Cancer Concept - Is our DNA the Root Cause of Cancer?

ricwally · Regular Joined: 26 Feb 2005 Posts: 37

The current definition of cancer is said to be the result of the DNA sequence within a gene being 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 this created an irony known as the cancer paradox of why aging cells with reduced ability to proliferate are more susceptible to cancer which is defined as a proliferation of uncontrolled cell growth.
The inability of the scientific community to make any headway in the battle against cancer may stem from the fact that they are only pursuing one method of cell replacement, and are concentrating all efforts towards finding out what might be going wrong with this one method. There are 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 reproduce the surrounding tissues in an endeavor to quickly heal over an area by way of scar tissue. It is not yet fully understood how the mechanics of this second method work; however it is known that this procedure is triggered when the body experiences some form of trauma. If we were to conceive of the possibility that something was going amiss with this second method; i.e. the body was being sent a false signal to start this procedure, or the body was not receiving a signal telling it to cease this activity, then the cancer paradox, and all the other anomalies surrounding the disease tend to fall into the realm of explainable events.
It is difficult to account for, nevertheless necessary to hold that the immune system sits idle as cancer activity proliferates, under the present DNA theory for cancer. 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. 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 being told that 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 was 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 phenomenon could be 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’ encompasses 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.
Identify; Destroy; and Repair. These are the three divisions of our immune system.
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 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 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 may cease 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 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 repairing the tissues in the breast, and a tumor resembling the scar tissue process (firmer density, different collagen alignment, different pigment, etc.) would result.
Similarly, if the immune system were to misidentify tissues as requiring repair activity, then this would also have similar repercussions. If a faulty immune system were to commence the healing process without there first being a requirement for it, then the result would fit our present description of cancerous activity. We would have non requested, uncontrolled cell growth.

Since there are two distinct ways in which a cell can be reproduced, we should be considering a malfunction in both of these scenarios as possible justification for when something going wrong. Thus far, only the DNA model has been investigated as being the cause of this affliction. We should now examine the repair process of our immune system (scar tissue formation) 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. An article at http://www.physorg.com/news8989 titled Study supports century-old cancer theory points out that "Cancer cells exhibit a remarkable number of traits normally attributed to white blood cells known as macrophages, including the ability to migrate to lymph nodes and distant organs and to form a new blood supply," said lead author John Pawelek in Yale's school of medicine. White blood cells are the foremost tool of the immune system
When we can readily observe scar tissue, as in the case of skin surface scars, we can readily detect that this tissue has an altered appearance from that of the surrounding tissue. Because it was manufactured rapidly, and by a different process than that of normal tissue replacement (normal cell division, as outlined in that cell’s DNA), it has different characteristics. For example, scar tissue made from skin cells has a distinct appearance with a smoother surface, firmer density, (described as a waxy appearance) and a different pigment from that of the surrounding tissue. A clinical definition is as follows:

Scar tissue formation is a ubiquitous feature of adult wound healing, with the resulting repair both functionally and cosmetically inferior to normal skin. At microscopic level, the main difference between scar and normal tissue is in the alignment pattern of the collagen fibers of which they are composed.
www.google.com final report on Grant GR/K71394
Mathematical Model of Scar Tissue

