cancer paradox

[ricwally]

Cancer is the disruption of the orderly and regulated cycle

of cell replication and division under the control of our genes.

This is a brief outline of the presently held 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 theory put forward to explain this disruption of

the orderly regulated cycle. It has not been necessary to label this as an hypothesis, since no other

theories have been put forward. Thus, it has been bequeathed that this disruption of the cell

reproduction was the result of faulty DNA. Thus, all efforts for the last 130 years have been

concentrated on determining what 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. 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 to reduce our risk to cancer , 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 regrettably, still on the rise.

A competing hypothesis to the original DNA model for explaining cancer may be what is

required to break from these disheartening statistics.

There are two distinct procedures from which a cell can be reproduced. The first method is the

abundantly studied method in which the cell replicates itself as outlined within that cell’s DNA.

The second method is a slightly altered procedure, whereas the cell replacement is being

generated by factors outside of the individual cell. The body’s own immune system is sent to

rapidly reproduce the surrounding tissues in an endeavor to heal over an area by way of ‘scar

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 , in addition to substantiating that there are indeed two distinct ways in which a cell

can be reproduced, also proclaims that the second method (scar tissue) is ‘inferior’ to the primary

method of cell reproduction. The primary method has become the most understood way of the

cell replicating itself as outlined in the cell’s DNA code, which is referred to above as ‘normal’

cell replacement. But the secondary, less obvious, and less understood process also exists. This

second means of cell replacement (scar tissue) is described as “functionally and cosmetically

inferior”. Both, the rapid growth, and the inferior quality of tissues, are two attributes shared by

tissues manufactured by the immune system. But note also that these attributes are commonly

applied to tissues manufactured by cancer cells. These inferior qualities, and the non alignment of

collagen fibers, are not attributed to the DNA method of cell replacement.( Note that 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. The procedure of

continuously changing gausses in a sterile environment, allows the slower process of natural cell

replacement to be granted enough time to heal the area with the cosmetically superior, collagen

aligned tissues.)

When we investigate the immune system more closely, we notice that it actually 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.

The function of this article is to focus on the ‘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, in order to reduce blood loss,

and avoid foreign antigens from entering the body by way of this new opening. The unwanted

cell division and manufacture of tissue that we presently call ‘cancer’ could possibly be

generated from this secondary source. 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 (cosmetically and functionally inferior). 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.

The mechanism that starts this process is not yet fully understood, but it is known to be triggered

when the body experiences some form of trauma. Obviously; once this process has been started,

there must also be a mechanism 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, so that the immune system can cease this elevated activity, and

restore itself to the level of activity that existed prior to the trauma. It does not require too much

imagination to realize that the inability to shut off this ‘repair process’, would result in a

situation comparable 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 a

faulty immune system were to commence this healing process without there first being a

requirement for it, (a fault in the ‘identify’ process) then this too would result in an activity that

would be indistinguishable from our present definition of cancer.

Since there are two distinct ways in which a cell can be reproduced, it is only prudent that we

consider both of these scenarios as possible explanations for when something going wrong. Thus

far, only the DNA model has been investigated as being the cause of this affliction.

The term ‘cancer’ refers to a group of diseases. All of these diseases have one thing in

common which is the non-required growth of cells. If it is a single flaw that is causing this

non-required growth, then it would be logical to expect that by fixing the flaw, we could stop all

of this non-required growth of cells. If the growth is not caused by a single flaw, then a single

solution should not be expected. The journey must start with finding one flaw that causes this

non-required growth. If it does not end there, then the journey must continue. The last hundred

years have been spent looking for a flaw in the cell’s DNA. The DNA is thought to be

responsible for this non-required growth. We have not been able to find the flaw in the DNA. We

need to now look at the second method, which is the formation of scar tissue, and the

accompanying inflammation (which is the ‘lifeblood’ to support the existence of these newly

acquired cells),as a possible means for this non-requested growth. Both the rapid growth of

inferior tissue, and the accompanying inflammation, are functions of the immune system.

