CSN Login
Members Online: 7

You are here

Great news!

CSN is getting an upgrade. All of your posts will still be here, but the website will have a new look, new features and be mobile-friendly. To prepare for the changes, the site will be down briefly at the end November. We’ll continue to provide updates as we get closer.    

Thyroid paradox

Posts: 18
Joined: Mar 2003

There are two distinct means with which a cell can be reproduced. The first method is by way of
the cell replicating itself as outlined within that cell’s DNA. The second method is the slightly
altered and inferior procedure of the body’s own immune system rapidly reproducing the
surrounding tissues in an attempt to heal over an area by way of ‘scar tissue’.
The immune system actually has three distinct components;
i) to ‘identify’ foreign antigens that are deemed to be ‘enemies of the body’
ii) to ‘destroy’ these enemies of the body; and
iii) to ‘repair’ any damage that may have occurred during this onslaught.
This article will be 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. But once this process is started,
there also needs to be some mechanism in place to inform the body of when the healing process
has been completed. That is to say, the body must be made to know when the rapid formation of
scar tissue is no longer required, so that the immune system can cease this elevated activity, and
restore itself to the level of activity that existed prior to the trauma. It does not require too much
imagination to realize that the inability to shut off this ‘repair process’, would result in a situation comparable to that which we presently attribute to cancer. For example, a trauma to the breast would trigger the immune response of repairing any tissues that may have been damaged.
If the immune system lacked the ability to know when this process was completed, it would go
on to repair the tissues in the breast, and a tumor resembling the scar tissue process(firmer
density, different collagen alignment, different pigment, etc.) would be the result. Similarly, if a faulty immune system were to commence this healing process without there first being a
requirement for it, then this too would result in an activity that could fit the description of cancer.
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 commonly refer to as ‘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. It is known that this process is set in motion when the body
experiences some form of trauma. When we examine this activity more closely, it can be
observed that there are similarities between cancerous activity; and the inflammation and
formation of scare tissue. When we can readily observe scar tissue, as in the case of skin surface
scars, we can readily detect that this is an altered form from that of the surrounding tissue.
Because it was manufactured rapidly, and by a different process than that of normal tissue
replacement (normal cell division, as outlined in that cell’s DNA), it has different
characteristics. For example, scar tissue made from skin cells has a distinct appearance with a
smoother surface, firmer density, (described as a waxy appearance) and a different pigment from
that of the surrounding tissue. A clinical definition is as follows:

Scar tissue formation is a ubiquitous feature of adult wound healing, with the resulting
repair both functionally and cosmetically inferior to normal skin. At microscopic level,
the main difference between scar and normal tissue is in the alignment pattern of the
collagen fibers of which they are composed.
www.google.com final report on Grant GR/K71394
Mathematical Model of Scar Tissue
This excerpt acknowledges that there are indeed two distinct ways that a cell can be reproduced.
Firstly, by the well understood way of the cell’s natural means of replicating itself as outlined in
the cell’s DNA code, which is referred to above as ‘normal’ cell replacement, and secondly, by a
less obvious, and less understood process whereas the bodies immune system triggers the cells
into this slightly altered scar tissue. Note that this second means of cell replacement (scar tissue)
is described as “functionally and cosmetically inferior”. The rapid growth, and the inferior
quality of tissues are two attributes shared by both the tissues manufactured by the immune
system, and the tissues manufactured by cancer cells. The primary means of cell replacement
does not have attributed to it, these inferior qualities that the immune system replacement method
has. In fact, the purpose of a Burn Unit is to hinder the bodies tendency to rapidly heal over the
burned area with scar tissue, when the trauma of a burn has set off this immune response, and
allow the slower process (but cosmetically superior) of natural cell replacement to have enough
time to heal the area.
The easiest cancers to observe are the surface cancers. Notice that Basil Cell Carcinoma has all
of the characteristics of scar tissue (smother, denser, waxy.). This common skin cancer could
conversely be described as a slow formation of scar tissue that is both unnecessary, and
unyielding. This cancer is not considered to be a dangerous cancer because it is slow growing and
easily removed surgically. With this new model, we could regard this cancer to be different in
that; although it has the cell division element,( cells being divided by either faulty DNA, or a
faulty immune system) it does not have the accompanying blood supply (inflammation) which is
necessary to support the existence of these newly formed cells. Note that the shape of the basil
cell carcinoma would indicate that it can only grow to a size that can be supported by the existing
blood supply, and as it grows, the center cells cannot receive oxygen or nutrients, and as a result,
these center cells die off, leaving a hollow in the middle. If this tumor were to have its own blood
supply, it would become considerably more dangerous.
Both the ‘DNA theory’, and this ‘Scar Tissue theory’ are able to adequately account for the
cancer cells having shared characteristics from the ‘host’ cells, however the latter theory becomes
much more complex by virtue of the fact that it must also account for the modification of the
existing blood supply. The ‘Scare Tissue theory’, is not required to account for the
accompanying increased blood supply, because the same elements that brought about the
reproduction of the cells, also caused the accompanying blood supply (inflammation). Both of
these events are normal functions of the immune system responding to a trauma. The DNA
theory, must further account for the presence of the accompanying blood flow to support the life
of these newly generated cells. It is comprehensible how the DNA of an individual cell might go
astray, and start to reproduce itself repeatedly, but this event would be limited to grow only to the
size that could be supported by the existing blood supply. It should yield a ‘pea’ sized growth. If
this chain of events were to occur, the first step would be the cell replicating itself. 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. The scientific community
acknowledges the need to address the blood supply issue, and with great difficulty they have
postulated a complex chain of events that is both mathematically and logically absurd. We are
told that these cancer cells take on an ‘immortal’ status, and acquire the ability to ‘disguise’
themselves, and ‘recruit allies’ in there defense, and a multitude of other special powers that are
attributed only to cancer cells. When you examine this supernatural chain of events, and the
obstacles that the cancer must overcome, and the safeguards that are in place to prevent these
occurrences from happening the way they are described, you would wonder about the
mathematical likelihood of this occurring even once. It requires much less credence to simply
hold that the immune system is causing the lawless proliferation of growth, (since it is its job to
do so,) and the immune system is also supplying the essential blood supply to support this new
growth, by way of ‘inflammation’. 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 simplify things immensely. This phenomena then becomes a candidate to apply
‘Ockham’s razor’. Why employ a complex set of beliefs when a simple explanation already
exists? Unexplainable events become, for the first time explainable.
We now will not have to address why the immune system makes no attempts at attacking the
cancer cells. If the cancer were to be shown to be a legitimate product of a defective immune
system, we would not expect these cells to be attacked. It should be included here that the only
occasion in which our immune system permits the existence of any non-legitimate cells in its
domain, is when the foreign cells are from an identical twin. The belief that cancer cells
somehow become unrecognizable by the immune system is a necessary stratagem of the present
DNA theory. 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 purpose asserts that they are a part of
our immune system. If we grant this point, then we avoid the burden of having to explain why
our immune systems leave the cancer cells alone. Similarly, we would no longer have to account
for how cancer manages to travel throughout the body and take up residence in a new location,
without being detected or encountering resistance along the way. If we accept the cancer cell as
being a legitimate body cell, all these perplexing problems go away. We would no longer have to
consider how cancer spreads from one cell to another, or how it overcomes the multitude of
safeguards that the body has in place to prevent the sporadic mutation of cells, and the
proliferation of this defect into neighboring cells. Cancer becomes much simpler (and
mathematically feasible ) when we adapt this new framework.
The immune system can make scar tissue by dividing cells from tissues other then the skin
cells. The immune system repairs broken bones by rapidly stimulating the regeneration of bone
mass at the break site. Similarly, muscle tissue, tendons, or cartilage tissue can undergo this
immune systems rapid repair process. Again this scar tissue is different from the original tissue.
In fact, the body has over 200 different types of cells, so in theory there could be, and probably
are, over 200 different types of scar tissue.
Under this new theory, we can view cancer cells as an integral part of the immune system, similar
in nature to the B cells , T cells or natural killer cells, but with a different function. Whereas the
B cells are involved in the ‘identify’ process, and the T cells and natural killer cells are involved
in the ‘destroy’ process, the cancer cells function is in the ‘repair’ aspect of the immune system,
specifically the formation of scar tissues. It copies the surrounding tissue, and then making copies
of the copies, until the wound is impervious. With over 200 different types of cells, there is a
potential for that many different cancer types. To date, just over 100 cancers have been
documented. If we use this new model to describe Proteus Syndrome (i.e.. Joseph Merrick
known as the Elephant Man) as the immune system starting to relentlessly reproduce the bone
mass in some individuals, then this too might be categorized as a cancer. I believe that the same
elements are at work that cause this disease as are any cancerous tumors. But because this disease
effects the skeletal system , and has no adverse effect on any vital organs, or their blood supply, it
has never resulted in a direct cause of death, and therefore has avoided being labeled as a cancer.
Another disease that I believe has avoided the classification are some forms of heart disease and
strokes. It is reasonable to expect from what we know about cancer, that there should be
incidents of ‘heart cancer’. The heart is a vital organ with access to an unlimited blood supply,
just as the liver, pancreas, lung etc. yet we never hear, nor have we needed the term ‘heart
cancer’. Using this new model, I would deduce that the same element exist in heart disease, as in
cancer. Hardening of the arteries would be accounted for by the immune system relentlessly
repairing the cells of the artery walls with the formation of scar tissue. Scaring can be observed in
many heart attack victims. Postmortem’s and biopsies of heart attack victims have shown that
there is both fat and fibrosis (scar tissue) replacing the muscle cells in the heart. Often a patient
can be identified as having suffered a heart attack by observing scaring of the heart tissue, even if
the patient is not aware that he or she has had a heart attack. A long drawn out fight with the
disease is unlikely because any blockage or restrictions caused by the scar tissue will have
immediate and severe consequences. It is of interest to note that myocardial infarction (heart
attacks) were rare at the start of the twentieth century; as was cancer. According to the U.S.
Bureau of Census, heart attacks caused less then three thousand deaths in the United States as
late as the year 1930. Your lifetime risk of developing heart disease now is one in two if you are
male and one in three if you are female. It would therefor be logical to entertain the possibility
that whatever is causing our cancer statistics to skyrocket, might also be contributing to, or
causing these escalating heart disease statistics. If we adapt this new ‘scar tissue theory‘, then
both of these anomalies become grouped together, and could perhaps be construed as one

