Medical Questions > Cancer > Breast Cancer Forum

Why Research CANNOT Find a Cure.

On advice I posted the following on about a week ago. Two hours later it was gone and my account locked until April 4th. Then I was told that it had been moved to the Alternative Treatment site. Ok, why still have it but lock me out for a fortnight? Only explanation, give it time to cop so much ridicule, which I cannot respond to so making it look as if I've run away totally humiliated. This should discourage supporters so they lose interest and give BCorg time to get the big guns ready to blow me out of the water. I can browse the site so I had a look and found that a number of posts had been put in responding to it, some pro, some ridiculing. But at least there IS a response, unlike post after post I put in eHealth that gets looked at but hardly commented on.
Cancer research is something I know a lot about as I attended around 12 Lorne Vic Aust cancer conferences, including a joint Lorne AACR conference, and I stopped going about 5 years ago because I was wasting my time. I know a lot about the politics, petty jealousies, narrow mindedness, secretiveness, lack of collaboration despite all the hype, total lack of any form of chemistry (yes that is correct). It is absolutely hopeless, getting further and further away from reality over time. It does not WANT to and cannot look at the genes of total remission because there is no money in DIY cures and no funding for the research. World governments are as much to blame for this situation by cutting out govt. funding for research.
I have sent emails to the New York Times to see if I can interest it in watching the discussion. I would much rather it took place here in eHealth as I love the fact that it covers the full gamut of disorders, there are no dogmatic moderators posting on the threads, I can criticise drugs etc. However, given the apathy toward my detailed explanations of various diseases and postulations of complete drug free cures I really have no other choice. Beside there is a lot of ridicule coming up on and I thrive on it but am not interested in name calling myself as it is banal and backfires on the ridiculer. Touche. Funny how postees are given free reign to ridicule my stuff on a number of forums. Then I get locked out because the thread has become a torrent of abuse and ridicule but it's NOT coming from me. It's as if the moderators are loving every second of it and hoping I stick my head into a gas oven. Ah well. As Ned Kelly said just before he was hanged "Such is life."


All cancer research is based on what is becoming, albeit very slowly, am outmoded theory, Darwinism, or even more ludicrous, Dawkinism. Right around the world there is resurgence of Larmarkism, especially in the field of epigenetics, but very few researchers are willing to use the word out of a fear of being ridiculed, or worse, having their careers coming to an abrupt end. It is heresy, like that the Earth revolves around the Sun and is not flat but round. It is heresy because it goes against the status quo of massive global vested interests, of well known authors, high profile university professors who have spent many years ridiculing Larmarck. Because they have been just SO vitriolic they are terrified of losing face, to admit that they have had it all wrong despite having to admit to themselves that there just could be something it AS IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE and IS NOT RIDDLED WITH CONTRADICTIONS. In cancer I see the very mechanisms of biological evolution itself, the way that cancer cells come up with new genes in response to chemo, dedifferentiate or go backward to become more foetal like, metastasise, etc. all of which stuffs up in the concrete jungle. The number ONE tumour repressor gene p53, above BRAC 1 & 2, when mutated at certain sites become a TUMOUR INDUCER with as many roles as an inducer as it has as a repressor, something conveniently overlooked. . It might not get at you if you don't think about it. I'm at my wits end trying to get somewhere with it.

At the Lorne cancer conference I used to attend I was chiding a delegate for believing that cancer could be cured by blocking one binding site one protein in a signalling pathway with a drug. He replied, "Noddy, I know where you are coming from, but if 90% of the delegates here believed that, they couldn't motivate themselves to get out of bed in the morning." Delegates end up HATING you for sewing the seeds of doubt in their minds, seeds which fester and go round and round in their heads because that explains that and this explains this. Once this process starts it won't go away because it is the TRUTH and the truth totally upsets their apple cart because their entire careers, paying the mortgage, all their relationships are based on ludicrous misconceptions. So they sit at their lab bench, looking at the experiment they are doing and knowing that it is futile and a complete waste of time, get frustrated and depressed. Create the right conditions and cancer will totally remit because the genes FOR it's remission are built into every cell. I knew a woman who developed a fast growing stomach cancer. She was taking Cimetidene for peptic ulcer. I remembered that I had a book called “Safety Evaluation of Nitrositable Drugs and Chemicals” It was about how bacteria growing in alkaline conditions in the stomach, due to taking sodium bicarb, converted Cimetidine to a carcinogenic nitrosamine. I told her, she went off the drug and the cancer disappeared.
Did you find this post helpful?

