To Prevent Cancer We Must First Know The Root Cause

ricwally · Regular Joined: 26 Feb 2005 Posts: 37

The present day thinking is that cancer occurs when the DNA sequence within a gene is altered in such a way that the gene can no longer instruct the cell in which it resides to produce the normal version of the protein it encodes. Scientists call such an occurrence a mutation within the gene.
Yet the inability for the scientific community to get any headway in the battle with cancer may stem from the fact that they are only pursuing one method of cell replacement, and contemplating what might be going wrong with this one method. There is in fact, two distinct procedures from 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 a
slightly altered procedure whereby the body?s own immune system is sent to rapidly reproducing the surrounding tissues in an endeavor to heal over an area by way of ?scar tissue?.
It is difficult to account for, yet presently believed that the immune system sits idle as cancer activity proliferates. Simultaneously it is observed and acknowledged that there is a corresponding activity in the lymphatic system. Often it is observed that the cancer has spread to the adjacent lymph nodes. The purpose of the lymph nodes is to ?serve as the
center for production of phagocytes, which engulf bacteria and poisonous substances?.
Lymph nodes are a vital component of the immune system, and are always associated with immune system activity. In other words, with every ?non cancerous? situation, the enlarged lymph nodes indicates that the immune system is active and fulfilling its function. Yet we are told, in episodes of cancer, although it is acknowledged that the lymph nodes are active, the immune system is thought to remain inactive. The bewilderment that this event creates is made evident when we read the scientific explanation that attempts to account for why the immune system sits idle while the events that it is designed to prevent, take place in its domain. This anomaly has never been adequately addressed. It defies reason to accept that the immune system is doing nothing.
A more credible explanation for this phenomena could be that instead of the immune system doing nothing, we may want to consider the possibility that the immune system is doing everything. This is not as bizarre as it sounds since all of the characteristics of the
cancerous activity, also happen to be normal immune system functions.
Note that the immune system has three distinct components;
i) to ?identify? foreign antigens that are deemed to be ?enemies of the body?
ii) to ?destroy? these enemies of the body; and
iii) to ?repair? any damage that may have occurred during this onslaught.
This 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 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 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 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 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. 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 clinicaldefinition 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 comprehendible 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. This explanation brings to mind the theory that the earth is a flat disc placed on top
of an infinite tower of tortoises. 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. Post mortems and biopsies of heart attack victims have shown that there is both
fat and fibrosis (scar tissue) replacing the muscle cells in the heart. Often a patient can be
identified as having suffered a heart attack by observing scaring of the heart tissue, even
if the patient is not aware that he or she has had a heart attack. A long drawn out fight
with the disease is unlikely because any blockage or restrictions caused by the scar tissue
will have immediate and severe consequences. It is of interest to note that myocardial
infarction (heart attacks) were rare at the start of the twentieth century; as was cancer.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, heart attacks caused less then three thousand
deaths in the United States as late as the year 1930. Your lifetime risk of developing heart
disease now is one in two if you are male and one in three if you are female. It would
therefor be logical to entertain the possibility that whatever is causing our cancer statistics
to skyrocket, might also be contributing to, or causing these escalating heart disease
statistics. If we adapt this new ?scar tissue theory ?, then both of these anomalies become
grouped together, and could perhaps be construed as one disease.

