CSN Login
Members Online: 13

Cancer Theory

ricwally
Posts: 18
Joined: Mar 2003

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

Cancer is the disruption of the orderly and regulated cycle
of cell replication and division under the control of our genes.
This is a terse synopsis of the what is presently held as the cause of this modern pandemic.
“Control of our genes” has been attributed to our DNA. Any disruption with this process,
must therefor lie with the DNA. The ‘faulty DNA’ model is the only model put forward
to explain this disruption of the orderly regulated cycle. It has not been necessary to label
this as a theory, because no other theories have been put forward. Thus, it has been taken
as a ‘given’ that this disruption of the cell replication was the result of faulty DNA. All
efforts have thus far been concentrated on determining what it is that is causing the DNA
in some individuals to go astray. Various links to lifestyle, genetics, and environmental
contaminants (carcinogens), have all been proposed as possible explanations. Yet as the
lists of possible explanations grows larger, there appears to be no reduction in the amounts
of patients acquiring some form of cancer. A considerable amount of money has been
spent in the pursuit of finding a cure. Many new carcinogens or potential causes have been
brought to light. Many strides have been made towards extending the lives of those
afflicted with this misfortune. But much of this ‘deemed’ success could be attributed to the
‘early detection’ alone. Consider two hypothetical cases of an identical cancer that has a
duration of twelve years. The first case goes undetected until the tenth year of the ailment
before it is discovered. We then have a documented case that will be deemed as an
aggressive cancer, which took its toll within two short years. In the second case, the
patient is detected early, let’s say in the second year. So this patient will be logged as
having had a ten year survival rate, before finally succumbing to the disease. This scenario
illustrates how the move towards detecting the cancer early, in itself has led to the
appearance of great medical strides being achieved, even if this second hypothetical patient
received no medical attention after his or her early diagnosis. I do not make this point to
ridicule the medical profession. Rather, it is just one more example of one set of data
having more then one conclusion. Early detection has been attributed to being of
paramount importance in the survival rates of cancer. It could be that ‘early detection’ is
merely giving a head start to the timepiece that measures cure success.
Another critique that I have is the tendency to dilute the figures for cancer into an ever
increasing number of categories. This tendency gives the appearance that the numbers of
patients that are afflicted with a certain cancer type is on the decline. For example, in years
past, there was but one type of breast cancer. All cases of the ailment fell into this one
category. Presently there is a tendency to siphon off some of the occurrences of breast
cancer into their own categories. Inflammatory Breast Cancer, and Male Breast Cancer
are often removed from the big picture to be viewed as separate issues. The remaining
cases are divided into ductile versus lobular categories; or invasive versus in-situ. Since it
is not possible for a patient to simultaneously come down with both types, they must
therefor fall under the category of one or the other. By virtue of the numbers now being
divided, they are now being used to represent the appearance of a decline in cases of
cancer for any one category. This gives a misleading impression that the medical
community is making great strides in their efforts to combat this ‘disease’. However, it can
be observed that the overall picture is getting uglier. If we sum these categories back
together so that we can compare them with the earlier statistics of breast cancer, then we
are forced into the grim realization that there is no progress being made. This trend can
also be observed in the categorization of colon cancer patients. In earlier years, there were
no individual categories of anal cancer, prostate cancer, rectal cancer, bowel cancer, and
colon cancer. These were all under one category. As science became more knowledgeable,
it could be detected that there were differences in these types of cancer, and as a result,
new categories were required, and warranted. Since it is not possible to go back in time
and properly re-categorize the earlier statistics into the new categories, we would need to
sum these current categories together for comparison purposes, in order to see if any
progress was being made in this sector of cancer research. These figures, too are
discouraging.
The long list of potential ’links’ to cancer, does not appear to be producing any better
health. Knowing that asbestos dust, or a high fat diet, may be contributing to this
epidemic; or that a high fiber diet, or sun block lotions have been attributed to the survival
from this epidemic, does not appear to have much effect on the epidemic as a whole. 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. 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
