or slow down the production of
    hormones such as natural steroids, melatonin, estrogen, etc. if they were being produced
    for it. Science has shown that even the mind is subject to this ‘use it or loose it’ rule.
    It stands to reason then that the immune system is also subject to this rule. Each time
    you assist your body in fighting off a disease or virus, you retard its natural ability to do
    the job on its own. As with everything else in the body, the immune system is subject to
    atrophy. If you don’t use it, it won’t be there for you when you really need it.
    How is someone to prepare there immune system to handle a fight with cancer? (Or as I
    am suggesting, not to ‘fight’ but rather, to reclaim control of these cells?) Through
    exercise. Exercise your immune system just as you would any other system; in increasing
    increments. If the ability to lift heavy objects, or the ability to run a five
    minute mile can be re-acquired through exercise in increasing increments, and the
    immune system is subject to the same rules as the muscular system, or cardiovascular
    system, than it is reasonable to assume that the immune system could be put on an
    exercise agenda that would allow it to re-acquire the necessary strength, so as to redeem
    its domain over these cancer cells. Consider the treatment of chemotherapy, which is
    described as a process of almost killing the body with poison. This protocol tends to make
    the entire body ill, thereby inadvertently exercising the immune system. When the body
    rebounds, it rebounds stronger than before, similar to a body that had been in an exercise
    workout. This new strength allows the immune system to reclaim the body for a period of
    time, (called a remission) but if the patient continues the lifestyle that allowed the cancer
    cells to take over in the first place; i.e. weakening their immune system with modern
    methods of immune supplements and pharmaceuticals, (trying to do the immune systems
    job, for it) then one would expect the statuesque to return. This perhaps helps to explain
    why chemotherapy; although it is not a cure, does tend to prolong a patients life.

    Most of the scientific studies and protocols that presently offer treatment to cancer
    patients tend to focus on the immune system. These studies have two things in common:
    1) they are unsuccessful at curing cancer, and 2) they all try to stimulate; enhance;
    activate; invigorate; boost; assist etc., the immune system.
    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 it could be that it is this inverse line of thinking that 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, I believe 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 byproduct of helping the immune system,
    is to weaken it, which allows the cancer cells to go out of control. It should follow then
    that the byproduct 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 exhaustive scale. A series
    of allergy tests would discover some things that the immune system reacts to, but avoid
    the full spectrum attack that is presently provided by chemotherapy. Things that irritate
    the immune system would be a good exercise tool. I have a suspicion that these
    ‘alternative medicines’ that seem to miraculously cure some individuals, and mystify the
    professionals, are by chance exercising that patients immune system. This individual is
    simply allergic to one or more of the ingredients in these concoctions. This would help to
    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. Similarly, 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 merely increases the chances that the cancer patient will be allergic
    to one or more of the 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 develop a cancer. Several
    studies have raised the possibility that people with over stimulated immune systems may
    have a reduced risk of brain cancer (the most mysterious cancer in terms of being able to
    find any “cause-effect” relationship).

    No single medicine has been discovered that works for everyone. If everyone were
    allergic to the same thing, then that substance would no longer be considered as an
    allergy. It would be labeled as a ‘poison’. Accordingly, a poison could be described as a
    ‘generic substance’ that everyone is allergic too. Chemotherapy could therefore be
    considered as an exercise of the immune system using a universal antigen that everyone is
    allergic too. The logic used in employing poison,(as in chemotherapy) is to slowly harm
    everything, and hope that the cancer cells are the first things to die. Similarly, radiation
    therapy is a broad spectrum attack on all living cells, and the hope is that the cancer cells
    are the first to die. What I believe is actually taking place, is an exercise of the immune
    system, being forced to repair or reconstruct the body from all the harm being caused by
    this poison or radiation. Because these poisons cannot distinguish between cancerous and
    normal cells, they disrupt or kill normal, healthy cells throughout the body besides
    attacking the tumor. This protocol has been somewhat successful due to the fact that it
    inadvertently forces the immune system into the scenario, and simultaneously creating an
    intense workout for it.(whereas, all other protocols sidestep the immune system in their
    attack.)
    But the scale of the attack doesn’t need to be of such a broad spectrum. The attack could
    be much more specific. This, perhaps, is why we have allergies in the first place.
    Everything in nature it seams, has a purpose. It is logical to assume that allergies too have
    a purpose. Allergies are an inappropriate (unnecessary) immune response to a substance
    that is actually of no real harm to the body. By employing these antigens, it should
    therefore be possible to give the immune system the exercise, without simultaneously
    giving it the body any of the accompanying destruction that is inherent with
    chemotherapy and radiation. Unfortunately, this philosophy is not likely to be considered
    by any serious cancer research institutes; because it would be difficult to
    ‘bottle and brand’ this approach.


