The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.  (Read 5270 times)

Offline ricwally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Cancer is a group of many related diseases. A simplistic definition of cancer is that some defect in our DNA, (specifically the chromosome responsible for normal controlled cell division, the P53 gene) is going astray. It is held that all cancers begin in cells, the body's basic unit of life. Cells make up tissues, and tissues make up the organs of the body.
Normally, cells grow and divide to form new cells as the body needs them. When cells grow old and die, new cells take their place. Sometimes this orderly process goes wrong. New cells form when the body does not need them, and old cells do not die when they should. These extra cells can form a mass of tissue called a growth or tumor. This principle has been the central focus of all research into the disease for well over a century. This is the underlining premise that everyone has accepted as their starting point, but I strongly suspect that this premise is wrong. Our DNA does not change from childhood to adulthood, yet the list of cancer types for these two age groups certainly does. How could there be any variances in the types of cancer one could acquire if cancer was caused by an inner cell DNA defect? There could not be a distinction, because our DNA does not change. But there is a distinction.

 There are two means with which a cell can be reproduced, and only two. One method is  the much studied process in which the cell’s DNA instructs the cell to divide as outlined in the internal code of the cell. This has been the central focus of all queries into the disease since scientists have had the ability to study the body at the cellular level. The only other way in which a cell can be reproduced, is a less studied, and less understood method whereas the body’s own immune system is sent to a region immediately following some form of trauma, to stimulate the neighbouring cells into rapidly reproducing themselves in the form of scar tissue.  A close examination of tumor tissues reveals that there are similarities between the formation of scar tissue (with its accompanying inflammation) and cancerous activity. This relationship is most easily observed by comparing skin surface scars with skin cancer. Because scar tissue was manufactured rapidly, and by a different process than that of normal tissue replacement (normal cell division), it has different characteristics. Scar tissue made from skin cells has a distinct appearance with a smoother surface, firmer density, (described as a waxy appearance) and a different pigment from that of the surrounding tissue. The following quote can be found at newbielink:http://www.google.com [nonactive] final report on Grant GR/K71394 Mathematical Model of Scar Tissue
“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.” 

‘Functionally and cosmetically inferior’ are characteristics shared by cells thought to be manufactured by cancer cells, and cells manufactured by our immune system. These characteristics are not attributed to cells manufactured by the normal DNA method.

 If cancer was a disease of the cell losing the ability to replicate itself in a controlled manor, then we would expect to see uniformity between the cancer tumor and the parent cell that had lost this ability to replicate itself in a controlled manner. We should not expect to see uniformity between cancers themselves, if this uniformity did not first exist between the parenting cells. But Warburg, while studying the metabolism of tumors, noted that "cancers of various species and tissue origins reveal a high uniformity from tumor to tumor." Warburg, O.: Stoffwechsel d. Tumore, Springer, Berlin, 1926. Engl. edn., The Metabolism of Tumors, tr. F. Dickens, London, 1930.

 In fact there have been numerous studies all of which point to a number of parallelisms between cancer tumors of all types. There are a series of “common denominators” that are shared between all cancerous tissues that do not have this shared characteristic with the host cells. The following 4 quotes with references point this relationship out.

"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

"Shack describes an almost complete uniformity in cytochrome oxidase content in a number of mouse tumors." Shack, J.: J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 3:389, 1943

"Maver and Barrett describe substantial evidence for an immunological uniformity among malignant tumors. Greenstein reports an impressive degree of uniformity in enzyme concentration among malignant tissues, regardless of their means of induction, tissue of origin or species of origin." Greenstein, J.P.: Symposium on Cancer, A.A.A.S. Research Conference on Cancer, ed. F.R.Moulton, Am. Assoc. Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., 1945, p. 192

"The uniformity of various exhibitions of cancer in respiratory properties, lactic acid production, vitamin content, enzyme content, action on a given substrate, effect on liver catalase, cytochrome oxidase content immunological properties, and many other characteristics is correlative to an uniformity of malignant tumors in the ability to metastasize, in their amenability to heterotransplantability, and in their autonomy, invasiveness and erosiveness. Indeed, there is no known basic property unique to any single exhibition of cancer---the only variation being a morphological one partially conditioned by admixed benign or somatic components." Cancer and the Immune System The Vital Connection