replied March 30th, 2012
Experienced User
The Warburg Effect, Another Glaring Oversight.
The first Cancer conference I attended about 16 years ago was a joint Lorne (Vic Aust) AACR (American Association of Cancer Research) conference. A lecture on the second day was about bowel cancer in which the number one tumour repressor p53 was mutated, presumably the reason for the tumour, and the tumour secreted a prostaglandin PGF2. Now I knew that PGY2 constricted or narrowed blood vessels supplying the gastrointestinal tract and suddenly I had a different spin on the sequence of events. At question time I suggested that hypoxia or oxygen starvation was the cause of the bowel cancer, not the mutations in the p53 tumour repressor. I suggested that the mutations in the p53 were a RESULT of the hypoxia. As I said this tumour secreted a prostaglandin PGF2 which is a vasoconstrictor. Adrenalin activates PGF2 in the gastro-intestinal tract in response to 'fight or flight', stress in other words. My theory went like this. Stress>adrenalin>PGF2>vasoconstri ction>HYPOXIA>p53 mutation>CANCER.
At the end of the symposium a chap approached me and suggested that this was a very interesting idea as he was working on the same cells. It turned out that he was the AACR convenor. I saw him later and explained to him what is called the RAS pathway by which adrenalin works. He said, "You must be a very good biochemist" I was nonplussed by this as I didn't thing my suggestion was anything extraordinary and I replied that "I'm not a biochemist, I'm an electronic technician, this is just a hobby for me. He looked dumbfounded as if I was taking the Mickey out of him and didn't say anything, then took off. I didn't run into him again for the rest of the Conference.
The following year when I went to pay the Conference secretary for everything, registration, all meals and accommodation she whispered as she handed me my bag, "Don't worry Noddy, it all been taken care off" ($750}. I was gobsmacked as there was no explanation as to why. The same thing happened for the following two years the gradually tapered off. I know now. You see my answer that day involved endocrinology, biochemistry, haematology, oncology, molecular biology etc. all of which I had studied BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I WASN'T SUPPOSED TO. All of the delegates were molecular biologist looking for GENES to blame, then design the appropriate drug. It is pure commerce and that blinds totally. These conferences would not be possible without large scale funding from lab suppliers, pharmaceutical companies etc. This, plus Dawkinist dogma, makes it IMPOSSIBLE to understand cancer, let alone find a cure. How could the delegates POSSIBLY admit that an amateur scientist had worked something out that the entire global community of cancer researchers couldn't.
At the last cancer conference that I attended about 5 years ago there were two lectures on the discovery of the HIF (hypoxia induction factor) genes that switched on proliferation of cells and angiogenesis (growth of blood vessels to allow cell growth), CANCER in other words and based on my suggestion all those years before, yet I got no recognition whatsoever. Hypoxia is probably the most important tumour inducer of all.

The Warburg effect refers to a characteristic in which cancer cells use less and less oxygen as they become more malignant. Cancer researchers use the term but it has fallen into misuse as cancer is seem more and more as simply a stuff up. I use a LOT as it is pivotal to my theories on cancer. The other night I decided to check the history of what Warburg did to arrive at his conclusion. I ALMOST FELL OFF THE CHAIR AT WHAT I READ. Fifty years ago Otto Warburg discovered that when normal cells in a Petri dish were deprived of oxygen they transformed into cancer cells. That's it, nothing else, just deprived of oxygen. So this has been known for FIFTY years yet all of those 500 delegates at my first Cancer conference, half from the biggest cancer research organisation in the world, didn't know about it. If I had known that day I would NOT have suggested it and the genes might not have been found. But then it's not my job to know. HYPOXIA can be caused by a number of things, primarily vasoconstriction. Vasoconstriction to the gastro intestinal tract, resulting from persistent stress, means malabsorption of nutrients such as IRON needed for red blood cells to transport OXYGEN. Thus we add anaemia. Now add gunked up blood vessels due to glucose and cholesterol forming plaques in them and so even worse hypoxia.

Blood vessels have carbon dioxide detector nodes along them, so that if CO2 builds up in the bloodstream, meaning reduced oxygen, then the heart increases its output, the result being higher blood pressure. Now gunked up blood vessels inhibit the flow of blood through them so the heart has to increase it's output to compensate, meaning higher blood pressure and risk of stroke. So you take blood pressure controls e.g. beta blockers, you lower your blood pressure but increase your RISK OF CANCER by definition, ie the Warburg effect. It is immutable.
Did you find this post helpful?

