Jump to content

We May Be Overlooking Something By Placing The Blaim On DNA

Guest ricwally

Recommended Posts

Guest ricwally

The following article is an attempt to put forward an alternate hypothesis from the present

DNA model, for explaining cancer. It is regrettably long, and at times difficult to follow,

but if you manage to persevere through it, I believe you will find it intriguing, or at least

thought provoking.

A brief ‘attack’ on the present model is a necessary starting point. If it were not for the

fact that I am dissatisfied with the present hypothesis, there would be no need to propose

a new one.

The gist of this article, stems from the fact that there are two distinct methods for which

a cell can reproduce itself, yet only one of these methods is being contemplated as the

root problem in cancer.

Cancer is the disruption of the orderly and regulated cycle

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

This is a terse synopsis of the what is presently held as the cause of this modern

pandemic. “Control of our genes” has been attributed to our DNA. Any disruption with

this process, must therefor lie with the DNA. The ‘faulty DNA’ model is the only model

put forward to explain this disruption of the orderly regulated cycle. It has not been

necessary to label this as a theory, because no other theories have been put forward. Thus,

it has been taken as a ‘given’ that this disruption of the cell replication was the result of

faulty DNA. All efforts have thus far been concentrated on determining what it is that is

causing the DNA in some individuals to go astray. Various links to lifestyle, genetics, and

environmental contaminants (carcinogens), have all been proposed as possible

explanations. Yet as the lists of possible explanations grows larger, there appears to be no

reduction in the amounts of patients acquiring some form of cancer. A considerable

amount of money has been spent in the pursuit of finding a cure. Many new carcinogens

or potential causes have been brought to light. Many strides have been made towards

extending the lives of those afflicted with this misfortune. But much of this ‘deemed’

success could be attributed to the ‘early detection’ alone. Consider two hypothetical cases

of an identical cancer that has a duration of twelve years. The first case goes undetected

until the tenth year of the ailment before it is discovered. We then have a documented

case that will be deemed as an aggressive cancer, which took its toll within two short

years. In the second case, the patient is detected early, let’s say in the second year. So this

patient will be logged as having had a ten year survival rate, before finally succumbing to

the disease. This scenario illustrates how the move towards detecting the cancer early, in

itself has led to the appearance of great medical strides being achieved, even if this

second hypothetical patient received no medical attention after his or her early diagnosis.

I do not make this point to ridicule the medical profession. Rather, it is just one more

example of one set of data having more then one conclusion. Early detection has been

attributed to being of paramount importance in the survival rates of cancer. It could be

that ‘early detection’ is merely giving a head start to the timepiece that measures cure


Another critique that I have is the tendency to dilute the figures for cancer into an ever

increasing number of categories. This tendency gives the appearance that the numbers of

patients that are afflicted with a certain cancer type is on the decline. For example, in

years past, there was but one type of breast cancer. All cases of the ailment fell into this

one category. Presently there is a tendency to siphon off some of the occurrences of breast

cancer into their own categories. Inflammatory Breast Cancer, and Male Breast Cancer

are often removed from the big picture to be viewed as separate issues. The remaining

cases are divided into ductile versus lobular categories; or invasive versus in-situ. Since it

is not possible for a patient to simultaneously come down with both types, they must

therefor fall under the category of one or the other. By virtue of the numbers now being

divided, they are now being used to represent the appearance of a decline in cases of

cancer for any one category. This gives a misleading impression that the medical

community is making great strides in their efforts to combat this ‘disease’. However, it

can be observed that the overall picture is getting uglier. If we sum these categories back

together so that we can compare them with the earlier statistics of breast cancer, then we

are forced into the grim realization that there is no progress being made. This trend can

also be observed in the categorization of colon cancer patients. In earlier years, there were

no individual categories of anal cancer, prostate cancer, rectal cancer, bowel cancer, and

colon cancer. These were all under one category. As science became more

knowledgeable, it could be detected that there were differences in these types of cancer,

and as a result, new categories were required, and warranted. Since it is not possible to go

back in time and properly re-categorize the earlier statistics into the new categories, we

would need to sum these current categories together for comparison purposes, in order to

see if any progress was being made in this sector of cancer research. These figures, too

are discouraging.

The long list of potential ’links’ to cancer, does not appear to be producing any better

health. Knowing that asbestos dust, or a high fat diet, may be contributing to this

epidemic; or that a high fiber diet, or sun block lotions have been attributed to the

survival from this epidemic, does not appear to have much effect on the epidemic itself. It

would be expected that as our knowledge increases as to which carcinogens we need to

avoid, and which behaviors we need to adopt or promote , the resulting number of cancer

cases should be on the decline. Yet the percentage of people who can expect to have to

deal with some form of cancer in their lifetime, is on the rise. It could be argued that this

is an unavoidable byproduct of our longer life expectancy. But we can factor out this

retort by focusing on cancer statistics that are only inflicting those in the prime of their

life. It can be observed that these figures too, are still on the rise. One might conclude that

this is an overtly pessimistic interpretation of the statistics. If it does appear pessimistic,

it is only to contrast optimism, and only after 120 years of being optimistic has led

nowhere. Cancer has increased over this period from 1 in 8,000 to 1 in 2 persons. And yet

we are being told that this is progress. A quick look back into old encyclopedia articles

confirms that there has been little or no progress over the years. The scientific, and

medical communities are focusing exclusively on our DNA as being the culprit. It would

be expected that after more then a century of pursuing this one angle, we could expect

more progress then is presently seen.

To illustrate the claim that there has been no significant progress in the field of cancer,

here is a quotation from the American Council on Science and Health in which they

defend themselves from there critics by outlining that :

"A study published in ‘Cancer’, the journal of the American Cancer Society [1],

reports findings that confirm what the American Council on Science and Health

(ACSH) has long held: that the incidence and overall death rates from cancer have

been declining in the United States. ACSH's position on U.S. cancer rates was set

forth in detail in its 1995 booklet, "Update: Is There a Cancer Epidemic in the United


The false claim that cancer rates are rising is a favorite of quackery promoters who

want to undermine public trust in food companies, drug companies, chemical

manufacturers, and the medical profession. ACSH's 1995 report concluded that, with

a few exceptions -- primarily lung cancer (caused by cigarette smoking), melanoma (a

skin cancer related to overexposure to sunlight), and AIDS-related cancers -- there

had been little overall increase over the previous 40 years in either the number of new

cases reported or the number of cancer deaths."(end of quotation)

This claim, in my opinion does not represent progress. It would be equivalent to claim

that the fleet gas mileage of domestic passenger vehicles was on the rise, so long as we

exclude the SUV’s and pick-up trucks. When we start to pick and choose the statistics

that we are going to include,(or in this case exclude) we are manipulating the data to say

anything that we want it too. There is a self evident ‘fallacy’ with this practice. For this

reason, I try to limit my use of numbers and percentages, since there are so many of them

to choose from, and it is human nature to use the figures that support your claim, and

dismiss those that do not.

My quest into the subject of cancer begins before the industrial revolution, when cancer

was an exceptionally unusual disease. I will start with a passage taken from an

Encyclopedia Britannica article from 1949, in which the German pathologist Rudolf

‘Virchow laid great stress upon the importance of chronic irritation in the causation

of new growth ...The rival theory put forward by Cohnheim about 1880 that new growth

arises from embryological remnants included within the tissue owing to some slight error

in development.’

Here we learn that the first views on cancer (prior to 1880) were thought to be caused by

the body repairing cells that were subjected to “chronic irritation”.