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
foreign type of antigen has journeyed to this location and is causing the DNA of these cells to
lawlessly divide. But neither of these phenomena (the antigen or the cancer cells themselves) has
ever been observed as it flows through the body. The cancer activity can only be observed when
it takes up residency and starts to inflame and stimulate the cell division in a new area. Under the
DNA model, if this ‘heat’ was in fact the immune system objecting to the presence of a foreign
carcinogen, then we could expect to be able to follow this reaction (between the carcinogen and
the immune system objecting to its presence) along its route, and not just when it materializes at
a new site. Why would the immune system wait until this carcinogen stopped at a location in the
body, before it begins to object to the carcinogen’s presence? The inability to explain why cancer
can travel undetected, is a major defect in the present DNA model. It is not reasonable to accept
that the carcinogen too, is given the same superpowers and abilities that are awarded to the
cancer cells themselves, in order to avoid detection. The DNA model does not address this
anomaly. In fact, when you probe more deeply, one must question the need for a ‘cancer cell’ at
all in the DNA model. If the foreign carcinogen is causing the proliferation of the cell’s DNA to
suddenly mutate itself over and over, then what is the role for the cancer cell? This tumor growth
has already been accounted for. The existence of the cancer cells is acknowledged, only because
they can be observed. As to why the cancer cells are there, the present DNA model has
recognized that they have always been there, and they are in all of us. Under the DNA model, the
reason for the cancer cell is not fully explained. They are attributed with the task of spreading
this DNA flaw to the surrounding tissue cells. This appears to be merely an acknowledgment
that the cancer cell exists, and then assigning it with a function. Is there a difference between the
cancer cell, whose presence and existence has not fully been accounted for, and the repair aspect
of the immune system, whose presence and existence can fully been accounted for? The immune
system is a legitimate part of the body with a specific function. The cancer cell is reluctantly also
acknowledged as legitimate (because to account for how it spontaneously came into being
without being able to say that it always was there, is too incomprehensible), and then also
reluctantly assigned a function. The cancer cell is deemed to be fulfilling the same function as the
repair aspect of the immune system. If there is no distinction, then there is no need for both
terms. We could therefor use the term ‘cancer’ to represent something going wrong with the
‘repair aspect of our immune system. (Specifically, when the system fails to first ascertain that a
repair is required, or when the system fails to ascertain that a repair has been completed and
therefor no longer required.) When the immune system starts to relentlessly divide the
surrounding tissues, without this event first being deemed to be necessary, then this would
become a phenomenon that would be labeled as cancer. If it repairs a wound, and doesn’t stop,
then this too is cancer. This phenomenon can be observed in thyroid cancer patients. Often the
thyroid is completely removed, yet the patient has recurrences of tumor growth at the site
previously occupied by the thyroid. The most plausible explanation for this is that, after the faulty
immune system has healed over the surgical cut made to remove the thyroid, it simply does not
stop repairing the tissues at this site and as a result, there is the formation of a new tumor made
solely of fibrosis tissues (since the thyroid tissue had previously been removed). These tumors
cannot be detected by the iodine method which was used to detect the original thyroid cancer,
because the fibrous tissue has different properties then the thyroid tissue, and does not absorb the
iodine. The failure of the radioactive iodine to detect this new growth is further proof that this is
not a reoccurrence of the original thyroid cancer. Using the DNA theory, it would be expected
that the thyroid tumor should have the same characteristics as the host cells. That is to say, the
cancer tissue at this site should still absorb iodine. This is a continuation of the faulty immune
system which has not been addressed by surgically removing the thyroid. Note that it was earlier
pointed out that the present DNA model holds that an antigen causes the lawless proliferation of
cells. Under the present DNA model, I can appreciate that the objective for removing the tumor,
was 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 cells
that are causing the tumor are 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 of the tumor itself.
When medical professionals discovers an active tumor being produced, they may opt to
surgically remove the tumor and the offending cancer cells that made it (excision biopsy). As this
radical surgery has not yielded the desired success rates, the medical profession has expanded the
scope of the surgery to include the surrounding tissues (margin), believing that this tissue might
contain some stray cancer cells. They test this removed tissue and may confirm that it too was
cancerous. They then close up the wound and hope that they have managed to remove all of the
cancerous tissue. Now they must wait until the immune system has had time to heal up the
surgical wound before testing the area, because the activity of the inflammatory nature of the
healing process will read as ‘hot’. We then have the defective immune system, which may turn
out to have caused the tumor to begin with, being invited back to the site, and being expected to
heal up this surgical cut. Healing is what the immune system does. Therefore, this is an exercise
for it. Often, the immune system heals over the surgery and then stops. The surgery was a
success. Sometimes, however; the immune system doesn’t stop. The immune system continues to
produce scar tissue, and rapidly divide the adjoining tissues without receiving the message that
the task has been completed. The poor surgeon is mystified that he or she could have missed
some of the cancer cells, and now they appear to have merely taken up where they left off. This
patient, now rid of the offending tissues, should mathematically be given the same bill of health
as a non patient. But the statistics do not support this optimistic outlook. Quite often, the cancer
patients who undergo surgery, have recurrences at the original site. If the cancer recurs at another
location, then the surgery would be statistically labeled as a success, but even with this clemency
being granted, the statistics for the surgery are not to favorable. The apparent failure of the
surgery has given birth to the suspicions that exposing the cancerous tissue to the air, helps it to
spread. Or exposing the cancer to the light of the Operating Room, perhaps, is what causes it to
flourish. Exposing the cancer to the light and air is a byproduct of the fact that these cells have
been operated on, and as a result, the immune system is re-invited back to the region to repair the
surgical wound. The suppositions that the light or air has anything to do with any reoccurrence
can be dismissed because surgeries that are performed on patients who have not been diagnosed
with cancer, are not subject to similar reoccurrence of tumors, despite also being subjected to the
light and air.
Even the supporters of the DNA model, acknowledge that cancer cells are in all of us, because
the ‘spontaneous existence of matter’ is a hard sell. If we were to attribute this reaction to the
light and/or air as yet another mystical feature enjoyed only by cancer cells, we would still need
to account for why every surgery was not subject to the same level of reoccurrence. The non
cancerous patient has a properly functioning immune system which still has the ability of
knowing when to stop the healing process. In the cases of cancer patients, since the immune
system may have already shown to be defective, it should not be surprising to find out that
sometimes it does turn out to relentlessly continue the healing process and in so doing, inflict the
area with a new cluster of cancerous activity, despite how diligent and careful the surgeon had
Biopsies are tests that examine the cell structure at a tumor site. From the removed cells the
medical professional can determine whether this tissue is currently undergoing non requested cell
division, or whether it had previously undergone cell division. Cold-Hot ; Inactive-active;
benign-malignant. These are the differences between non life-threatening benign tumors, and
life-threatening malignant tumors, specifically one is active (cancerous) and one is benign (scar
tissue). The benign scar tissue has already been manufactured by the immune system, and is now
dormant. Scarring can be observed on the lungs, heart, liver or anywhere that cancer can be
observed. Everyone freely accepts that the inactive scar tissue was previously manufactured by
the immune system. It should therefore be easy to accept that cancer, or active scar tissue, or
perhaps ‘runaway scar tissue’, is currently being manufactured by the immune system, though be
it a defective one. The immune system accepts this benign tumor (or malignant tumor, if it is
currently undergoing development) as part of the ‘self’, because it possesses all the
characteristics of the legitimate body cells. This point could also be used to explain why the
bodies own immune system is useless against fighting cancer, which in turn makes sense of the
fact that all attempts to employ the immune system into attacking the cancer cells have thus far