States?"
The false claim that cancer rates are rising is a favorite of quackery promoters who
want to undermine public trust in food companies, drug companies, chemical
manufacturers, and the medical profession. ACSH's 1995 report concluded that, with
a few exceptions -- primarily lung cancer (caused by cigarette smoking), melanoma (a
skin cancer related to overexposure to sunlight), and AIDS-related cancers -- there
had been little overall increase over the previous 40 years in either the number of new
cases reported or the number of cancer deaths."(end of quotation)
This claim, in my opinion does not represent progress. It would be equivalent to claim that
the fleet gas mileage of domestic passenger vehicles was on the rise, so long as we exclude
the SUV’s and pick-up trucks. When we start to pick and choose the statistics that we are
going to include,(or in this case exclude) we are manipulating the data to say anything that
we want it too. There is a self evident ‘fallacy’ with this practice. For this reason, I try to
limit my use of numbers and percentages, since there are so many of them to choose from,
and it is human nature to use the figures that support your claim, and dismiss those that do
not.
My quest into the subject of cancer begins before the industrial revolution, when cancer
was an exceptionally unusual disease. I will start with a passage taken from an
Encyclopedia Britannica article from 1949, in which the German pathologist Rudolf
‘Virchow laid great stress upon the importance of chronic irritation in the causation
of new growth ...The rival theory put forward by Cohnheim about 1880 that new growth
arises from embryological remnants included within the tissue owing to some slight error
in development.’
Here we learn that the first views on cancer (prior to 1880) were thought to be caused by
the body repairing cells that were subjected to “chronic irritation”.
Evidently, this original theory fell out of favor to the ‘new’ rival theory ( the Cohnheim
theory which has evolved into the present day DNA theory) but I can only speculate as to
why.
I will begin by re-examining the original explanation that was held back in 1860 in which;
“chronic irritation” is the cause of the growth (cancer)(*1). This chronic irritation would
imply the breakdown or continuous damage inflicted on one group of cells, or one tissue
type. It had long been observed that betel-nut chewing had been linked to oral cancer. This
phenomena was originally accounted for with the claim that the abrasive quality of these
nuts caused an irritation in the cheek tissue of the mouth. When the new theory came
along, this phenomena was attributed to arecoline, one of the properties that could now be
scientifically identified to this plant, as being responsible for the oral cancer. Similarly,
connections were made between scrotum cancer and soot by observing the high
percentage of chimney sweeps who came down with this ailment. As time progressed, it
could be isolated that it was benzopyrene, an ingredient in coal tar that was causing the
irritation. This new ability to isolate the specific element that were responsible for this
cause-effect relationship, coincided with the new proposed theory from Cohnheim (which
held that the cancerous growth was caused from “embryological remnants included within
the tissue owing to some slight error in development” . The newly discovered technique of
microscopical staining, lent itself remarkably well to the belief that there was something
going on inside the individual cell that was causing it to lawlessly reproduce itself, and had
just become available in 1872. I can well imagine how this new ability to examine
carcinogens at the molecular level, helped this new ‘molecular theory’ win favor over the
older chronic irritation theory. Nevertheless this does not invalidate the original theory.
The original theory was never revoked, or flat out rejected, but rather it was passed over
when these new scientific tools came on line. It would have been preferable for the
supporters of the original theory to concede that it was not the soot that was causing the
irritation,( or more specifically the benzopyrene in the soot,) as opposed to overturning
the theory altogether. It should have been conceded that it was not the abrasive irritant of
the betel nuts that was ‘physically’ weakening the tissue, but rather something in the nut
that was ‘chemically’ weakening the tissue at this location. Then the cronic 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. Recognize
that the immune system has three main 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 obviously
result in a similar situation to that which we presently attribute to cancer. 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, it can be detected 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 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 primary means of cell replacement does not have attributed these inferior qualities that
