Jun 07, 2012 - 7:08 am
No one has ever questioned the premise that cancer is caused from a fault in the cell’s DNA. There has never been a challenge brought forward or an opposing hypothesis suggested. It has always been taken as a ‘given’ that cancer was caused from a defect in our DNA. This premise would appear to be the central point from which all studies into the disease stem from. But what if this is wrong? What if we made a mistake right out of the gate? The last 125 years have been spent looking exclusively at our DNA as the culprit for this unwanted tissue growth, with questionable progress and frustrating statistics.
There are two distinct methods from which a living cell can be generated. Since the procedures that are capable of creating a living cell are limited to just two methods, then a flaw in the generation of unwanted cells should therefore be limited to one of these two methods. That is to say that cancer, which is defined as the growth of unwanted tissues, must either be the result of a defect in our DNA, or a defect in the repair process of our immune system ( the only other way in which a cell can come into being). A third scenario does not exist that is capable of creating a living cell, therefore a third scenario should not exist that could be a possible explanation for when something goes wrong. Thus far only one of the two methods has been considered as the culprit for when something goes wrong with the orderly generation of cells. Only the DNA method (the much studied process in which the cell’s DNA instructs the cell to divide as outlined in the internal code of the cell) has been considered as the root cause of cancer.
The second and only other process that exists that is capable of generating a living cell, is this much less studied, and less understood method whereby the body’s own immune system is sent to a region immediately following some form of trauma; initially to stimulate the neighbouring cells into rapidly reproducing themselves in an endeavour to seal over a wound to hinder or prohibit any blood loss, as well as prohibiting the entrance into the body of foreign contaminants. We refer to this process as the formation of scar tissue, and it is a function of our complex immune system. We generally tend to think of scar tissue as principally associated with our skin tissue. However any cell in the body is capable of being stimulated by the immune system into generating scar tissue. Broken bones or torn cartilage are repaired with the controlled formation of scar tissue. Many of the intricacies are not yet known as to how this process is set into motion. However it is intuitively obvious that there must be a start mechanism. When the body experiences a trauma, it springs into action and sends this repair mechanism to the damaged site. It must then follow that there needs to be a mechanism in place to tell the immune system when the healing process has been completed. With the same certainty that we know there is a ‘start mechanism’; obviously there must also be a ’stop mechanism’. Without fully understanding the intricacies of how these mechanisms work, we can know for certain that they do exist. It doesn’t require too much imagination to be able to predict what a defect in one or both of these start and stop mechanisms would result in. A defect in the ’start mechanism’ would set the immune system into motion as if it had experienced some form of trauma, and the body would begin doing repairs to tissues without first being given a need too. Similarly, a defect in the ‘stop mechanism’ would result in the inability for this repair process once it had been started, to know when to shut off this process. Either one of these two scenarios would result in the manufacturing of unwanted tissues. This event then would meet the definition of, and be indistinguishable from, what we presently refer to as ’cancer’. Instead of viewing cancer as a defect in the p53 tumor suppressor gene, we could view it as a defect in our immune system which is carrying out repairs on tissues that do not first need repairing, and/or repairing cells and then not receiving the signal to stop. There must be a stop code. I will be using the term ‘Scare tissue model’ to refer to the premise that the unwanted tissue we call cancer is a result of a defect in the immune system that is carrying out work on tissues that do not require work, or failing to receive the signal telling the body to stop this elevated level of activity.
‘Functionally and cosmetically inferior’ are characteristics shared by cells thought to be manufactured by cancer cells, and cells known to be manufactured by our immune system. And yet ‘functionally and cosmetically inferior’ characteristics are not attributed to cells known to be manufactured by the normal DNA method in cases other than cancer.