failed. The cancer cells that created the tumor, and then stopped, have either been reclaimed by
the immune system, and may function normally in the future, or they may resume there non-
requested work in the future, or perhaps travel to another part of the body and start to stimulate
cell division at a new location.
When the immune system is healthy and functioning properly, these cancer cells are kept 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.
The immune system is free to be located throughout the body. However, due to its function it
tends to be in higher concentrations on the surface and near body orifices in adults. The immune
system is designed to protect the body from foreign antigens (carcinogens). A carcinogen can
enter the body in one of two possible ways, either through the skin, or through an opening in the
skin. The skin is the body’s largest organ, and the immune system must be located throughout
this organ to defend the body from carcinogens that try to enter by way of this route. In many
cultures, skin cancer is the #1 form of cancer. If a carcinogen is to enter the body, and cannot do
so by way of the skin, it must then do so by way of one of the bodies orifices. When you consider
that the lungs are subjected to the outside world with every breath that we take, it would be
understandable that this organ, too would require an intense presence of the immune system’s
arsenal of defenses. The lung takes its rightful place in the #2 position of likely locations for
cancerous activity. We then move down the list of the various body orifices, all of which require
defending by the immune system. Another tissue type that has shown to be amongst the easier
tissues to mutate is the mucus membrane tissue. These tissues are located through out the body,
but this tissue is not located arbitrarily throughout the body. Notice that polyps that grow out of
the mucus membrane tissue, only grow on this specialized tissues that are always located
adjacent to a body orifice. All of the body orifices have adjacent mucus membrane tissues which
house the immune systems defense mechanism (‘T’ cells, ‘B’ cells, natural Killer cells etc.). The
existence of polyps is often observed at these sites (adjacent to body orifices, we find Colon
polyps, Esophageal polyps, Endometrial polyps, nasal etc.). I am not clear as to weather these
polyps are normal immune system tools, or a sign of something going amiss. Different cultures
have different rankings as to the various cancer types associated with the various orifices,
however there is a noticeable correlation between cancer and the positioning of the immune
systems defense mechanisms. The female breast is not an orifice to the outside world until the
woman reaches puberty. Thus this portal does not require an immune system defense until this
time. This is precisely why pre-pubescent breast cancer is as scarce as male breast cancer. Once
the woman reaches adulthood, however, this new orifice requires the presence of the immune
systems defense mechanism as much as the other orifices. It is worth mentioning that oral
contraceptives have been linked to breast cancer. Oral contraceptives are a method of birth
control that works by chemically ‘tricking’ the body into not ovulating by supplying hormones
that cause the body to behave as though it were already pregnant. When the body behaves as
though it is pregnant, it makes a number of changes, one of which is to prepare the breast for
nursing. This then becomes an orifice that requires a defense strategy from the immune system,
because it is now a new portal to the outside world. If the immune system is defective, and takes
up residency at this new location, then by using this model, we can now understand how the oral
contraceptive could have ‘caused ‘ the breast cancer. This relationship can not be explained using
the DNA model.
The present DNA model does not account for the differences in childhood cancers and adult
cancers. What is more troubling is the fact that the DNA model can not, and will never be able to
account for these differences. Our DNA does not change from childhood to adulthood, but the
list of cancers that can affect us certainly does. This point alone, causes me to believe that the
answers to this disturbing paradox will ultimately be found outside of the DNA model. To look
more closely at our immune systems (the only other means by which a cell can be reproduced)
makes complete sense to me.
The internal organs that do not have a direct association with a body orifice, have rates of
cancer that are far down the list of likely tissues to come under attack from cancerous activity.
This is understandable using this new model when you consider that the immune system would
have a smaller presence at these locations. This phenomena can be best observed by studying
childhood cancers. We need to also recognize that the immune system would exist in infants, but
would have to be located deep inside the infant, as any presence of the immune system that were
located on the surface, would be forced by design to attack the foreign tissues that surrounded it
in the womb.(recall that the only instance when the immune system accepts the existence of a
foreign cell, is when it is from an identical twin. Thus even the surrounding tissues of the womb
would be subject to being rejected. The mothers system produced the cells of the fetus, so these
would not be identified as foreign.) It could also be that there is no call for the immune system at
the surface of newborns because the mothers immune system has previously dealt with any and
all foreign antigens. In either case, it appears that the immune system is not located on the surface
of an infant, but has a tendency to ‘migrate’ from the center of the trunk of the body at birth, to
the perimeter (skin and orifices) as the immune system develops. This helps to explain why there
is a list of over one hundred rare cancers that, for the most part have only been observed in
children. Infants and toddlers have an immune system that is both undeveloped, and not yet
assigned specific functions. This undeveloped immune system would not have a tendency to be
directed towards any specific tissues at the beginning of the child’s life. If a defective immune
system were to exist in this child, and the immune system were not located on the surface, it
would be expected to arbitrarily start to reproduce any tissue that it came into contact with. This
would account for the list of over one hundred strange sounding tissue types that can come under
attack only in childhood cancer cases. As toddlers become older, this long list becomes shorter,
and the tissue types that can come under attack become more refined. Eventually the list of over
one hundred is reduced to a shorter list of familiar sounding names, and as a result the majority
of all childhood cancers fall into one of two categories; leukemia, or brain tumors. (Note that the
childhood cancers still do not have the orifice association that is prevalent in adult cancers.)
I will address how leukemia and brain cancer fit into this theory later.
DNA defects could play a role in some individuals immune systems being more prone to
defect then others, however if this was a genetic defect, I would expect it to be self correcting, by
causing the carriers of the defect to parish prior to being of age to reproduce themselves. Since
cancer appears to be more of a modern epidemic, I tend to lean towards the belief that it is
something that we are doing to ourselves in modern times that is causing it (specifically, this
modern tendency to ‘assist’ our immune systems.).
We now need to modify this new model to include a provision that points out that cancer
appears to be an ‘opportunistic disease’(2*). That is to say, the immune system will ‘pick- on’ or
stimulate the tissue that it finds to be the easiest tissue to do so with. This revision allows us to
move on to understand many of the other anomalies surrounding this disease. We can now look
at the various links (environmental links; lifestyle links; heredity links; etc.) as carcinogens that
either promote a tissue type towards being the easiest tissue from which the defective immune
system can operate on, or the link may demote a certain tissue away from being the likely
candidate from which the defective immune system can operate. Tobacco smoke, or asbestos
dust have been linked to cancer of the mouth, esophagus and lung. Using this new model we can
view these tissues as having been chemically weakened by these carcinogens, and now represent
the easiest forms of tissue that this individual is in possession of. If this individual also possesses
the requisite faulty immune system, then this person will get cancer, and it will be cancer of one
or more of these weakened tissues. Conversely, a high fiber diet has been linked to a decrease in
the number of colon, prostate and bowel cancer patients. Using this new model we can view the
high fiber diet as having physically strengthened the tissues in this region away from being the
easiest tissue from which the defective immune system can operate.
This hierarchy of tissue types tends to show that our melanin cells appears to be one of the easiest
cells from which a defective immune system can wreck havoc. One of the best ways to
demonstrate this principle, is to look closely at malignant melanoma (3*)
One of the most bizarre anomalies in my opinion, is in regards to melanoma. Melanoma has been
linked to sun damage, and yet it is less prevalent in the tropical regions of the globe. Dark
skinned races seldom acquire this or any form of skin cancer, and yet skin cancers are the most
prevalent form of cancer. In the rare cases in which a dark skinned person does acquire
melanoma, it will be under the fingernails, on the palms of the hand, sole of the feet, or inside the
