Medical Questions > Cancer > Cancers Forum

Philosophize Cancer

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 a contradiction known as the cancer paradox of why aging cells with reduced ability to proliferate are more susceptible to cancer when a proliferation of cell growth is the definition of cancer.
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 normally 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 the signal that tells it when to stop this activity, then the cancer paradox, and all the other anomalies surrounding the disease tend to fall into the realm of explainable events.
Under the present dna theory for cancer, although it is difficult to account for, it is necessary to hold 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. 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. 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.
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 two distinct procedures from which a cell can be reproduced; firstly by the well understood method 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. This rapid growth, and inferior quality of tissues, are two attributes shared by both the tissues manufactured by the immune system, and the tissues considered 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 in a sterile environment.
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, and controlling events outside the individual tissues 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. 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, 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 tabulated. 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 of cancer 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. This fibrosis tissue does not share the same elasticity and contractive abilities as the tissues it replaces, and as a result, the heart organ becomes less efficient at circulating blood. 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 .) a more plausible 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 phenomenons (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.

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.
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). This new tumor 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 generated by some remnant cells left in the margin of the surgical site. 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.

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 are byproducts 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 recurrence 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 recurrence. 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 itself 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 wholeheartedly 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.
The following series of excerpts are from the web page http://cancercure.Ws and expound this homogenous relationship.

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 excerpt quotations)

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, (immune system) 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 must now introduce an essential doctrine 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, and brain tumors. (note that these 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 and 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 attributed to sun damage. Those regions closest to the equator, have people whose skin has evolved or adapted to the more intense sunlight. Their darker skin is a consequence of the human melanin cells having 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 possess 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. Yet the explanation that perceptively follows from this new model can effortlessly account for the discrepancy in these 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 whose ancestors 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 observable data 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, or the scar will be less noticeable 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 body 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 as a result these organs become susceptible to cancerous activity to the same extent as the rest of the adult population. The observable data 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.H tml 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. The migration of the immune system from infant to adult can account for these vast differences in cancer statistics. The dna model makes no attempt at addressing this anomaly. Under the framework of the dna model, it is not possible to offer up any explanation for these differences.
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. From the vantage point of this 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 this 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. Because an explanation does not intuitively follow from the dna model, this relationship is a mere anomaly.

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 will 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 faulty 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. The following passage is an excerpt from the moss report for october 23, 2005 on the subject of mammography paradox.
...[more alarming by far is the little-publicized fact that in women aged 40-49, mammography is actually associated with an increased, rather than a decreased, risk of death- a phenomenon known to researchers as the "mammography paradox."
this increased death rate from breast cancer in younger women who undergo screening mammography has been documented consistently in screening trials across different countries, settings and populations. It is a fact known to many researchers in the field, yet it remains largely unknown to the general public an unacknowledged harm is that for up to 11 years after the initiation of breast cancer screening in women aged 40-49 years, screened women face a higher death rate from breast cancer than unscreened control women, although that is contrary to what one would expect" (baines 2003).](end of quote)
this anomaly can be accounted for from the new framework for understanding cancer. The process of having a mammography inflicts a great deal of stress on the tissues of the breast as it is manipulated (flattened) for the purpose of the screening. This immune system would then target this damaged tissue as requiring repair work. Those in the control group, who did not undergo this activity, would not have this tissue targeted as needing any repairs. If an equal number of people in both the control group and the mammography group were to have the requisite defective immune system that was capable of manufacturing
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied December 2nd, 2007
…unwanted tissue, equal numbers would end up acquiring some form of cancer, but the group that did not undergo the tissue stresses associated with the mammogram procedure, would not have their (defective) immune system focus on the breast tissues, and therefore, would end up with another form of cancer. These statistics can only be accounted for when we adapt this framework for understanding cancer.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Must Read
Millions of Americans are diagnosed with cancer. But what exactly is cancer and how does it affect the body?...
What puts you at risk for developing cancer? Learn how you can avoid or reduce exposure to risk factors for cancer here....
Cancer can occur anywhere in the body. But what are the signs and symptoms of cancer? Learn about general symptoms of cancer here....