Evidently, this original theory fell out of favor to the ‘new’ rival theory ( the Cohnheim

theory which has evolved into the present day DNA theory) but I can only speculate as to


I will begin by re-examining the original explanation that was held back in 1860 in

which; “chronic irritation” is the cause of the growth (cancer)(*1). This chronic irritation

would imply the breakdown or continuous damage inflicted on one group of cells, or one

tissue type. It had long been observed that betel-nut chewing had been linked to oral

cancer. This phenomena was originally accounted for with the claim that the abrasive

quality of these nuts caused an irritation in the cheek tissue of the mouth. When the new

theory came along, this phenomena was attributed to arecoline, one of the properties that

could now be scientifically identified to this plant, as being responsible for the oral

cancer. Similarly, connections were made between scrotum cancer and soot by observing

the high percentage of chimney sweeps who came down with this ailment. As time

progressed, it could be isolated that it was benzopyrene, an ingredient in coal tar that was

causing the irritation. This new ability to isolate the specific element that were

responsible for this ‘cause-effect’ relationship, coincided with the new proposed theory

from Cohnheim (which held that the cancerous growth was caused from “embryological

remnants included within the tissue owing to some slight error in development” . The

newly discovered technique of microscopical staining, lent itself remarkably well to the

belief that there was something going on inside the individual cell that was causing it to

lawlessly reproduce itself, and had just become available in 1872. I can well imagine how

this new ability to examine carcinogens at the molecular level, helped this new

‘molecular theory’ win favor over the older chronic irritation theory. Nevertheless this

does not invalidate the original theory. The original theory was never revoked, or flat out

rejected, but rather it was passed over when these new scientific tools came on line. It

would have been preferable for the supporters of the original theory to concede that it was

not the soot that was causing the irritation,( or more specifically the benzopyrene in the

soot,) as opposed to overturning the theory altogether. It should have been conceded that

it was not the abrasive irritant of the betel nuts that was ‘physically’ weakening the tissue,

but rather something in the nut that was ‘chemically’ weakening the tissue at this

location. Then the chronic irritation principal would still remain applicable as a possible

cause for cancer. This adaptation would have allowed the ‘chronic irritation’ theory to

co-exist with the ‘embryological remnant’ theory until more was known about the disease

of cancer, and the cells that it attacks. If we concede that it is a ‘chemically’ weakened

tissue, as opposed to a ‘physically’ weakened tissue, what then is the difference between

the chronic irritant theory( read: chemically weakened tissue that begins this uncontrolled

growth,) and the Cohnheim theory for cancer, which holds that the growth stems from a

flaw within the tissue owing to some internal flaw? (Although the model for DNA was

only discovered fifty years ago, it had previously been understood that there must have

existed some form of ‘gene’ that was responsible for passing along the genetic

information from parent to offspring.)

The major distinction between these two theories is in the role of the immune system. The

immune system plays no role in the Cohnheim theory ( which places the blame solely on

the DNA of the affected tissue cells.). If we re-investigate the chronic irritation theory

now, with our new found knowledge of the roles of the immune system, we might

conclude that the original theory should not have been so quickly overlooked.

It is presently believed that the immune system sits idle as cancer activity proliferates. Yet

in occurrences of cancer activity, it is acknowledged that there is a corresponding activity

in the lymph nodes. Often it is observed that the cancer has spread to the adjacent lymph

nodes. The purpose of the lymph nodes is to “serve as the center for production of

phagocytes, which engulf bacteria and poisonous substances”. Lymph nodes are a vital

component of the immune system, and are always associated with immune system

activity. In other words, with every ‘non cancerous’ situation, the enlarged lymph nodes

indicates that the immune system is active and fulfilling its function. Yet we are told, in

episodes of cancer, although it is acknowledged that the lymph nodes are active, the

immune system is thought to remain inactive. The bewilderment that this event creates is

made evident when we read the scientific explanation that attempts to account for why

the immune system sits idle while the events that it is designed to prevent, take place in

its domain. This anomaly has never been adequately addressed. It is not logical to accept

that the immune system is doing nothing. A more credible explanation for this

phenomena could be that instead of the immune system doing nothing, we may want to

consider the possibility that the immune system is doing everything. This is not as bizarre

as it sounds since all of the characteristics of the cancerous activity, also happen to be

normal immune system functions.

We need to first acknowledge that the immune system has three distinct components;

i) to ‘identify’ foreign antigens that are deemed to be ‘enemies of the body’

ii) to ‘destroy’ these enemies of the body; and

iii) to ‘repair’ any damage that may have occurred during this onslaught.

This theory will be re-examining the chronic irritation theory by focusing on this ‘repair’

aspect of the immune system, which expressed simply, is the bodies ability to promote

rapid cell division (the formation of scar tissue) to quickly heal over breaks, wounds or

openings in the skin. The mechanism that starts this process is triggered when the body

experiences some form of trauma. A mechanism must also be in place to inform the body

of when the healing process has been completed. That is to say, the body must be made to

know when the rapid formation of scar tissue is no longer required. If this process of

repairing a wound is set in motion, there must also be some form of mechanism to inform

the immune system as to when to cease this activity. It doesn’t require too much

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

situation similar to that which we presently attribute to cancer. For example, a trauma to

the breast would trigger the immune response of repairing any tissues that may have been

damaged. If the immune system lacked the ability to know when this process was

completed, it would go on to repair the tissues in the breast, and a tumor resembling the

scar tissue process(firmer density, different collagen alignment, different pigment, etc.)

would be the result. Similarly, if this healing process were to begin without there first

being a requirement for it, then this too would result in an activity that could only be

described as cancerous.

Since there are two distinct ways in which a cell can be reproduced, we should be

considering both of these scenarios as possible explanations that might be the cause when

something goes wrong. Thus far, only the DNA model has been investigated as being the

cause of this affliction. This article will now examine scar tissue as a possible cause of

this non-requested cell replacement that we call ‘cancer’.

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

flow, and stimulate the neighboring cells into rapidly reproducing themselves, in order to

quickly seal over an opening in the skin, which stops blood loss and prevent foreign

antigens from entering the body by way of this new opening. This process is set in motion

when the body experiences some form of trauma. When we analyze this activity more

closely, we notice that there are similarities between cancerous activity; and the

inflammation and formation of scare tissue. When we can readily observe scar tissue, as

in the case of skin surface scars, we can readily detect that this is an altered form from

that of the surrounding tissue. Because it was manufactured rapidly, and by a different

process than that of normal tissue replacement (normal cell division, as outlined in that

cell’s DNA), it has different characteristics. For example, scar tissue made from skin

cells has a distinct appearance with a smoother surface, firmer density, (described as a

waxy appearance) and a different pigment from that of the surrounding tissue. A clinical

definition is as follows:

Scar tissue formation is a ubiquitous feature of adult wound healing, with the resulting

repair both functionally and cosmetically inferior to normal skin. At microscopic level,

the main difference between scar and normal tissue is in the alignment pattern of the

collagen fibers of which they are composed.

www.google.com final report on Grant GR/K71394

Mathematical Model of Scar Tissue

This excerpt acknowledges that there are indeed two distinct ways that a cell can be

reproduced. Firstly, by the well understood way of the cell’s natural means of replicating

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

replacement, and secondly, by a less obvious, and less understood process whereas the

bodies immune system triggers the cells into this slightly altered scar tissue. Note that this

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

cosmetically inferior”. The rapid growth, and the inferior quality of tissues are two

attributes shared by both the tissues manufactured by the immune system, and the tissues

manufactured by cancer cells. The primary means of cell replacement does not have

attributed these inferior qualities that the immune system replacement method has. In

fact, the purpose of a ‘Burn Unit’ is to hinder the bodies tendency to rapidly heal over the

burned area with scar tissue, when the trauma of a burn has set off this immune response,

and allow the slower process (but cosmetically superior) of natural cell replacement to

have enough time to heal the area.

The easiest cancers to observe are the surface cancers. Notice that Basil Cell

Carcinoma has all of the characteristics of scar tissue (smother, denser, waxy.). This

common skin cancer could conversely be described as a slow formation of scar tissue that

is both unnecessary, and unyielding. This cancer is not considered to be a dangerous

cancer because it is slow growing and easily removed surgically. With this new model,

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

element,( cells being divided by either faulty DNA, or a faulty immune system) it does

not have the accompanying blood supply (inflammation) which is necessary to support

the existence of these newly formed cells. Note that the shape of the basil cell carcinoma

would indicate that it can only grow to a size that can be supported by the existing blood

supply, and as it grows, the center cells cannot receive oxygen or nutrients, and as a

result, these center cells die off, leaving a hollow in the middle. If this tumor were to have

its own blood supply, it would become considerably more dangerous.