    I believe the cure for cancer will be as individual as our own immune systems are. Not
    everyone catches a cold when a cold virus comes around. (although, perhaps everyone
    should try to.) There is no cure for the common cold, and I believe there never will be.
    The cold virus is Natures way of running the immune system through a series of
    exercises, thus attempting to keep it functioning in top form. In the fight against cancer,
    everyone seems to concede that the answer lies within the immune system. All efforts are
    being focused on finding out what causes the immune system to kick in and finally go
    after the cancer cells in some individuals. My thoughts are also linked to the immune
    system, but I hold that we must find out what it is that wakes up our own immune system,
    and causes it to reclaim control over these maverick cancer cells, which I believe are an
    integral part of the immune system. A good place to start this search would be finding
    antigens which cause allergies in a patient. Perform chemotherapy using this antigen,
    which is a poison only to this individual’s immune system, and does no real harm to the
    body. The results should be the immune system receiving the exercise, without the body
    receiving any significant adverse effects. The stronger immune system should then be
    capable of regaining control over these cancer cells (as in a remission), and the body
    should revert back to near normal conditions.



    (1*) I thought I should start by re-evaluate this original theory of cancer. After kicking
    around the present day theory for 120 plus years, with no significant progress, I deem that
    a change in venue is warranted. But anyone can criticize. I believe that it is fruitless to
    attack an idea without offering an alternative to consider. This is why I am proposing an
    alternate hypothesis that I believe warrants investigation. While others focus on better
    ways to treat the attacked tissues, and earlier ways of detecting this attack, and ways to
    avoid being attacked, I am focusing on why there is an attack in the first place, and where
    it is coming from. I include this critique to disclose why I am not content to wait patiently
    while the scientific community figures it all out. I will at least consider alternatives.
    As we are all no doubt aware, there is a sea of information out there. One might expect
    the subject of cancer data to be mathematical, and therefor, very cut-and-dry. But in
    reality, it is all very muddy. People have different agenda for collecting information, and
    with a sea of available statistics, it becomes arbitrary as to which are included and which
    are excluded. Most collectors of data are employed by Pharmaceutical firms and
    obviously want the data to appear favorable to the health care industry. The pessimists
    and ‘nay-sayer’s’ are outnumbered. Because of the choices available in the data, you
    therefore walk into an unavoidable trap when you choose the data that you wish to
    include. The best means to avoid this dilemma that I could come up with was to journey
    back into old encyclopedia sets, where cancer deaths were documented as a number per
    100,000 people, in districts such as Wales and England, and they would then compare
    this to the United States. In this manner, we can get raw figures of how many people
    actually died of say ‘ lung cancer’ in the year 1949. We can then do this with older
    encyclopedia sets and compare these numbers. It can then be observed that the numbers
    virtually stay the same. We then have the burden of comparing these statistics with
    modern statistics. To do this we need to sum all the numbers that have been factored off,
    and un-adjust figures that have been adjusted. This leads us back into the problem of
    selective data collecting. A task that you would expect to be easy, is actually quite
    difficult. With so many factors to consider in collecting data, and so many ways to present
    the data, and so many agendas to be considered, it will always be subject to ridicule. I
    wish that I could point to a web site that had just raw numbers in columns representing
    cancer types. The closest site to this would be the World Health Organization
    (www.who.org) mortality tables. But these figures too are subject to the same criticisms
    as others, and the categories of cancer types are still changing. It is hard to see patterns
    when there are so many variables. For this reason, I thought the safest approach would be
    to accept the statistics gathered by the American Cancer Society, whose agenda would
    obviously be to have the data look as favorable as possible, and then examine the means
    with which they present this data. That is why I included their quotation “ there has been
    little overall increase over the previous 40 years in either the number of new cases
    reported or the number of cancer deaths”.
    This is the most favorable way of reporting the progress that they could come up with,
    and then only after factoring off the statistics that were unfavorable, namely lung cancer,
    melanoma and AIDS-related cancers. To paraphrase the American Cancer Society it
    could be said that the overall view of cancer is not getting any worse, so long as we
    ignore lung cancer, melanoma and AIDS-related cancers. If however, we do not go along
    with factoring out unfavorable statistics, then we would be forced into the realization that
    the overall statistics are in fact, getting worse. I have tried to steer clear of the statistical
    battle that will always be available for anyone who wants to argue about statistics. For
    those who wish to believe that things are getting better, there will always be an abundance
    of statistics available to comfort this belief. It seems to be human nature to look on the
    positive side of things and dismiss the pessimists as being negative thinkers. On this
    point, I would no doubt be considered as a pessimist. To deny that things are getting
    worse is natural, and has allowed for cancer to become this modern day epidemic. I can
    appreciate that the medical profession has made strides in their efforts to prolong the lives
    of people who have been diagnosed with cancer. I find it frustrating, the claim that they
    are ‘winning the battle ‘ against cancer, when I am not convinced that they even know
    what cancer is. In 1971, U.S. president Richard Nixon symbolically declared war on
    cancer. Scientists were burdened since they did not even know what caused cancer. They
    hastily came up with an hypothesis which explained what cancer was. The hypothesis put
    forward, was, and is the present day DNA model, which describes cells as suddenly
    reproducing themselves, because of a defect in that individual cell’s DNA(an expansion
    of the original Cohnheim theory). This model provides few answers, does not allow for
    any predictions to be made, and leaves unaccounted for, most of the phenomena that is
    observed in the field of cancer research. I am offering an alternate approach that I believe
    addresses these anomalies and warrants consideration. Since there are two distinct ways
    in which a cell can undergo replacement, why not analyze both ways as possible causes of
    when something goes wrong? If we are all content that sufficient progress is being made
    in the field of cancer research, then it would not be necessary to look elsewhere, or
    consider other explanations. I attack this claim that we are winning the battle against
    cancer, only to then go on and offer up a different possible solution.