This excerpt acknowledges the 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 thought to be 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. Note that 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 method) of natural cell replacement to have enough time to heal the area.
The easiest cancers to observe are the surface cancers. Basil Cell Carcinoma has all of the characteristics of scar tissue. (Smoother, 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 ‘Scar Tissue Theory’ and the ‘DNA Theory’ are able to adequately account for the cancer cells having shared characteristics from the host cells. A malfunction in the DNA of a cell, in and of itself would not present much of a problem if the creation of these new cells could not be supported by the existing blood supply. The DNA theory becomes much more complex by virtue of the fact that it must also account for the modification of the existing blood supply that will be required to support the existence of these newly generated cells. The hardship of how a faulty DNA can communicate and control events outside of its domain (within the cell) need also be addressed. The Scare Tissue theory is not required to account for the accompanying increased blood supply, because the same elements that triggered 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.
It is mathematically comprehendible how the DNA of an individual cell might go astray, and starts to reproduce itself repeatedly as outlined in our present cancer theory. 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. In probability theory, the Borel-Cantelli lemma is a theorem about sequences of events that is a fundamental maxim of the theory of natural selection. The theorem is perhaps best exemplified with the cliché that if an infinite number of monkeys sit at an infinite number of typewriters and randomly press keys, they will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. If we are to grant that this would eventually happen, then the same logic used to conclude this point, would compel us to concede that there would in the process be generated an unfathomable volume of typewritten gibberish.
Where is all the gibberish surrounding cancer? If we are to accept that each case of cancer is the culmination of a series of events, we should expect to see a multitude of incidences in which the whole chain of events did not occur. 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 their defense, and a multitude of other special powers that are attributed only to cancer cells. When you examine this supernatural chain of events, and the obstacles that the cancer must overcome, and the safeguards that are in place to prevent these occurrences from happening the way they are described, one must 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 (again because it is its job to do so).
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 phenomenon 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 identified and attacked by the immune system. It should be included here that the only occasion in nature 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 phenomenon 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 (same DNA) as the bodies own cells, and therefore 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, tracked 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. At present, a list of over 150 cancers has 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 causes this disease as are any cancerous tumors. But because this disease affects 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 is some forms of heart disease and strokes. It is reasonable to expect from what is presently known 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 (denser, firmer tissue then the original). 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. In more recent years it has been determined that inflammation observed in the heart has been determined to be a precursor to heard disease. Again, inflammation is associated with immune system activity.
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 ( the same statistical odds of developing cancer in your lifetime.). It would therefore 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. As we examine some of our modern tendencies that conceivably have permitted our immune systems to become weak and susceptible to this defect, we can see why this phenomenon has been labeled as ‘modern’. This helps to understand why some couch potatoes subsisting on cheeseburgers can live to be one hundred, while the vegetarian marathon runner can suffer a heart attack at 35.

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?
In most cases, the cancer tests show thermal heat being generated. This ‘heat’ is then interpreted as the immune system battling with the foreign carcinogen that is believed to be causing the cancer. Yet an important element in the DNA model for cancer is that the immune system does not recognize or offer any resistance to its presence. (Also one should question as to why this 'battle' did not take place beforehand while the carcinogen journeyed to the present post, prior to it taking up residency in the cell that it would ultimately wreck havoc in .) One explanation for this ‘heat’ is that it 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. The carcinogen that was attributed as being the ‘cause’ of the affliction is never identified in any microscope slides of cancerous tissues. Neither of these phenomena (the antigen or the cancer cells themselves) has ever been observed traveling 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 its opposition 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. When you get right down to it, what is the need for the ‘cancer cell’ in the DNA model anyways? Under the DNA model, the tumor is merely a symptom of the disease of a metabolic failure that allows the cells to proliferate uncontrolled. If the tumor growth has been accounted for with the explanation that some carcinogen caused the DNA in this group of cells to go on to lawlessly reproduce themselves, then the cancer has already been explained without the need of a ‘cancer cell’. (Since the tumor is merely a symptom of the disease, removal of the tumor without addressing the cause is in essence, equivalent to merely treating one symptom of a disease. Re-occurrences or death from the disease can be understood from the position that the medical profession is only treating the symptom.) In the DNA model, it is a foreign antigen that is causing the proliferation of the cell’s DNA to suddenly mutate itself over and over. 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. But if the immune system were to be responsible for this proliferation, then it would be necessary that specialized cells are sent to this region in order to stimulate the neighboring cells into regenerating themselves. 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 therefore 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 therefore this activity is 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 we would label as a cancer. If it repairs a wound, but then fails to stop, then this too is cancer.

This phenomenon can be best demonstrated 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 event 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 initially used to detect the original thyroid cancer, because this new fibrous tissue generated by the immune system has different properties then the thyroid tissue, and does not absorb 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. If a carcinogen were to be causing a remnant of the original thyroid to experience metabolic failure, then it would be expected that the cells of this tumor would have the host’s characteristics of being able to absorb iodine. This is a continuation of the faulty immune system which has not been addressed by surgically removing the thyroid.
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 then 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. The objective of removing the cancer by removing the cancerous tissue 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 who 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. 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 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 incidences of tumors, despite also being subjected to the light and air. These non cancerous patients have an immune system that can properly identify the need for repair, and then stop when the task is completed.
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 has 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 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.