Both the original ‘chronic irritation theory’, and the ‘embryological remnant theory’

are able to adequately account for the cancer cells having shared characteristics from the

‘host’ cells, however the latter theory becomes much more complex by virtue of the fact

that it must also account for the modification of the existing blood supply. The chronic

irritation theory, (which herein will be called the Scare Tissue Theory,) is not required to

account for the accompanying increased blood supply, because the same elements that

brought about the reproduction of the cells, also caused the accompanying blood supply

(inflammation). Both of these events are normal functions of the immune system

responding to a trauma. The embryological remnant theory, (herein called the DNA

theory,) must further account for the presence of the accompanying blood flow to support

the life of these newly generated cells. I can imagine how the DNA of an individual cell

might go astray, and start to reproduce itself repeatedly, but would it not be logical to

assume that this event should be limited to grow only to the size that could be supported

by the existing blood supply? It should yield a ‘pea’ sized growth. The scientific

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

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

logically absurd. If this chain of events were to occur, the first step would be the cell

replicating itself. It is reasonable to expect that there would be a number of occurrences in

which this chain of events did not complete itself. That is to say, there should be

occurrences in which the cell did reproduce itself, but the accompanying blood supply did

not happen. There are instances when this does occur, however mathematically, we

should all be riddled with small pea sized lumps, if every occurrence of a cancerous

tumor represented the minute fraction of cases in which the spontaneous cell reproduction

also had the development of a corresponding blood supply. When you examine this

supernatural chain of events, and the obstacles that the cancer must overcome, and the

safeguards that are in place to prevent these occurrences from happening the way they are

described, you would wonder about the mathematical likelihood of this occurring even

once. It requires much less credence to simply hold that the immune system is causing the

lawless proliferation of growth, (since it is its job to do so,) and the immune system is

also supplying the essential blood supply to support this new growth, by way of

‘inflammation’. If we make this simple adjustment in our model for explaining cancer,

(by taking the blame away from the individual cell’s DNA, and placing the blame on the

immune system as a whole, or more specifically, the repair aspect of our immune system,)

then we clarify things immensely. This phenomena then becomes a candidate to apply

‘Ockham’s razor’. Why employ a complex set of beliefs when a simple explanation

already exists? Unexplainable events become, for the first time explainable. We now will

not have to address why the immune system makes no attempts at attacking the cancer

cells. If the cancer were to be shown to be a legitimate product of a defective immune

system, we would not expect these cells to be attacked. It should be included here that the

only occasion in which our immune system permits the existence of any non-legitimate

cells in its domain, is when the foreign cells are from an identical twin. To explain why

cancer is being left alone, the scientific community has had to resort to a multitude of

special events taking place. We are told that these cancer cells take on an ‘immortal’

status, and acquire the ability to ‘disguise’ themselves, and ‘recruit allies’ in there

defense, and a multitude of other special powers that are attributed only to cancer cells.

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

necessary stratagem of the present DNA theory. To give credence to the concept that

some cells are unrecognizable to the immune system, we could phrase this phenomena to

read; “ cells from an identical twin are unrecognizable to the immune system.” We would

then have at least one natural occurrence of this ‘unrecognizable’ phenomenon. But this

begs the question, why? The answer I believe is intuitive. These cells go unrecognized

because they have the same characteristics as the bodies own cells, and therefor the

immune system lacks the ability to distinguish these foreign cells from the body’s own

cells. Therefore it could be concluded that since cancer cells are also treated in a like

manor to cells that are not recognized as being different, then they too are deemed to be

not foreign. To say that they are not foreign, is equivalent to saying that they are

domestic, or rather, a legitimate part of the body. If there were other occurrences in which

living cells were granted the same privileges as the cancer cells, then this conclusion

would not be as incontestable. Since there are no other occurrences (outside of an

identical twin) in which this phenomena can be observed to occur, then I feel that this

conclusion is warranted, namely that cancer cells are a legitimate product of the body, and

their function asserts that they are a part of our immune system. If we do not yield this

point, then we are still faced with having to explain why our immune systems leave the

cancer cells alone. Similarly, we would still be faced with the burden of accounting for

how cancer manages to travel throughout the body and take up residence in a new

location, without being detected or encountering resistance along the way. If we accept

the cancer cell as being a legitimate body cell, all these perplexing problems go away. We

would no longer have to consider how cancer spreads from one cell to another, or how it

overcomes the multitude of safeguards that the body has in place to prevent the sporadic

mutation of cells, and the proliferation of this defect into neighboring cells. Cancer

becomes much simpler (and mathematically feasible ) when we adapt this new


The immune system can make scar tissue by dividing cells from tissues other then the

skin cells. The immune system repairs broken bones by rapidly stimulating the

regeneration of bone mass at the break site. Similarly, muscle tissue, tendons, or cartilage

tissue can undergo this immune systems rapid repair process. Again this scar tissue is

different from the original tissue. In fact, the body has over 200 different types of cells, so

in theory there could be, and probably are, over 200 different types of scar tissue.

Under this new theory, we can view cancer cells as an integral part of the immune system,

similar in nature to the B cells , T cells or natural killer cells, but with a different

function. Whereas the B cells are involved in the ‘identify’ process, and the T cells and

natural killer cells are involved in the ‘destroy’ process, the cancer cells function is in the

‘repair’ aspect of the immune system, specifically the formation of scar tissues. It copies

the surrounding tissue, and then making copies of the copies, until the wound is

impervious. With over 200 different types of cells, there is a potential for that many

different cancer types. To date, just over 100 cancers have been documented. If we use

this new model to describe Proteus Syndrome (i.e.. Joseph Merrick known as the

Elephant Man) as the immune system starting to relentlessly reproduce the bone mass in

some individuals, then this too might be categorized as a cancer. I believe that the same

elements are at work that cause this disease as are any cancerous tumors. But because this

disease effects the skeletal system , and has no adverse effect on any vital organs, or their

blood supply, it has never resulted in a direct cause of death, and therefore has avoided

being labeled as a cancer. Another disease that I believe has avoided the classification are

some forms of heart disease and strokes. It is reasonable to expect from what we know

about cancer, that there should be incidents of ‘heart cancer’. The heart is a vital organ

with access to an unlimited blood supply, just as the liver, pancreas, lung etc. yet we

never hear, nor have we needed the term ‘heart cancer’. Using this new model, I would

deduce that the same element exist in heart disease, as in cancer. Hardening of the arteries

would be accounted for by the immune system repairing the cells of the artery walls with

the formation of scar tissue. Similarly, scaring can be observed in many of the heart attack

victims. Post mortems and biopsies of heart attack victims have shown that there is both

fat and fibrosis (scar tissue) replacing the muscle cells in the heart. Often a patient can be

identified as having suffered a heart attack by observing scaring of the heart tissue, even

if the patient is not aware that he or she has had a heart attack. A long drawn out fight

with the disease is unlikely because any blockage or restrictions caused by the scar tissue

will have immediate and severe consequences. It is of interest to note that myocardial

infarction (heart attacks) were rare at the start of the twentieth century; as was cancer.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, heart attacks caused less then three thousand

deaths in the United States as late as the year 1930. Your lifetime risk of developing heart

disease now is one in two if you are male and one in three if you are female. It would

therefor be logical to entertain the possibility that whatever is causing our cancer statistics

to skyrocket, might also be contributing to, or causing these escalating heart disease

statistics. If we adapt this new ‘scar tissue theory ‘, then both of these anomalies become

grouped together, and are construed as one disease.