If cancer was a disease of the cell losing the ability to replicate itself in a controlled manor, then we could expect to see uniformity between the cancer tumor and the parent cell that had lost this ability to replicate itself in a controlled manner. However; there would be no reason to expect to see uniformity between the various cancers themselves (if this uniformity did not first exist between the parenting cells). But the Nobel laureate Otto Warburg, while studying the metabolism of tumors, noted that "cancers of various species and tissue origins reveal a high uniformity from tumor to tumor." Warburg, O.: Stoffwechsel d. Tumore, Springer, Berlin, 1926. Engl. edn., The Metabolism of Tumors, tr. F. Dickens, London, 1930.
i) "Correlatively, the Coris find the lactic acid and sugar content of the various exhibitions of cancer to be highly uniform. Williams and his co-workers report a pronounced degree of uniformity in the concentration of eight B vitamins in a great variety of animal and human tumours, regardless of the tissue of origin or the manner of their induction." Cori, C.F., and Cori, C.J.:J. Biol. Chem., 64:11, 1925
ii) "Shack describes an almost complete uniformity in cytochrome oxidase content in a number of mouse tumors.” Shack, J.: J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 3:389, 1943
iii) "Maver and Barrett describe substantial evidence for an immunological uniformity among malignant tumors. Greenstein reports an impressive degree of uniformity in enzyme concentration among malignant tissues, regardless of their means of induction, tissue of origin or species of origin." Greenstein, J.P.: Symposium on Cancer, A.A.A.S. Research Conference on Cancer, ed. F.R.Moulton, Am. Assoc. Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., 1945, p. 192
iv) "The uniformity of various exhibitions of cancer in respiratory properties, lactic acid production, vitamin content, enzyme content, action on a given substrate, effect on liver catalase, cytochrome oxidase content immunological properties, and many other characteristics is correlative to an uniformity of malignant tumors in the ability to metastasize, in their amenability to heterotransplantability, and in their autonomy, invasiveness and erosiveness. Indeed, there is no known basic property unique to any single exhibition of cancer---the only variation being a morphological one partially conditioned by admixed benign or somatic components." Cancer and the Immune System The Vital Connection
After considering all the above quotations, a fair question to be asked would be; why is there such uniformity between cancer tissues from tumor to tumor? If a fault in the DNA is causing this tissue growth, why then is the daughter cell even distinguishable from the normal cell? If we grant that a flaw in the p52 gene is allowing for the orderly manufacture of cells to going astray, this by itself does not give licence to the cells that are spontaneously being generated to be any different from the host cell. All of this uniformity seems to point to the possibility that there is one common theme in all cancers, which implies a single source of manufacture. It is impossible for the present DNA model to account for this anomaly of uniformity when such shared characteristics were not first present in the host/parent cells. Yet ‘uniformity’ is an obvious inference if the cancers were all being formed from a single source (i.e. the ‘repair’ arm of our immune system). A pattern of uniformity would be necessary if the immune system were responsible for the manufacture of all of these tissues and a pattern of uniformity is what is being observed. To account for this uniformity under the present definition of the DNA model of cancer, it is said that the original cancer has metastasized to another part of the body. The word ‘metastasized’ imparts the belief that the new cancer has similar characteristics to the original cancer. The patient is never considered to have come down with two bouts of cancer, but rather one which has managed to have cells ’break away’ and commence their havoc at a new site. The model for explaining how cancer can ‘spread’ like this under the DNA framework is troubling. The belief is that some cancer cells have broken away from the original site, and migrated to a new location and began work there (metastasized). But the original cancer is thought to have been caused by some antigen entering the body and attacking the DNA gene that is responsible for the orderly generation of cell replacement. The secondary site is never thought to be caused from a new antigen that has managed to enter this same patient, and started a new defect in the patients DNA. This ‘metastasize’ model allows for the similarities in the various cancer tumors to be understood and accounted for within the dogmatic framework of the current DNA model. The new cancer is described as a continuation of the original cancer at a new location. But the DNA model requires a host of special abilities being granted to these ‘cancer cells’ in order for them to be able to pull this off. They are given the ability to recruit allies, and ‘cloak’ themselves in the endeavour to explain how they can travel undetected and unharmed by the immune system as they journey to this new site.
Since there are only two ways in which a cell can be manufactured, and only one of the two methods can account for this ‘uniformity’, and in conjunction, account for why the new cell is distinguishable from the parent cell, and in turn account for why the cells can travel undetected in the body, then it would be prudent to entertain the possibility that the ‘repair’ aspect of our immune system (the only other way in which a living cell can come into existence) could be responsible for this non requested cell growth we refer to as ‘cancer‘.