Cancer has many characteristics that are homogeneous to all cases.
A series of excerpts follow from the web page http://cancercure.ws

THE UNITARIAN OR TROPHOBLASTIC THESIS OF CANCER

by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr.,* Ernst T. Krebs, Sr.,**
and Howard H. Beard*
The classic experiments of Warburg on the respiratory pattern of cancers of various species and tissue origins reveal a high uniformity from tumor to tumor.1 Correlatively, the Coris find the lactic acid and sugar content of the various exhibitions of cancer to be highly uniform.2 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 tumors, regardless of the tissue of origin or the manner of their induction.3 Robertson makes similar observations for vitamin C.4 The addition of various substrates to malignant tumors of various types yields highly uniform respiratory responses.5 Shack describes an almost complete uniformity in cytochrome oxidase content in a number of mouse tumors. 6 Greenstein finds that the presence of any exhibition of cancer uniformly results in a depression of the liver catalase. 7,8 Maver and Barrett describe substantial evidence for an immunological uniformity among malignant tumors.9 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. 10 Others describe a uniformly low content of such aerobic catealytic systems as cytochrome, succinic, and d-amino acid oxidases, cytochrome-c, catalase and flavin.11,12,13,14,15,16,17
Further phenomena of uniformity are observed in the elevated water and cholesterol content of malignant tumors as well as other primitive tissues.18, 19 The induction by a single steroid carcinogen, such as methylcholanthrene, of malignant exhibitions as diverse as leukemia and malignant melanoma, attests to a basically uniform etiology. 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, 21, 22 and in their autonomy, invasiveness and erosiveness. Indeed, there is no known basic property unique to any single exhibition of cancer.(end of quote)

The links noted above all point to a common theme that is responsible for this activity. If the DNA of a specific tissue type were responsible for this activity, then we could expect uniformity between the cancer and the host cells that went astray. Under the framework of the DNA model, there would be no logical reason to expect this homogeneous relationship to exist from one caner to another. If on the other hand, all these unwanted tissues were being generated from one constant source, we would expect some degree of standardized cell characteristics, which is precisely what is being observed. This phenomenon can only be accounted for when we look outside the DNA as the root cause of cancer.

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 asserts that some of these tissue types are easier then others for a defective immune system to stimulate into this unnecessary formation of scar tissue. The evidence tends to affirm that there is a hierarchy amongst tissue types. There is indication also that cancer activity happens to takes place where the immune system is located. I will now introduce an important maxim for understanding why the immune system selects one tissue type over another and why all cancers are not the same. I will call this the Orifice Theory.

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 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 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 these 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 instigated the breast cancer. This relationship cannot be accounted for using the DNA model. The present DNA model makes no attempt at addressing 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 afflict 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) becomes a logical inference from this.
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 if we bear in mind that the immune system would have a smaller presence at these locations. This phenomenon 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, compelling that this womb is a completely sterile environment. 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 was not located on the surface, it would be expected to arbitrarily start to reproduce any tissue that it came into contact with. This helps to account for the list of over one hundred peculiar sounding tissue types that can come under attack only in childhood cancer cases. As the infants 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, culminating in a short list with 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, It would be expected 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 this modern epidemic (specifically, this modern tendency to assist our immune systems.). Not only has the numbers of cancer occurrences increased in modern times, but the type of cancers as well has changed. Prior to the wide spread use of refrigeration, many contaminants would enter the body by ingesting food. A heavy presence of the immune system would have been necessary at this location. Using the orifice theory, which suggests that a defective immune system is going to create havoc where it is located, we would predict that the heavy presence in the digestive system would yield higher statistics of cancer. Thus we can now recognize why stomach cancer was at one time a prominent category of cancer. In the early years of the 20th century, this was the most common form of internal cancer in the US. Today however, stomach cancer is very rare.
We will now need to modify this new model to include a provision that points out that cancer appears to be an opportunistic disease. 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 would 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 appear 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.
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 statistically the most prevalent form of cancer. If 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 from which the opportunistic cancer can stimulate into reproducing itself. 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 pose 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 can see a prim example of this concept 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 cannot 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 can account for the discrepancy in the statistics.
It would be predicted that this phenomenon 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 concept can also be observed by studying the cancers of Northern Europe and comparing these statistics 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 rarer then others. The rarer forms of cancer have a cell structure that is more difficult for the immune system to stimulate into scar tissue. 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 vastly 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 natural 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 most other tissues). This asserts 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. The following list was taken from http://www.candlelighters.ca/facts/index.html and points out the differences in childhood and Adult cancers
“ Leukemias, brain and other nervous system tumours, lymphomas (lymph node cancers), bone cancers, soft tissue sarcomas, kidney cancers, eye cancers, and adrenal gland cancers are the most common cancers of children, while skin, prostate, breast, lung, and colorectal cancers are the most common in adults”.
Note the correlation between adult cancers and body orifices. Note also the complete opposite relationship between childhood cancers and body orifices.
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. The DNA Theory will only be able to compile lists of suspected cancer causing substances and activities because there will always be individuals who come in contact with cancer causing agents who do not have a faulty immune system. To defend the tobacco industry, an attorney 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 clients 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). Smoking cigarettes does not guarantee that you will get lung cancer. Sun-tanning does not guarantee that you will get skin cancer. Unfortunately; even though our knowledge is increasing as to what substances have been linked to the development of cancer, there is no real progress being made.