mouth. These areas are surface tissues that do not posses the darker pigment, and due to their
location, these cases of cancer could not be caused from sun damage. Those regions closest to the
equator, have people whose skin has evolved or adapted to the more intense sunlight. Their
darker skin is a consequence of the human melanin cells having adapted to convert the sunlight’s
harmful ultraviolet waves, into harmless heat waves. Thus, the people who reside in the tropical
regions of the globe, have skin that has already adapted to a harmful attack (ultraviolet waves)
and therefore, using this new model, we can view these cells as no longer being the easiest cells
the opportunistic cancer to ‘pick on’. People in the tropical regions who do posses defective
immune systems will find that they have cells other then their melanin, which are easier for their
immune system to stimulate. Or if the cancer does choose to divide the melanin cells, it will be
the tissues that do not poses this modification(palms of hand, sole of foot, etc.).
Using this model we would predict that similar cultures would produce similar cancer statistics.
This fact has eluded no one. We have always been aware that people who share the same culture,
same lifestyle, same access to health services and facilities, same documentation methods etc.
would have the same life expectancy, and the same mortality rates for diseases. If however, one
group of a society were to be immune to one form of cancer, then we would expect,
mathematically, that the numbers would have to be made up for, in other forms of cancer. We see
a prim example of this theoretical prediction by examining cancer in African Americans. They
share the same culture as the North American Caucasians, and yet they could be considered to be
‘genetically immune’ from acquiring skin cancer. Thus we see African Americans with
alarmingly higher rates of lung cancer, for instance. The slight deviation in smoking habits can
not account for the vast deviation in cancer statistics. It has been acknowledged that African
Americans suffer disproportionately from chronic and preventable disease compared to the White
Americans. Similar anomalies have been observed in American Indians, Hispanics, and
Asian/Pacific Island minorities. It has been acknowledged statistically that these groups all
smoke less cigarettes per day then there White counterparts, yet these groups all have alarmingly
higher incidents of lung disease, and lung cancer. No justifiable explanation is offered by the
present DNA model for this anomaly. The explanation that perceptively
follows from this new model, makes far more sense to me. Prior to this new model, we were at a
loss as to how to account for the vast discrepancies in these numbers. I would expect that this
phenomena could be observed by viewing statistics between Australians, and Aborigines as well.
Consider the plight of the Australians. Here we have a culture of displaced Europeans who were
originally placed there as a penal colony. They do not posses the required genetically modified
skin to live in this more tropical environment. Thus we now see, as this modern trend of
possessing weaker immune systems takes effect, the skin of the Australian Caucasians is coming
more and more under heavy attack. This trend can also be observed by studying the cancers of
Northern Europe and comparing these to countries closer to the equator in Southern Europe. This
explanation accounts for countries nearer to the equator, although their incidence of melanoma is
lower, do have a higher incidence of other types of cancer. Liver cancer for instance, is six times
more prevalent in Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, and Italy) than it is in Northern Europe
(Denmark, Finland and Norway). This principle can be applied across the board in explaining
why some types of cancer are more rare then others. The rarer forms of cancer have a cell
structure that is more difficult for the immune system to stimulate into scar tissue.
This same principal (cancer cells ‘picking on’ the easiest target ) can be used to explain
childhood cancer, and help to explain why the list for adult cancers and child cancers is so
different. I will now attempt to explain how childhood leukemia and brain cancer fit into this
new model.
During the initial development of the body, all organs, muscles and bones undergo a growth
period which lasts until adulthood. All tissues in the body undergo development during this time.
An infant boy starts out at 6 pounds, and 18 years later he weighs 180 pounds. Thus each pound
of mass must multiply itself approximately 30 times. Because of this ongoing development, these
tissues are constantly being fabricated and revised. The observed phenomena indicate that these
cells are less susceptible to being stimulated by a faulty immune system, undoubtedly as a result
of this elevated activity. That is to say, the defective immune system will not assess these cells as
requiring accelerated cell division, because these cells are currently undergoing accelerated cell
division, which is a natural part of development of the body during adolescence.(A wound that
would result in a scare formation on an adult is less likely to form scare tissue when a similar
wound is received by a child, due to this phenomenon.) The white blood cells, on the other hand,
have previously been manufactured in the bone marrow, and now have left this ‘factory’ of
origin. This circulatory system is best described by using an analogy of a manufacturer with a
recycling and maintenance department. Our body continues to manufacture blood throughout our
lifetime in this continuous ‘loop’ system. Newly repaired or manufactured blood cells leave the
factory (bone marrow) and will not be seen by the maintenance department again, until they
reenter the kidney and liver at the other end of the loop. These individual white blood cells begin
there journey through the body in the state of decline (no longer being maintained). They have a
short life span of between several days, up to two weeks. Since all the other cells in this
adolescent are undergoing intense development, these are the cells that become the easiest
targets for a defective immune system to divide. Thus leukemia, becomes the most common form
of childhood cancers. Once the body is fully grown, the organ tissues no longer have this inherent
advantage of the ongoing development, and so these organs become susceptible to cancerous
activity to the same extent as the rest of the adult population. The observed phenomena supports
the hypotheses that developing tissues are less prone to cancerous activity then the matured
tissues are.
In the developing years, the human brain undergoes the least amount of mass variance. The brain
starts out between 350 and 400 grams and grows to a weight of between 1300 and 1400 grams.
Thus, the brain undergoes a mass increase of 3.6 times its original (in contrast to 30 times, for all
other tissues). This fact means that the development of the brain tissue is considerably slower, or
less intense then the development of the rest of the body tissues. This helps us to understand why
childhood brain tumors are the principal form of cancer of a solid mass. Brain tissue is the ‘low
man on the totem-pole’ as far as cell activity is concerned. Thus, it becomes the easiest tissue for
the defective immune system to ‘pick on’. The combination of leukemia, and brain tumors,
represent the vast majority of all childhood cancers.
If it does turn out to be a defective immune system that is causing cancer, and not some
environmental agent, as is the present focus, then it should be possible to show a concrete
‘cause-effect’ relationship between cancer and a defective immune system. A concrete
relationship has thus far proven to be impossible using the present model for cancer. Under the
new model, it would be predicted that a concrete relationship could not be found using the
present DNA model, because it is missing half of the equation. They will only be able to compile
lists of suspected cancer causing substances and activities. To defend the tobacco industry, a
lawyer needs merely to produce one or more ‘healthy’ individual, all of whom have smoked for a
long period of time, in order to show that there is not a concrete relationship between their
product and cancer. It will always be possible to find a healthy smoker, or a healthy asbestos
miner. If however, this healthy individual were to have their immune system become weak (the
other half of the equation), the resulting maverick cancer cells are most apt to attack the
weakened lung tissues of this individual (thus showing further support to an identified link to
cancer). Therefore, tobacco becomes an environmental ‘link’ that has been shown to cause
cancer in some individuals. Smoking cigarettes does not guarantee that you will get lung cancer.
Sun-tanning does not guarantee that you will get skin cancer. But as was stated earlier, while the
list of ‘links’ to cancer becomes longer, there is no real progress being made.
Immunosuppressant medications are the exception to this, and this fact lends itself beautifully to
add support to the theory that the immune system contains the cancer cells, and is responsible for
cancerous activity. These medications were developed to intentionally decrease the effect of the
immune system in organ transplant patents, so that the bodies defense mechanism would not
attack (reject) the foreign tissue. If the patient survives the transplant operation, and overcomes
the rejection, they will live longer lives then they would have, had they not had the transplant
operation. However, the transplant patient will ultimately succumb to a bout with cancer. This
phenomenon has scientists struggling for an explanation:

“Scientists believe transplant recipients were already at risk for cancer because their weakened
immune system could not keep healthy cells from becoming malignant”.

“ The use of immunosuppressants(cyclosporine) increases the chance cancer cells will divide and
invade surrounding tissue. However it is not clear if cyclosporine can change normal cells into
cancer cells researchers say”
web search for ‘organ transplants’
Organ Transplant Drug Increases Cancer Risk
Friday, Feb.12, 1999

Here we have a conclusive ‘link’ between cancer cells, and immunosuppressants (tampering
with, or weakening the immune system). Thus we find that a deliberately weakened immune
system will doubtlessly, cause the patient to succumb to cancer.(4*) It would be anticipated that
this fact is what scientists have been yearning for.
This phenomenon begs the question; If a weakened immune system has been shown to causes
cancer, would it not therefor follow that a strengthened immune system, should overcome, or at
least prevent cancer? This incident clearly establishes that there is a cause-effect relationship
between cancer and a weakened immune system, and by using this new model for explaining
cancer, we would predict that by creating a defective immune system, we can expect that some
form of cancer will result. All the other ‘links’ and ‘markers’ merely help to ascertain which of
the numerous types of cancer the patient is likely going to acquire. That is to say, the numerous
lifestyle links, environmental links, and dietary links all have a tendency to either promote, or
demote, any given tissue in the body, towards, or away from cancerous activity. I believe that
these patients were pre-determined to obtain cancer merely by having an immune system that had
lost control over their cancer cells. Regrettably, it then became only a question of which type of
cancer they would ultimately acquire. If colon cancer can be averted by implementing a high
fiber diet, then I believe that this is merely a pyretic victory. The patient who avoids colon cancer
by eating a high fiber diet, will unfortunately succumb to some other type of cancer, if they
already posses the requisite weakened immune system, and do nothing to change this. Again, the
evidence tends to support this belief, which has led to the dilemma whereby doctors manage to
overcome one type of cancer, only to have the patient succumb to another type. Often this
phenomenon has been dismissed similar to a child who acquires wills’ tumors. That is to say, the
patient was merely allowed to live longer, and thus was permitted the time necessary to acquire
some other type of cancer (blind optimism on the defense). I believe that the real problem is that
the doctors and scientists are devoting their efforts in treating the attacked tissues, while ignoring
what is attacking them, namely the immune system itself. It is of interest to note here that the two
treatments which have thus far shown to be the most promising in the fight against cancer have
been chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Aside from being the most successful treatments,
these two strategies have one other thing in common, and one thing that differentiates them from
all the other cancer treatments. The one thing they have in common is that neither treatment
makes any attempt at employing the immune system to help with the attack on the cancer cells.
These treatments attack the cancer cells themselves, directly. This is also the one thing that
differentiates these (most successful) treatments from all the others. All other treatments attempt
to trigger the immune system into attacking the cancer. They all try to stimulate; enhance,
activate, invigorate, boost, assist, etc., the immune system. But if the cancer cells are a part of the
immune system, it becomes easy to see why all these attempts have so far failed, and why the
attempts that do not involve the immune system have shown to be the most promising. I believe
we will not discover a cure for cancer, so long as our efforts are focused on employing the
immune system to attack itself. The immune system is designed to recognize and not attack itself.
Perhaps this explains why there are presently only treatments for cancer, and not yet any cures.
It is conceivable to think that the many labor saving devices that we enjoy today, have lead
to our muscular system being weaker then those of our ancestors. The remote control for a
television set, saves the operator the task of having to get up to change the channel. The price
that is paid, is less exercise, and therefore a weaker muscular system then if the person did not
have this labor saving devise. Any ‘labor saving devise’, by definition, saves labor, and thus
evades the exercise that otherwise would have occurred. In a similar manner, we could consider
pharmaceutical medications as ‘labor saving devices’ for our immune system, which have lead to
our immune system being weaker then those of our ancestors. I believe that it is this failure or
refusal to fully develop our immune systems, which has led to this modern epidemic of cancer
patients. Our modern Western Society has led us to believe that we are doing ourselves a favor
by ‘treating’ our bodies to these health enhancing concoctions.
One could point out that modern science has permitted us to experience a longer life span then
that of our ancestors. Even with this modern epidemic of cancer, we are living longer lives then
before the industrial revolution. Inarguably this is a fact. I believe however that the pendulum has
swung too far. I hold that cancer is an unnecessary byproduct of our modern lifestyle, which is
now attempting to bypass nature in this endeavor to provide for our health through the use of the
vast array of pharmaceuticals. This phenomenon brings to mind a quote from John Dryden, “God
never made His work for man to mend.”
The consequence of this action, is a weaker immune system, which I believe can lead to the
development of cancer (which I define as a defect in the ‘repair’ aspect of our immune system).
Further, this helps to explain why cancer is less prevalent in undeveloped countries, and more
prevalent in developed countries. Third World countries do not have access to anywhere near the
amount of immune enhancing medications that are available to Western Societies. As a result,
they don’t have near the incidents of cancer either.
Some studies show Thailand as having the lowest incidences of cancer. Bangkok, the capital
of Thailand, and one of the largest cities in the world, has a population density of 3,292 people
per square kilometer. This is a city that grew around a river and canal system which provides for
its transportation needs, its waist removal needs, as well as its bathing and drinking needs. Those
famous/infamous photographs of traffic police wearing respirators, were taken in Bangkok. Thus
these people would possess an immune system that is accustomed to a good workout, having to
fight off a higher frequency of circulating antigens in their culture. A strong immune system
would be mandatory to endure in this environment. These global maps of cancer clusters show
that you are forty times more likely to acquire cancer from being raised in Denmark, then you are
if you’re from Thailand.
Cancer is not limited to the human species. Farm animals and pets also have been diagnosed
with cancer. But observe however, that the animals that are diagnosed with cancer, all tend to be
animals that routinely receive treatments from veterinarians, or care giving owners, who attempt
to improve the animals health with enriched or fortified feed, medicines and booster shots
designed to assist the immune system. Animals such as raccoons, bats, foxes and skunks have all
been diagnosed with rabies, but it is extremely rare to learn of these animals, which are outside of
the domestic category (wild animals, who receive no treatment of any kind) being diagnosed with
cancer. On the other hand, horses, cats, and dogs, have nearly the same rates of cancer as humans
have. (There
will always be exceptions. Just as an animal can be born with a defective heart, or defective liver,
it is conceivable that there might also be cases in which an animal could be born with a defective
immune system.)
What can we do about this dilemma?
Nature provides us with many examples which illustrate that it operates on a “Use it or Loose
it” philosophy. If you are presently able to lift heavy objects, and stop lifting anything heavy for a
long period of time, your ability to lift those objects will become lost. If you can run a mile in
five minutes, and stop running, your ability to run at that pace will eventually be gone. The body
will stop, or slow down the production of hormones such as natural steroids, melatonin, estrogen,
etc. if they were being produced for it. Science has shown that even the mind is subject to this
‘use it or loose it’ rule.
It stands to reason then that the immune system is also subject to this rule. Each time you assist
your body in fighting off a disease or virus, you retard its natural ability to do the job on its own.
As with everything else in the body, the immune system is subject to atrophy. If you do not use it,
it will not be there for you when you really need it.
How is someone to prepare there immune system to handle a fight with cancer? (Or as I am
suggesting, not to ‘fight’ but rather, to reclaim control of these cells?) Through exercise. Exercise
your immune system just as you would any other system; in increasing increments. If the ability
to lift heavy objects, or the ability to run a five
minute mile can be re-acquired through exercise in increasing increments, and the immune
system is subject to the same rules as the muscular system, or cardiovascular system, than it is
reasonable to assume that the immune system could be put on an exercise agenda that would
allow it to re-acquire the necessary strength, so as to redeem its domain over these cancer cells.
Consider the treatment of chemotherapy, which is described as a process of almost killing the
body with poison. This protocol tends to make the entire body ill, thereby inadvertently
exercising the immune system. When the body rebounds, it rebounds stronger than before,
similar to a body that had been in an exercise workout. This new strength allows the immune
system to reclaim the body for a period of time, (called a remission) but if the patient continues
the lifestyle that allowed the cancer cells to take over in the first place; i.e. weakening their
immune system with modern methods of immune supplements and pharmaceuticals, (trying to do
the immune systems job, for it) then one would expect the statuesque to return. This perhaps
helps to explain why chemotherapy; although it is not a cure, does tend to prolong a patients life.