One could point out that cancer activity can be clinically observed. If it were in fact, a

normal body function, then how come it shows up on tests designed to indicate cancerous

activity? In most cases, the cancer tests show thermal heat being generated. This “heat”

being generated, is then interpreted as the immune system battling with the foreign

carcinogen that is believed to be causing the cancer.( As to why this ‘battle’ did not take

place previously while the carcinogen journeyed to the present post, is dismissed as a

‘mystery’.) However; it could be viewed that this ‘heat’ is not from a fight, but rather, a

bi-product of the unauthorized work that is taking place by this arm of the immune

system; namely the cancer cells stimulating the rapid cell division and inflaming the area

with increased blood flow (the lifeblood of these new cells that are being created.). If

there were no activity, the area would operate at body temperature, and register as cold

(not register). It is never observed that a foreign antigen is present. Every cell that can be

observed in the cancerous area is legitimate. Yet the present explanation for cancer is that

some type of antigen has journeyed to this location and is causing the DNA of these cells

to lawlessly divide. But neither of these phenomena (the antigen or the cancer cells

themselves) has ever been observed as it flows through the body. The cancer activity can

only be observed when it takes up residency and starts to inflame and stimulate the cell

division in a new area. Under the DNA model, if this ‘heat’ was in fact the immune

system objecting to the presence of a foreign antigen, then we could expect to be able to

follow this reaction (between the antigen and the immune system objecting to its

presence) along its route, and not just when it materializes at a new site. Why would the

immune system wait until this antigen stopped at a location in the body, before it begins

to object to the antigen’s presence? The inability to explain why cancer can travel

undetected, is a major defect in the present DNA model. It is not reasonable to accept that

the antigen too, is given the same superpowers and abilities that are awarded to the cancer

cells themselves, in order to avoid detection. The DNA model does not address this

anomaly. In fact, when you probe more deeply, one must question the need for a ‘cancer

cell’ at all in the DNA model. If the antigen is causing the proliferation of the cell’s DNA

to suddenly mutate, then there is no role for the cancer cell. This tumor growth has

already been accounted for. The existence of the cancer cells is acknowledged, only

because they can be observed. They are attributed with the task of spreading this DNA

flaw to the surrounding tissue cells. As to why the cancer cells are there, the present DNA

model has conceded that they have always been there, and they are in all of us. On these

two points, I would agree, but with this new model, these two points become inferences

of the original theory. Under the DNA model, the reason for the cancer cell is not fully

explained. This is more or less an acknowledgment that the cancer cell exists, and then

assigning it with a function. Is there a difference between the cancer cell, whose presence

and existence has not fully been accounted for, and the repair aspect of the immune

system, whose presence and existence has fully been accounted for? The immune system

is a legitimate part of the body with a specific function. The cancer cell is reluctantly also

acknowledged as legitimate (because to account for how it spontaneously came into being

without being able to say that it always was there, is too incomprehensible). The cancer

cell is deemed to be fulfilling the same function as the repair aspect of the immune

system. If there is no distinction, then there is no need for both terms. We could therefor

regard the term ‘cancer’ to represent when something goes wrong with the immune

system’s repair aspect. Specifically, when the system fails to ascertain that the repair is

required, or when the system fails to ascertain that the repair is completed and therefor no

longer required. When the immune system starts to relentlessly divide the surrounding

tissues, without this event first being deemed to be necessary, then this would become a

phenomenon that would be labeled as cancer. If it repairs a wound, and doesn’t stop, then

this too is cancer. This phenomenon can be observed in thyroid cancer patients. Often the

thyroid is completely removed, yet the patient has recurrences of tumor growth at the site

previously occupied by the thyroid. The most plausible explanation for this is that, after

the faulty immune system has healed over the surgical cut made to remove the thyroid, it

simply does not stop repairing the tissues at this site and as a result, there is the formation

of a new tumor made solely of fibrosis tissues (since the thyroid tissue had previously

been removed). These tumors cannot be detected by the iodine method which was used to

detect the original thyroid cancer, because the fibrous tissue has different properties then

the thyroid tissue, and does not absorb the iodine. The failure of the radioactive iodine to

detect this new growth is proof that this is not a reoccurrence of the original thyroid

cancer. This is a continuation of the faulty immune system which has not been addressed

by surgically removing the thyroid. There is an important distinction to be made here. Did

the tumor produce the cancer, or did the cancer produced the tumor. Note that it was

earlier pointed out that the present DNA model holds that an antigen causes the lawless

proliferation of cells. Under the present DNA model, I can appreciate that the objective of

removing the tumor, is to rid the body of the offending cancer cells as well (and any

carcinogens that might be at the site). This objective can only be achieved so long as the

premise holds true that the cancer is contained within the boundaries of the tumor. If

these faulty tissues contain the cancer cells that made them, then by removing these

tissues, should render the patient cured, and with the same bill of health as someone

whom had never acquired the disease. Unfortunately the evidence does not support this,

and gives rise to questioning the original premise; which holds that the cancer is

contained within the cells themselves. When medical professionals discovers an active

tumor being produced, they may opt to surgically remove the tumor and the offending

cancer cells that made it (excision biopsy). As this radical surgery has not yielded the

desired success rates, the medical profession has expanded the scope of the surgery to

include the surrounding tissues (margin), believing that this tissue might also contain

some stray cancer cells. They test this removed tissue and may confirm that it too was

cancerous. They then close up the wound and hope that they have managed to remove all

of the cancerous tissue. Now they must wait until the immune system has had time to

heal up the surgical wound before testing the area, because the activity of the

inflammatory nature of the healing process will read as ‘hot’. We then have the defective

immune system, which may turn out to have caused the tumor to begin with, being

invited back to the site, and being expected to heal up this surgical cut. Healing is what

the immune system does. Therefore, this is an exercise for it. Often, the immune system

heals over the surgery and then stops. The surgery was a success. Sometimes, however;

the immune system doesn’t stop. The immune system continues to produce scar tissue,

and rapidly divide the adjoining tissues without receiving the message that the task has

been completed. The poor surgeon is mystified that he or she could have missed some of

the cancer cells, and now they appear to have merely taken up where they left off. This

patient, now rid of the offending tissues, should mathematically be given the same bill of

health as a non patient. But the statistics do not support this optimistic outlook. Quite

often, the cancer patient who undergo surgery, have recurrences. The apparent failure of

the surgery has given birth to the suspicions that exposing the cancerous tissue to the air,

helps it to spread. Or exposing the cancer to the light of the Operating Room, perhaps, is

what causes it to flourish. Exposing the cancer to the light and air is a byproduct of the

fact that these cells have been operated on, and as a result, the immune system is

re-invited back to the region to repair the surgical wound. The suppositions that the light

or air has anything to do with any reoccurrence can be dismissed because surgeries that

are preformed on patients who have not been diagnosed with cancer, are not subject to

similar reoccurrence of tumors, despite also being subjected to the light and air.

Even the supporters of the DNA model, acknowledge that cancer cells are in all of us,

because the ‘spontaneous existence of matter’ is a hard sell. Even if we attributed this

reaction to the light or air as two more mystical features enjoyed only by cancer cells, we

would still need to account for why every surgery was not subject to the same level of

reoccurrence. The non cancerous patients have properly functioning immune systems

which still have the ability of knowing when to stop the healing process. In the cases of

cancer patients, since the immune system may have already shown to be defective, it

should not be surprising to find out that sometimes it does turn out to inflict the area with

a new cluster of cancerous activity, despite how diligent and careful the surgeon had


Biopsies are tests that examine the cell structure at a tumor site. From the removed

cells the medical professional can determine whether this tissue is currently undergoing

non requested cell division, or whether it had previously undergone cell division.

Cold-Hot ; Inactive-active; benign-malignant. These are the differences between non

life-threatening benign tumors, and life-threatening malignant tumors, specifically one is

active (cancerous) and one is benign (scar tissue). The benign scar tissue has already been

manufactured by the immune system, and is now dormant. Everyone freely accepts that

the inactive scar tissue was previously manufactured by the immune system. It should

therefore be easy to accept that cancer, or active scar tissue, or perhaps ‘runaway scar

tissue’, is currently being manufactured by the immune system, though be it a defective

one. The immune system accepts this benign tumor (or malignant tumor, if it is currently

undergoing development) as part of the ‘self’, because it possesses all the characteristics

of the legitimate body cells. This point could also be used to explain why the bodies own

immune system is useless against fighting cancer, which in turn makes sense of the fact

that all attempts to employ the immune system into attacking the cancer cells have thus

far failed. The cancer cells that created the tumor, and then stopped, have either been

reclaimed by the immune system, and may function normally in the future, or they may

resume there non- requested work in the future, or perhaps travel to another part of the

body and start to stimulate cell division at a new location.

When the immune system is healthy and functioning properly, these cancer cells are

kept at bay and in harmonious balance with the rest of the system (identify and destroy),

so most of us live out our lives oblivious to their presence. It is only when something

goes astray that we come to know of their existence. Thus, cancer cells have the

connotation of being ‘bad’.