There still remains many mysteries surrounding the immune system, and much is remaining to be learned. At present, the term ‘immune system’ is used to describe a complex series of body functions that is in actuality three distinct systems with three distinct responsibilities. The term ‘immune system’ is currently used to describe all three of these functions; it is the responsibility of the immune system to
It has been observed and acknowledged that there is a corresponding activity in the lymphatic system in episodes of cancer. Often it is observed that the cancer has spread to the adjacent lymph nodes, and a study of the individual’s lymph nodes is used to determine if the cancer has spread (metastasized). Yet 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. However; 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, and they are not fulfilling their function. Under the DNA model, it is not yet understood why the immune system would sit idle while events that it is designed to avert, takes place. No explanation is provided to account for how or even why the cancer employs the lymph nodes in the spread of the disease. From the framework of the scar tissue model, the lymph nodes would obviously be enlarged as the immune system was carrying out this work. But the present definition of cancer is thought to be having this activity take place without arousing an immune system response. If the cancer is to be defined as a defect at the cellular level as outlined in the DNA model, it is a necessary maxim to hold that the immune system is permitting the existence of these newly generated cells because it is unaware of their existence. From the framework of the DNA model the evidence supports that the immune system does not make any attempt to prevent this cancerous activity from taking place. The explanation for how these cancer cells do this requires that the cancer cells are bestowed a number of special abilities that are unique only to the cancer cells, all of which exceeds my level of gullibility. These special abilities are attributed to the cancer cells to help explain away why this event is being observed. This anomaly has never been adequately addressed and remains as a major conundrum of the present DNA model of cancer. It defies reason to accept that the immune system is doing nothing, and simultaneously accept that the lymph nodes are enlarged, but for a reason other than an immune system activity. A more credible explanation for this phenomenon is that the immune system is doing everything. If cancer were found to be a function of a defective immune system then this conundrum becomes a logical inference. The immune system will not attack the cancer because the immune system sent the cancer. I suspect that ‘cancer’ will one day be shown to be a maverick arm of the immune system, i.e. the patient has a defective ‘repair arm’ of his or her immune system which has lost the ability to know when not to commence work on damaged tissues, and/or lacks the ability to know when to shut off this work once it has commenced.) .
If a weakened immune system has been shown to causes cancer, as in the cases of patients taking immunosuppressants, would it not therefore follow that a strengthened immune system, should overcome, or at least prevent cancer? There is a disturbing pattern with immunosuppressant medications which clearly establishes that there is a cause-effect relationship between cancer and a weakened immune system. It would be anticipated that a concrete cause/effect relationship between cancer and a substance would be the Holy Grail in the cancer research world. This is the one thing that I would expect everyone would have been searching for. But no one seems to be able to recognise this because it doesn’t fit with the DNA model. The DNA model is focused exclusively on the inner workings of the cell for the answer as to why it is reproducing itself relentlessly. When the malfunctioning immune system generates this relentless cell production from outside the cell itself, it is dismissed as an unexplained anomaly because it cannot be accounted for within the confines of the dogmatic view that cancer is happening at the cellular level.
Cold-Hot; Inactive-active; benign-malignant. These are the differences between non life threatening benign tumours, and life threatening malignant tumours, specifically one is active (cancerous) and one is benign (scar tissue). It may turn out that the fundamental difference between a benign tumor and a cancerous tumor is in the timing of when they are being observed. If you discover a benign tumor (or perhaps we could call it a tumor ‘‘after-the-fact’’), the body has stopped, and there is a mass of fibrous scar tissue that is currently not undergoing any development. If however, you were to stumble upon this very same tumor as it was being manufactured, it would be deemed to be a cancerous tumor. If your body is capable of producing a benign tumor, it is capable of producing a cancerous tumor. In the benign tumor, the immune system began a repair process that may or may not have been required, but evidently it did in due course receive the ‘stop code’. In a cancerous tumor, either the cells do not receive the ‘stop code’, or it is being observed before it has received the ‘stop code’. I have never heard of an Oncologist saying to a patient “You’ve got some sort of tumor being produced, but let’s leave it be, and see if it doesn’t stop and become benign on its own”. If that same tissue were to be observed when it was inactive, it would simply be dismissed as a benign tumor that had previously been produced at some time in the past. It is dismissed as scarring, and is of no immediate concern, because it poses no danger to the patient. Everyone freely accepts that the inactive scar tissue was manufactured by the repair arm of the immune system. It should therefore be an easy inference to accept that cancer, or active scar tissue, or perhaps ‘runaway scar tissue’, is currently being manufactured by this same arm of the immune system, though be it a defective one.