Immunosuppressant medications are the exception to this, and this fact lends itself brilliantly 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 body’s 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, had they not undergone 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. 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 therefore 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 hypothesis, 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. 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 differentiate 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

ricwally · Regular Joined: 26 Feb 2005 Posts: 37

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. A global map of cancer clusters show that you are forty times more likely to acquire cancer from being raised in Denmark, than 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. Health department and other government agencies oversee the production and purity standards of even our pets’ food. As they live in an increasingly sterile environment, there is less for their immune systems to do. 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.)
Vaccines are usually 100% successful in fulfilling their intended task. Physicians learned long ago (near the beginning of the industrial revolution) that people who had recovered from the plague would never get it again. (Coincidentally, this new found knowledge came at a time which corresponds with ‘cancer’ beginning to be considered pandemic.) The plague survivors had acquired immunity to the disease. The next time that individual meets up with the same antigen, the immune system is set to demolish it. This knowledge has lead to the invention of ‘shared immunity’ through immunization. Immunity can be transferred from one individual to another by injections of serums rich in antibodies that have been derived from someone or something which has overcome the disease.
There has been attempts at deriving a vaccine from melanoma patients for decades, however these attempts have thus far, not shown to be fruitful. The existing phenomenon shows the immune system does not develop any special antibodies in patients who have overcome cancer. (This further supports the claim that cancer is not a foreign antigen.) This disappointing outcome from vaccine studies, would be predictable using this new model, which holds that the ability to overcome (survive) cancer would come as a result of the cancer patient merely reclaiming control over their unrestrained immune system. Science has not been able to derive a ‘serum rich in antibodies’ from the cancer survivors in the immunization trials, because no such serum exists. Utilizing this theory, and the awareness that in ‘blind trial studies’, half of the trial group would be receiving the vaccine injection, while the other half would be receiving a non-vaccine injection, the immune system would view both of these injected substances as the introduction of a foreign antigen that it then had to deal with. Both injections would constitute as a mild workout, and statistically we would expect little or no difference in the control group over the vaccine group. This is precisely the dilemma facing the vaccine study trials.
Similarly, head to head trials of high dose IFN (interferon) vs. vaccines are underway at many institutions, yet no data has been published showing that one treatment is statistically superior to the other. Under this model it would be predicted that these foreign substances would both be viewed as a mild exercise for the immune system, and as such, they would only be marginally superior to no exercise. The statistics support that these patients are only marginally better off then the success rates for the ‘by chance’ group who elect no treatment at all (and thus no exercise of their immune system at all).