This model does not yet attempt to account for the various forms of cancer that a

defective immune system may opt to take. Why does the defective immune system start to

randomly multiply the tissues of the breast in some individuals, and the lung tissue in

others? In order for us to address this anomaly, we need to recognize that there are

different types of tissues in the body, and the observable data supports that some of these

tissue types are easier then others for a defective immune system to stimulate into

unnecessary formation of scar tissue. The evidence tends to support that there is a

hierarchy amongst tissue types. The evidence also tends to support that the cancer activity

takes place where the immune system happens to be located. Although the immune

system is free to be located throughout the body, due to its function it tends to be in

higher concentrations on the surface and near body orifices in adults. The immune system

is designed to protect the body from foreign antigens (carcinogens). A carcinogen can

enter the body in one of two possible ways, either through the skin, or through an opening

in the skin. The skin is the body’s largest organ, and the immune system must be located

throughout this organ to defend the body from carcinogens that try to enter by way of this

route. In many cultures, skin cancer is the #1 form of cancer. If a carcinogen is to enter

the body, and cannot do so by way of the skin, it must then do so by way of one of the

bodies orifices. When you consider that the lungs are subjected to the outside world with

every breath that we take, it would be understandable that this organ, too would require

an intense presence of the immune system’s arsenal of defenses. The lung takes its

rightful place in the #2 position of likely locations for cancerous activity. We then move

down the list of the various body orifices, all of which require defending by the immune

system. Another tissue type that has shown to be amongst the easier tissues to mutate is

the mucus membrane tissue. These tissues are located through out the body, but this

tissue is not located arbitrarily throughout the body. Notice that polyps that grow out of

the mucus membrane tissue, only grow on this specialized tissues that are always located

adjacent to a body orifice. All of the body orifices have adjacent mucus membrane tissues

which house the immune systems defense mechanism (‘T’ cells, ‘B’ cells, natural Killer

cells etc.). The existence of polyps is often observed at these sites (adjacent to body

orifices, we find Colon polyps, Esophageal polyps, Endometrial polyps, nasal etc.). I am

not clear as to weather these polyps are normal immune system tools, or a sign of

something going amiss. Different cultures have different rankings as to the various cancer

types associated with the various orifices, however there is a noticeable correlation

between cancer and the positioning of the immune systems defense mechanisms. The

female breast is not an orifice to the outside world until the woman reaches puberty. Thus

this portal does not require an immune system defense until this time. This is precisely

why pre-pubescent breast cancer is as scarce as male breast cancer. Once the woman

reaches adulthood, however, this new orifice requires the presence of the immune systems

defense mechanism as much as the other orifices. It is worth mentioning that oral

contraceptives have been linked to breast cancer. Oral contraceptives are a method of

birth control that works by chemically ‘tricking’ the body into not ovulating by supplying

hormones that cause the body to behave as though it were already pregnant. When the

body behaves as though it is pregnant, it makes a number of changes, one of which is to

prepare the breast for nursing. This then becomes an orifice that requires a defense

strategy from the immune system, because it is now a new portal to the outside world. If

the immune system is defective, and takes up residency at this new location, then by using

this model, we can now understand how the oral contraceptive could have ‘caused ‘ the

breast cancer. This relationship can not be explained using the DNA model.

The present DNA model does not account for the differences in childhood cancers and

adult cancers. What is more troubling is the fact that the DNA model can not, and will

never be able to account for these differences. Our DNA does not change from childhood

to adulthood, but the list of cancers that can affect us certainly does. This point alone,

causes me to believe that the answers to this disturbing paradox will ultimately be found

outside of the DNA model. To look more closely at our immune systems (the only other

means by which a cell can be reproduced) makes complete sense to me.

The internal organs that do not have a direct association with a body orifice, have

rates of cancer that are far down the list of likely tissues to come under attack from

cancerous activity. This is understandable using this new model when you consider that

the immune system would have a smaller presence at these locations. This phenomena

can be best observed by studying childhood cancers. We need to also recognize that the

immune system would exist in infants, but would have to be located deep inside the

infant, as any presence of the immune system that were located on the surface, would be

forced by design to attack the foreign tissues that surrounded it in the womb.(recall that

the only instance when the immune system accepts the existence of a foreign cell, is when

it is from an identical twin. Thus even the surrounding tissues of the womb would be

subject to being rejected. The mothers system produced the cells of the fetus, so these

would not be identified as foreign.) It could also be that there is no call for the immune

system at the surface of newborns because the mothers immune system has previously

dealt with any and all foreign antigens. In either case, it appears that the immune system

is not located on the surface of an infant, but has a tendency to ‘migrate’ from the center

of the trunk of the body at birth, to the perimeter (skin and orifices) as the immune system

develops. This helps to explain why there is a list of over one hundred rare cancers that,

for the most part have only been observed in children. Infants and toddlers have an

immune system that is both undeveloped, and not yet assigned specific functions. This

undeveloped immune system would not have a tendency to be directed towards any

specific tissues at the beginning of the child’s life. If a defective immune system were to

exist in this child, and the immune system were not located on the surface, it would be

expected to arbitrarily start to reproduce any tissue that it came into contact with. This

would account for the list of over one hundred strange sounding tissue types that can

come under attack only in childhood cancer cases. As toddlers become older, this long list

becomes shorter, and the tissue types that can come under attack become more refined.

Eventually the list of over one hundred is reduced to a shorter list of familiar sounding

names, and as a result the majority of all childhood cancers fall into one of two

categories; leukemia, or brain tumors. (Note that the childhood cancers still do not have

the orifice association that is prevalent in adult cancers.)

I will address how leukemia and brain cancer fit into this theory later.

DNA defects could play a role in some individuals immune systems being more prone

to defect then others, however if this was a genetic defect, I would expect it to be self

correcting, by causing the carriers of the defect to parish prior to being of age to

reproduce themselves. Since cancer appears to be more of a modern epidemic, I tend

to lean towards the belief that it is something that we are doing to ourselves in modern

times that is causing it (specifically, this modern tendency to ‘assist’ our immune


We now need to modify this new model to include a provision that points out that

cancer appears to be an ‘opportunistic disease’(2*). That is to say, the immune system

will ‘pick- on’ or stimulate the tissue that it finds to be the easiest tissue to do so with.

This revision allows us to move on to understand many of the other anomalies

surrounding this disease. We can now look at the various links (environmental links;

lifestyle links; heredity links; etc.) as carcinogens that either promote a tissue type

towards being the easiest tissue from which the defective immune system can operate on,

or the link may demote a certain tissue away from being the likely candidate from which

the defective immune system can operate. Tobacco smoke, or asbestos dust have been

linked to cancer of the mouth, esophagus and lung. Using this new model we can view

these tissues as having been chemically weakened by these carcinogens, and now

represent the easiest forms of tissue that this individual is in possession of. If this

individual also possesses the requisite faulty immune system, then this person will get

cancer, and it will be cancer of one or more of these weakened tissues. Conversely, a high

fiber diet has been linked to a decrease in the number of colon, prostate and bowel cancer

patients. Using this new model we can view the high fiber diet as having physically

strengthened the tissues in this region away from being the easiest tissue from which the

defective immune system can operate.

This hierarchy of tissue types tends to show that our melanin cells appears to be one of

the easiest cells from which a defective immune system can wreck havoc. One of the best

ways to demonstrate this principle, is to look closely at malignant melanoma (3*)

One of the most bizarre anomalies in my opinion, is in regards to melanoma. Melanoma

has been linked to sun damage, and yet it is less prevalent in the tropical regions of the

globe. Dark skinned races seldom acquire this or any form of skin cancer, and yet skin

cancers are the most prevalent form of cancer. In the rare cases in which a dark skinned

person does acquire melanoma, it will be under the fingernails, on the palms of the hand,

sole of the feet, or inside the mouth. These areas are surface tissues that do not posses the

darker pigment, and due to their location, these cases of cancer could not be caused from

sun damage. Those regions closest to the equator, have people whose skin has evolved or

adapted to the more intense sunlight. Their darker skin is a consequence of the human

melanin cells having adapted to convert the sunlight’s harmful ultraviolet waves, into

harmless heat waves. Thus, the people who reside in the tropical regions of the globe,

have skin that has already adapted to a harmful attack (ultraviolet waves) and therefore,

using this new model, we can view these cells as no longer being the easiest cells for

the opportunistic cancer to ‘pick on’. People in the tropical regions who do posses

defective immune systems will find that they have cells other then their melanin, which

are easier for their immune system to stimulate. Or if the cancer does choose to divide the

melanin cells, it will be the tissues that do not poses this modification(palms of hand, sole

of foot, etc.).