When medical professionals discover 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 these tissues might also contain some of the stray cancer cells. 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. If the DNA model were to be true, that some carcinogen ventured to the site and caused a defect in the cell DNA, then this patient, now rid of the offending tissues, should mathematically be given the same bill of health as a non patient (i.e. someone who has never had cancer). But the statistics do not support this optimistic expectation. Quite often, the cancer patients who undergo surgery have recurrences at the original site. If the cancer returns but at another location, then the surgery would be statistically labeled as a success. Even with this clemency being granted, the statistics for the surgery are not too favorable. The apparent failure of the surgery has given birth to the suspicions that exposing the cancerous tissue to the air helps it to spread. Or exposing the cancer to the light of the Operating Room, perhaps, is what causes it to flourish. Exposing the cancer to the light and air is merely a necessary by-product 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 incidences of tumors, despite also being subjected to the light and air. These patients do not have the first prerequisite, namely the faulty immune system that is incapable of generating the “stop code“. 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 concept to ‘sell’ and an absurd proposition). If we were to attribute this reaction to the light and/or air as yet another mystical feature enjoyed only by cancer cells, we would still need to account for why every surgery was not subject to the same level of reoccurrence. From the point of view of this new model, this anomaly would be addressed as follows; the non cancerous patient has a properly functioning immune system which still has the ability of knowing when to stop the healing process. In cancer patients, the immune system has already shown to be defective, therefore it should not be surprising to find out that sometimes it does turn out to be relentlessly continuing the healing process and in so doing, inflict the area with a new cluster of cancerous activity, despite how diligent and careful the surgeon had preformed.
It is reasonable to expect from what we know about cancer, that there should be some occurrences 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 the term ‘heart cancer’. Hardening of the arteries could be accounted for by the immune system repairing the cells of the artery walls with the formation of scar tissue. Scaring can be observed in many of the heart attack victims. Post-mortems and biopsies of heart attack victims have shown that there are 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. Perhaps this is why we have not needed the term “heart cancer”. When we compare the similarities between the two diseases, we could deduce that the same element exist in heart disease, as in cancer. Both diseases were relatively scarce as recent as a century ago. According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, heart attacks caused less than three thousand deaths in the United States as late as the year 1930. The lifetime risk for North Americans of developing heart disease now is one in two if you are male and one in three if you are female, which coincidentally is identical to the lifetime risk of developing cancer. Cancer statistics have had an equally poignant escalation in numbers over the same period. It is also of interest to note the resemblance between global cancer events, and global heart disease. The latest available data from the World Health Organization (WHO) MONICA Project indicate that the coronary event rate (per 100,000) in men was highest in Finland (North Karelia,835) and lowest in China (Beijing, 81). A global map of coronary events show that you are more than ten times as likely to have heart disease if you are raised in Finland as opposed to being raised in China. These WHO global maps of cancer clusters show that you are four times more likely to acquire cancer from being raised in Denmark, as compared to being raised in Thailand. Both of these diseases have been attributed the term ‘modern disease’, and as a result, the goal of finding the cause has been confined to ‘modern’ practices (modern food additives, modern lifestyles, etc.) Practically every aspect of our modern lives has been studied and considered as a possible cause. But the one thing that has avoided being studied, and is most definitely a modern phenomenon, is the way in which we treat our immune system itself. This modern tendency to supply the body with these immunity enhancing pharmaceuticals is the one thing that has escaped being studied, primarily because such studies into the causation of diseases are conducted and financed to a large degree by the pharmaceutical industry itself. If it were to be true that we were doing harm to ourselves with this modern tendency to be reliant on pharmaceuticals, how would we ever come to know it? It is absurd for us to expect that the pharmaceutical industry would bring this to our attention.