After considering all the above quotations, a fair question to be asked is, ‘Why is there such uniformity between cancer tissues from tumor to tumor?’ Another question that comes to mind is, ‘If a fault in the DNA is causing this tissue growth, why is the daughter cell even distinguishable from the normal cell?’
All of this uniformity seems to paint a picture that there is a common theme in all cancers, which implies a signal source of manufacture. It is impossible for the  DNA model to account for this anomaly of uniformity. This uniformity is an obvious inference if the cancers were being formed from our immune system. A pattern of uniformity would be necessary if the immune system were held to be responsible for the manufacture of all these tissues. The cancer cell is distinguishable from the normal cell because it was manufactured by a different process then normal cell replacement. The DNA method of cell regeneration is not different and not distinguishable from the original.

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 account for why the new cell is distinguishable from the parent cell, then it follows that the ‘repair’ aspect of our immune system could be responsible for this non requested cell growth we call cancer.

 
Under the DNA model for cancer it is held that the immune system sits idle as cancer activity proliferates. This is a necessary maxim for the DNA model, because the evidence supports that the immune system does not make any attempt to prevent this cancerous activity. It is not yet understood why the immune system would sit idle while events that it is designed to prevent, takes place. This anomaly has given birth to the belief that among the other astonishing attributes of the cancer cell is its ability to ‘disguise itself’, and ‘recruit allies‘ in its defence, and a host of other special attributes that have been bestowed on these miracle cells. No attempt is made to account for how these cancer cells do this, but it is necessary to attempt to address why they are being left alone by the immune system. This anomaly has never been adequately addressed and remains as a major conundrum of the present DNA model of cancer.   

It is 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. 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. It defies reason to accept that the immune system is doing nothing. A more credible explanation for this phenomenon is that the immune system is doing everything. This is not as bizarre as it sounds since all of the characteristics of the cancerous activity; also happen to be normal immune system functions.
First we need to recognize that the term ‘immune system’ is used to describe a complex body function that is actually three distinct systems with three distinct responsibilities;
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. (wrapped within this repair aspect, is the immune system’s ability to ‘inflame’ the site with increased blood flow, a natural and vital component necessary to sustain the life of these newly generated cells.)
 The mechanism that starts the repair process is triggered when the body experiences some form of trauma. Clearly once this process has been set in motion, there needs to be a corresponding 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 to start, and when to stop the rapid formation of scar tissue, so that the immune system may end this elevated activity, and restore itself to the level of activity that existed prior to the trauma. It doesn't require too much imagination to realize that the inability to shut off this ‘repair process’ would result in a situation indistinguishable from what we presently call ‘cancer’. So 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 a signal as to when to stop. There must be a stop code.
Cancer becomes much less mysterious if we simply view that the immune system is causing the lawless proliferation of growth, (since it is its job to do so,) and the immune system is also supplying the essential blood supply to support this new growth, by way of inflammation (again, because it is its job to do so). To read the present accounting of how the cancer cells manage to build the infrastructure of a blood supply system to support the existence of these newly generated cells, exceeds my level of gullibility. The cells are attributed with a host of special abilities unique to them alone which permits this event to take place. Yet at the same time, the philosophy in treating cancer patients with radiation and chemotherapy, is that these are the weakest cells and will be the first ones to die. Chemotherapy and radiation are the two most significant treatments against cancer. All other treatments are aimed at invigorating, boosting, stimulating etc. the immune system into attacking the cancer. Paradoxically, the two most successful treatments make no attempt at employing the immune system in the fight against cancer. They go after the cancer cells themselves. From this new vantage point of understanding cancer, we can see why treatments that do not 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 un requested tissue growth we call cancer, it would be absurd to expect it to attack itself. But 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 leaves the cancer alone would become easily explained if the cancer were a function of a defective 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.
 Mark Twain is quoted as having said “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure, that just ain't so.”