One could point out that cancer activity can be clinically observed. If it were in fact, a
normal body function, then how come it shows up on tests designed to indicate cancerous
activity? In most cases, the cancer tests show thermal heat being generated. This ?heat?
being generated, is then interpreted as the immune system battling with the foreign
carcinogen that is believed to be causing the cancer.( As to why this ?battle? did not take
place previously while the carcinogen journeyed to the present post, is dismissed as a
?mystery?.) However; it could be viewed that this ?heat? is not from a fight, but rather, a
bi-product of the unauthorized work that is taking place by this arm of the immune
system; namely the cancer cells stimulating the rapid cell division and inflaming the area
with increased blood flow (the lifeblood of these new cells that are being created.). If
there were no activity, the area would operate at body temperature, and register as cold
(not register). It is never observed that a foreign antigen is present. Every cell that can be
observed in the cancerous area is legitimate. Yet the present explanation for cancer is that
some 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 antigen, then we could expect to be able to
follow this reaction (between the antigen and the immune system objecting to its
presence) along its route, and not just when it materializes at a new site. Why would the
immune system wait until this antigen stopped at a location in the body, before it begins
to object to the antigen?s presence? The inability to explain why cancer can travel
undetected, is a major defect in the present DNA model. It is not reasonable to accept that
the antigen too, is given the same superpowers and abilities that are awarded to the cancer
cells themselves, in order to avoid detection. The DNA model does not address this
anomaly. In fact, when you probe more deeply, one must question the need for a ?cancer
cell? at all in the DNA model. If the foreign antigen 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 conceded 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 has fully been accounted for? The immune system
is a legitimate part of the body with a specific function. The cancer cell is reluctantly also
acknowledged as legitimate (because to account for how it spontaneously came into being
without being able to say that it always was there, is too incomprehensible), 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 ascertain that the repair is required, or when the system fails to ascertain
that the repair is completed and therefor no longer required.) When the immune system
starts to relentlessly divide the surrounding tissues, without this event first being deemed
to be necessary, then this would become a phenomenon that would be labeled as cancer.
If it repairs a wound, and doesn?t stop, then this too is cancer. This phenomenon can be
observed in thyroid cancer patients. Often the thyroid is completely removed, yet the
patient has recurrences of tumor growth at the site previously occupied by the thyroid.
The most plausible explanation for this is that, after the faulty immune system has healed
over the surgical cut made to remove the thyroid, it simply does not stop repairing the
tissues at this site and as a result, there is the formation of a new tumor made solely of
fibrosis tissues (since the thyroid tissue had previously been removed). These tumors
cannot be detected by the iodine method which was used to detect the original thyroid
cancer, because the fibrous tissue has different properties then the thyroid tissue, and does
not absorb the iodine. The failure of the radioactive iodine to detect this new growth is
further proof that this is not a reoccurrence of the original thyroid cancer. This is a
continuation of the faulty immune system which has not been addressed by surgically
removing the thyroid. There is an important distinction to be made here. Did the tumor
produce the cancer, or did the cancer produced the tumor. Note that it was earlier pointed
out that the present DNA model holds that an antigen causes the lawless proliferation of
cells. Under the present DNA model, I can appreciate that the objective for removing the
tumor, is to rid the body of the offending cancer cells as well (and any carcinogens that
might be at the site). This objective can only be achieved so long as the premise holds
true that the cancer is contained within the boundaries of the tumor. If these faulty tissues
contain the cancer cells that made them, then by removing these tissues, should render the
patient cured, and with the same bill of health as someone whom had never acquired the
disease. Unfortunately the evidence does not support this, and gives rise to questioning
the original premise; which holds that the cancer is contained within the cells 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 preformed on patients who have not been diagnosed with cancer, are not subject to
similar reoccurrence of tumors, despite also being subjected to the light and air.
Even the supporters of the DNA model, acknowledge that cancer cells are in all of us,
because the ?spontaneous existence of matter? is a hard sell. 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 preformed.
Biopsies are tests that examine the cell structure at a tumor site. From the removed
cells the medical professional can determine whether this tissue is currently undergoing
non requested cell division, or whether it had previously undergone cell division.
Cold-Hot ; Inactive-active; benign-malignant. These are the differences between non
life-threatening benign tumors, and life-threatening malignant tumors, specifically one is
active (cancerous) and one is benign (scar tissue). The benign scar tissue has already been
manufactured by the immune system, and is now dormant. 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 for
the opportunistic cancer to ?pick on?. People in the tropical regions who do posses
defective immune systems will find that they have cells other then their melanin, which
are easier for their immune system to stimulate. Or if the cancer does choose to divide the
melanin cells, it will be the tissues that do not poses this modification(palms of hand, sole
of foot, etc.).
Using this model we would predict that similar cultures would produce similar cancer
statistics. This fact has eluded no one. We have always been aware that people who share
the same culture, same lifestyle, same access to health services and facilities, same
documentation methods etc. would have the same life expectancy, and the same mortality
rates for diseases. If however, one group of a society were to be immune to one form of
cancer, then we would expect, mathematically, that the numbers would have to be made
up for, in other forms of cancer. We see a prim example of this theoretical prediction by
examining cancer in African Americans. They share the same culture as the North
American Caucasians, and yet they could be considered to be ?genetically immune? from
acquiring skin cancer. Thus we see African Americans with alarmingly higher rates of
lung cancer, for instance. The slight deviation in smoking habits can not account for the
vast deviation in cancer statistics. It has been acknowledged that African Americans
suffer disproportionately from chronic and preventable disease compared to the White
Americans. Similar anomalies have been observed in American Indians, Hispanics, and
Asian/Pacific Island minorities. It has been acknowledged statistically that these groups