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 a ‘fight’ but rather, a reclaiming 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 dominion 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 that must address the damage brought on by the introduction of these chemo drugs. 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 patient’s 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. 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.
No single medicine has been discovered that works for everyone. If everyone were allergic to the same thing, then that substance would no longer be considered as an allergy. It would be labeled as a ‘poison’. Accordingly, a poison could be described as something that everyone is allergic too. Chemotherapy could therefore be considered as an exercise of the immune system using a ‘generic’ substance that everyone is allergic too. The logic used in employing poison, (as in chemotherapy) is to slowly harm everything, and hope that the cancer cells are the first things to die. What I believe is actually taking place, is an exercise of the immune system, being forced to repair or reconstruct the body from all the harm being caused by this poison. But the scale of the attack need not be of such a broad spectrum. The attack could be much more specific. This I believe is why we have allergies in the first place. Everything in nature, it seems, has a purpose. It is logical to assume that allergies too have a purpose. Allergies are an inappropriate (unnecessary) immune response to a substance that is actually no real harm to the body. By employing these antigens, it should therefore be possible to give the immune system the exercise, without simultaneously giving the body any of the accompanying destruction.
The war on cancer may or may not be yielding results, depending on how creatively optimistic we can read into the statistics. As we factor off the data into more and more groupings, the numbers can be manipulated into appearing to be going down. An additional reason for observing improved cancer survival over the years is that, as cancer detection tools improve, cancer is diagnosed in incrementally earlier stages leading to a phenomenon called "lead time bias". Simply stated, the earlier the diagnosis the longer will patients live with their disease, giving the false impression of increased survival that can and has often been attributed to newer treatments. It would be expected that as our knowledge increases as to which carcinogens we need to avoid, and which behaviors we need to adopt or promote, the resulting number of cancer cases should be on the decline. Yet the percentage of people, who can expect to have to deal with some form of cancer in their lifetime, is on the rise. It could be argued that this is an unavoidable byproduct of our longer life expectancy. But we can factor out this retort by focusing on cancer statistics that are only inflicting those in the prime of their life. It can be observed that these figures too, are still on the rise. One might conclude that this is an overtly pessimistic interpretation of the statistics. If it does appear pessimistic, it is only to contrast optimism, and only after 120 years of being optimistic has led nowhere. Cancer has increased over this period from 1 in 8,000 to 1 in 2 persons. And yet we are being told that progress is being made.
I believe the cure for cancer will be as individual as our own immune systems are. Not everyone catches a cold when a cold virus comes around. (Although, perhaps everyone should try to.) There is no cure for the common cold, and I believe there never will be. The cold virus is nature’s way of running the immune system through a series of exercises, thus attempting to keep it functioning in top form. It seems that the modern approach is to assist our immune system in fighting off cold viruses, and every other form of antigen that we come into contact with.
In the fight against cancer, everyone seems to recognize that the answer lies within the immune system. All efforts are being focused on finding out what causes the immune system to kick in and go after the cancer cells. My thoughts are also linked to the immune system, but I hold that we must find out what it is that wakes up our own immune system, and causes it to reclaim control over these maverick cancer cells, which I believe are an integral part of the immune system. A good place to start this search would be finding antigens which cause allergies in a patient. Perform chemotherapy using this antigen, which is a poison to this individual’s immune system, but does no real harm to the body. The results should be the immune system receiving the exercise, without the body receiving any significant adverse effects. The stronger immune system should then be capable of regaining control over these cancer cells (as in a remission), and the body should revert back to near normal conditions. Theoretically, everyone should live “happily ever after”, and be granted enough time to perish from something else.

mary alternative cancer · New User Joined: 23 Dec 2006 Posts: 7

Almost everyone assumes that faults in the immunse system are the major cause of oncogenesis. However, it seems more likely that DNA damage and defective anti-oncogenes are the main cause.
_________________
Mary, manager
Advanced Alternatives Cancer Centers
alternative cancer and natural cancer therapies
www.aacancer.com
www.gendicinecancer.com

ricwally · Regular Joined: 26 Feb 2005 Posts: 37

I am aware that DNA damage is the primary focus; however I am proposing an alternate view that can still account for what is going on in oncogenesis and yet also account for the numerous anomalies that surround the disease. To merely reiterate the views that are currently held, will only serve to maintain the status quo of the disease. I do not wish the current situation to remain. We must consider alternatives. Dissatisfaction with the current situation is what gave birth to the entire ‘alternatives’ industry. I am proposing one alternative model and urge you, or anyone else who is out there, to poke a hole in it, or tear it down all together. If you would attack this concept, I would be able to see where it is deficient and then hopefully be able to fortify its weaknesses for the purpose of advancing this model as one alternative to be considered.

Patriik · New User Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 0

It is without argument that DNA puts some people at a predisposition to contracting certain types of cancer.

ricwally · Regular Joined: 26 Feb 2005 Posts: 37

In so far as to determine what type of cell is to come under attack from the cancer, I would grant that our DNA is a factor. For example, there seems to be a correlation between redheaded people, and melanoma. These people have a different complexion, and thus a different cell make up of their skin organ than do the rest of the non redheads in the society. The statistics would support that these people have a predisposition to having their skin come under attack, if they have the prerequisite faulty immune system that is misdirected into generating unwarranted cell replacement somewhere. This could then be pointed to as a genetic link between cancer and an inherited DNA trait. But this does not negate my hypotheses that it is our immune system, not our DNA that is responsible for this non-requested cell growth we call cancer. The DNA link merely determines what tissue type is about to come under attack (but the immune system carries out the attack.)

maitreya12 · Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: The true cause of cancer...

I want to include a new theory about the origins of cancer that many of the world's leading alternative cancer experts give merit to.