Statistical connections have been difficult to extract using the DNA framework because the scientific community is only looking at half the equation. Currently, scientists are only looking at the hierarchy of cell types to come under attack, which produces only ‘links’ to lifestyle choices or environmental exposures, etc.. If we factor into this how an individual treats their immune system, then perhaps some concrete relationships could be observed. Thus, cancer could be viewed as fulfilling a two part equation. The individual must first be in possession of a defective immune system that is capable of producing non requested scar tissue, (or perhaps not being able to determine that this repair process has been completed, and thus be able to shut off this subsidiary of the immune system). The second requirement is the defective immune system must then be steered towards a certain tissue type to commence this non requested work.
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) 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 employ medications to stop or hinder the use of 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 fairly modern, then it helps us understand why cancer has become classified as a modern epidemic.
Another modern tendency that has avoided being studied is the pre packaged food industry, which constitutes more and more of the products that enter the food chain in Western Societies. With departments of health overseeing the cleanliness of our food, we tend to live in an ever increasingly sterile environment. The entire ‘Western Culture’ is designed to take as much of the burden off of the immune system as possible. This all leads to the immune system having less to do. Our ancestors did not have health departments overlooking their food preparation. Our ancestors did not have near the amounts of cancer either. Third world cultures also share this phenomenon which would help to explain the third world paradox, and why people who immigrate from cultures with lower cancer rates, tend to inherit the cancer statistics of their new country despite how much of their original culture they try to preserve. All of our pre packaged, and grocery shelved foods have had a regime of government inspections to limit or eliminate impurities and bacteria so that our immune system will no longer have to deal with this. Our homes and business institutes have all been cleaned on a regular basis with products that contain disinfectants that are marketed as being able to kill 99.9% of germs and bacteria on contact. That leaves just 0.1% for our immune system to contend with. Our water supply has undergone a series of processes to ensure that it is free of contaminants and bacteria. As cancer statistics continue to rise , we as a society, in an ever increasing act of paranoia have reverted to thinking that even this is not good enough, and have resorted to buying bottled water, and water that is believed to have undergone even further treatments. The cancer statistics then become a self fulfilling prophecy. The quest for increasingly sterile products is corresponding with our increasing cancer statistics, causing a spiraling ‘Catch 22’. You can’t get around the fact that your water supply and your food sources have all been sterilized for you. This entails that your immune system has less to do. When your immune system has less to do, it becomes weaker. Weaker immune systems cause cancer statistics to rise. Rising cancer statistics cause us to want to do more to provide health for our bodies. This is the ‘cancer paradox’; which has people scratching their heads wondering why ‘couch potatoes’ and people who are less concerned with their health, tend to outlive those who take health concerns seriously.



 

Offline ricwally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #1 on: 22/02/2009 12:57:33 »
 Another troubling irony can be observed from the following passage which is an excerpt from the Moss Report For October 23, 2005 on the subject of Mammography Paradox.
...[more alarming by far is the little-publicized fact that in women aged
40-49, mammography is actually associated with an increased, rather
than a decreased, risk of death- a phenomenon known to researchers as
the "mammography paradox."
This increased death rate from breast cancer in younger women who
undergo screening mammography has been documented consistently in
screening trials across different countries, settings and populations. It is a
fact known to many researchers in the field, yet it remains largely
unknown to the general public An unacknowledged harm is that for up to
11 years after the initiation of breast cancer screening in women aged
40-49 years, screened women face a higher death rate from breast cancer
than unscreened control women, although that is contrary to what one
would expect" (Baines 2003).]

This anomaly can be accounted for from the new framework for understanding cancer. The process of having a mammography inflicts a great deal of stress on the tissues of the breast as it is manipulated (flattened) for the purpose of the screening. This immune system would then target this damaged tissue as requiring repair work. Those in the control group, who did not undergo this activity, would not have this tissue targeted as needing any repairs. If an equal number of people in both the control group and the mammography group were to have the requisite defective immune system that was capable of manufacturing non requested tissue, then it is easy to see that the group that did not have this defective immune system directed towards this one specific tissue type, would have lower statistics of breast cancer.