If a single solution can not be found that cures all cancer, then perhaps we should be content with

finding a solution for one cancer, and then proceed from there. With over 150 different types of

cancer, there could be 150 different solutions. But this would imply that we are 150 times as

likely to stumble onto one of them. It becomes harder to imagine that 150 potential solutions

have eluded use for over 100 years of searching. For this reason, I believe that there is but one

underlying flaw that is responsible for all of this non-required growth that we call cancer. And it

will continue to elude us so long as our search is confined to looking only at our DNA as the root

problem.

The immune system has in its arsenal, the ability to inflame an area with increased blood flow,

as it stimulates the neighboring cells into rapidly reproducing themselves. It is known that this

process is set in motion when the body experiences some form of trauma. When we can readily

observe scar tissue, as in the case of skin surface scars, we can immediately 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.

The easiest cancers to observe this phenomenon are the surface cancers. Basil Cell Carcinoma

has all of the characteristics of scar tissue, and the same words are used in its definition (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. Using this new

model, we could regard this cancer to be different in that; although it has the cell division

element, 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

(inflammation), it would become considerably more dangerous.

Both the ‘DNA theory’, and this ‘Scar Tissue 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 ‘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 DNA theory, must further

account for the presence of the accompanying blood flow to support the life of these newly

generated cells. With the billions of cells in the human body, it is conceivable to hypothesize

how the DNA of some of these individual cell might go astray, and start to reproduce themselves

repeatedly. But this event would be limited to grow only to the size that could be supported by

the existing blood supply. It should yield a ‘pea’ sized growth. If this chain of events were to

occur, the first step would be the cell replicating itself. Using the Law of Averages, it is

reasonable to expect that there would be a number of occurrences in which this chain of events

started, but 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 transpire. There should be

hundreds, or perhaps thousands of cases of these ‘pea’ sized tumors for every case that advances

to full scale cancer (cell division accompanied with a modified blood supply).

The scientific community acknowledges the need to address the blood supply issue, and with

great difficulty they have postulated a complex chain of events that is both mathematically and

logically absurd. 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. 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’(again, since it is its job to do so.). 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 and/or identify aspects of our immune system,) then we simplify 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 any non-legitimate cells to coexist in its domain,

is when the foreign cells are from an identical twin.)

The belief that cancer cells somehow become unrecognizable by the immune system is a

necessary stratagem of the present DNA theory. But there are no occurrences of this

‘unrecognizable’ phenomena in nature. 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

(stimulating cell reproduction) asserts that they are a part of our immune system. If we grant this

point, then we avoid the burden of having to explain why our immune systems leave the cancer

cells alone. Similarly, we would no longer have to account for how cancer manages to travel

throughout the body and take up residence in a new location, without being detected or

encountering resistance along its route. 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 event into

neighboring cells. Cancer becomes much simpler (and mathematically feasible ) when we adapt

this new framework.

Under this new theory, we would 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 would therefore be a potential for that many different cancer types. To date, just over

150 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 relentlessly repairing the cells of the artery walls with the formation of scar

tissue, causing restrictions in the blood flow due to the changed dimensions. Scaring can be

observed in many heart attack victims. Postmortem’s 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. For the patient to be

unaware, implies that the heart attack in some instances is an ongoing ‘process’ and not a single

‘event’. If the immune system started to repair the muscle tissue of the heart, and replace these

muscle cells with fibrosis that could not perform the same function, then this would be an

ongoing process that would likely go undetected until the heart was no longer capable of

performing its function. If the heart attack victim is rushed into the operating room and the chest

cavity is opened, the surgeon will be able to observe the scarring. But note that scarring is not an

instantaneous process. The heart attack did not cause the scar tissue. There has not been enough

time laps for this to occur. But rather, the scar tissue caused the heart attack. And the immune

system caused the scar tissue. 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 therefore 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 could perhaps be 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 why does 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.( This becomes a bit of a contradiction when you consider that we are told the

cancer cells go undetected and avoid a response from our immune system, and yet show up as a

thermal image on tests which is then interpreted as a battle with our immune system. 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 foreign type of antigen has

traveled 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 carcinogen, then we could

expect to be able to follow this reaction (between the carcinogen and the immune system