This theory is that cancer is the result of depleted adrenaline levels in the body, due to prolonged psychological stress (trauma) and physiological stress (poor nutrition, chemicals, lack of exercise). When the body is under constant stress, the body's adrenaline levels are depleted over time. This becomes a problem for the body, because adrenaline is responsible for removing sugar/glucose from the body's cells for certain bodily functions. Insulin delivers sugar to the cells, adrenaline removes it. When a person, who suffers from prolonged stress, and whose adrenalien reserves become depleted, this results in a build up of sugar/glucose in the body's cells. To try and remove the excess sugar, the cells ferment, become acidic, and lose oxygen in the process, resulting in a higher than normal mutution of cells during the dividing process. Cancer cells born through mutation thrive on sugar, and in an acidic, aneorobic (low-oxygen) environment, which is exactly the environment depleted adrenaline levels in the body produce when under prolonged psychological and physiological stress.

There are many supporters of this theory including leading alteranative cancer researcher Lothar Hirneise of Germany. The pioneer of this theory, Dr. of Medicine Waltraut Fryda of Germany has successfully treated and cured many cancer patients by reverting the acidic environment caused by lack of adrenaline to a healthy alkaline environment.

This theory answer many questions about the origins of cancer. We have always known stress plays a part in cancer development, but how? Depleted adrenaline levels is the primary answer here. We have always known poor nutrition, chemicals and general health plays a part too. Depleted adrenaline levels result again, caused by stress on the body's cells and autonomic nervous system.

More information about this theory can be seen by viewing my profile details. I hope this helps in your search for the true cause of cancer.
_________________
Glen Russell is a cancer researcher dedicated to discovering the latest cancer treatments and is founder of the website
http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com

ricwally · Regular Joined: 26 Feb 2005 Posts: 37

It’s an interesting concept but one of the first things that popped into my head as I was reading this, was that a global mapping of cancer should mimic a global mapping of stress levels. Some studies show that the highest incidents of cancer are in the Scandinavian countries whereas the lowest are in Thailand. There is a forty fold difference from one culture to the other. I have never been to Thailand, but I find it hard to believe that it is forty times less stressful to live there then it is to live in Norway. Norway seemed pretty 'laid-back' and easy going when I was there. It would be difficult to argue what constituted as stress though. Thanks for sharing this. I will need to think on it some more.

maitreya12 · Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:08 pm Post subject: The true cause of cancer...

The stress on the body and the body's cells is not only emotional / pyschological but also physiological (poor nutrition, chemicals, lack of exercise, interference with melatonin production, etc.).

Melatonin is produced by the pituitary gland of the brain usually between the hours of 1am and 3am in pitch black conditions. Melatonin is a key hormone for regulating the immune system and is responsible for inhibiting cancer cell growth. See our website about this.

The sun does not set during the night for many Scandanavian countries during their summer months. We see the same high peak of cancer rates in those who work in the night and sleep during the day. Their melatonin rates are much lower because they are not sleeping in pitch black conditions, and as a result they have a much higher incidence of cancer.

This would account for your anomoly between Scandanavian countries and Thailand. I assume there would be another reasonable explananation for why Thailand has a very low rate of cancer. Low Melatonin rates are a physiological stressor on the body and on the body's cells and do cause a depletion of adrenaline over time.

I hope this helps.
_________________
Glen Russell is a cancer researcher dedicated to discovering the latest cancer treatments and is founder of the website
http://www.alternative-cancer-care.com

ricwally · Regular Joined: 26 Feb 2005 Posts: 37

I have read that cancer was unheard of in the Inuit community of Northern Canada (Eskimos) prior to the 1930’s. They had no access to pharmaceuticals, (read; no tampering with their immune system) until the integration of the ‘white man’, which started to appear in their communities around the same time. Much of this land lies above the Arctic Circle where it is sunset for half the year, and long shadows for the other half. I agree with you that there seems to be a link between our mood ('emotional / psychological' element) and the health of our immune system. I also believe there is a link between sunlight and our mood. Low sunlight communities have alarmingly higher rates of suicide for instance. However; I’m having difficulty seeing a link between melatonin and cancer. I would be more apt to link the low light conditions with a weakened immune system, and then tie the weakened immune system with the cancer.

brainman

It would be very nice if both of you would site primary sources for your claims!!! Of course, I have asked for this before and none was produced so why should now be any different?

Sorry, I do not mean to "flame" either of you. It is just so difficult to have an informed discussion with unsubstantiated claims.
_________________
Jim
Site Administrator and long-term cancer survivor
1992 Astrocytoma grade 2, left motor strip
2005 Recurrence this time said to be an Oligodendoglioma grade 3, same location.
My Story Part 1: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=7350
My Story Part 2: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=8029
Blog http://jimhawkinsport.blogspot.com/

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