One could point out that cancer activity can be clinically observed. If it were in fact, a normal body function, then why does it shows up on tests designed to indicate cancerous activity? The tests show heat being generated. The by-product of this unauthorized work being performed by this arm of the immune system; namely the cancer cells stimulating the rapid cell division and inflaming the area with increased blood flow, is heat. This “heat” being generated, from the point of view of the present DNA model, is interpreted as the immune system battling with the foreign antigen that is causing the cancer. But no foreign antigen can be found (and the immune system is thought to be unable to recognise the cancer, so it has already been dismissed from the scenario). Every cell that can be observed in the cancerous area is legitimate. It would be prudent to ask ‘why would the immune system wait until this proposed antigen took up residency in the cells DNA before it amassed any objection to this antigen’s presence?’ If there were no activity, the area would operate at body temperature, and register as cold (not register). This is why cancer cannot be observed as it flows through the body. It can only be observed when it takes up residency and starts to inflame and stimulate the cell division in a new area. If, on the other hand, cancer were caused from some antigen inducing the DNA of a tissue to malfunction, and this antigen encountered an immune response, then we should be able to observe this cancerous activity as it moved thru the body to a new location.
 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). The fundamental difference between a benign tumor and a cancerous tumor is in the timing of when it is discovered. 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 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 then it received the ‘stop code’. In a cancerous tumor, either the cells do not receive the ‘stop code’, or you are observing it 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. The benign scar tissue has already been manufactured by the immune system, and is now dormant. Everyone freely accepts that the inactive scar tissue was manufactured by 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 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 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 expectation. 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 too favorable. The apparent failure of the surgery has given birth to the suspicions that exposing the cancerous tissue to the air helps it to spread. Or exposing the cancer to the light of the Operating Room, perhaps, is what causes it to flourish. Exposing the cancer to the light and air is a 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 can’t generate 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 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. 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 has already shown to be defective, 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.

If a weakened immune system has been shown to causes cancer, would it not therefore follow that a strengthened immune system, should overcome, or at least prevent cancer? There is a paradox with immunosuppressant medications which  clearly establishes that there is a cause-effect relationship between cancer and a weakened immune system. It should be anticipated that this is the one thing that everyone has been searching for, but no one can recognise this because it doesn’t fit with the DNA model.  Immunosuppressant medications were developed to intentionally decrease the effect of the immune system in organ transplant patents, for the purpose of preventing the body’s defence mechanism from attacking (rejecting) the foreign tissues of the transplant operation. If the patient survives the operation, and overcomes the rejection, they will live longer lives then they would have, had they not had the operation. Unfortunately, the statistical evidence shows that 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\

 By using this new model for explaining cancer, we would predict that by creating a defective immune system, we increase the likelihood that some form of cancer will result. We would then have satisfied the first part of the two part equation. All the other ‘links’ and ‘markers’ merely help to ascertain which of the numerous types of cancer the patient is apt to acquire. That is to say, the numerous lifestyle links, environmental links, and dietary links all have a tendency to either promote any given tissue in the body towards cancerous activity, or to demote specific tissues away from cancerous activity. If the immune system is the root cause then obviously 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. The three most promising treatments for cancer are Chemotherapy, Radiation Therapy, and Surgery. These three protocols all inadvertently incorporate the immune system by placing a workload on it. In all of these cases, the immune system must come on the scene to repair the damage that has been inflicted onto the tissues of the various sites. Placing a workload on the immune system provides a workout, or exercise for it.

 

Offline ricwally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #2 on: 22/02/2009 12:57:53 »
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. 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 follow then 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 ‘allergy’s”? 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 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 acquire any form of cancer.