At present, the three most promising treatments for cancer are Chemotherapy, Radiation Therapy, and Surgery. All other treatments are aimed at invigorating, boosting, stimulating, enhancing etc. the immune system into attacking the cancer. Paradoxically, the three most successful treatments all have one thing in common and that is that neither of these makes any attempt at employing the immune system in the fight against cancer. Another thing that they have in common is that they inadvertently cause stress to the immune system. In all of these three most successful cases, the immune system must come onto the scene to repair the damage that has been inflicted against the tissues at the cancer site. This ‘stress’ places a workload on the immune system which provides a workout, or exercise for it. Thus the three most successful treatments for cancer could be viewed as benefiting the cancer patient by increasing the workload and responsibilities of his or her immune system. The remaining less successful treatments all tend to actually “demote” the immune system by taking responsibility away from it. Any substance that claims to assist, invigorate, enhance etc. the immune system actually takes the workload away from it and , may inadvertently be causing the immune system to become weaker. From this new vantage point of understanding cancer, we can see why treatments that do not attempt to involve the immune system would be the most effective treatments in the fight against cancer. If the immune system were found to be ultimately responsible for this non requested tissue growth we call cancer, it would be absurd to expect it to attack itself. The fact that the list of the most effective tools to date in the fight against cancer all happen to be the ones that do not involve the immune system directly, adds support to the hypothesis that the immune system is responsible for this event.
If we make this simple adjustment in our model for explaining cancer, [by taking the blame away from the individual cell's DNA, (chromosome p53) and placing the blame on the immune system as a whole, or more specifically, the repair aspect of our immune system,] then we simplify things immensely. This phenomenon then becomes a candidate to apply Occam's razor. Why employ a complex set of beliefs when a simple explanation already exists? Unexplainable events become, for the first time, explainable. As to why the immune system leave the cancer cells alone would become straightforwardly explained if the cancer were a function of the immune system. Similarly we would be able to account for how the cancer can travel throughout the body undetected and take up residence in another part of the body without being detected or encountering resistance along the way. We would not require the use of imaginary antigens that set this mystery disease in motion, yet cannot be observed either at the site, or journeying to the site.
It has for some time been observed and recognized that people who are pet owners live longer lives than those who do not own pets. It was alleged that the satisfying feeling of well being as a nurturing caregiver to these pets was a stress release, and this ‘stress release’ was responsible for this longevity. It has more recently been proposed that the germs and bacteria that the caregivers are exposed to from their pets are more likely what is responsible for the difference. Pet owners have immune systems that get more of a workout relative to the non pet owners, and this ‘exercised immune system‘is actually what is responsible for the increased health benefits.
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 animal’s health with enriched or fortified feed, medicines, vaccines 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, but I would expect that such a defect would be self correcting, i.e. the animal would perish prior to passing this defect on to its offspring).
The fact that squirrels don’t go to the medicine cabinet when they feel they are coming down with something, might also be a factor.
The following paragraph is an interesting excerpt from an article titled Buffaloes Don’t Get Cancer.
When the research is finally done, it will no doubt shed light on the connection between the absence of immune enhancing concoctions and the absence of cancer itself. The Bison fall under the category of semi domestic animals. Like squirrels, they have beckoned scientists to ask the question as to why they do not get cancer. Domestic animals receive health care from owners. Semi domestic and wild animals do not. Domestic animals get cancer. Semi domestic and wild animals do not. At first look one would think that it can’t get any more obvious than this. But the scientific community is locked into this dogmatic approach of thinking that the cure will be found inside the cell. They will dissect the bison and look at the cell structure through a microscope to try to determine how it differs from cattle that are susceptible to cancer. They will come up scratching their heads in bewilderment as yet again the answer cannot be found at the molecular level. It is difficult to imagine that there could be some antigen in our society that is affecting the DNA of domestic animals and humans yet avoiding having the same impact on semi domestic animals.