Using this model we would predict that similar cultures would produce similar cancer

statistics. This fact has eluded no one. We have always been aware that people who share

the same culture, same lifestyle, same access to health services and facilities, same

documentation methods etc. would have the same life expectancy, and the same mortality

rates for diseases. If however, one group of a society were to be immune to one form of

cancer, then we would expect, mathematically, that the numbers would have to be made

up for, in other forms of cancer. We see a prim example of this theoretical prediction by

examining cancer in African Americans. They share the same culture as the North

American Caucasians, and yet they could be considered to be ‘genetically immune’ from

acquiring skin cancer. Thus we see African Americans with alarmingly higher rates of

lung cancer, for instance. The slight deviation in smoking habits can not account for the

vast deviation in cancer statistics. It has been acknowledged that African Americans

suffer disproportionately from chronic and preventable disease compared to the White

Americans. Similar anomalies have been observed in American Indians, Hispanics, and

Asian/Pacific Island minorities. It has been acknowledged statistically that these groups

all smoke less cigarettes per day then there White counterparts, yet these groups all have

alarmingly higher incidents of lung disease, and lung cancer. No justifiable explanation is

offered by the present DNA model for this anomaly. The explanation that perceptively

follows from this new model, makes far more sense to me. Prior to this new model, we

were at a loss as to how to account for the vast discrepancies in these numbers. I would

expect that this phenomena could be observed by viewing statistics between Australians,

and Aborigines as well. Consider the plight of the Australians. Here we have a culture of

displaced Europeans who were originally placed there as a penal colony. They do not

posses the required genetically modified skin to live in this more tropical environment.

Thus we now see, as this modern trend of possessing weaker immune systems takes

effect, the skin of the Australian Caucasians is coming more and more under heavy

attack. This trend can also be observed by studying the cancers of Northern Europe and

comparing these to countries closer to the equator in Southern Europe. This explanation

accounts for countries nearer to the equator, although their incidence of melanoma is

lower, do have a higher incidence of other types of cancer. Liver cancer for instance, is

six times more prevalent in Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, and Italy) than it is in

Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland and Norway). This principle can be applied across

the board in explaining why some types of cancer are more rare then others. The rarer

forms of cancer have a cell structure that is more difficult for the immune system to

stimulate into scar tissue.

This same principal (cancer cells ‘picking on’ the easiest target ) can be used to explain

childhood cancer, and help to explain why the list for adult cancers and child cancers is so

different. I will now attempt to explain how childhood leukemia and brain cancer fit into

this new model.

During the initial development of the body, all organs, muscles and bones undergo a

growth period which lasts until adulthood. All tissues in the body undergo development

during this time. An infant boy starts out at 6 pounds, and 18 years later he weighs 180

pounds. Thus each pound of mass must multiply itself approximately 30 times. Because

of this ongoing development, these tissues are constantly being fabricated and revised.

The observed phenomena indicate that these cells are less susceptible to being stimulated

by a faulty immune system, undoubtedly as a result of this elevated activity. That is to

say, the defective immune system will not assess these cells as requiring accelerated cell

division, because these cells are currently undergoing accelerated cell division, which is a

natural part of development of the body during adolescence.(A wound that would result

in a scare formation on an adult is less likely to form scare tissue when a similar wound is

received by a child, due to this phenomenon.) The white blood cells, on the other hand,

have previously been manufactured in the bone marrow, and now have left this ‘factory’

of origin. This circulatory system is best described by using an analogy of a manufacturer

with a recycling and maintenance department. Our body continues to manufacture blood

throughout our lifetime in this continuous ‘loop’ system. Newly repaired or manufactured

blood cells leave the factory (bone marrow) and will not be seen by the maintenance

department again, until they reenter the kidney and liver at the other end of the loop.

These individual white blood cells begin there journey through the body in the state of

decline (no longer being maintained). They have a short life span of between several days,

up to two weeks. Since all the other cells in this adolescent are undergoing intense

development, these are the cells that become the easiest targets for a defective immune

system to divide. Thus leukemia, becomes the most common form of childhood cancers.

Once the body is fully grown, the organ tissues no longer have this inherent advantage of

the ongoing development, and so these organs become susceptible to cancerous activity to

the same extent as the rest of the adult population. The observed phenomena supports the

hypotheses that developing tissues are less prone to cancerous activity then the matured

tissues are.

In the developing years, the human brain undergoes the least amount of mass variance.

The brain starts out between 350 and 400 grams and grows to a weight of between 1300

and 1400 grams. Thus, the brain undergoes a mass increase of 3.6 times its original (in

contrast to 30 times, for all other tissues). This fact means that the development of the

brain tissue is considerably slower, or less intense then the development of the rest of the

body tissues. This helps us to understand why childhood brain tumors are the principal

form of cancer of a solid mass. Brain tissue is the ‘low man on the totem-pole’ as far as

cell activity is concerned. Thus, it becomes the easiest tissue for the defective immune

system to ‘pick on’. The combination of leukemia, and brain tumors, represent the vast

majority of all childhood cancers.

If it does turn out to be a defective immune system that is causing cancer, and not some

environmental agent, as is the present focus, then it should be possible to show a concrete

‘cause-effect’ relationship between cancer and a defective immune system. A concrete

relationship has thus far proven to be impossible using the present model for cancer.

Under the new model, it would be predicted that a concrete relationship could not be

found using the present DNA model, because it is missing half of the equation. They will

only be able to compile lists of suspected cancer causing substances and activities. To

defend the tobacco industry, a lawyer needs merely to produce one or more ‘healthy’

individual, all of whom have smoked for a long period of time, in order to show that

there is not a concrete relationship between their product and cancer. It will always be

possible to find a healthy smoker, or a healthy asbestos miner. If however, this healthy

individual were to have their immune system become weak (the other half of the

equation), the resulting maverick cancer cells are most apt to attack the weakened lung

tissues of this individual (thus showing further support to an identified link to cancer).

Therefore, tobacco becomes an environmental ‘link’ that has been shown to cause cancer

in some individuals. Smoking cigarettes does not guarantee that you will get lung cancer.

Sun-tanning does not guarantee that you will get skin cancer. But as was stated earlier,

while the list of ‘links’ to cancer becomes longer, there is no real progress being made.

Immunosuppressant medications are the exception to this, and this fact lends itself

beautifully to add support to the theory that the immune system contains the cancer cells,

and is responsible for cancerous activity. These medications were developed to

intentionally decrease the effect of the immune system in organ transplant patents, so that

the bodies defense mechanism would not attack (reject) the foreign tissue. If the patient

survives the transplant operation, and overcomes the rejection, they will live longer lives

then they would have, had they not had the transplant operation. However, the transplant

patient will ultimately succumb to a bout with cancer. This phenomenon has scientists

struggling for an explanation:

“Scientists believe transplant recipients were already at risk for cancer because their

weakened immune system could not keep healthy cells from becoming malignant”.

“ The use of immunosuppressants(cyclosporine) increases the chance cancer cells will

divide and invade surrounding tissue. However it is not clear if cyclosporine can change

normal cells into cancer cells researchers say”

web search for ‘organ transplants’

Organ Transplant Drug Increases Cancer Risk

Friday, Feb.12, 1999

Here we have a conclusive ‘link’ between cancer cells, and immunosuppressants

(tampering with, or weakening the immune system). Thus we find that a deliberately

weakened immune system will doubtlessly, cause the patient to succumb to cancer.(4*) It

would be anticipated that this fact is what scientists have been yearning for.

This phenomenon begs the question; If a weakened immune system has been shown to

causes cancer, would it not therefor follow that a strengthened immune system, should

overcome, or at least prevent cancer? This incident clearly establishes that there is a

cause-effect relationship between cancer and a weakened immune system, and by using

this new model for explaining cancer, we would predict that by creating a defective

immune system, we can expect that some form of cancer will result. All the other ‘links’

and ‘markers’ merely help to ascertain which of the numerous types of cancer the patient

is likely going to acquire. That is to say, the numerous lifestyle links, environmental links,

and dietary links all have a tendency to either promote, or demote, any given tissue in the

body, towards, or away from cancerous activity. I believe that these patients were

pre-determined to obtain cancer merely by having an immune system that had lost control

over their cancer cells. Regrettably, it then became only a question of which type of

cancer they would ultimately

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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.

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.

One could point out that modern science has permitted us to experience a longer life span

then that of our ancestors. Even with this modern epidemic of cancer, we are living longer

lives then before the industrial revolution. Inarguably this is a fact. I believe however that

the pendulum has swung too far. I hold that cancer is an unnecessary byproduct of our

modern lifestyle, which is now attempting to bypass nature in this endeavor to provide for

our health through the use of the vast array of pharmaceuticals. This phenomenon brings

to mind a quote from John Dryden, “God never made His work for man to mend.”

The consequence of this action, is a weaker immune system, which I believe can lead to

the development of cancer (which I define as a defect in the ‘repair’ aspect of our immune

system). Further, this helps to explain why cancer is less prevalent in undeveloped

countries, and more prevalent in developed countries. Third World countries do not have

access to anywhere near the amount of immune enhancing medications that are available

to Western Societies. As a result, they don’t have near the incidents of cancer either.

Some studies show Thailand as having the lowest incidences of cancer. Bangkok, the

capital of Thailand, and one of the largest cities in the world, has a population density of

3,292 people per square kilometer. This is a city that grew around a river and canal

system which provides for its transportation needs, its waist removal needs, as well as its

bathing and drinking needs. Those famous/infamous photographs of traffic police

wearing respirators, were taken in Bangkok. Thus these people would possess an immune

system that is accustomed to a good workout, having to fight off a higher frequency of

circulating antigens in their culture. A strong immune system would be mandatory to

endure in this environment. These global maps of cancer clusters show that you are forty

times more likely to acquire cancer from being raised in Denmark, then you are if you’re

from Thailand.

Cancer is not limited to the human species. Farm animals and pets also have been

diagnosed with cancer. But observe however, that the animals that are diagnosed with

cancer, all tend to be animals that routinely receive treatments from veterinarians, or care

giving owners, who attempt to improve the animals health with enriched or fortified feed,

medicines and booster shots designed to assist the immune system. Animals such as

raccoons, bats, foxes and skunks have all been diagnosed with rabies, but it is extremely

rare to learn of these animals, which are outside of the domestic category (wild animals,

who receive no treatment of any kind) being diagnosed with cancer. On the other hand,

horses, cats, and dogs, have nearly the same rates of cancer as humans have. (There

will always be exceptions. Just as an animal can be born with a defective heart, or

defective liver, it is conceivable that there might also be cases in which an animal could

be born with a defective immune system.)

What can we do about this dilemma?

Nature provides us with many examples which illustrate that it operates on a “Use it or

Loose it” philosophy. If you are presently able to lift heavy objects, and stop lifting

anything heavy for a long period of time, your ability to lift those objects will become

lost. If you can run a mile in five minutes, and stop running, your ability to run at that

pace will eventually be gone. The body will stop, or slow down the production of

hormones such as natural steroids, melatonin, estrogen, etc. if they were being produced

for it. Science has shown that even the mind is subject to this ‘use it or loose it’ rule.

It stands to reason then that the immune system is also subject to this rule. Each time

you assist your body in fighting off a disease or virus, you retard its natural ability to do

the job on its own. As with everything else in the body, the immune system is subject to

atrophy. If you don’t use it, it won’t be there for you when you really need it.

How is someone to prepare there immune system to handle a fight with cancer? (Or as I

am suggesting, not to ‘fight’ but rather, to reclaim control of these cells?) Through

exercise. Exercise your immune system just as you would any other system; in increasing

increments. If the ability to lift heavy objects, or the ability to run a five

minute mile can be re-acquired through exercise in increasing increments, and the

immune system is subject to the same rules as the muscular system, or cardiovascular

system, than it is reasonable to assume that the immune system could be put on an

exercise agenda that would allow it to re-acquire the necessary strength, so as to redeem

its domain over these cancer cells. Consider the treatment of chemotherapy, which is

described as a process of almost killing the body with poison. This protocol tends to make

the entire body ill, thereby inadvertently exercising the immune system. When the body

rebounds, it rebounds stronger than before, similar to a body that had been in an exercise

workout. This new strength allows the immune system to reclaim the body for a period of

time, (called a remission) but if the patient continues the lifestyle that allowed the cancer

cells to take over in the first place; i.e. weakening their immune system with modern

methods of immune supplements and pharmaceuticals, (trying to do the immune systems

job, for it) then one would expect the statuesque to return. This perhaps helps to explain

why chemotherapy; although it is not a cure, does tend to prolong a patients life.

Most of the scientific studies and protocols that presently offer treatment to cancer

patients tend to focus on the immune system. These studies have two things in common:

1) they are unsuccessful at curing cancer, and 2) they all try to stimulate; enhance;

activate; invigorate; boost; assist etc., the immune system.

It would seem foreign, or perhaps even absurd to introduce infectious contaminants

into the human body. It would seem ludicrous to do this to someone who is already ill.

Yet it could be that it is this inverse line of thinking that would help to explain why a

successful cure has eluded so many, for so long. It would be difficult to find a solution to

a problem that lies in the opposite direction from where everyone is looking. The concept

may sound ‘ludicrous’, but from the perspective of this new model for cancer, this is still

a logical supposition. If we can produce a remission from inadvertently exercising the

immune system once, with poison (as in a chemotherapy session), imagine the results of

setting out to systematically exercise the immune system repeatedly, without harming the

entire body in the process. I believe that the successful protocol will not stimulate, but

rather, aggravate the immune system. Instead of trying to invigorate, we should irritate.

Assisting becomes tormenting. Helping becomes hurting. Hurt your immune system like

you hurt your muscular system during a vigorous workout. Hurt your immune system like

you would hurt your cardiovascular system running a marathon. Helping the immune

system, I believe has shown to be counter-productive. If you are getting the opposite

results to what you desire, than logic dictates that you should do the opposite to what you

are doing to get that which you do desire. The byproduct of helping the immune system,

is to weaken it, which allows the cancer cells to go out of control. It should follow then

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

allow it to regain control over these maverick cells. Under this new model, it is

conceivable that the successful treatment would take the form of ‘clinically’ torturing the

body, which is precisely what chemotherapy is doing, but on an exhaustive scale. A series

of allergy tests would discover some things that the immune system reacts to, but avoid

the full spectrum attack that is presently provided by chemotherapy. Things that irritate

the immune system would be a good exercise tool. I have a suspicion that these

‘alternative medicines’ that seem to miraculously cure some individuals, and mystify the

professionals, are by chance exercising that patients immune system. This individual is

simply allergic to one or more of the ingredients in these concoctions. This would help to

explain why some cancer fighting cocktails respond miraculously in some patients, and

yet can be utterly useless or unresponsive in the majority of patients. The patients who are

not allergic to any of the ingredients, unfortunately, do not get the workout. Similarly, the

evidence supports that combination strategies have been shown to be more effective then

single treatments. This could be accounted for using this same logic. Introducing a greater

number of ingredients merely increases the chances that the cancer patient will be allergic

to one or more of the ingredients. I suspect that finding out what a patient is allergic to,

and then provoking an immune response with this antigen, would be a productive

approach, if this new model holds any merit. This line of thought is consistent with the

observable data that shows that few allergy sufferers ever develop a cancer. Several

studies have raised the possibility that people with over stimulated immune systems may

have a reduced risk of brain cancer (the most mysterious cancer in terms of being able to

find any “cause-effect” relationship).