Most of the scientific studies and protocols that presently offer treatment to cancer patients tend
to focus on the immune system. These studies have two things in common: 1) they are
unsuccessful at curing cancer, and 2) they all try to stimulate; enhance; activate; invigorate;
boost; assist etc., the immune system.
It would seem foreign, or perhaps even absurd to introduce infectious contaminants into the
human body. It would seem ludicrous to do this to someone who is already ill. Yet it could be
that it is this inverse line of thinking that would help to explain why a successful cure has eluded
so many, for so long. It would be difficult to find a solution to a problem that lies in the opposite
direction from where everyone is looking. The concept may sound ‘ludicrous’, but from the
perspective of this new model for cancer, this is still a logical supposition. If we can produce a
remission from inadvertently exercising the immune system once, with poison (as in a
chemotherapy session), imagine the results of setting out to systematically exercise the immune
system repeatedly, without harming the entire body in the process. I believe that the successful
protocol will not stimulate, but rather, aggravate the immune system. Instead of trying to
invigorate, we should irritate. Assisting becomes tormenting. Helping becomes hurting. Hurt
your immune system like you hurt your muscular system during a vigorous workout. Hurt your
immune system like you would hurt your cardiovascular system running a marathon. Helping the
immune system, I believe has shown to be counter-productive. If you are getting the opposite
results to what you desire, than logic dictates that you should do the opposite to what you are
doing to get that which you do desire. The byproduct of helping the immune system, is to weaken
it, which allows the cancer cells to go out of control. It should follow then that the byproduct of ‘hurting’ the immune system would be to strengthen it, and thus, allow it to regain control over
these maverick cells. Under this new model, it is conceivable that the successful treatment would
take the form of ‘clinically’ torturing the body, which is precisely what chemotherapy is doing,
but on an exhaustive scale. A series of allergy tests would discover some things that the immune
system reacts to, but avoid the full spectrum attack that is presently provided by chemotherapy.
Things that irritate the immune system would be a good exercise tool. I have a suspicion that
these ‘alternative medicines’ that seem to miraculously cure some individuals, and mystify the
professionals, are by chance exercising that patients immune system. This individual is simply
allergic to one or more of the ingredients in these concoctions. This would help to explain why
some cancer fighting cocktails respond miraculously in some patients, and yet can be utterly
useless or unresponsive in the majority of patients. The patients who are not allergic to any of the
ingredients, unfortunately, do not get the workout. Similarly, the evidence supports that
combination strategies have been shown to be more effective then single treatments. This could
be accounted for using this same logic. Introducing a greater number of ingredients merely
increases the chances that the cancer patient will be allergic to one or more of the ingredients. I
suspect that finding out what a patient is allergic to, and then provoking an immune response
with this antigen, would be a productive approach, if this new model holds any merit. This line of
thought is consistent with the observable data that shows that few allergy sufferers ever develop a
cancer. Several studies have raised the possibility that people with over stimulated immune
systems may have a reduced risk of brain cancer (the most mysterious cancer in terms of being
able to find any “cause-effect” relationship).