objecting to its presence) along its route, and not just when it materializes at a new site. A

pertinent question to ask is; why would the immune system wait until this carcinogen stopped at

a location in the body, before it begins to object to the carcinogen’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 carcinogen 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 foreign carcinogen is causing the proliferation of the

cell’s DNA to suddenly mutate itself over and over, then what is the 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. As to why the cancer cells are there, the present DNA model

has recognized that they have always been there, and they are in all of us. Under the DNA model,

the reason for the cancer cell is not fully explained. They are only attributed with the task of

spreading this DNA flaw to the surrounding tissue cells. This appears to be merely 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 can 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), and then also reluctantly assigned a function. 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 use the term ‘cancer’ to represent

something going wrong with the ‘repair aspect of our immune system. (Specifically, when the

system fails to first ascertain that a repair is required, or when the system fails to ascertain that a

repair has been 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

relentlessly fails to 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 scar

tissue has different properties then the thyroid tissue, and no longer has the distinct ability to

absorb iodine. The failure of the radioactive iodine to detect this new growth is further proof that

this is not a reoccurrence of the original thyroid cancer. Using the DNA theory, it would be

expected that the thyroid tumor should have the same characteristics as the host cells. That is to

say, the cancer tissue at this site should still absorb iodine, if the DNA caused the host cells to

lawlessly reproduce themselves. This is a continuation of the faulty immune system which has

not been addressed by surgically removing the thyroid. Note that it was earlier pointed out that

the present DNA model holds that a foreign antigen had caused this lawless proliferation of cells.

Under the present DNA model, it can be appreciated that the objective for removing the tumor,

is to rid the body of the offending cancer cells and any carcinogens that might be at the site as

well. This objective can only be achieved so long as the premise holds true that the cancer cells

that are causing the tumor are contained within the boundaries of the tumor. If the tumor tissues

contain the cancer cells that made them, then by removing these tissues, should result in the

patient being cured, and with the same future prognosis as someone whom had never acquired

the disease. Unfortunately the evidence does not support this optimistic expectation, and gives

rise to questioning the original premise; which holds that the cancer is contained within the cells

of the tumor itself.

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

contain some adrift cancer cells as well. 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 one

day be shown 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 get the message to stop. The

immune system continues to produce scar tissue, and rapidly divide the adjoining tissues without

receiving the message to ‘reset’ itself to the conditions that existed prior to the trauma of the

surgery. 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

unfortunately the statistics do not support this. Quite often, the cancer patients who undergo

surgery, have recurrences at the original site. If the cancer recurs at another location, then the

surgery would be statistically labeled as a success. Even with this clemency being granted, the

statistics for the surgery are not too favorable. 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,

and 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). If we were to attribute this reaction

to the light and/or air as yet another mystical feature 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 patient has a properly functioning immune system which still has the ability of

knowing when to stop the healing process. The cancer patient does not. 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 relentlessly continue the healing process

and in so doing, 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. Scarring can be observed on the lungs, heart, liver or anywhere that cancer can be

observed. 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 in

check 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.

The immune system is free to be located throughout the body. However, 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 epidermis (skin), or through an

opening in the epidermis. The epidermis 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 throughout the body, yet it 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 polyps etc.). I am

not clear as to whether 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. To illustrate this orifice correlation, let

us consider the breast. 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.

If cancer was a disease of the cell losing the ability to replicate itself in a controlled manor, then

we would expect to see uniformity between the cancer tumor and the parent cells that had lost

this ability to replicate themselves in a controlled manner. We should not expect to see

uniformity between cancers themselves, if this uniformity did not first exist between the

parenting cells. But Warburg, while studying the metabolism of tumors, noted that “cancers of

various species and tissue origins reveal a high uniformity from tumor to tumor.” Warburg, O.:

Stoffwechsel d. Tumore, Springer, Berlin, 1926. Engl. edn., The Metabolism of Tumors, tr. F. Dickens, London, 1930.