No single medicine has been discovered that works for everyone. If everyone were

allergic to the same thing, then that substance would no longer be considered as an

allergy. It would be labeled as a ‘poison’. Accordingly, a poison could be described as a

‘generic substance’ that everyone is allergic too. Chemotherapy could therefore be

considered as an exercise of the immune system using a universal antigen that everyone is

allergic too. The logic used in employing poison,(as in chemotherapy) is to slowly harm

everything, and hope that the cancer cells are the first things to die. Similarly, radiation

therapy is a broad spectrum attack on all living cells, and the hope is that the cancer cells

are the first to die. What I believe is actually taking place, is an exercise of the immune

system, being forced to repair or reconstruct the body from all the harm being caused by

this poison or radiation. Because these poisons cannot distinguish between cancerous and

normal cells, they disrupt or kill normal, healthy cells throughout the body besides

attacking the tumor. This protocol has been somewhat successful due to the fact that it

inadvertently forces the immune system into the scenario, and simultaneously creating an

intense workout for it.

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 no real harm to the body. By employing these antigens, it should therefore

be possible to give the immune system the exercise, without simultaneously giving it the

body any of the accompanying destruction that is inherent with chemotherapy and

radiation. Unfortunately, this philosophy will vanish; because there is no way to bottle

and brand this approach.

I believe the cure for cancer will be as individual as our own immune systems are. Not

everyone catches a cold when a cold virus comes around. (although, perhaps everyone

should try to.) There is no cure for the common cold, and I believe there never will be.

The cold virus is natures way of running the immune system through a series of exercises,

thus attempting to keep it functioning in top form. In the fight against cancer, everyone

seems to concede that the answer lies within the immune system. All efforts are being

focused on finding out what causes the immune system to kick in and finally go after the

cancer cells in some individuals. My thoughts are also linked to the immune system, but I

hold that we must find out what it is that wakes up our own immune system, and causes it

to reclaim control over these maverick cancer cells, which I believe are an integral part of

the immune system. A good place to start this search would be finding antigens which

cause allergies in a patient. Perform chemotherapy using this antigen, which is a poison

only to this individual’s immune system, and does no real harm to the body. The results

should be the immune system receiving the exercise, without the body receiving any

significant adverse effects. The stronger immune system should then be capable of

regaining control over these cancer cells (as in a remission), and the body should revert

back to near normal conditions.

(1*) I thought I should start by re-evaluate this original theory of cancer. After kicking

around the present day theory for 120 plus years, with no significant progress, I deem that

a change in venue is warranted. But anyone can criticize. I believe that it is fruitless to

attack an idea without offering an alternative to consider. This is why I am proposing an

alternate hypothesis that I believe warrants investigation. While others focus on better

ways to treat the attacked tissues, and earlier ways of detecting this attack, and ways to

avoid being attacked, I am focusing on why there is an attack in the first place, and where

it is coming from. I include this critique to disclose why I am not content to wait patiently

while the scientific community figures it all out. I will at least consider alternatives.

As we are all no doubt aware, there is a sea of information out there. One might expect

the subject of cancer data to be mathematical, and therefor, very cut-and-dry. But in

reality, it is all very muddy. People have different agenda for collecting information, and

with a sea of available statistics, it becomes arbitrary as to which are included and which

are excluded. Most collectors of data are employed by Pharmaceutical firms and

obviously want the data to appear favorable to the health care industry. The pessimists

and ‘nay-sayer’s’ are outnumbered. Because of the choices available in the data, you

therefore walk into an unavoidable trap when you choose the data that you wish to

include. The best means to avoid this dilemma that I could come up with was to journey

back into old encyclopedia sets, where cancer deaths were documented as a number per

100,000 people, in districts such as Wales and England, and they would then compare

this to the United States. In this manner, we can get raw figures of how many people

actually died of say ‘ lung cancer’ in the year 1949. We can then do this with older

encyclopedia sets and compare these numbers. It can then be observed that the numbers

virtually stay the same. We then have the burden of comparing these statistics with

modern statistics. To do this we need to sum all the numbers that have been factored off,

and un-adjust figures that have been adjusted. This leads us back into the problem of

selective data collecting. A task that you would expect to be easy, is actually quite

difficult. With so many factors to consider in collecting data, and so many ways to present

the data, and so many agendas to be considered, it will always be subject to ridicule. I

wish that I could point to a web site that had just raw numbers in columns representing

cancer types. The closest site to this would be the World Health Organization

(www.who.org) mortality tables. But these figures too are subject to the same criticisms

as others, and the categories of cancer types are still changing. It is hard to see patterns

when there are so many variables. For this reason, I thought the safest approach would be

to accept the statistics gathered by the American Cancer Society, whose agenda would

obviously be to have the data look as favorable as possible, and then examine the means

with which they present this data. That is why I included their quotation “ there has been

little overall increase over the previous 40 years in either the number of new cases

reported or the number of cancer deaths”.

This is the most favorable way of reporting the progress that they could come up with,

and then only after factoring off the statistics that were unfavorable, namely lung cancer,

melanoma and AIDS-related cancers. To paraphrase the American Cancer Society it

could be said that the overall view of cancer is not getting any worse, so long as we

ignore lung cancer, melanoma and AIDS-related cancers. If however, we do not go along

with factoring out unfavorable statistics, then we would be forced into the realization that

the overall statistics are in fact, getting worse. I have tried to steer clear of the statistical

battle that will always be available for anyone who wants to argue about statistics. For

those who wish to believe that things are getting better, there will always be an abundance

of statistics available to comfort this belief. It seems to be human nature to look on the

positive side of things and dismiss the pessimists as being negative thinkers. On this

point, I would no doubt be considered as a pessimist. To deny that things are getting

worse is natural, and has allowed for cancer to become this modern day epidemic. I can

appreciate that the medical profession has made strides in their efforts to prolong the lives

of people who have been diagnosed with cancer. I find it frustrating, the claim that they

are ‘winning the battle ‘ against cancer, when I am not convinced that they even know

what cancer is. In 1971, U.S. president Richard Nixon symbolically declared war on

cancer. Scientists were burdened since they did not even know what caused cancer. They

hastily came up with an hypothesis which explained what cancer was. The hypothesis put

forward, was, and is the present day DNA model, which describes cells as suddenly

reproducing themselves, because of a defect in that individual cell’s DNA(an expansion

of the original Cohnheim theory). This model provides few answers, does not allow for

any predictions to be made, and leaves unaccounted for, most of the phenomena that is

observed in the field of cancer research. I am offering an alternate approach that I believe

addresses these anomalies and warrants consideration. Since there are two distinct ways

in which a cell can undergo replacement, why not analyze both ways as possible causes of

when something goes wrong? If we are all content that sufficient progress is being made

in the field of cancer research, then it would not be necessary to look elsewhere, or

consider other explanations. I attack this claim that we are winning the battle against

cancer, only to then go on and offer up a different possible solution.

(2*)Our skin is also the largest body organ, and therefore, mathematically, it would be the

most susceptible organ to cancer. Lung tissue is the second largest organ, and the second

most attacked tissue by cancer. This mathematical approach does not hold up in

predicting the rarer forms of cancer however. Some tissue cells are merely more easily

stimulated by the cancer cells than others. There are countless examples that show it is a

natural phenomena to take the “path of least resistance”. Cancer attacking the easiest

target, would merely be one more example of this.

(3*). There has been attempts at deriving a vaccine from melanoma patients for decades,

however this attempt has thus far, been unsuccessful. Science has not been able to derive

a ‘serum rich in antibodies’ from a cancer survivor, undoubtedly because no serum exists.

If the ability to overcome (survive) cancer were to come as a result of the cancer patient

merely reclaiming control over their unrestrained immune system, then the body would

not have developed its own serum of antibodies. Since the existing phenomenon shows

the immune system does not develop any special antibodies in patients who have

overcome cancer, this becomes further overwhelming proof that cancer is not a foreign

antigen but rather, is part of the immune system.

(4*). I have heard that there is a new Immunosuppressant named ‘rapamycin’ that does

not show this concrete cause-effect relationship between cancer and tampering with the

immune system. I would account for this as being a drug that had a scope more defined to

the ‘identify’ or the ‘destroy’ aspects of the immune system, while not adversely affecting

the ‘repair’ aspect. This would then have the desired effect of having the body not reject

the transplanted tissues, but at the same time, not impede the immune system into

unnecessarily repairing tissues that did not require this service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.