all smoke less cigarettes per day then there White counterparts, yet these groups all have
alarmingly higher incidents of lung disease, and lung cancer. No justifiable explanation is
offered by the present DNA model for this anomaly. The explanation that perceptively
follows from this new model, makes far more sense to me. Prior to this new model, we
were at a loss as to how to account for the vast discrepancies in these numbers. I would
expect that this phenomena could be observed by viewing statistics between Australians,
and Aborigines as well. Consider the plight of the Australians. Here we have a culture of
displaced Europeans who were originally placed there as a penal colony. They do not
posses the required genetically modified skin to live in this more tropical environment.
Thus we now see, as this modern trend of possessing weaker immune systems takes
effect, the skin of the Australian Caucasians is coming more and more under heavy
attack. This trend can also be observed by studying the cancers of Northern Europe and
comparing these to countries closer to the equator in Southern Europe. This explanation
accounts for countries nearer to the equator, although their incidence of melanoma is
lower, do have a higher incidence of other types of cancer. Liver cancer for instance, is
six times more prevalent in Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, and Italy) than it is in
Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland and Norway). This principle can be applied across
the board in explaining why some types of cancer are more rare then others. The rarer
forms of cancer have a cell structure that is more difficult for the immune system to
stimulate into scar tissue.
This same principal (cancer cells ?picking on? the easiest target ) can be used to explain
childhood cancer, and help to explain why the list for adult cancers and child cancers is so
different. I will now attempt to explain how childhood leukemia and brain cancer fit into
this new model.
During the initial development of the body, all organs, muscles and bones undergo a
growth period which lasts until adulthood. All tissues in the body undergo development
during this time. An infant boy starts out at 6 pounds, and 18 years later he weighs 180
pounds. Thus each pound of mass must multiply itself approximately 30 times. Because
of this ongoing development, these tissues are constantly being fabricated and revised.
The observed phenomena indicate that these cells are less susceptible to being stimulated
by a faulty immune system, undoubtedly as a result of this elevated activity. That is to
say, the defective immune system will not assess these cells as requiring accelerated cell
division, because these cells are currently undergoing accelerated cell division, which is a
natural part of development of the body during adolescence.(A wound that would result
in a scare formation on an adult is less likely to form scare tissue when a similar wound is
received by a child, due to this phenomenon.) The white blood cells, on the other hand,
have previously been manufactured in the bone marrow, and now have left this ?factory?
of origin. This circulatory system is best described by using an analogy of a manufacturer
with a recycling and maintenance department. Our body continues to manufacture blood
throughout our lifetime in this continuous ?loop? system. Newly repaired or manufactured
blood cells leave the factory (bone marrow) and will not be seen by the maintenance
department again, until they reenter the kidney and liver at the other end of the loop.
These individual white blood cells begin there journey through the body in the state of
decline (no longer being maintained). They have a short life span of between several days,
up to two weeks. Since all the other cells in this adolescent are undergoing intense
development, these are the cells that become the easiest targets for a defective immune
system to divide. Thus leukemia, becomes the most common form of childhood cancers.
Once the body is fully grown, the organ tissues no longer have this inherent advantage of
the ongoing development, and so these organs become susceptible to cancerous activity to
the same extent as the rest of the adult population. The observed phenomena supports the
hypotheses that developing tissues are less prone to cancerous activity then the matured
tissues are.
In the developing years, the human brain undergoes the least amount of mass variance.
The brain starts out between 350 and 400 grams and grows to a weight of between 1300
and 1400 grams. Thus, the brain undergoes a mass increase of 3.6 times its original (in
contrast to 30 times, for all other tissues). This fact means that the development of the
brain tissue is considerably slower, or less intense then the development of the rest of the
body tissues. This helps us to understand why childhood brain tumors are the principal
form of cancer of a solid mass. Brain tissue is the ?low man on the totem-pole? as far as
cell activity is concerned. Thus, it becomes the easiest tissue for the defective immune
system to ?pick on?. The combination of leukemia, and brain tumors, represent the vast
majority of all childhood cancers.
If it does turn out to be a defective immune system that is causing cancer, and not some
environmental agent, as is the present focus, then it should be possible to show a concrete
?cause-effect? relationship between cancer and a defective immune system. A concrete
relationship has thus far proven to be impossible using the present model for cancer.
Under the new model, it would be predicted that a concrete relationship could not be
found using the present DNA model, because it is missing half of the equation. They will
only be able to compile lists of suspected cancer causing substances and activities. To
defend the tobacco industry, a lawyer needs merely to produce one or more ?healthy?
individual, all of whom have smoked for a long period of time, in order to show that
there is not a concrete relationship between their product and cancer. It will always be
possible to find a healthy smoker, or a healthy asbestos miner. If however, this healthy
individual were to have their immune system become weak (the other half of the
equation), the resulting maverick cancer cells are most apt to attack the weakened lung
tissues of this individual (thus showing further support to an identified link to cancer).
Therefore, tobacco becomes an environmental ?link? that has been shown to cause cancer
in some individuals. Smoking cigarettes does not guarantee that you will get lung cancer.
Sun-tanning does not guarantee that you will get skin cancer. But as was stated earlier,
while the list of ?links? to cancer becomes longer, there is no real progress being made.
Immunosuppressant medications are the exception to this, and this fact lends itself
beautifully to add support to the theory that the immune system contains the cancer cells,
and is responsible for cancerous activity. These medications were developed to
intentionally decrease the effect of the immune system in organ transplant patents, so that
the bodies defense mechanism would not attack (reject) the foreign tissue. If the patient
survives the transplant operation, and overcomes the rejection, they will live longer lives
then they would have, had they not had the transplant operation. However, the transplant
patient will ultimately succumb to a bout with cancer. This phenomenon has scientists
struggling for an explanation:

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

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

Here we have a conclusive ?link? between cancer cells, and immunosuppressants
(tampering with, or weakening the immune system). Thus we find that a deliberately
weakened immune system will doubtlessly, cause the patient to succumb to cancer.(4*) It
would be anticipated that this fact is what scientists have been yearning for.
This phenomenon begs the question; If a weakened immune system has been shown to
causes cancer, would it not therefor follow that a strengthened immune system, should
overcome, or at least prevent cancer? This incident clearly establishes that there is a
cause-effect relationship between cancer and a weakened immune system, and by using
this new model for explaining cancer, we would predict that by creating a defective
immune system, we can expect that some form of cancer will result. All the other ?links?
and ?markers? merely help to ascertain which of the numerous types of cancer the patient
is likely going to acquire. That is to say, the numerous lifestyle links, environmental links,
and dietary links all have a tendency to either promote, or demote, any given tissue in the
body, towards, or away from cancerous activity. I believe that these patients were
pre-determined to obtain cancer merely by having an immune system that had lost control
over their cancer cells. Regrettably, it then became only a question of which type of
cancer they would ultimately 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 don?t use it, it won?t be there for you when you really need it.
How is someone to prepare there immune system to handle a fight with cancer? (Or as I
am suggesting, not to ?fight? but rather, to reclaim control of these cells?) Through
exercise. Exercise your immune system just as you would any other system; in increasing
increments. If the ability to lift heavy objects, or the ability to run a five
minute mile can be re-acquired through exercise in increasing increments, and the
immune system is subject to the same rules as the muscular system, or cardiovascular
system, than it is reasonable to assume that the immune system could be put on an
exercise agenda that would allow it to re-acquire the necessary strength, so as to redeem
its domain over these cancer cells. Consider the treatment of chemotherapy, which is
described as a process of almost killing the body with poison. This protocol tends to make
the entire body ill, thereby inadvertently exercising the immune system. When the body
rebounds, it rebounds stronger than before, similar to a body that had been in an exercise
workout. This new strength allows the immune system to reclaim the body for a period of
time, (called a remission) but if the patient continues the lifestyle that allowed the cancer
cells to take over in the first place; i.e. weakening their immune system with modern
methods of immune supplements and pharmaceuticals, (trying to do the immune systems
job, for it) then one would expect the statuesque to return. This perhaps helps to explain
why chemotherapy; although it is not a cure, does tend to prolong a patients life.

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

	Cancer Forums Forum Index -> Cancer Prevention	All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

A website for discussions about any type of cancer, including lung cancer, breast cancer, mesothelioma, prostate cancer, laryngeal cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma and others