No single medicine has been discovered that works for everyone. If everyone were allergic to the
same thing, then that substance would no longer be considered as an allergy. It would be labeled
as a ‘poison’. Accordingly, a poison could be described as a ‘generic substance’ that everyone is
allergic too. Chemotherapy could therefore be considered as an exercise of the immune system
using a universal antigen that everyone is allergic too. The logic used in employing poison,(as in
chemotherapy) is to slowly harm everything, and hope that the cancer cells are the first things to
die. Similarly, radiation therapy is a broad spectrum attack on all living cells, and the hope is that
the cancer cells are the first to die. What I believe is actually taking place, is an exercise of the
immune system, being forced to repair or reconstruct the body from all the harm being caused by
this poison or radiation. Because these poisons cannot distinguish between cancerous and normal
cells, they disrupt or kill normal, healthy cells throughout the body besides attacking the tumor.
This protocol has been somewhat successful due to the fact that it inadvertently forces the
immune system into the scenario, and simultaneously creating an intense workout for it.
But the scale of the attack doesn’t need to be of such a broad spectrum. The attack could be
much more specific. This, perhaps, is why we have allergies in the first place. Everything in
nature it seams, has a purpose. It is logical to assume that allergies too have a purpose. Allergies
are an inappropriate (unnecessary) immune response to a substance that is actually no real harm
to the body. By employing these antigens, it should therefore be possible to give the immune
system the exercise, without simultaneously giving it the body any of the accompanying
destruction that is inherent with chemotherapy and radiation. Unfortunately, this philosophy will
vanish; because there is no way to bottle and brand this approach.