replied March 31st, 2012
Experienced User
Immunotherapy, More Dogma Gone Astray.
Many years ago I read Stephen Rosenberg's book,'The transformed Cell'. Rosenberg was a New York surgeon at the time. It was about a patient, a Mr D'Angelo who's been admitted to Rosenberg's hospital for a gall bladder removal. When Rosenberg checks his medical record he finds that he had been discharged from the hospital 12 years before with only a couple of weeks to live. He had had a huge stomach cancer removed simply to make him more comfortable and allow him to eat but was beyond any further treatment as he was riddled with metastasis including in his liver. Rosenberg states that he thought there'd been a mix up in the medical records as there was NO way that this bloke could still be alive, impossible! But no, it's the same bloke. How on Earth!!
Rosenberg opens him up and has a poke around inside, feeling for metastasis but NOTHING.. When questioned about his cancer Mr D'Angelo says 'I fixed it doc, you guys don't know everything, do you'. THAT REPLY IS THE SUM TOTAL OF WHAT WE GET TO FIND OUT ABOUT HOW HE 'FIXED IT' or anything else Mr D'Angelo has to say. Rosenberg has made up his (pre Dawkinist) Darwinist mind that 'once upon a time a cell in Mr D'Angelo's stomach transformed whilst at the same time his immune system was malfunctioning and this 'rogue' cell took off. It's progeny soon learned to outwit the now semi functioning immune system and in no time the cancer got the upper hand. Later on his immune system rebounded and overwhelmed the cancer and Mr D'Angelo had absolutely nothing to do with it.' Amazing! It is also very contemptuous of Mr D'Angelo and his credibility as someone who may have helped millions of cancer sufferers had not Rosenberg essentially suppress it.
Instead of Rosenberg pursuing Mr D'angelo's method he instead hit on an idea that came to be known as Immunotherapy, he being called the father of Immunotherapy. He set up a company to make interleukin-2 using bacteria with the human gene inserted into it's chromosome. Il-2 is a hormone made by T4 cells of our immune systems, the central cell. The idea was to take what he calls LAK, or natural killer cells from the patients body, boost their numbers dramatically in the lab, then inject the cells, along with the interleukin back into the patients body. The NCI would only allow patients who were beyond all other treatment and trials began. Now whilst Rosenberg tried to put a brave face on it in the book I'd hardly call it a success. Patients lungs filled up with fluid and had to be pumped out. There were a few who marginally improved. Today Rosenberg is combining conventional chemo with his Immunotherapy and he likes to imagine it's great.
My assessment is that if a patient is so full of cancer that they are beyond conventional treatment then they are in a shocking state of overall health, and that the cancer is symptomatic of that state. As Rosenberg claimed in this case the cancer 'just happened' then 'just happened to go away'. So as long as researchers and physicians persist over and over again with this absurd dogma, which of course suits commercial gain then understanding cancer so that it can be cured will NEVER happen. Five thousand delegates attend AACR conferences about 5 times a year and waffle on about this signal transduction pathway or that, with 5 symposiums running at once in posh expensive convention centres and they STILL don't get it.
I'm far more interested in Mr D'Angelo's story. Is he still alive? Where is he if he is? Why not ask Rosenberg? Email him and find out.
Did you find this post helpful?

replied March 31st, 2012
Experienced User
Are Metastasis REALLY Random?
Before I went to my first cancer conference I had decided that metastasis were not random but strictly controlled as to what tissues they targeted and what they did. It just needed a little bit of biochemistry and endocrinology (absent at cancer conferences) to see a pattern emerge. I put a little paper out on the subject, just left them laying about on outdoor tables. Next year in appreciation of my work the tables disappeared.

Common in breast cancer and can cause severe osteoporosis, probably comprised of osteoclasts, the class of cell that breaks down bone (osteoblasts build bone). Ok, now that little bit of biochemistry tells us that ALL rapidly dividing cells need a lot of calcium. So the primary tumour metastasises to bone to get itself enough calcium to grow. Bone metastasis or other mechanisms which do likewise can lead to fatal hypercalcaemia. It used to be thought that a prostaglandin released by some cancers caused bone to demineralize. Foetuses in the womb release a hormone to do likewise, cannibalise their mother's bones to get themselves proper bone structure. Many years after I put that little paper out it was discovered that tumours that released PTH or parathyroid hormone didn't metastasise to bone. They don't need to as PTH causes bone to demineralise. It is a slow acting hormone and according to my 'animal in the wild' model a winter hibernation hormone that provides an animal calcium for cellular functions as the calcium level in plants falls.
This is controlled by the plants exposure to sunlight and thus it's synthesis of vitamin D2 which obviously falls in winter. As the animal's exposure to sunlight diminishes it's vitamin D level falls as well. This is the calcium cycle in which an animal's bones get thinner in winter as it becomes less active and thicker in summer as it becomes more active. Putting ON bone is controlled by a bunch of cells located in the thyroid itself, which release thyrocalcitonin. It is a fast acting hormone, therefore must be a 'fight or flight' hormone. This infers that each time an animal fights or flights it puts on a bit more bone. The hormone acts by increasing the absorption of calcium from the GI tract and stopping it's excretion in the urine. This waxing and waning of bone thickness provides optimum repair of fractures and is essential to understanding osteoporosis. This model is one I put together and as far as I know is exclusive to understanding disease states.