Examine for a moment how we have treated our immune system since the industrial revolution (which preceded the chemical revolution, which gave birth to the medicines that we enjoy today). When we become ill, our immune system requires energy to do its job. Our immune system takes much of the energy normally used to fuel our muscles and heat our body, so we may feel fatigued, run down and chilled while our immune system is preparing itself for the ensuing fight. The stage is set for a classic battle between the immune system, and the offending foreign virus. So what do we do? It is at this point that we (Western Society/first world) start “assisting” our immune system. As the fight progresses, undesirable waste products are produced. The clinical definition refers to T cells secreting cytokines, and lymphokines being secreted by B cells and natural killer cells injecting acidic fluids, etc.. The immune system will employ one or more of the body’s orifices to flush out or eject these waste products, but it has become our practice to attempt to stop this. We take medications for nausea and upset stomach, hindering the body’s ability to rid itself of the stomach’s contents. We take pills or serums for diarrhea if the body attempts to rid itself of the contents of the intestinal tract. We take pills, sprays or ointments for runny noses; watering eyes; coughing; sneezing,... any and every endeavour that the immune system employs to rid itself of the by-products. When you consider that the ears naturally drain into the throat, the immune system has employed each and every orifice that the body has, and we have employed medications to stop or hinder the use of each and every one of them. We medically ‘handcuff’ the immune system from performing its job. Since this tendency of trying to assist our immune systems is a fairly modern phenomenon, it might help us understand why cancer has become classified as a modern epidemic.
One of the most bizarre anomalies in cancer in my opinion is with regards to melanoma. Melanoma has been linked to sun damage, and yet it is statistically 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 tissues that do not possess the darker pigment, and due to the location, these cancer cases could not be attributed to 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 had to develop in order 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 than their melanin, which are easier for their (faulty) immune system to stimulate. Or if the cancer does choose to divide the melanin cells, it will be forced to attack the tissues that do not possess this modification (palms of hand, sole of foot, etc.).
This principle can be applied across the board in explaining why some types of cancer are rarer then others. The rarer forms of cancer have a cell structure that is more difficult for the immune system to stimulate into scar tissue.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon symbolically declared war on cancer. The scientific community was caught off guard and had not even settled on a definition for the fundamental root cause of the disease. They hastily came up with a definition of what they were up against, and officially adapted what has come to be the present day DNA model. The “DNA model” label had not been necessary because no opposing models had been introduced, and this DNA theory was taken as a given. 140 years ago, however; there was competing theories for cancer. Only one survived. But the theory that was overstepped was never disproved. The birth of the DNA model was laid out years earlier. The following is an excerpt from Encyclopaedia Britannica 1949
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 this inverse line of thinking 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 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 by-product of helping the immune system is to weaken it, which allows the cancer cells to go out of control. It should then follow that the by-product 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 unnecessarily exhaustive scale. A series of allergy tests would discover some things that the immune system reacts to, but would avoid the full spectrum attack that is presently provided by chemotherapy. Why do we even have allergies? Everything in nature has a purpose. Things that irritate the immune system would be a good exercise tool. I have a strong suspicion that these alternative medicines that seem to miraculously cure some individuals, and mystify the professionals, are by chance exercising that patient’s immune system. This individual is simply allergic to one or more of the ingredients in these concoctions. This would 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. Likewise, 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 mathematically increases the chances that the cancer patient will be allergic to one or more of these 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 acquire any form of cancer.
In probability theory, the ‘Borel-Cantelli lemma' is a theorem about sequences of events that is a fundamental maxim of the theory of natural selection. The theorem is perhaps best exemplified with the cliché that if an infinite number of monkeys sat at an infinite number of typewriters and randomly press keys, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. If we grant that this would eventually happen, then the same logic used to conclude this, would compel us to admit that there would in the process be generated an unfathomable volume of typewritten gibberish.
Prior to Nicolaus Copernicus (1473- 1543), everyone in the world held the belief that the earth was in the center of the universe. It was presumed that the sun, moon, planets and stars all orbited around the earth. The bulk of the observed evidence tended to support this first model of the world. The fact that some of the planets appeared to move backwards during part of their orbit, was an anomaly that caused Copernicus to first question the validity of the earth- centered model. He went on to design a new model for explaining the workings of the solar system, which placed the sun at the center of the universe. This new model did account for the anomalies that had existed with the Earth-Centered model, yet nearly a century passed before this idea was taken seriously, and was not accepted until after Galileo (1564-1642) started observing the night sky with a telescope, which had just become available.
Albert Einstein was quoted for having said “When the solution is simple, God is answering”