I believe the cure for cancer will be as individual as our own immune systems are. Not everyone
catches a cold when a cold virus comes around. (although, perhaps everyone should try to.) There
is no cure for the common cold, and I believe there never will be. The cold virus is natures way
of running the immune system through a series of exercises, thus attempting to keep it
functioning in top form. In the fight against cancer, everyone seems to concede that the answer
lies within the immune system. All efforts are being focused on finding out what causes the
immune system to kick in and finally go after the cancer cells in some individuals. My thoughts
are also linked to the immune system, but I hold that we must find out what it is that wakes up
our own immune system, and causes it to reclaim control over these maverick cancer cells, which
I believe are an integral part of the immune system. A good place to start this search would be
finding antigens which cause allergies in a patient. Perform chemotherapy using this antigen,
which is a poison only to this individual’s immune system, and does no real harm to the body.
The results should be the immune system receiving the exercise, without the body receiving any
significant adverse effects. The stronger immune system should then be capable of regaining
control over these cancer cells (as in a remission), and the body should revert back to near normal

(1*) I thought I should start by re-evaluate this original theory of cancer. After kicking around the
present day theory for 120 plus years, with no significant progress, I deem that a change in venue
is warranted. But anyone can criticize. I believe that it is fruitless to attack an idea without
offering an alternative to consider. This is why I am proposing an alternate hypothesis that I
believe warrants investigation. While others focus on better ways to treat the attacked tissues,
and earlier ways of detecting this attack, and ways to avoid being attacked, I am focusing on why
there is an attack in the first place, and where it is coming from. I include this critique to disclose
why I am not content to wait patiently while the scientific community figures it all out. I will at
least consider alternatives.
As we are all no doubt aware, there is a sea of information out there. One might expect the
subject of cancer data to be mathematical, and therefor, very cut-and-dry. But in reality, it is all
very muddy. People have different agenda for collecting information, and with a sea of available
statistics, it becomes arbitrary as to which are included and which are excluded. Most collectors
of data are employed by Pharmaceutical firms and obviously want the data to appear favorable to
the health care industry. The pessimists and ‘nay-sayer’s’ are outnumbered. Because of the
choices available in the data, you therefore walk into an unavoidable trap when you choose the
data that you wish to include. The best means to avoid this dilemma that I could come up with
was to journey back into old encyclopedia sets, where cancer deaths were documented as a
number per 100,000 people, in districts such as Wales and England, and they would then
compare this to the United States. In this manner, we can get raw figures of how many people
actually died of say ‘ lung cancer’ in the year 1949. We can then do this with older encyclopedia
sets and compare these numbers. It can then be observed that the numbers virtually stay the same.
We then have the burden of comparing these statistics with modern statistics. To do this we need
to sum all the numbers that have been factored off, and un-adjust figures that have been adjusted.
This leads us back into the problem of selective data collecting. A task that you would expect to
be easy, is actually quite difficult. With so many factors to consider in collecting data, and so
many ways to present the data, and so many agendas to be considered, it will always be subject to
ridicule. I wish that I could point to a web site that had just raw numbers in columns
representing cancer types. The closest site to this would be the World Health Organization
(www.who.org) mortality tables. But these figures too are subject to the same criticisms as
others, and the categories of cancer types are still changing. It is hard to see patterns when there
are so many variables. For this reason, I thought the safest approach would be to accept the
statistics gathered by the American Cancer Society, whose agenda would obviously be to have
the data look as favorable as possible, and then examine the means with which they present this
data. That is why I included their quotation “ there has been little overall increase over the
previous 40 years in either the number of new cases reported or the number of cancer deaths”.
This is the most favorable way of reporting the progress that they could come up with, and then
only after factoring off the statistics that were unfavorable, namely lung cancer, melanoma and
AIDS-related cancers. To paraphrase the American Cancer Society it could be said that the
overall view of cancer is not getting any worse, so long as we ignore lung cancer, melanoma and
AIDS-related cancers. If however, we do not go along with factoring out unfavorable statistics,
then we would be forced into the realization that the overall statistics are in fact, getting worse. I
have tried to steer clear of the statistical battle that will always be available for anyone who wants
to argue about statistics. For those who wish to believe that things are getting better, there will
always be an abundance of statistics available to comfort this belief. It seems to be human nature
to look on the positive side of things and dismiss the pessimists as being negative thinkers. On
this point, I would no doubt be considered as a pessimist. To deny that things are getting worse is
natural, and has allowed for cancer to become this modern day epidemic. I can appreciate that the
medical profession has made strides in their efforts to prolong the lives of people who have been
diagnosed with cancer. I find it frustrating, the claim that they are ‘winning the battle ‘ against
cancer, when I am not convinced that they even know what cancer is. In 1971, U.S. president
Richard Nixon symbolically declared war on cancer. Scientists were burdened since they did not
even know what caused cancer. They hastily came up with an hypothesis which explained what
cancer was. The hypothesis put forward, was, and is the present day DNA model, which
describes cells as suddenly reproducing themselves, because of a defect in that individual cell’s
DNA(an expansion of the original Cohnheim theory). This model provides few answers, does not
allow for any predictions to be made, and leaves unaccounted for, most of the phenomena that is
observed in the field of cancer research. I am offering an alternate approach that I believe
addresses these anomalies and warrants consideration. Since there are two distinct ways in which
a cell can undergo replacement, why not analyze both ways as possible causes of when
something goes wrong? If we are all content that sufficient progress is being made in the field of
cancer research, then it would not be necessary to look elsewhere, or consider other explanations.
I attack this claim that we are winning the battle against cancer, only to then go on and offer up a
different possible solution.

(2*)Our skin is also the largest body organ, and therefore, mathematically, it would be the most
susceptible organ to cancer. Lung tissue is the second largest organ, and the second most attacked
tissue by cancer. This mathematical approach does not hold up in predicting the rarer forms of
cancer however. Some tissue cells are merely more easily stimulated by the cancer cells than
others. There are countless examples that show it is a natural phenomena to take the “path of
least resistance”. Cancer attacking the easiest target, would merely be one more example of this.

(3*). There has been attempts at deriving a vaccine from melanoma patients for decades,
however this attempt has thus far, been unsuccessful. Science has not been able to derive a
‘serum rich in antibodies’ from a cancer survivor, undoubtedly because no serum exists. If the
ability to overcome (survive) cancer were to come as a result of the cancer patient merely
reclaiming control over their unrestrained immune system, then the body would not have
developed its own serum of antibodies. Since the existing phenomenon shows the immune
system does not develop any special antibodies in patients who have overcome cancer, this
becomes further overwhelming proof that cancer is not a foreign antigen but rather, is part of the
immune system.

(4*). I have heard that there is a new Immunosuppressant named ‘rapamycin’ that does not show
this concrete cause-effect relationship between cancer and tampering with the immune system. I
would account for this as being a drug that had a scope more defined to the ‘identify’ or the
‘destroy’ aspects of the immune system, while not adversely affecting the ‘repair’ aspect. This
would then have the desired effect of having the body not reject the transplanted tissues, but at
the same time, not impede the immune system into unnecessarily repairing tissues that did not
require this service.

Subscribe to Comments for "Thyroid paradox"