    (2*)Our skin is also the largest body organ, and therefore, mathematically, it would be the
    most susceptible organ to cancer. Lung tissue is the second largest organ, and the second
    most attacked tissue by cancer. This mathematical approach does not hold up in
    predicting the rarer forms of cancer however. Some tissue cells are merely more easily
    stimulated by the cancer cells than others. There are countless examples that show it is a
    natural phenomena to take the “path of least resistance”. Cancer attacking the easiest
    target, would merely be one more example of this.

    (3*). There has been attempts at deriving a vaccine from melanoma patients for decades,
    however this attempt has thus far, been unsuccessful. Science has not been able to derive
    a ‘serum rich in antibodies’ from a cancer survivor, undoubtedly because no serum exists.
    If the ability to overcome (survive) cancer were to come as a result of the cancer patient
    merely reclaiming control over their unrestrained immune system, then the body would
    not have developed its own serum of antibodies. Since the existing phenomenon shows
    the immune system does not develop any special antibodies in patients who have
    overcome cancer, this becomes further overwhelming proof that cancer is not a foreign
    antigen but rather, is part of the immune system.

    (4*). I have heard that there is a new Immunosuppressant named ‘rapamycin’ that does
    not show this concrete cause-effect relationship between cancer and tampering with the
    immune system. I would account for this as being a drug that had a scope more defined to
    the ‘identify’ or the ‘destroy’ aspects of the immune system, while not adversely affecting
    the ‘repair’ aspect. This would then have the desired effect of having the body not reject
    the transplanted tissues, but at the same time, not impede the immune system into
    unnecessarily repairing tissues that did not require this service.

  2. Sassy_Pickle

    Sassy_Pickle New Member

    Vacinations.....CANCER
    Not saying that all cancer is from this, but I think it plays a major role.