the immune system replacement method has. 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 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 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
incident in which our immune system permits the existence of any non-legitimate cells in
its domain, is when the foreign cells are from an identical twin. To explain why cancer is
being left alone, the scientific community has had to resort to a multitude of special events
taking place. We are told that these cancer cells take on an ‘immortal’ status, and acquire
the ability to ‘disguise’ themselves, and ‘recruit allies’ in there defense, and a multitude of
other special powers that are attributed only to cancer cells. The belief that cancer cells
somehow become unrecognizable by the immune system is a necessary stratagem of the
present DNA theory. To give credence to the concept that some cells are unrecognizable
to the immune system, we could phrase this phenomena to read; “ cells from an identical
twin are unrecognizable to the immune system.” We would then have at least one natural
occurrence of this ‘unrecognizable’ phenomenon. But this begs the question, why? The
answer I believe is intuitive. These cells go unrecognized because they have the same
characteristics as the bodies own cells, and therefor the immune system lacks the ability to
distinguish these foreign cells from the body’s own cells. Therefore it could be concluded
that since cancer cells are also treated in a like manor to cells that are not recognized as
being different, then they too are deemed to be not foreign. To say that they are not
foreign, is equivalent to saying that they are domestic, or rather, a legitimate part of the
body. If there were other occurrences in which living cells were granted the same
privileges as the cancer cells, then this conclusion would not be as incontestable. Since
there are no other occurrences (outside of an identical twin) in which this phenomena can
be observed to occur, then I feel that this conclusion is warranted, namely that cancer cells
are a legitimate product of the body, and their function asserts that they are a part of our
immune system. If we do not yield this point, then we are still faced with having to explain
why our immune systems leave the cancer cells alone. Similarly, we would still be faced
with the burden of accounting for how cancer manages to travel throughout the body and
take up residence in a new location, without being detected or encountering resistance
along the way. If we accept the cancer cell as being a legitimate body cell, all these
perplexing problems go away. We would no longer have to consider how cancer spreads
from one cell to another, or how it overcomes the multitude of safeguards that the body
has in place to prevent the sporadic mutation of cells, and the proliferation of this defect
into neighboring cells. Cancer becomes much simpler (and mathematically feasible ) when
we adapt this new framework.
The immune system can make scar tissue by dividing cells from tissues other then the
skin cells. The immune system repairs broken bones by rapidly stimulating the
regeneration of bone mass at the break site. Similarly, muscle tissue, tendons, or cartilage
tissue can undergo this immune systems rapid repair process. Again this scar tissue is
different from the original tissue. In fact, the body has over 200 different types of cells, so
in theory there could be, and probably are, over 200 different types of scar tissue.
Under this new theory, we can view cancer cells as an integral part of the immune system,
similar in nature to the B cells , T cells or natural killer cells, but with a different function.
Whereas the B cells are involved in the ‘identify’ process, and the T cells and natural killer
cells are involved in the ‘destroy’ process, the cancer cells function is in the ‘repair’ aspect
of the immune system, specifically the formation of scar tissues. It copies the surrounding
tissue, and then making copies of the copies, until the wound is impervious. With over 200
different types of cells, there is a potential for that many different cancer types. To date,
just over 100 cancers have been documented. If we use this new model to describe
Proteus Syndrome (i.e.. Joseph Merrick known as the Elephant Man) as the immune
system starting to relentlessly reproduce the bone mass in some individuals, then this too
might be categorized as a cancer. I believe that the same elements are at work that cause
this disease as are any cancerous tumors. But because this disease effects the skeletal
system , and has no adverse effect on any vital organs, or their blood supply, it has never
resulted in a direct cause of death, and therefore has avoided being labeled as a cancer.
Another disease that I believe has avoided the classification are some forms of heart
disease and strokes. It is reasonable to expect from what we know about cancer, that there
should be incidents of ‘heart cancer.’ The heart is a vital organ with access to an unlimited
blood supply, just as the liver, pancreas, lung etc. yet we never hear, nor have we needed
the term ‘heart cancer’. Using this new model, I would view 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.