There is a strong association between cancerous activity and the location of tissues adjacent to the bodies various orifices. This proposed new model for cancer can make sense of this relationship , when one considers the need for the immune system to have a heavy presence of its defence mechanisms at these locations. 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 body’s 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 for a defective immune system to mutate, is the mucus membrane tissue. These tissues are located throughout the body, but not arbitrarily throughout the body. Notice that polyps that grow out of the mucus membrane tissue only grow on these specialized tissues that are always located adjacent to a body orifice. In fact, 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 ( Colon polyps, esophageal polyps, Endometrial polyps, nasal etc.). Different cultures have different rankings as to the various cancer types associated with the various orifices; however there is a striking 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. Pre-pubescent breast cancer is  scarce and statistically similar to male breast cancer. Once the woman reaches adulthood however, this newly formed orifice requires the presence of the immune systems defense mechanism as much as any other orifice.
[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 were 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 instigated the breast cancer. This anomaly cannot be explained using the DNA model. The DNA model cannot account for what takes place to cause this horrific change in statistics between pre-pubescent and post pubescent breast cancer statistics.]

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 cannot, 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 compels 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) becomes a logical inference from this.
Prior to 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. In the field of cancer, there remain a number of anomalies with the present DNA model. Why was it relatively scarce prior to the industrial revolution? Why is it less prevalent in developing (third world) countries? Why is it not contagious? Why can we not derive a vaccination for it? Why do some treatments work well for some patients, and not at all for others? Why does the list of childhood cancers differ from that of adults, when our DNA does not change? And of primary concern; why does our immune system not respond to it? Each paradox, and each anomaly can be understood from the framework of this new way of viewing cancer.

Albert Einstein was quoted for having said “When the solution is simple, God is answering”.





 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #3 on: 22/02/2009 13:42:14 »
If you can't sumarise that in about 5 or 10 lines most people won't read it.
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #4 on: 22/02/2009 13:44:39 »
Quote
Cancer is a group of many related diseases. A simplistic definition of cancer is that some defect in our DNA, (specifically the chromosome responsible for normal controlled cell division, the P53 gene) is going astray. It is held that all cancers begin in cells, the body's basic unit of life. Cells make up tissues, and tissues make up the organs of the body.
I got about as far as line 5. By the end of the first paragraph an incorrect assertion had been made and I figured reading the next n-hundred lines was futile... p53 is implicated in quite a lot of different cancers but there are lots of other things that can go wrong..
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #5 on: 22/02/2009 13:54:59 »
ricwally - You seem to put forward a very reasoned and erudite argument. I am not an expert in the causes of cancer. though, so I cannot pass comment on the accuracy of your assertions.

However, cancer being "runaway scar tissue" rings true with me. I have mesothelioma, which is caued by asbestos fibres getting throungh the lungs into the pleura. It is thought that over many years these fibres irritate the cells forming the pleura. It seems to me that such irritation could damage the cells and, indeed, cause the immune system to start repair work.
 

Offline rosy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1018
  • Chemistry
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #6 on: 22/02/2009 15:07:27 »
Mm-mm. Surely the conventional view of cancer currently depends largely the rate at which cells are dividing- well, that and other hormonal/environmental factors which may increase susceptibility to copying error in the DNA replication.. so cancers of the gut, immune regions, lungs, skin, are relavtively common because there's lots of cell division going on in those areas and the same statistical probability of a particular copying error per copy would mean that the odds of an error occuring somewhere are much higher if more copies are being made.. so if scarring causes increases cell division rates more cancers might be expected to arise at sites of scarring than elsewhere.
Or there might be more to it than that, or nothing in it at all.. not my area of expertise.
I haven't read all of the posts above - too long(!) but the difference between childhood and adult cancers is at least partially explained by hormonal differences between children and adults.. the fact that the contraceptive pill slightly increases risk factors for some cancers and, simultaneously, slightly lowers them for others, suggests that there's probably something in this (similar effects are seen for women who have or have not had children, which is another source of truly phenomenal amounts of different hormones washing round women's bodies...), but I won't put that forward as a counter-example because pregnancies cause lots of scarring too...
 

Offline Ben Evans

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #7 on: 22/02/2009 16:10:39 »
I always thought that cancer is caused by plastic in some way, does anyone know if people had cancer before plastic was invented?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #8 on: 22/02/2009 18:50:37 »
I always thought that cancer is caused by plastic in some way, does anyone know if people had cancer before plastic was invented?
They did.
King Herod is said to have had bowel cancer- though the evidence for that is a bit flaky.
Plenty of cancers were known about for a long time. Here is a reference to one of the better known earlier  records.
http://www.bookrags.com/research/percivall-pott-and-the-chimney-swee-scit-0412/

How did you come to such an odd belief anyway?