In fact there have been numerous studies all of which point to a number of parities between

cancer tumors of all types. “Correlatively, the Coris find the lactic acid and sugar content of the

various exhibitions of cancer to be highly uniform. Williams and his co-workers report a

pronounced degree of uniformity in the concentration of eight B vitamins in a great variety of

animal and human tumors, regardless of the tissue of origin or the manner of their induction.”

Cori, C.F., and Cori, C.J.:J. Biol. Chem., 64:11, 1925

“Shack describes an almost complete uniformity in cytochrome oxidase content in a number of

mouse tumors.” Shack, J.: J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 3:389, 1943

“Maver and Barrett describe substantial evidence for an immunological uniformity among

malignant tumors. Greenstein reports an impressive degree of uniformity in enzyme

concentration among malignant tissues, regardless of their means of induction, tissue of origin or

species of origin.” Greenstein, J.P.: Symposium on Cancer, A.A.A.S. Research Conference on Cancer, ed. F.R.Moulton, Am. Assoc.

Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., 1945, p. 192

“The uniformity of various exhibitions of cancer in respiratory properties, lactic acid production,

vitamin content, enzyme content, action on a given substrate, effect on liver catalase, cytochrome

oxidase content immunological properties, and many other characteristics is correlative to an

uniformity of malignant tumors in the ability to metastasize, in their amenability to

heterotransplantability, and in their autonomy, invasiveness and erosiveness. Indeed, there is no

known basic property unique to any single exhibition of cancer---the only variation being a

morphological one partially conditioned by admixed benign or somatic components.” Cancer and the

Immune System The Vital Connection

After considering all the above quotations, a fair question to be asked is, “Why is there such

uniformity between cancer tissues from tumor to tumor?” Another question that comes to mind

is, ” If a fault in the DNA is causing this tissue growth, why is the cancer cell even

distinguishable from the normal cell?”

If on the other hand, we consider the growth of cancerous tissues to be a product of a faulty

immune system, then the answer to both of these questions becomes self evident. The cancer cell

is distinguishable from the normal cell because it was manufactured by a different process then

‘normal cell replacement’. Similarly, if all of these tissues have been stimulated into reproduction

by the same immune system process, then it would be anticipated that there would be much

uniformity between the various cancers. Since it is the case that there is such uniformity, then it

ought to follow that all of this tissue reproduction is being produced by a single method that

would appear to be independent of the cells themselves.

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 we 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 rejection. 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 bizarre names of tissue types that can come under attack

only in childhood cancer cases. As toddlers become older, this long list of bizarre names

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 eventually 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 the immune systems of some individuals 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 with the numerous pharmaceuticals available

primarily to the western world.).

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 by 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. But if the cancer does favor the melanin cells in this individual, 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, for an equilibrium to be maintained, 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(the

number one form of cancer). Thus we see African Americans with alarmingly higher rates of

lung cancer, and heart diseases 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 offer an attempt to explain how childhood leukemia and brain cancer could

have a cause/effect relationship, and fit these two 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 observable 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 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 all 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 therefore 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). 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. Arguably this is a fact(5*). 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.

Statistics have also pointed out that pet owners live longer lives then those without pets. The

justification for this was always thought to have been that petting and nurturing a dependent

animal was a therapeutic stress release, and this ‘less stress’ transferred into longer lives. It is

now being suggested that these animals naturally carry with them an enhanced level of germs and

bacteria that the immune systems of the pet owners must contend with. Those without pets do not

receive this extra immune system exercise, and as a result, do not experience the same level of

health that their counterparts do.

Another phenomenon that could be accounted for with this new outlook is the successes of

Acupuncture.

Acupuncture is an ancient mystical practice used to treat many types of ailment. It is labeled

‘mystical’ because it presently lies outside of the scientific community’s ability to account for

what is going on. The scientific community is at a loss to explain how the concept of sticking

needles in various parts of the body can yield relief from symptoms of any disease or disorder,

however despite this lack of understanding, this ‘practice’ continues to grow in support. Here is

an excerpt from www.medicalacupuncture.org. that outlines the principal problem with

acupuncture gaining acceptance.