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 non of this 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 is 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 (which caused the thyroid cancer to begin with ), 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 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 that often it does turn out to inflict the area with a new cluster of cancerous activity,
despite how diligent and careful the surgeon had preformed.
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, it tends to be in higher concentrations on the
surface and near body orifices in adults, due to its function. 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. 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 troubling 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 perfect 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. Thus we see this list of over
one hundred strange sounding tissue types that can come under attack only in childhood
cancer cases. As toddlers become older, this long list becomes shorter, and the tissue types
that can come under attack become more refined. Eventually the list of over one hundred
is reduced to a shorter list of familiar sounding names, and as a result the majority of all
childhood cancers fall into one of two categories; leukemia, or brain tumors. (Note that
the childhood cancers still do not have the orifice association that is prevalent in adult
cancers.)
I will address how leukemia and brain cancer fit into this theory later.
DNA defects could play a role in some individuals immune systems being more prone to
defect then others, however if this was a genetic defect, I would expect it to be self
correcting, by causing the carriers of the defect to parish prior to being of age to
reproduce themselves. Since cancer appears to be more of a modern epidemic, I tend
to lean towards the belief that it is something that we are doing to ourselves in modern
times that is causing it (specifically, this modern tendency to ‘assist’ our immune
systems.).
We now need to modify this new model to include a provision that points out that
cancer appears to be an ‘opportunistic disease’(2*). That is to say, the immune system will
‘pick- on’ or stimulate the tissue that it finds to be the easiest tissue to do so with. This
revision allows us to move on to understand many of the other anomalies surrounding this
disease. We can now look at the various links (environmental links; lifestyle links; heredity
links; etc.) as carcinogens that either promote a tissue type towards being the easiest tissue
from which the defective immune system can operate on, or the link may demote a certain
tissue away from being the likely candidate from which the defective immune system can
operate. Tobacco smoke, or asbestos dust have been linked to cancer of the mouth,
esophagus and lung. Using this new model we can view these tissues as having been
chemically weakened by these carcinogens, and now represent the easiest forms of tissue
that this individual is in possession of. If this individual also possesses the requisite faulty
immune system, then this person will get cancer, and it will be cancer of one or more of
these weakened tissues. Conversely, a high fiber diet has been linked to a decrease in the
number of colon, prostate and bowel cancer patients. Using this new model we can view
the high fiber diet as having physically strengthened the tissues in this region away from
being the easiest tissue from which the defective immune system can operate.
This hierarchy of tissue types tends to show that our melanin cells appears to be one of the
easiest cells from which a defective immune system can wreck havoc. One of the best
ways to demonstrate this principle, is to look closely at malignant melanoma (3*)
One of the most bizarre anomalies in my opinion, is in regards to melanoma. Melanoma
has been linked to sun damage, and yet it is less prevalent in the tropical regions of the
globe. Dark skinned races seldom acquire this or any form of skin cancer, and yet skin
cancers are the most prevalent form of cancer. In the rare cases in which a dark skinned
person does acquire melanoma, it will be under the fingernails, on the palms of the hand,
sole of the feet, or inside the mouth. These areas are surface tissues that do not posses the
darker pigment, and due to their location, these cases of cancer could not be caused from
sun damage. Those regions closest to the equator, have people whose skin has evolved or
adapted to the more intense sunlight. Their darker skin is a consequence of the human
melanin cells having adapted to convert the sunlight’s harmful ultraviolet waves, into
harmless heat waves. Thus, the people who reside in the tropical regions of the globe,
have skin that has already adapted to a harmful attack (ultraviolet waves) and therefore,
using this new model, we can view these cells as no longer being the easiest cells for
the opportunistic cancer to ‘pick on’. People in the tropical regions who do posses
defective immune systems will find that they have cells other then their melanin, which are
easier for their immune system to stimulate. Or if the cancer does choose to divide the
melanin cells, it will be the tissues that do not poses this modification(palms of hand, sole
of foot, etc.).
Using this model we would predict that similar cultures would produce similar cancer
statistics. This fact has eluded no one. We have always been aware that people who share
the same culture, same lifestyle, same access to health services and facilities, same
documentation methods etc. would have the same life expectancy, and the same mortality
rates for diseases. If however, one group of a society were to be immune to one form of
cancer, then we would expect, using this new model, 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. 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.) 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
through 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. 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. There
are only lists of suspected cancer causing product. 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 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 merely 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 acquires 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. 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
rac****s, 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 too. 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.
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. 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. This protocol has been somewhat
successful due to the fact that it is inadvertently forcing the immune system into an intense
workout. 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.
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 go after the cancer
cells. 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 you are no doubt aware, there is a sea of information out there. You would 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.

vcavanagh
Posts: 86
Joined: Dec 2002

Hello Ricwally, Thank you for your thoughts. You have clearly studied long and hard. I have to say that while I read your message O.K. and found it easy to understand as I went along, it was difficult to crystallise what you were trying to express. Could you give us an abbreviated version which might make it easier to grasp the thrust of the message. All thoughts should have a fair hearing. Best Wishes,
V.C.

ricwally
Posts: 18
Joined: Mar 2003

The best answer can be taken from the opening paragraph "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 rootproblem in cancer".

Subscribe with RSS
About Cancer Society

The content on this site is for informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Do not use this information to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease without consulting with a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult your healthcare provider with any questions or concerns you may have regarding your condition. Use of this online service is subject to the disclaimer and the terms and conditions.

Copyright 2000-2014 © Cancer Survivors Network