BTW, if cancers are due to scar tissue them brain tumours could only arise in people who's brains had been physically dameged.
They don't.

« Last Edit: 22/02/2009 18:52:47 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #9 on: 22/02/2009 20:08:36 »
Well; the opening post is certainly long winded enough; it took me two days to get through it:) It makes a lot of sense; at least the immune system could be a culprit in some cancers. The similarity of cancerous tissue to scar tissue is noticeable.
 

Offline ricwally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #10 on: 23/02/2009 12:43:46 »
Doctorbeaver.Up until 140 years ago, there was but one hypotheses for cancer.‘Virchow laid great stress upon the importance of chronic irritation in the causation of new growth ...The rival theory put forward by Cohnheim about 1880 that new growth arises from embryological remnants included within the tissue owing to some slight error in development.’ Here we learn that the first views on cancer (prior to 1880) were thought to be caused by the body repairing cells that were subjected to “chronic irritation”. Evidently, this original theory fell out of favor to the ‘new’ rival theory (the Cohnheim theory which has evolved into the present day DNA theory) but I can only speculate as to why. I am now reexamining the original theory held back in 1860 in which; “chronic irritation” is the cause of the growth (cancer). This chronic irritation would imply the breakdown or continuous damage inflicted on one group of cells, or one tissue type. It had long been observed that betel-nut chewing had been linked to oral cancer. This phenomenon was originally accounted for with the claim that the abrasive quality of these nuts caused an irritation in the cheek tissue of the mouth. When the new theory came along, this phenomenon was attributed to arecoline, one of the properties that could now be scientifically identified to this plant, as being responsible for the oral cancer. Similarly, connections were made between scrotum cancer and soot by observing the high percentage of chimney sweeps that came down with this ailment. As time progressed, it could be isolated that it was benzopyrene, an ingredient in coal tar that was causing the irritation. This new ability to isolate the specific element that was responsible for this ‘cause-effect’ relationship coincided with the new proposed theory from Cohnheim (which held that the cancerous growth was caused from “embryological remnants included within the tissue owing to some slight error in development”. The newly discovered technique of microscopical staining, lent itself remarkably well to the belief that there was something going on inside the individual cell that was causing it to lawlessly reproduce itself, and had just become available in 1872. I can well imagine how this new ability to examine carcinogens at the molecular level, helped this new ‘molecular theory’ win favor over the older chronic irritation theory. Nevertheless this does not invalidate the original theory. The original theory was never revoked, or flat out rejected, but rather it was passed over when these new scientific tools came on line. It would have been preferable for the supporters of the original theory to concede that it was not the soot that was causing the irritation, (or more specifically the benzopyrene in the soot,) as opposed to overturning the theory altogether. It should have been conceded that it was not the abrasive irritant of the betel nuts that was ‘physically’ weakening the tissue, but rather something in the nut that was ‘chemically’ weakening the tissue at this location. In either case, the damaged or weakened tissues require a response from the immune system. Then the chronic irritation principal would still remain applicable as a plausible cause for cancer. This adaptation would have allowed the ‘chronic irritation’ theory to coexist with the ‘embryological remnant’ theory until more was known about the disease of cancer, and the cells that it attacks. If we concede that it is a ‘chemically’ weakened tissue, as opposed to a ‘physically’ weakened tissue; what then is the difference between the chronic irritant theory( read: chemically weakened tissue that begins this uncontrolled growth,) and the Cohnheim theory for cancer, which holds that the growth stems from a flaw within the tissue owing to some internal flaw? (Although the model for DNA was only discovered fifty years ago, it had previously been understood that there must have existed some form of ‘gene’ that was responsible for passing along the genetic information from parent to offspring.) The major distinction between these two theories is in the role of the immune system. The immune system plays no role in the Cohnheim theory (which places the blame solely on the DNA of the affected tissue cells.). If we re-investigate the chronic irritation theory now, with our new found knowledge of the roles of the immune system, we might conclude that the original theory should not have been so quickly overlooked.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #11 on: 23/02/2009 19:37:54 »
If you look at the site I cited earlier you will see that "From the time of the Greeks and Romans cancer was viewed as a systemic disease caused by an excess of black bile."
Just because something is an early theory doesn't make it a good theory.