Another metastasis is small cell or oat cell carcinoma which is seeded by liver primary cancer into the lungs. Just random says dogma. However. Apply a bit of biochemistry and endocrinology and it's a different story. Oat cell carcinoma secretes (releases) the hormone ACTH or adrenocorticotrophic hormone normally secreted by the pituitary gland in the brain. ACTH triggers the release of cortisol by the adrenal glands. Cortisol triggers the release of amino acids, the building blocks of protein, from the muscles and fat from the fat cells. Thus the tumour is setting up it's own primitive endocrine system which overrides any diurnal rhythm of the brain, to get itself a good supply of tucker. Cortisol is synergistic with adrenalin so that adrenalin, released in response to stress (of diagnoses?) speeds up the breakdown of muscle and fat. Enter cachexia or wasting of the body with cancer. Cortisol also suppresses immunity, including AGAINST ITSELF. Neat eh and spooky, almost think it had a mind of its own.

When a cancer has become malignant or dedifferentiated to a certain point it's cells undergo a range of changes in preparation for metastasis. Little pores in their membranes, by which they communicate with each other with the exchange of ions, close off. They are now autocrine in their regulation (regulate themselves) having begun when first transformed as endocrine e.g. estradiol from the ovary, then juxstacrine (nearby) paracrine (next door) then autocrine. The exoskeleton by which its cells are held together disappears so that they are physically freed from each other. The endo skeleton inside the cell, composed of filaments of of tubulin, undergoes change so that the cell, now completely freed from surrounding cells can crawl amoebae like through surrounding cells toward the nearest blood vessel. Once there it releases an enzyme which eats a hole in the blood vessel and then it squeezes through the hole and enters into the bloodstream. Once in the bloodstream it grows little feet called pseudopods (receptors essentially) which will match perfectly receptors on epithelial cells lining inside blood vessels somewhere in the body, and it's precise target. On arrival it docks onto these blood vessel receptors, digests a hole in the wall of the blood vessel, squeezes into the surrounding tissue, sets up shop and begins to multiply.
NOW GET THIS. ACCORDING TO DARWINISTS ALL OF THESE EVENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A RESULT OF PURELY RANDOM or ACCIDENTAL MUTATIONS. Oh really, and I'm a lunatic for saying otherwise. In a very old book on spermatogenesis in birds and lizards during embryogenesisis the primordial germ cells that give rise to sperm are not located where they end up, i.e. the seminiferous tubules of the testes but migrate there through a blood vessel from a site distal to (distant from) from them, then enter the tubule by a process so similar to metastasis that IT IS METASTASIS. In mammals they don't travel through blood vessels, but part from that it's the same process.

If we can stretch the imagination to allow cells to begin as fully differentiated mature cells somewhere in the body, become transformed then come up with new genes (as with chemo drug resistance), lets say in response to a plant toxin by processes I'll explain later, then, by a series of metastasis, work their way right back to the germ plasma (sperm and egg precursors) then the so called Weissman Barrier, the very central cornerstone upon which Darwinist evolution rests, has been smashed. This is Larmarkist evolution and all of the mechanisms are in CANCER, gone totally awry in the concrete jungle. The new genes come about by DIRECT INTERACTION with the toxin in cells that normally interact with same, i.e. in the GI tract, are then transported back to the so called germ plasma of testes or ovary where they are passed on to progeny, and NOT by accidental mutations in the germ plasma as Darwinists insist. The evidence is overwhelming yet DOGMA, and of course commercial interests, says that it is impossible.
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 23rd, 2012
Experienced User
Instead to trying to cure breast cancer, why not work for the prevention. These people who are trying to find a cure, are very well paid and I wonder how much of the money donated, goes for the cure.

Pass on the prevention around and breast cancer would be reduce by 75%. When did breast cancer start??? Look at when underwire & push-up type bras were manufactured and you will see what caused and is still causing breast cancer.
Did you find this post helpful?
Must Read
Breast cancer kills more women in the United States than any cancer except lung cancer. But what types of breast cancer are possible?...
Why do some women get breast cancer and others don't? Click here to learn what risks you can avoid....
Do you know the warning signs for breast cancer? When should you see your doctor about possible breast cancer symptoms? More information here....