“Although the quality of research in acupuncture is now better meeting the requirements

of Western medicine, we sti

[karen335]

I think if they found a CURE for PSORIASIS, they would have the CURE for cancer. PSORIASIS is the rapid duplication of cell growth. I think the two are associated. Just an opinion.

God Bless and prayers,

Karen

Comments, please...

[ricwally]

While contemplating what you wrote, I came across this passage which somewhat agrees with your hypothesis that the two diseases may be somehow connected. This passage is from

www.niams.nih.gov/hi/topics/psoriasis/psoriafs.htm

What Causes Psoriasis?

Psoriasis is a skin disorder driven by the immune system, especially involving a type of white blood cell called a T cell. Normally, T cells help protect the body against infection and disease. In the case of psoriasis, T cells are put into action by mistake and become so active that they trigger other immune responses, which lead to inflammation and to rapid turnover of skin cells. In about one-third of the cases, there is a family history of psoriasis. Researchers have studied a large number of families affected by psoriasis and identified genes linked to the disease. (Genes

govern every bodily function and determine the inherited traits passed from parent to child.)

End of quote.

While I hold that the 'cancer cells' themselves are a tool of the immune system, the psoriasis disease is said to be caused from the T cells, which is also a tool of the immune system. The T cells have been identified as being a part of the 'destroy' aspect of the immune system. The cancer cells are a part of the 'repair' aspect of the immune system.

It is conceivable to think that ; If psoriasis is the result of the immune system mistakenly launching T cells, then cancerous tumors are the result of the immune system mistakenly launching cells that are intended to accelerate the mutation of neighboring cells, causing this runaway scar tissue syndrome that we call 'cancer'.

[karen335]

athanks for answering and researching this hypothesis. The reason I brought it up was, I have had Psoriasis for 25yrs. DX'd 3-03 with LC.

God Bless and prayers,

Karen

[ricwally]

From my perspective on cancer, I would view psoriasis as a potential precursor to cancer. I would expect many crossover patients who suffer from both diseases if a faulty immune system is responsible for psoriasis. I don't know how to go about finding statistics that could possibly link the two, but if there was any records, this would further add support to my claim that a faulty immune system is responsible for cancer.

I noticed that the end of my original post was cut off so I am including it here.

“Although the quality of research in acupuncture is now better meeting the requirements of Western medicine, we still can rarely answer questions based on a Western scientific-evidence-based model.”

James K. Rotchford, M.D., M.P.H

In other words, it’s too much like ‘Voodoo’. They cannot follow the cause/effect relationship between the practice and the results based on what is presently understood about anatomy.

Despite this inability however, the statistics do support that something positive is going on, and as a result, this practice has continued to survive, and in some cultures, to prosper as a principal

method of health care. In fact, many medical doctors have taken up the art of acupuncture despite the inability to support their findings with any sound, acceptable scientific explanation.

Historically, acupuncture was an ancient Chinese treatment that originally was taken up after it had been observed that warriors who had received non lethal stab wounds, and/or arrow

punctures, would recover from there wounds and then go on to make remarkable recoveries from long term ailments that they may have also had. It could be observed that these individuals would experience superior health to that which they had prior to the wound healing process. Health practitioners then began to intentionally inflict small wounds on patients with sharp bones,

bamboo, or bits of ceramic, in hope that they could derive similar results to what they were observing. The ancient Chinese health practitioners were getting the results that they were after, and the continuation of this practice for over three thousand years, is ongoing proof that it must

have some merit. But the explanation for what is going on, is also three thousand years old, and no doubt hinders the open acceptance of acupuncture in modern times. It involves invisible energy lines within the body, called ‘meridians’ that connect the internal organs to the outside

surface of the body, and allowed the health practitioner to be able to regulate the life force (called the qi) and create a balance between the yin and the yang.

Over the years the process of inflicting these minor wounds has become less barbaric, and more sterile, yet it is still yielding promising statistics.

To now bring acupuncture into the aggregate of this new theory requires little effort. I would view this process as placing an increased workload on the immune system that must now repair the damaged tissues at the puncture site, even though with modern clinical practices with sterile

needles and skin preparation, the immune system would be spared the additional workout of any infection that would no doubt have been included in earlier acupuncture procedures. This newly

‘exercised’ immune system would then be superior to its non exercised counterpart, and hence be supplying the positive results that is presently being credited to the practice of acupuncture.