I accept that in very general terms cancer is an error that happens during cell division. The more the cells have to divide the more likely they are to produce the sort of error that goes on to produce cancer.
If you repeatedly damage some part of the body and force it to regrow cells to repair the damage, you may well increase the risk of cancer in that tissue.

However, as I said before it's fairly unusal to get a scar in the brain (or the ovaries or testes for that matter) yet these organs are known to get cancer. Also, in my experience the tissue that gets damaged most is the skin on my hands. I'm forever cutting or scratching my fingers on stuff. I have the scars to prove it and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I don't remember ever hearing of anyone getting skin cancer on the fronts of their hands.

and, BTW,
re "The similarity of cancerous tissue to scar tissue is noticeable. "
ever heard of a teratoma?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

 

Offline ricwally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #12 on: 24/02/2009 12:56:41 »
Sclerosis is scaring of the liver. Cardiomyopathy is scaring of the heart. Interstitial pulmonary fibrosis is scaring of the lung. Every internal organ can undergo cell replacement from the immune system method, and these can be a precursor to cancer. Barrett's esophagus is scaring of the esophagus walls caused from stomach acids conically attacking these unprotected cells, and have an alarming correlation with esophagus cancer.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #13 on: 24/02/2009 18:51:08 »
From wiki.
"Cardiomyopathy, which literally means "heart muscle disease," is the deterioration of the function of the myocardium (i.e., the actual heart muscle) "
Also, wher you said "Sclerosis is scaring of the liver.", did you mean cirrhosis?
Liver cancers can occur without cirrhosis and cirrhosis can occur without cancer.
 

Offline ricwally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #14 on: 25/02/2009 12:26:34 »
I don’t doubt that you are correct with the medical terms. I believe Cardio-fibrosis is the name for scaring of the heart tissue, and cirrhosis for the liver. The point I was carelessly attempting to make was that many tissue types are subject to having the immune system’s repair aspect applied to them resulting in ‘scar tissue’. We tent to associate scar tissue only with visible skin repairs. There are over 200 tissue types identified in the human body, and potentially they could all receive scaring, and this scaring could receive a name. There are now over 200 identified cancer types that do have names.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #15 on: 25/02/2009 18:58:34 »
I keep pointing out that scaring may occur to virtually any bit of the body and so may cancer but thee's no reason to supose that the two are related- they might be in some cases but, as I have said but it may just be coincidence.

Do you understand the following sentence?
Most people's hands have scars but not cancer therefore scars do not cause cancer.


Since you mention it, scarring of the liver is well documented- it is sometimes associated with cancer but not all liver cancers are associated with cirrhosis.
Not all cases of Cirrhosis become cancer.
There is not and can not be any direct causal link between the two phenomena.

 

Offline ricwally

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #16 on: 25/02/2009 22:39:19 »
I have never proposed that “scars cause cancer”. I do understand the sentence "Most people's hands have scars but not cancer therefore scars do not cause cancer".I am proposing that the system which generates this scar tissue (Which in this case is a necessary tissue production generated from an appropriately functioning repair arm of the immune system), after being set in motion from the onslaught of some form of trauma; if it were to not receive the notification that this elevated source of cell generation was no longer needed, and/or received an error message setting this cell generating capability into motion when it was not first required, then this generation of unwanted tissue would meet the definition of cancer, i.e. unwanted or unwarranted tissue growth.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck,…. maybe it’s a duck. I am proposing that maybe the duck everyone is looking for is a faulty immune system that does not know when to shut down, or commences unwanted tissue repairs on its own.   

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

What if They Are Wrong? Questioning the 'Origin of cancer'.
« Reply #16 on: 25/02/2009 22:39:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums