Skin Cancer Forum
Skin Cancer Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Search | FAQ
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Skin Cancer Forums at
 Skin cancer prevention strategies
 What gets us into trouble is not what we don't kno
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  


1 Posts

Posted - 12/16/2010 :  15:46:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I thought it would be an appropriate title, and starting point to use this quote from Mark Twain. “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure,… that just ain't so.” This sets up the question, ‘what if we made a mistake right out of the gate?’ What if everyone is pursuing an answer that lies in the opposite direction from where everyone is looking? This certainly would help to explain why the cure for cancer has eluded so many for so long.

The term ‘cancer’ refers to a group of diseases. All of these diseases have one thing in common which is the non-required growth of cells. The last 120 years have been spent looking for a flaw in the cell’s DNA. The medical profession could recognize and identify the disease, but did not know enough about the workings to be efficient at combating it. In 1971, U.S. president Richard Nixon symbolically declared war on cancer. At that point the medical community had not yet adopted an ‘official’ definition of what cancer was and hastily implemented our present definition. This theory has not needed to be labelled as a theory, or even given a title, because it has been universally accepted and has gone uncontested. This is typical in all scientific endeavours. As a starting point there is always some basic idea that is postulated without the need for discussion. This becomes the spinal cord from which everything else is hung from; we theorise, formulize, and connect this central postulate to others. We cannot start from nothing. There needs to be some starting point, but what if the starting point is wrong? What if cancer is caused from something other than a faulty DNA?
I will be referring to our present definition of cancer as ‘the DNA theory‘. This definition, or ‘root cause of cancer’ has been taken as a ‘given‘, and is the central starting point for all cancer research. It would be expected that as our knowledge improves as to what carcinogens and lifestyles need to be avoided, and what healthy lifestyle choices we need to adapt in order to prevent this disease, the overall statistics for cancer would be steadily going down. Yet the statistics do not point to progress at all. Admittedly, some advancements have been made in medical science’s ability to keep someone diagnosed with cancer alive for longer periods of time but this has not lead to even one cure for one type of cancer. The tendency towards earlier diagnoses of the disease would also lead to the appearance of longer survival statistics, merely by starting the ‘stop-watch’ sooner. Our new found ability to differentiate between the subtle differences in cancer types that used to be lumped together has permitted new categories of cancer. But this has lead to the appearance that the statistics are going down because a patient cannot simultaneously be labelled with more than one type of cancer. Thus they must be classified as having one of the categories, and since there are now more categories from which to be placed, the statistics of each category have the appearance of getting smaller.

But what if the root cause of cancer was not a defect of our DNA? What if the ‘root cause’ of cancer were something entirely different?
Back in 1990 scientists set out to produce a complete map of our DNA. It had been anticipated that the completed mapping of the human genome (the entirety of an organism's hereditary information.) would ultimately lead to the cure for cancer, and we anxiously awaited the results. We are now approaching the 10th anniversary of having the competed map and have been able to pinpoint the gene known to be responsible for the controlled division of cells. As of yet, the cure for the disease has been elusive.
The ‘root cause’ of the defect that is attributed with the task of controlled cell reproduction has been identified as the p53 gene on the 17th chromosome. The hope was that if all cancers can be attributed to a single flaw, then perhaps a single solution could be found that cures all cancers. With over 200 different types of cancer, there could be 200 different solutions, or 200 different approaches or protocols with which to combat the disease ,but this would imply that we are 200 times as likely to stumble onto even one of them. If a single solution cannot be found that cures all cancer, then perhaps we should be content with finding one solution for one type of cancer, and then proceed from there. Thus far we have not been able to stumble across any solutions for curing any cancers. The word ’cure’ has been all but removed from the field of cancer research. They seek now to achieve a temporary remission from the disease, and successes are measured by any ability to extend the length of remission. If a type of cancer had the statistics of taking the life of the patient within 6 months of diagnoses, and a protocol was found to extend the patients survival to 8 months, then this protocol would be heralded as increasing the survival rate by 25%, merely by extending the patient’s life by 60 days .

Perhaps we should be open to the possibility that the answer lies somewhere other then where we are looking. All research has been limited to exclusively looking inside the cell. All efforts have be focused on this one approach. Maybe the answer lies outside of the individual cell. Perhaps instead of looking at the micro level, we should look at the macro level.

There are two distinct ways in which a cell can be manufactured, and only two. The first method is by way of this much studied process in which a cell replicating itself as outlined within that cell's DNA. The only other method that is capable of generating a cell, is the much less studied, and less understood method whereby the body’s own immune system is sent to a region immediately following some form of trauma, initially to stimulate the neighbouring cells into rapidly reproducing themselves in an endeavour to seal over a wound to hinder any blood loss, as well as prohibit the entrance into the body of foreign contaminants. We refer to this as the formation of scar tissue, and it is one of the functions of our complex immune system. We often associate scar tissue with our skin, however any cell in the body is capable of being stimulated by the immune system into generating scar tissue. Broken bones and torn ligaments can be mended with this formation of scar tissue. With over 200 different types of cells in the human body, there are correspondingly over 200 different types of scar tissue.(Either ironically, or essentially, there are over 200 different types of cancer.)

It is difficult to account for, nevertheless presently held 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, and the lymph nodes are studied to determine how advanced the cancer has become. 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 an immune system response. In other words, with every non cancerous situation, the enlarged lymph nodes indicates that the immune system is active and fulfilling its duty. However we are told, in episodes of cancer, although it is acknowledged that the lymph nodes are active, the immune system is thought to remain inactive. It is not yet understood why the immune system would remain inactive while events that it is designed to prevent, takes place. This position is however a necessary stratagem if the DNA theory is to prevail. If cancer is brought on by some defect within the cell, it will be necessary to account for why the immune system does not successfully address the problem. If this defect is attributed to some form of antigen that has journeyed to the cell, it will also be necessary to address why the immune system did not attack the antigen itself as it journeyed to the site that the antigen would ultimately attack. In both cases, the explanation is that the cancer cell has the unique ability to ‘disguise itself’, but this unique ability must further be extended to the antigen itself, that has journeyed to the cell to cause this defect. 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 is that the immune system is doing everything. This is not as bizarre as it sounds since all of the characteristics of the cancerous activity also happen to be normal immune system functions.
The immune system is complex and much remains unknown about it. The immune system is actually three distinct systems with three distinct functions. Within our immune system there exists a complex system with the responsibility of identifying foreign antigens that are deemed to be enemies of the body. In addition to identifying these enemies , the immune system also has a complex system which is responsible to destroy any and all identified threats. The immune system has control of an arsenal of specialised cells for the purpose of carrying out this mission, and a complete lymphatic system to deliver these specialised cells to the targeted areas. Lastly , and of principal interest to this alternate approach to cancer, it is also the responsibility of our immune system to repair any damage that may have occurred during this onslaught. This rival theory for explaining the root cause of cancer will be specifically concerned with this third branch of the immune system, the repair function.
The mechanism that starts the repair process is triggered when the body experiences some form of trauma. Clearly once this process has been set in motion, there needs to be a corresponding mechanism in place to inform the body of when the healing process has been completed. That is to say, the body must be made to know when to start, and when to stop the rapid formation of scar tissue, so that the immune system may end this elevated activity, and restore itself to the level of activity that existed prior to the trauma. It doesn't require too much imagination to realize that the inability to shut off this ‘repair process’ would result in a situation indistinguishable from what we presently call ‘cancer’. So instead of viewing cancer as a defect in the p53 tumor suppressor gene, we could view it as a defect in our immune system which is carrying out repairs on tissues that do not first need repairing, and/or repairing cells and not receiving a signal as to when to stop. There must be a stop code.

Cancer becomes much less mysterious if we simply view that the immune system is causing the lawless proliferation of growth, (since it is its job to do so,) and the immune system is also supplying the essential blood supply to support this new growth, by way of inflammation (again because it is its job to do so).
If we make this simple adjustment in our model for explaining cancer, (by taking the blame away from the individual cell's DNA, (chromosome p53) and placing the blame on the immune system as a whole, or more specifically, the repair aspect of our immune system,) then we simplify things immensely. This phenomenon then becomes a candidate to apply Occam's razor. Why employ a complex set of beliefs when a simple explanation already exists? Unexplainable events become, for the first time, explainable. As to why the immune system leaves the cancer alone would become easily explained if the cancer were a function of a defective immune system. Similarly we would be able to account for how the cancer can travel throughout the body undetected and take up residence in another part of the body without being detected or encountering resistance along the way. This explanation would justify the association between cancer and the lymphatic system. This explanation would account for why cancer is a modern disease, and why it is predominantly a ‘western disease’ when we analyse how western societies have treated their immune systems in the last half century
A close examination of tumor tissues reveals that there are similarities between the formation of scare tissue (with its accompanying inflammation) and cancerous activity. This relationship is most easily observed by comparing skin surface scars with skin cancer. Because scar tissue was manufactured rapidly, and by a different process than that of normal tissue replacement (normal cell division), it has different characteristics. Scar tissue made from skin cells has a distinct appearance with a smoother surface, firmer density, (described as a waxy appearance) and a different pigment from that of the surrounding tissue. The following quote can be found at final report on Grant GR/K71394 Mathematical Model of Scar Tissue
“Scar tissue formation is a ubiquitous feature of adult wound healing, with
the resulting repair both functionally and cosmetically inferior to normal
skin. At microscopic level, the main difference between scar and normal
tissue is in the alignment pattern of the collagen fibers of which they are
Notice that the tissues manufactured from this scar tissue method are given the attribute of being “functionally and cosmetically inferior” to normal tissue replacement. There would be no reason to expect that a fault in the p53 gene that allowed the cell to go on and reproduce itself over and over, would have this functionally and cosmetically inferior attribute. But ‘functionally and cosmetically inferior are attributes given to both cells manufactured by the immune system, and cell thought to be manufactured by cancer. If cancer was a disease of the cell losing the ability to replicate itself in a controlled manor, then we would expect to see uniformity between the cancer tumor and the parent cell that had lost this ability to replicate itself in a controlled manner. We should not expect to see uniformity between cancers themselves (if this uniformity did not first exist between the parenting cells). But Warburg, while studying the metabolism of tumors, noted that
"cancers of various species and tissue origins reveal a high uniformity from tumor to tumor." Warburg, O.: Stoffwechsel d. Tumore, Springer, Berlin, 1926. Engl. edn., The Metabolism of Tumors, tr. F. Dickens, London, 1930.
In fact there have been numerous studies all of which point to a number of parallelisms between cancer tumors of all types.
"Correlatively, the Coris find the lactic acid and sugar content of the various exhibitions of cancer to be highly uniform. Williams and his co-workers report a pronounced degree of uniformity in the concentration of eight B vitamins in a great variety of animal and human tumours, regardless of the tissue of origin or the manner of their induction." Cori, C.F., and Cori, C.J.:J. Biol. Chem., 64:11, 1925

"Shack describes an almost complete uniformity in cytochrome oxidase content in a number of
mouse tumors." Shack, J.: J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 3:389, 1943
"Maver and Barrett describe substantial evidence for an immunological uniformity among malignant tumors. Greenstein reports an impressive degree of uniformity in enzyme concentration among malignant tissues, regardless of their means of induction, tissue of origin or species of origin." Greenstein, J.P.: Symposium on Cancer, A.A.A.S. Research Conference on Cancer, ed. F.R.Moulton, Am. Assoc. Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., 1945, p. 192
"The uniformity of various exhibitions of cancer in respiratory properties, lactic acid production, vitamin content, enzyme content, action on a given substrate, effect on liver catalase, cytochrome oxidase content immunological properties, and many other characteristics is correlative to an uniformity of malignant tumors in the ability to metastasize, in their amenability to heterotransplantability, and in their autonomy, invasiveness and erosiveness. Indeed, there is no known basic property unique to any single exhibition of cancer---the only variation being a morphological one partially conditioned by admixed benign or somatic components." Cancer and the Immune System The Vital Connection

After considering all the above quotations, a fair question to be asked is, ‘Why is there such uniformity between cancer tissues from tumor to tumor?’ Another question that comes to mind is, ‘If a fault in the DNA is causing this tissue growth, why is the daughter cell even distinguishable from the normal cell?’
All of this uniformity seems to imply that there is a common theme in all cancers, which in turn supports the proposition that there could be a single source of manufacture. It is impossible for the DNA model to account for this anomaly of uniformity. Yet it is an obvious deduction if the cancers were being manufactured by our immune system. A pattern of uniformity would be necessary if the immune system were held to be responsible for the generation of all these tissues. The cancer cell is distinguishable from the normal cell because it was manufactured by a different process then normal cell replacement. Since there are only two ways in which a cell can be manufactured, and only one of the two methods can account for the uniformity issue, and the fact that the new cell is even distinguishable from the parent cell, then it follows that the ‘repair’ aspect of our immune system is responsible for this non requested cell growth we call cancer.
The belief that cancer cells can somehow become unrecognized by the immune system is a necessary stratagem of the present DNA theory. Yet the only occurrence in nature in which our immune system tolerates the existence of foreign cells to live in its domain is when the cells are from an identical twin. To give credence to the concept that some cells are unrecognizable to the immune system, we could phrase this phenomena to read ’ cells from an identical twin are unrecognizable to the immune system ’. We would then have one occurrence of this ‘unrecognizable’ phenomenon. But this begs the question, why? The answer I believe is intuitive. These cells go unrecognized because they have the same characteristics as the bodies own cells, and therefore the immune system does not recognize these cells as being any different. From this it can be concluded that since cancer cells are also treated in a similar manner 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 any other occurrences in which living cells were granted the same privileges as the cancer cells, then this conclusion would not have any merited. Since there are no other occurrences (other than an identical twins) in which this phenomenon can be observed to occur, I feel that this conclusion is warranted, namely that cancer cells are a legitimate product of the body, and their function asserts that they are a part of our immune system.

The theory of natural selection relies heavily on a fundamental maxim called the ‘Borel-Cantelli lemma’ which is a theorem about sequences of events. The theorem is perhaps best exemplified with the cliché that if an infinite number of monkeys sat at an infinite number of typewriters and randomly press keys, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. If we grant that this would eventually happen, then the same logic used to conclude this, would compel us to admit that there would, in the process be generated an unfathomable volume of typewritten gibberish. So where then is the gibberish? If a single case of cancer is the culmination of a series of events, then it would be expected that there should exist a multitude of occurrences in which the entire chain of events did not occur. To address this anomaly, the scientific community has placed the entire blame on our p53 chromosome. If the orderly reproduction of our DNA is the responsibility of our p53 gene, then a defect in this one gene could be the ‘common denominator’ and then be used to account for all cases of mutated cell growth. That is to say; if the one gene responsible to oversee the orderly division of cells is itself defective, then the un-orderly division of cells could occur. This then becomes the ‘root cause’ of cancer from the perspective of the DNA model of cancer. 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 would yield at best, a 'pea' sized growth. If the defect that we call ‘cancer’ were in fact shown to be the p53 gene reproducing the cell in an uncontrolled manor, there should be occurrences in which the cell did reproduce itself, but the accompanying blood supply did not happen. The scientific community acknowledges the need to address the blood supply issue, and with great difficulty, have postulated a complex chain of events that is both mathematically and logically absurd. This ‘root cause’ of cancer must therefore also have the attributed powers of being able to induce pathological angiogenesis which is the abnormal rapid proliferation of blood vessels. These cancer cells, we are told, release molecules that attract our endothelial cells, which then set out to successfully build a blood vessel system to get the much needed nutrients to the site. This amazing task is preformed by a cell that is already deemed to be defective and in a nutrient and oxygen starved environment. All this must be identified as needed, set in motion, and successfully accomplished, all before the cell succumbs to its seemingly perilous situation. But the Borel-Cantelli lemma principal holds that if enough cells experience this, some are bound to go on and achieve the observed outcome. But how many mutated cells do not achieve the angiogenesis stage? And what becomes of them? Are they successfully dealt with by our immune system and disposed of? There would be evidence of this, and the observable evidence is that the immune system does nothing with cancer. It is interesting to note here that the principal method of combating cancer is chemotherapy. This cancer fighting protocol is described as a process of poisoning the entire body with the hope that the weak cancer cells will be the first ones to die. And chemotherapy is the most effective protocol at our disposal. We are further told that these cancer cells take on an immortal status, and acquire the ability to disguise themselves, and recruit allies in their defence, and a multitude of other special powers that are attributed only to cancer cells. When we 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 ponder the likelihood of this occurring even once in a species with just over six billion members. The mathematical likelihood of acquiring cancer in your lifetime is approaching one in every two persons if you are male, and one in three if you are female.

One could point out that cancer activity can be clinically observed. If it were in fact, a normal body function, then why does it shows up on tests designed to indicate cancerous activity? The tests show heat being generated. The by-product of this unauthorized work being performed by this arm of the immune system; namely the cancer cells stimulating the rapid cell division and inflaming the area with increased blood flow, etc… is heat. This “heat” being generated is then interpreted as the immune system battling with the foreign antigen that is causing the cancer. But the irony in all this is that no foreign antigen can be found or observed at the cancer site, and the immune system has already been dismissed from the scenario, and labelled as not recognising and not objecting to the presence of the cancer. Every cell that can be observed in the cancerous area is legitimate. It would be prudent to ask the question ‘why would the immune system wait until this proposed antigen took up residency in the cells DNA before it amassed any objection to this antigen’s presence?’ If there were no activity, the area would operate at body temperature, and register as cold (not register). This is why cancer cannot be observed as it flows through the body. It can only be observed when it takes up residency and starts to inflame and stimulate the cell division in a new area. If, on the other hand, cancer were caused from some antigen inducing the DNA of a tissue to malfunction, and this antigen encountered an immune response, then we should be able to observe this cancerous activity as it moved to a new location. The fact that cancer cannot be observed as it moves throughout the body gives support to the premise that cancer is a legitimate part of the immune system.

Cold-Hot; Inactive-active; benign-malignant. These are the differences between non life threatening benign tumours, and life threatening malignant tumours, specifically one is active (cancerous) and one is benign (scar tissue). The fundamental difference between a benign tumor and a cancerous tumor therefore becomes a product of the timing of when it is discovered. If we were to discover a tumor ‘after the fact‘, the body has stopped, and there is a mass of scar tissue that is currently not undergoing any development. If however, we were to stumble upon this exact same tumor as it was being manufactured, it would be deemed to be a cancerous tumor. If your body is capable of producing a benign tumor, it is capable of producing a cancerous tumor. In the benign tumor, the immune system began a repair process that may or may not have been warranted, but then it received the ‘stop code’, and the immune system ceased this elevated activity. In a cancerous tumor, either the cells do not receive the ‘stop code’, or we are observing it before it has received the ‘stop code’. I have never heard of an Oncologist saying to a patient “You’ve got some sort of tumor being produced, but lets leave it alone, and see if it doesn’t stop and become benign on its own”. If that same tissue were to be observed when it was inactive, it would simply be dismissed as a benign tumor that had previously been produced at some point of time in the past. The benign scar tissue has already been manufactured by the immune system, and is now dormant. Everyone freely accepts that the inactive scar tissue was manufactured by the immune system. It should therefore be an easy inference to accept that cancer, or active scar tissue, or perhaps ‘runaway scar tissue’, is currently being manufactured by the immune system, though be it a defective one.
The immune system accepts this benign tumour as part of the ‘self’, for the same reason that it accepts the cancer; because it possesses all the characteristics of the legitimate body cells. The cancer cells that created the tumour, and then stopped, have either been reclaimed by the immune system, and may function normally in the future, or they may travel to another part of the body (through the lymphatic system) and start to stimulate cell division at a new location. These tumours that the cancer cells unnecessarily produce, are not marked for destruction because they posses all the characteristics of the bodies own cells. The immune system is designed to recognize the bodies own cells so as not to attack itself. These mutated cells will not be attacked by the immune system either, because they are legitimate body cells. This explanation would help us to understand why the bodies own immune system is useless against fighting cancer. This also makes sense of the fact that all attempts to employ the immune system into attacking the cancer cells have failed. And it also justifies why the three oncological approaches that have shown to be the most successful treatments for combating cancer are the only three procedures that make no attempt at employing the immune system in the first place. These three most successful protocols for fighting cancer are chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. All other 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.
There are only three cancer treatments that make no attempt at employing the immune system. Coincidentally, these three treatments have over the years, proven to be superior to the multitudes of cancer fighting regimes that try to employ our immune systems. Note however that these three most successful protocols for fighting cancer, all inadvertently incorporate the immune system by placing a workload on it. In all of these cases, the immune system must come on the scene to repair the damage that has been inflicted onto the tissues of the various sites. Placing a workload on the immune system provides a workout, or exercise for it. All the other protocols try to enhance, strengthen, and invigorate the immune system into a conflict with the cancer cells. This new framework for viewing cancer would help us to understand why these protocols fail to achieve their objective, and further help to account for why the protocols that do not involve the immune system are the most successful. From the vantage point of viewing cancer as a function of a defective immune system, we can understand why the most successful protocols continue to be the most successful. The DNA theory for explaining cancer offers no insight as to why some protocols are more or less effective than others. Why for instance would a patient who underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor, not go on to enjoy the same level of health as a patient who underwent a non cancerous surgery? When a medical professional discovers an active tumor being produced, he or she may opt to surgically remove the tumor and the offending cancer cells that made it (excisional 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 also contain the offensive cancer cells. They test the removed tissue and confirm that it was indeed cancerous. They then close up the wound and hope that they have managed to remove all of the cancerous tissue. They must now wait until the immune system has had time to heal up the surgical wound before testing the area, because the elevated activity and the inflammatory nature of the healing process will read as hot. So now we have the defective immune system, which might one day be shown 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, receives a signal that the healing is complete, 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 relentlessly. The poor surgeon is mystified that they could have missed some of the cancer cells. The 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, perhaps, is what causes it to flourish. Exposing the cancer to the light and air is a by-product of the fact that these cells have been operated on, and as a result, the immune system is re-invited back to the region to repair the surgical wound. Since the immune system may have already shown to be defective, it is conceivable to hold that sometimes it does turn out to inflict the area with a new cluster of cancerous activity, despite how diligent and careful the surgeon had performed. If faulty DNA were the cause of the cancerous activity, then mathematically, the individual who underwent the surgical removal of the offensive tissue should be granted the same bill of health and have the same survival statistics as anyone who had undergone a similarly invasive surgery. Unfortunately the statistics do not support this optimistic view. This patient might still possess a faulty immune system that is capable of generating these unwanted tissues.

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 people live out their lives oblivious to the second method of cell generation. It is only when something goes astray that we come to know of their presence. Thus, cancer cells are only thought of as being bad.

This ‘scar tissue’ model does not yet attempt to account for the various forms of cancer that a defective immune system may choose 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? The evidence tends to support that there is a hierarchy amongst tissue types. There are different types of tissues in the body, and the observable data supports that some of these tissue types are simply easier then others for a defective immune system to stimulate into unnecessary formation of scar tissue. 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 within a given individual. We can look at the various links (environmental links; lifestyle links; heredity links; etc.) as antigens that either promote a tissue type towards being the easiest tissue from which the defective immune system can operate on, or the link may demote a certain tissue away from being the likely candidate from which the defective immune system can operate. Tobacco smoke or asbestos dust has been linked to cancer of the mouth, oesophagus and lung. Using this new model we can view these tissues as having been weakened by these antigens 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 a cancer of one or more of these weakened tissues. Conversely, a high fibre diet has been linked to a decrease in the number of colon, anal and intestinal cancer patients. Using this new model we can view the high fibre diet as having strengthened the tissues in this region away from being the easiest tissue from which the defective immune system can operate. If colon cancer can be averted by implementing a high fibre diet, then I believe that this is merely a pyrrhic victory. The patient who avoids colon cancer by eating a high fibre diet, will merely succumb to some other type of cancer, if they already posses the requisite weakened immune system, and do nothing to change this. Again, the evidence tends to support this belief, which has led to the dilemma whereby doctors manage to overcome one type of cancer, only to have the patient succumb to another type. The supporters of the DNA model dismiss this dilemma by saying that the patient was merely allowed to live longer and thus was permitted the time necessary to acquire some other type of cancer.(*1) But 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.
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 the most prevalent form of cancer. In the rare cases in which a dark skinned person does acquire melanoma, it will be under the fingernails, on the palms of the hand, sole of the feet, or inside the mouth. These areas are tissues that do not posses the darker pigment, and because of the location, could not be attributed to sun damage. The 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 would view these melanin cells as no longer be the easiest cells for the opportunistic cancer to ‘pick on’. People in the tropical regions who do posses defective immune systems will find that they have cells other then their melanin, which an opportunistic faulty immune system will discover to be easier to stimulate into this unwanted tissue. This new vantage point is the only viable means with which to address the anomaly as to why African Americans (and Hispanic Americans) suffer disproportionately with a number of cancers and heart disease. We have always been aware that people who share the same culture, same lifestyle, same access to health services and facilities, 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 from one form of cancer, then we would expect, using this new model, that the numbers would have to be compensated for in other forms of cancer. We see a prime example of this prediction by examining cancer in African Americans. They share the same culture as the North American Caucasians, and yet they could be considered to be genetically immune from acquiring skin cancer due to their darker pigmentation. Thus we see African Americans with alarmingly higher rates of lung cancer, for instance. Studies were conducted to see if they perhaps smoked more. However, it was determined that they actually smoke less. It was then postulated that although they smoke less, perhaps they inhale deeper. It is absurd to generalize that an entire group of people who are known to smoke less then Caucasians, are inhaling deeper, merely to attempt to give credence to this observation and prevent it from becoming yet one more anomaly surrounding this disease.It could be expressed that the North American culture is the common denominator, and as a result, a certain percentage of these people are going to acquire a defective immune system. Since some of these people are going to be ‘exempt’ from falling under the category of ‘skin cancer’, they will then have to be placed into one of the remaining categories. Thus we see this ‘disproportionate’ level of other cancers. If we examine the statistics from the point of view that from the next 100,000 babies born, the American culture is going to produce 225 of which will go on to acquire some form of cancer. If some of these 225 citizens are genetically immune from acquiring the number one cause of cancer (skin), then they therefore must fall into one of the other categories of cancer, in this case, the number two cause of cancer (lung). From this perspective it can be understood why these groups of individuals can have higher lung cancer statistics then the remaining members of their society, even though they smoke less. It is necessary to view cancer as the fulfillment of two requisites. We must first examine what this society is doing to have 225 of its members go on to develop a faulty immune system that is capable of generating unwanted cells, and then we must examine factors which account for the category of cancer that each of the 225 citizens are ultimately going to be placed. This relationship cannot be understood from the perspective of the DNA model which tries to link the 225 cancer victims to a cause within their society which distinguishes them from the remaining 99,775 non cancerous citizens. Prior to this new model, we were at a loss as to how to account for the vast discrepancies in these numbers. This phenomena can only be explained when we step outside of the existing DNA framework.
This same trend can also be observed by studying the cancers of Northern Europe and comparing these to countries closer to the equator in Southern Europe. The statistics support that countries nearer to the equator, have lower incidence of melanoma but do have a higher incidence of other types of cancer. Liver cancer for instance, is six times more prevalent in Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, and Italy) than it is in Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland and Norway). This principle can be applied across the board in explaining why some types of cancer are more uncommon then others. The rarer forms of cancer have a cell structure that is more difficult for the defective immune system to stimulate into scar tissue.
Another tissue type that has shown to be amongst the easier tissues to mutate is the mucus membrane tissue. These tissues are located throughout the body, but not arbitrarily throughout the body. Notice that polyps that grow out of the mucus membrane tissue only grow on these specialized tissues which are always located adjacent to a body orifice; Colon polyps, Oesophageal polyps, Endometrial polyps, nasal etc. If the repair arm of our immune system is allowed to roam free and stimulate any tissue into the formation of scar tissue, then there will be a tendency for this activity to take place where the immune system exists in higher concentrations. It is conceivable that the body’s immune system would have the mucus membrane tissues surrounding the body orifices heavily fortified with defence cells designed to identify and destroy foreign antigens that tried to enter the body through these portals. A defective immune system, therefore, is most apt to commence work where it happens to be located. When we include that the female breast is also a body orifice during child bearing years, this too would have these defence mechanisms in place. Prior to the woman reaching puberty, the breast is not an orifice, and the incidence of breast cancer in both men and women are about the same, and very rare. Once this portal requires an immune defence, (child bearing years) the statistics for female breast cancer raise alarmingly (*2). But the DNA of the cell does not change. If the root cause of cancer is a flaw in our tumor suppressor gene, why is there any difference at all in the list if childhood cancers versus the list of adult cancers? No one has ever attempted to account for why there is a difference between adult and childhood cancers. This is simply one more anomaly in a list of anomalies that surround this disease.
This same principal (cancer cells ‘picking on’ the easiest target) can be used to explain the entire list of childhood cancer, and help to explain why the list for adult cancers and child cancers is so different. 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. A newborn baby 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, due to this elevated activity. That is to say, the defective immune system will not assess these cells as requiring accelerated cell division, because these cells are currently undergoing accelerated cell division, which is a natural part of development of the body during adolescence (a wound that would result in a scare formation on an adult is less likely to form scare tissue when a similar wound is received by a child, due in part to the fact that a portion of the cell generation was preformed by the DNA method of cell regeneration, which is not “functionally and cosmetically inferior“.). 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 re-enter the kidney and liver at the other end of the loop. These individual white blood cells commence 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. These cells are not receiving ongoing development, and therefore 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 a 30 fold average for all other tissues). This fact denotes that the development of the brain tissue is considerably slower, or less intense then the development of all remaining tissue types in the body. This helps us to understand why brain tumors are the principal form of cancer of a solid mass in children. 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 majority of all childhood cancers.
The eyeball of a newborn is about 75% of the size of an adult’s eye. Thus this organ undergoes a mass increase considerably less than the remaining body tissues. Retinoblastoma (eye cancer) is almost exclusively a childhood disease with 90% of all cases being diagnosed before age 4. In all scientific literature there has been mention of only 20 cases of adult (20 years or older) retinoblastoma. Thus the cells of the eye appear to also follow this same principal when attempting to understand why there is a difference between childhood and adulthood cancers.

If it does turn out to be a defective immune system that is causing cancer, and not some environmental agent, as is the present focus, then it should be possible to show a concrete ‘cause-effect’ relationship between cancer and a defective immune system. A concrete relationship has thus far shown to been elusive and from the perspective of this new model is impossible , because the present model for cancer is only looking at one part of a two part equation. There are only growing lists of suspected cancer causing product. To defend the tobacco industry, a legal defendant needs merely to produce one or more ‘healthy’ individual, all of whom have smoked for a long period of time, thereby showing that there is not a concrete relationship between their product and cancer. It will always be possible to find a healthy smoker, or a healthy asbestos miner. If however, this healthy individual were to have their immune system become faulty, the resulting maverick cancer cells are most apt to attack the weakened lung tissues of this individual (thus merely showing further support to an identified link to cancer). Therefore, tobacco becomes an environmental ‘link’ that has been shown to cause cancer in some individuals. Smoking cigarettes does not guarantee that you will get lung cancer. Sun-tanning does not guarantee that you will get skin cancer. The long list of possible links to cancer does not appear to be leading to better health. Knowing that asbestos dust, or a high fat diet, may be contributing to this epidemic; or that a high fibre diet, or sun block lotions have been attributed to the survival from this epidemic, does not appear to be having any positive effect on the epidemic as a whole.

How did this come to be?
In view of the fact that cancer was relatively scarce prior to the industrial revolution, scientists tend to focus their attention on modern environmental phenomena, or modern eating habits, or perhaps modern food processing additive as being the root cause of this cancer epidemic. The DNA model proposes that some outside carcinogen entering the body and is affecting the DNA of a particular cell type. These affected cells then start to rampantly replicate themselves. But if the new growth is accounted for using the DNA explanation of events whereas the cell starts to replicate itself uncontrollably, there is actually no need to even have a ‘cancer cell’ causing this proliferation because the event has already been explained. That is to say, if the tumours are defined as extra tissues formed from the sporadic reproduction of a cell that has lost its ability to reproduce itself in a controlled manner, due to some defect of the DNA within that cell, and this defect is caused by some environmental agent, or hereditary flaw, then there is no actual requirement or need for a ‘cancer cell’. The mass has already and fully been explained away. The cancer cell is cited because they can be observed. But we already know that the immune system sends specialty cells to carry out the cell division (stimulate the neighbouring cells into reproducing themselves in an endeavour to heal over a wound in the form of scar tissue). These specialty cells do not encounter any resistance from the immune system because they are a legitimate part of the immune system. They have no role at the site if the root cause is some fault in our DNA (i.e. a foreign antigen journeyed to the cancer site and caused a defect in the cell’s DNA to cause it to reproduce itself in an uncontrolled manor). This antigen causing a defect in the p53 gene then becomes what they believe to be the root cause of cancer. But notice that the original antigen that caused the initial defect, is never believed to have also caused this same defect in the neighbouring cells, or is never credited with migrating to a new site and causing cancer there. This task is always attributed to break away cancer cells which cause the mutations. Scientist are forced to acknowledge and address the fact that they ( the cancer cells) are there, and so must therefore be assigned a function. Thus the ‘cancer cells’ are attributed with the task of spreading the DNA defect to the neighbouring cells allowing for the disease to move into surrounding tissue types, or move to a new location. The ‘cancer cells’ are an observable phenomenon, and because of this, scientists have had to acknowledge that the cancer cells are in all of us, otherwise they would have to account for how they got there, and the ‘spontaneous creation of matter’ doesn’t go over so well. If we accept that the immune system is sending these special cells to the site, the existence of these cells is accounted for. This new hypothesis also holds that there are cancer cells in all of us, but that these are a vital component of our immune system, and it is the ‘repair’ subsidiary of our immune system that is causing this uncontrolled proliferation, not a fault in our DNA. The theory holds that the repair aspect of our immune system is acting rampantly, and without any controls as to where or why the repairs are necessary. Thus to explain how some people get cancer and not others, we need to look at the macro level as to how cultures differ in the treatment of their immune systems, and then at the micro level, to understand how individuals within that culture treat their own immune system. At the cultural level, it can be observed that the cultures that use the most pharmaceutical aides to promote their own health, statistically have the highest rates of all cancer groups, whereas those cultures that do not have access to such devises, tend to have the lowest incidences of cancer ( I acknowledge that this is just one of a multitude of cultural differences that could be used to account for this same phenomenon, but for the purposes of advancing this concept, let us entertain the possibility that this could be on the list of cultural differences. Since most study into the disease is undertaken by, or funded by the pharmaceutical industry it would not be expected that they turn the microscope in onto themselves to see what part, if any, they play in the escalating cancer statistics of modern industrialised nations. And realistically, this is about the only thing left that has not undergone studying).

We can all point to individuals who seem to mistreat their bodies and pay no regard to health issues, yet remain unhindered by this or any other disease, while other individuals appear to take their health very seriously, and yet have come down with this affliction. This anomaly is known as the “cancer paradox”. Statistical connections have been difficult to extract using the DNA framework because the scientific community is only looking at half the equation. Currently, scientists are only looking at the hierarchy of cell types to come under attack, which produces only ‘links’ to lifestyle choices or environmental exposures, etc.. If we factor into this how an individual treats his or her immune system, then perhaps some concrete relationships could be observed. Thus, cancer could be viewed as the fulfillment of a two part equation. The individual must first be in possession of a defective immune system that is capable of producing scar tissue that is not requested, (or not able to determine that this repair process has been completed, and thus be able to shut off this subsidiary of the immune system) and secondly this defective immune system must be steered towards a certain tissue type to commence this non requested work.
Examine for a moment how we have treated our immune system since the industrial revolution (which preceded the chemical revolution, which coincidentally gave birth to the medicines that we enjoy today). When we become ill, our immune system requires energy to do its job. Our immune system takes much of the energy normally used to fuel our muscles and heat our body, and so we may feel fatigued, run down and chilled while our immune system is preparing itself for the ensuing fight. The stage is set for a classic battle between the immune system, and the offending foreign virus. So what do we do? It is at this point that we start “assisting” our immune system. As the fight progresses, undesirable waste products are produced. The clinical definition refers to T cells secreting cytokines, and lymphokines being secreted by B cells and natural killer cells injecting acidic fluids, etc. The immune system will employ one or more of the body’s orifices to flush out or eject these waste products, but it has become our practice to attempt to stop this. We take medications for nausea and upset stomach, hindering the body’s ability to rid itself of the stomach’s contents. We take pills or serums for diarrhea if the body attempts to rid itself of the contents of the intestinal tract. We take pills, sprays or ointments for runny noses; watering eyes; coughing; sneezing,... any and every endeavour that the immune system employs to rid itself of the by-products. When you consider that the ears naturally drain into the throat, the immune system has employed each and every orifice that the body has, and we employ medications to stop or hinder the use of every one of them. We medically ‘handcuff‘ the immune system from performing its job. Since this tendency of trying to assist our immune systems is fairly modern, perhaps this helps us understand why cancer has become classified as a modern epidemic.
Another modern tendency that has avoided being studied is the pre packaged food industry, which constitutes more and more of the products that enter the food chain in western cultures. With departments of health overseeing the cleanliness of our food, we tend to live in an ever increasingly sterile environment. The entire ‘Western Culture’ is designed to take as much of the burden off of the immune system as possible. This all leads to the immune system having less work to do. Our ancestors did not have health departments looking over their food preparation. Our ancestors did not have near the amounts of cancer either. Third world cultures also share this phenomenon which would help to explain why people who immigrate from cultures with lower cancer rates, tend to inherit the cancer statistics of their new country despite how much of their original culture they try to preserve. These new immigrants can no longer go to the open air markets to select their daily food items that have been previously handled by countless others of questionable hygienic standards. They must now go to the supermarket and select food items that have been stored and handled in ideal conditions, with governmental standards and safeguards in place from the origin of the food source. All of our pre packaged, and grocery shelved foods have had a regime of government inspections to limit or eliminate impurities and bacteria so that our immune system will no longer have to contend with this. Our homes and business institutes have all been cleaned on a regular basis with products that contain disinfectants that are marketed as being able to kill 99.9% of germs and bacteria on contact. That leaves just 0.1% for our immune system to contend with. Our water supply has undergone a series of processes to ensure that it is free of contaminants and bacteria. In an ever increasing act of paranoia, we as a society have reverted to thinking that even this is not good enough, and have resorted to buying bottled water, and water that is believed to have undergone even further treatments. The quest for increasingly sterile products is corresponding with our increasing cancer statistics, causing a spiralling ‘Catch 22’. You can’t get around the fact that your water supply and your food sources have all been sterilized for you. This entails that your immune system has less to do. When your immune system has less to do, it becomes weaker. Weaker immune systems cause cancer statistics to rise. Rising cancer statistics cause us to want to do more to provide health for our bodies. This no-win situation brings to mind a quote from John Dryden, "God never made His work for man to mend."

Why do we even try to assist our immune system? When we take anti-histamines or antibiotics, we are not helping, but rather hindering the bodies natural ability to do the job on its own. Ponder the outcome of a marathon runner who takes the bus each day on his run because he wants to avoid subjecting his cardiovascular and muscular systems from the subsequent stress of running. The bus becomes a tool used to transport the runner’s body over the course (the task) so as not to fatigue or stress the runner’s muscles and cardiovascular system. The task will be completed, and the runner gets to the end of the course. Obviously it is not in the runner’s best interest to employ such a tool if he wishes to remain a marathon runner. Similarly these drugs we take as a tool to help our bodies in a given task, are actually preventing the development of the bodies natural ability to do the job on its own. This modern trend to retard the development of the immune system is now showing to be having devastating consequences.
Consider the initial development of our immune system. While still in the mother’s womb, the unborn foetus starts to exercise its muscles by kicking, punching, and stretching. Hick-ups and yawns exercise and prepare the diaphragm muscle of the cardiovascular system. The lungs must wait to be exercised until after the birth, due to the surrounding embryonic fluid. Thus a newborn’s first act is to cry, or be induced into crying, to exercise the lungs and commence breathing. However there is no way to exercise the immune system in the sterile environment of the womb. The mother’s immune system has previously destroyed all antigens. Scientists have shown that newborn babies receive antibodies from their mother “through osmosis in the
placenta”. There immune systems is weak (practically non-existent) by virtue of the fact that it has received no exercise. (This also prevents the infant’s immune system from fighting the cells of the mother.) After birth, the newborn further receives antibodies by way of breast milk, which protects them and procures enough time for the child to develop its own immune system. It is of interest to note that studies have shown that babies who were breast fed tend to experience better health then those who were bottle fed. When we watch small babies in action, we notice that they tend to put many things in their mouths. Mothers often rush to stop this, but it’s too late. The damage is already done. But is it really damage? Perhaps this is just nature at work. This act introduces germs and bacteria into the child’s newly developing systems in small increments that their untested immune systems should be able to handle. Skin rashes are the next stage in the development of the child’s immune system that, for the first time starts to battle antigens on the surface of the skin. In children, it appears that the immune system, apart from exercising itself, must also experiment, and discover which of its list of arsenal will work best against a given antigen. Thus we see a child sometimes running a fever when fighting off a common cold. The immune system detects that the elevated body temperature has no adverse effect against this particular antigen, and so this tool is not employed in the future. These are the foundation exercises that the child’s immune system starts with, as it begins a lifetime of struggles between the body and the surrounding environments. In later years, the child is likely to encounter ear infections, pink eye, acne, and tonsillitis. These are all natural and further exercise the immune system. When a child skins their knee, we tend to sterilize the wound with a bacteria killing agent, and apply a dressing to prevent foreign objects from entering the wound. Scrapes that become infected are viewed as a bad thing, and we as the child’s caregivers are viewed as being careless, or negligent. When we kill the bacteria on a wound, the immune system doesn’t have to. We should perhaps view these minor infections as a low impact exercise for our immune system. Perhaps we should be allowing nature to take its course. This is not to suggesting that we look the other way when we see a toddler eating dirt, or getting into cleaning products. However, just as we are being encouraged to walk, as opposed to taking the car for short errands, in the pursuit of better health, so too we should be allowing our immune system to experience exercise in the pursuit of better health. Perhaps a compromise could be reached between nature and science, where nature is allowed to heal the body, and science only intervenes when it is absolutely necessary. If the immune system appears to be incapable of the task, then as a last resort, antibiotics should be used; as opposed to loosing the fight altogether. We should stop depending on immune enhancing drugs (pharmaceuticals) to ‘help’ in fighting off each and every ailment or infection that we come in contact with on a daily basis.

It is conceivable to think that the many labour saving devices that we enjoy today, have lead to our muscular system being weaker then that 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 he/she did not have this labour saving devise. Any ‘labour saving devise’, by definition, saves labour, and thus evades the exercise that otherwise would have occurred. Similarly, these ‘labour saving devices’ for our immune system have paved the way for our immune system being weaker then those of our ancestors, and weaker then those in third world countries. 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 favour 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 by-product of our modern lifestyle, which attempts to bypass nature in this endeavour to provide for our health. The consequence of this action is a weaker immune system, which I believe can lead to the development of cancer. 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 near the amount of immune enhancing medications nor the disposable income with which to afford these concoctions, that are available to Western Societies. As a result, they don’t have near the incidents of cancer either. One study shows the country with the lowest rate of cancer is El Salvador. Its residents have an average annual income of just over $1,000.00 U.S. They find themselves in the enviable position of being too poor to inoculate themselves, yet too rich to qualify for world aid or any of the outreach health charities that go around ‘helping’ these poor nations with inoculations and immune system enhancing medications. There are poorer nations then El Salvador, but these nations all tend to receive various forms of aid, one form of which is medical aid. Along with the medical aid, come higher rates of cancer. At the top of the list, we have Denmark. The Scandinavian countries take pride in their documented longevity, and have one of the highest standards of living in the world. They have a reputation for desiring and providing themselves with any and every concoction that is advertised as promoting their health. In an ironic, yet predictable fashion, they also have the highest cancer statistics in the world.

Cancer is not limited to the human species. Farm animals and pets also have been diagnosed with cancer. But note 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 animal’s health with enriched or fortified feed, medicines and booster shots designed to assist the immune system. Animals such as raccoons, bats, foxes and skunks have all been diagnosed with rabies, but it is extremely rare to learn of these animals, which are outside of the domestic category (wild animals, who receive no medical 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.)
Here is an interesting excerpt from an article by Jeffrey Reel referencing a book by Dr. William Lane Ph.D. entitled SHARKS DON'T GET CANCER .
Buffaloes Don’t Get Cancer. An edition of The New York Times Sunday Magazine featured a story on the growing popularity of buffalo meat and its economic potential for cattlemen in the American Southwest. It also inadvertently shed light on the nature of diet, health, and natural resistance. The author pointed out that buffaloes are so hardy that ranchers don’t need to add hormones, artificial growth stimulants or antibiotics to their feed. A spokesman for the Bison Association (I don’t think bison are allowed to join) said that, “Bison are not susceptible to cancer… they’re the only mammal that isn’t. We don’t know why yet; the research has not been done.”
When the research is finally done, it will no doubt shed light on the connection between the absence of immune enhancing concoctions and the absence of cancer itself. The Bison fall under the category of semi domestic animals . Like squirrels, they have beckoned scientists to ask the question as to why they do not get cancer. Domestic animals receive health care from owners. Semi domestic and wild animals do not. Domestic animals get cancer. Semi domestic and wild animals do not. It can’t get any more obvious then this. It is difficult to imagine that there could be some antigen in our society that is effecting the DNA of domestic animals and avoiding having the same impact on semi domestic animals.

It is of interest to note here that it has long been established that pet owners live longer lives then those without pets. The reasoning for this was thought to be the nurturing aspect of caring for these animals was a stress release, and this lower stress level translated into longer lives. An alternate accounting of this phenomena could be that these animals carry with them a number of germs and bacteria, which subjects the owners with an immune system exercise that is not being experienced by non pet owners. This exercise of the immune system translates into a stronger immune system which then yields the longevity experienced by the pet owners.

Maintaining the belief that our DNA is the root cause of this non requested cell activity we call cancer is not yielding any productive results. It is logical to expect that as our knowledge improved as to what carcinogens need to be avoided, and what lifestyle choices need to be adapted, our control over the disease would be getting better. Billions of dollars are spent on research, but it is all for treatment. If the effort is shifted to finding a cure, there will be no need for treatments. All efforts are focused on treating attacked tissues as opposed to finding out what generated the attack in the first place. New treatments are always coming on line that show promise. In breast cancer there is a study where the cancer patients is injecting with a dead e-coli virus, believing that this is a vaccine-like protocol that prepares the immune system for fighting the disease that is causing the breast cancer. An introduction of a foreign substance into the body would force the immune system into having to contend with this dead virus, despite the fact that it is already dead. This constitutes as a workout. The introduction of a foreign substance would exercise the immune system and hopefully both the start and stop mechanisms of the immune system. From the framework of this new way of viewing cancer, It would be predicted that this protocol should show some promising results.

In the pursuit of finding a cure for this disease, it seems logical to study the only other form of cell replacement, namely the immune system itself. Since declaring war on cancer, we have not made any paradigm shifts in the way we treat our immune system. A concrete cause-effect relationship has emerged, but it has not been recognised because scientists’ are looking in the wrong direction. Immunosuppressant medications have exposed this cause effect relationship, and this fact lends itself beautifully to add support to the theory that the immune system contains the cancer cells, and is responsible for cancerous activity. These Immunosuppressant medications were developed to intentionally decrease the effect of the immune system in organ transplant patents, for the purpose of preventing the bodies defence mechanism from attacking (rejecting) the foreign tissues of the transplant operation. If the patient survives the operation, and overcomes the rejection, they will live longer lives then they would have, had they not had the operation. Unfortunately, the statistical evidence shows that the transplant patient will ultimately succumb to a bout with cancer. This phenomenon has scientists struggling for an explanation:
“Scientists believe transplant recipients were already at risk
for cancer because their weakened immune system could not
keep healthy cells from becoming malignant”.
“ The use of immunosuppressants(cyclosporine) increases the
chance cancer cells will divide and invade surrounding tissue.
However it is not clear if cyclosporine can change normal cells
into cancer cells researchers say”
web search for ‘organ transplants’
Organ Transplant Drug Increases Cancer Risk
Friday, Feb.12, 1999
But 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 undoubtedly, cause the patient to succumb to cancer. It would be anticipated that this fact is what scientists have been yearning for. This should be the ‘holy grail’ of cancer research. But this does not fit into the framework of the DNA model. Everyone is exclusively seeking the answer at the micro level. But what if the answer lies at the macro level. Presently all efforts are exclusively looking inside the cell and wondering why it is dividing and producing these inferior cells. As a result, this organ transplant dilemma is dismissed as yet another anomaly. They are perplexed but open to the possibility that something could be going on that actually “changes normal cells into cancer cells” in a feeble attempt at explaining away this blatant cause / effect relationship. This anomaly is impossible to explained from the perspective of the DNA model which holds that the immune system is doing nothing.

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 increase the likelihood that some form of cancer will result. We would be satisfying the first part of the equation. All the other ‘links’ and ‘markers’ merely help to ascertain which of the numerous types of cancer the patient is apt to acquire. That is to say, the numerous lifestyle links, environmental links, and dietary links all have a tendency to either promote any given tissue in the body towards cancerous activity, or to demote specific tissues away from cancerous activity. If the immune system is the root cause then obviously we will not discover a cure for cancer, so long as our efforts are focused on employing the immune system to attack itself. The immune system is designed to recognize and not attack itself. Perhaps this explains why there are presently only treatments for cancer, and not yet any cures.
The 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).]

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. This would then become a fulfillment of the second part of the equation. Those in the control group, who did not undergo this activity, would not have this tissue targeted as needing any repairs. If an equal number of people in both the control group and the mammography group were to have the requisite defective immune system that was capable of manufacturing non requested tissue, then it is easy to see that the group that did not have this defective immune system directed towards one specific tissue type, would have lower statistics of breast cancer.

It is reasonable to expect from what we know about cancer, that there should be some occurrences 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 the term ‘heart cancer’. Hardening of the arteries could be accounted for by the immune system repairing the cells of the artery walls with the formation of scar tissue. Scaring can be observed in many of the heart attack victims. Post-mortems and biopsies of heart attack victims have shown that there are 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. Perhaps this is why we have not needed the term “heart cancer”. When we compare the similarities between the two diseases, we could deduce that the same element exist in heart disease, as in cancer. Both diseases were relatively scarce as recent as a century ago. According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, heart attacks caused less than three thousand deaths in the United States as late as the year 1930. The lifetime risk of developing heart disease now is one in two if you are male and one in three if you are female, which is identical to the lifetime risk of developing cancer. Cancer statistics have had an equally poignant escalation in numbers over the same period. It is also of interest to note the resemblance between global cancer events, and global heart disease. The latest available data from the World Health Organization (WHO) MONICA Project indicate that the coronary event rate (per 100,000) in men was highest in Finland (North Karelia,835) and lowest in China (Beijing, 81). A global map of coronary events show that you are more then ten times as likely to have heart disease if you are raised in Finland as opposed to being raised in China. These WHO global maps of cancer clusters show that you are four times more likely to acquire cancer from being raised in Denmark, as compared to being raised in Thailand. Both of these diseases have been attributed the term ‘modern disease’, and as a result, the goal of finding the cause has been confined to ‘modern’ practices (modern food additives, modern lifestyles, etc.) Practically every aspect of our modern lives have been studied and considered as a possible cause. But the one thing that has avoided being studied, and is most definitely a modern phenomenon, is our treatment of the immune system itself. This modern tendency to supply the body with these immunity enhancing pharmaceuticals is the one thing that has avoided being studied, primarily because such studies into the causation of diseases are conducted and financed to a large degree by the pharmaceutical industry itself. If it were to be true that we were doing harm to ourselves with this modern tendency to be reliant on pharmaceuticals, how would we ever come to know it? Can we expect the pharmaceutical industry to bring this to our attention?

 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, but stop running, the ability to run at that pace will eventually become lost. Similarly, the body will stop, or slow down the production of hormones such as natural steroids, melatonin, oestrogen, etc. if they were being produced for it. Science has shown that even the mind is subject to this ‘use it or loose it’ doctrine. It stands to reason then that the immune system is also subject to this principle. Each time we assist our body in fighting off a disease or virus, we 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? Through exercise. Exercise your immune system just as you would any other system; in increasing increments. If the ability to lift heavy objects, or the ability to run a five minute mile can be re-acquired through exercise in increasing increments, and the immune system is subject to the same rules as the muscular system, or cardiovascular system, than it is reasonable to assume that the immune system could be put on an exercise agenda that would allow it to re-acquire the necessary strength, so as to redeem its domain over these cancer cells. Consider the treatment of chemotherapy, which is described as a process of almost killing the body with poison. This protocol tends to make the entire body ill, thereby inadvertently exercising the immune system. When the body rebounds, it rebounds stronger than before, similar to a body that had been in an exercise workout. This new strength allows the immune system to reclaim the body for a period of time, (called a remission) but if the patient continues the lifestyle that allowed the cancer cells to take over in the first place; i.e. weakening their immune system with modern methods of immune supplements and pharmaceuticals, (trying to do the immune systems job, for it) then one would expect the statuesque to return. This perhaps helps to explain why chemotherapy; although it is not a cure, does tend to prolong a patients life, and is currently the most successful tool we have for fighting this disease.

It would seem foreign, or perhaps even absurd to introduce infectious contaminants into the human body. It would seem ludicrous to do this to someone who is already ill. This inverse line of thinking would help to explain why a successful cure has eluded so many for so long. It would be difficult to find a solution to a problem that lies in the opposite direction from where everyone is looking. The concept may sound ludicrous, but from the perspective of this new model for cancer, this is still a logical supposition. If we can produce a remission from inadvertently exercising the immune system once, with poison (as in a chemotherapy session), imagine the results of setting out to systematically exercise the immune system repeatedly, without harming the entire body in the process. I believe that the successful protocol will not stimulate, but rather, aggravate the immune system. Instead of trying to invigorate, we should irritate. Assisting becomes tormenting. Helping becomes hurting. Hurt your immune system like you hurt your muscular system during a vigorous workout. Hurt your immune system like you would hurt your cardiovascular system running a marathon. Helping the immune system has shown to be counter-productive. If you are getting the opposite results to what you desire, than logic dictates that you should do the opposite to what you are doing to get that which you do desire. The by-product of helping the immune system is to weaken it, which allows the cancer cells to go out of control. It should then follow that the by-product of hurting the immune system would be to strengthen it, and thus, allow it to regain control over these maverick cells.

Under this new model, it is conceivable that the successful treatment would take the form of clinically torturing the body, which is precisely what chemotherapy is doing, but on an unnecessarily exhaustive scale. A series of allergy tests would discover some things that the immune system reacts to, but would avoid the full spectrum attack that is presently provided by chemotherapy. Things that irritate the immune system would be a good exercise tool. From the adage ‘everything has a purpose’, one could ask then what is the purpose of allergies? An allergy is the immune system reacting to a substance that does no real harm to the body. This principal of nature could therefore be used to intentionally give a workout to the immune system, without the real harm.
I have a strong suspicion that these alternative medicines that pop up from time to time and seem to miraculously cure some individuals, and mystify the professionals, are by chance exercising that patient’s immune system because this individual is simply allergic to one or more of the ingredients in these concoctions. This would explain why some cancer fighting cocktails respond miraculously in some patients, and yet can be utterly useless or unresponsive in the majority of patients. The patients who are not allergic to any of the ingredients, unfortunately, do not get the workout. Likewise, the evidence supports that combination strategies have been shown to be more effective than 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 them . 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.
Prior to Copernicus (1473-1543), everyone in the world held the belief that the earth was in the center of the universe. It was presumed that the sun, moon, planets and stars all orbited around the earth. The bulk of the observed evidence tended to support this first model of the world. The fact that some of the planets appeared to move backwards during part of there orbit, was an anomaly that caused Copernicus to first question the validity of the ‘earth- centered’ model. He went on to design a new model for explaining the workings of the solar system, which placed the sun at the center of the universe. This new model did address and account for the anomalies that had existed with the Earth-Centered model, yet nearly a century passed before this idea was taken seriously, and was not accepted until after Galileo (1564-1642) started observing the night sky with a telescope, which had just become available. In the field of cancer, there remain also a number of anomalies with the present DNA model. Why was it relatively scarce prior to the industrial revolution? Why is it less prevalent in developing (third world) countries? Why is it not contagious? Why can we not derive a vaccination for it? Why do some treatments work well for some patients, and not at all for others? Why does the list of childhood cancers differ from that of adults, when our DNA does not change? And of primary concern; why does our immune system not respond to it?
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) then we simplify things immensely, and unexplainable events become for the first time explainable. We would no longer require an explanation as to why the immune system leaves the cancer cells alone. If the cancer were to be shown to be a legitimate product of a defective immune system, we would not expect these cells to be attacked. We would then not have to ponder how cancer manages to travel throughout the body and take up residence in a new location without being detected or encountering resistance along the way. We would not 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 its defect into neighbouring cell tissues. We would not have to attribute any miraculous credentials and special abilities to the cancer cells, all of which exceed my level of gullibility. Each of the present anomalies disappear. Cancer becomes much simpler when we adapt this framework.
Albert Einstein was quoted for having said “When the solution is simple, God is answering”.

(*1) Excerpt from Cancer as a Disease of Civilization by Ralph Moss, Ph.D. Some people believe that the increase in cancer incidence is an illusion. The reason that there is more cancer today than in former times, they say, is that present-day people live much longer. Since cancer is primarily a disease of middle and old age, these writers claim, there simply weren't enough people in former ages who lived long enough to develop this disease.
"For all of history the average life span was about 35-40 years," wrote one of these commentators. "In the last hundred years life spans in industrialized countries have increased to 70 years." Therefore, what appears to be a fault of civilization (an increase in cancer) is actually another one of its blessings. How true is this claim? There are reasons to doubt it. The Biblical "Book of Psalms" states: "The days of our years are three-score years and ten, / Or even by reason of strength fourscore years" (90:10). A score is twenty years. Thus, the Biblical author believed that the normal life span was 70 years or, for those who had a particularly vigorous immune system, around 80. How does this gibe with the notion that until the advent of modern medicine people only lived to around 35?
During my morning walk, I pass an old churchyard, dating from the time of the American Revolution. Spurred by these questions about the average span of human existence, I studied the gravestones. I observed that in 19th century New England, at least, deaths tended to cluster in one of four categories:
1) Many children died either during childbirth or from epidemic diseases.
2) All too frequently women died young, generally in childbirth, and were sometimes buried next to their equally unfortunate babies.
3) Some men also died in their early decades of accidents and wars.
4) Once you eliminate these obvious checks on human longevity, people in previous centuries seemed to live about the same number of years as they do today. Most of those who managed to attain adulthood lived into their seventies and eighties.
Many of our Founding Fathers lived to ripe old ages. True, Washington died at 67. (He was probably bled to death by overzealous doctors). But John Adams was 90, Thomas Jefferson 83, James Madison 85, James Monroe 73, John Quincy Adams 81, Andrew Jackson 78, and Martin Van Buren 80. If we average these we get 80, which is exactly
what the Bible predicts for such healthy human specimens.

(*2) It is worth mentioning that oral contraceptives have been linked to breast cancer. Oral contraceptives are a method of birth control that works by chemically tricking the body into not ovulating by supplying hormones that cause the body to behave as though it were already pregnant. When the body behaves as though it were pregnant, it makes a number of changes, one of which is to prepare the breast for nursing. This then becomes an orifice that requires a defence strategy from the immune system because it is now a new portal to the outside world. If the immune system is defective, and takes up residency at this new location, then by using this model, we can now understand how the oral contraceptive could have instigated the breast cancer. This anomaly cannot be explained using the DNA model. The DNA model cannot account for what takes place to cause this horrific change in statistics between pre-pubescent and post pubescent breast cancer statistics.

  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Skin Cancer Forum © 2013 Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000

Disclaimer: The three most common types of skin cancer are basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma. While melanoma is the most dangerous type, keep in mind that any cancer and potentially some cancer treatments can cause injury or death. The various views expressed in these public forums should not be considered as medical advice. See your qualified health-care professional for medical attention, advice, diagnosis, and treatments.