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 , 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.