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?

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. 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.

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. Science

has shown that the body will stop, or slow down the production of hormones such as natural

steroids, melatonin, estrogen, etc. if these are being produced and supplied 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 we assist our bodies in fighting off a

disease or virus, we retard its natural ability to do the job on its own. Patients who suffer a spinal

injury, and loose the use of their legs, find that these unused muscles begin to deteriorate.

Eventually these atrophied muscles would be unable to support the weight of the individual, even

if the communication link had not been severed. Astronauts who have spent long periods of time

in space, have been shown to loose calcium in their skeletal system, as the body determines that

this level of maintenance is no longer needed in the confines of zero gravity. There are many

examples of this ‘efficiency’ aspect of the human body. If it is not being used, it will not be

maintained. As with everything else in the body, the immune system is subject to this ‘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 be compoundingly 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. This principle is perhaps why acupuncture has been employed as

a health practitioners tool for nearly as long as medicines has. Yet acupuncture is completely

outside of the western scientific world’s way of thinking. 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 then

follow that the byproduct of ‘ hurting’ the immune system would be to strengthen it, and thus,

allow it to regain control over these maverick cells, which were originally under the domain of

the immune system. Applying this new model, the successful treatment of cancer would take the

form of ‘clinically’ torturing the body. This is precisely what chemotherapy is doing, but on an

exhaustive scale. A series of allergy tests would discover some antigens or substances 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. 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 (presently, 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 therefore 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, in addition to attacking the tumor. This protocol has been somewhat

successful due to the fact that it inadvertently forces the immune system into the scenario by

simultaneously creating an intense workout for it.

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 the body any of the accompanying

destruction that is central to chemotherapy and radiation. Unfortunately, due to the fact that there

is no way to bottle and brand this approach, this philosophy is not likely to be studied by any

pharmaceutical company.

I believe that a 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.

Theoretically, 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.

(5*) Excerpt from Cancer as a Disease of Civilization by Ralph Moss, Ph.D. Some people

believe that the increase in cancer incidence is an illusion. The reason that there is more cancer

today than in former times, they say, is that present-day people live much longer. Since cancer is

primarily a disease of middle and old age, these writers claim, there simply weren't enough

people in former ages who lived long enough to develop this disease.

"For all of history the average life span was about 35-40 years," wrote one of these

commentators. "In the last hundred years life spans in industrialized countries have increased to

70 years." Therefore, what appears to be a fault of civilization (an increase in cancer) is actually

another one of its blessings.

How true is this claim? There are reasons to doubt it. The Biblical "Book of Psalms" states: "The

days of our years are three-score years and ten, / Or even by reason of strength fourscore years"

(90:10). A score is twenty years. Thus, the Biblical author believed that the normal life span was

70 years or, for those who had a particularly vigorous immune system, around 80. How does this

gibe with the notion that until the advent of modern medicine people only lived to around 35?

During my morning walk, I pass an old churchyard, dating from the time of the American

Revolution. Spurred by these questions about the average span of human existence, I studied the

gravestones. I observed that in 19th century New England, at least, deaths tended to cluster in one

of four categories:

1) Many children died either during childbirth or from epidemic diseases.

2) All too frequently women died young, generally in childbirth, and were sometimes buried next

to their equally unfortunate babies.

3) Some men also died in their early decades of accidents and wars.

4) Once you eliminate these obvious checks on human longevity, people in previous centuries

seemed to live about the same number of years as they do today. Most of those who managed to

attain adulthood lived into their seventies and eighties.

Many of our Founding Fathers lived to ripe old ages. True, Washington died at 67. (He was

probably bled to death by overzealous doctors). But John Adams was 90, Thomas Jefferson 83,

James Madison 85, James Monroe 73, John Quincy Adams 81, Andrew Jackson 78, and Martin

Van Buren 80. If we average these we get 80, which is exactly what the Bible predicts for such

healthy human specimens.