Questioning The DNA Theory As The Origin Of Cancer

[Guest guest]

There are two distinct mechanisms with which a cell can be

reproduced. The first method is by way of the cell replicating

itself as outlined within that cell's DNA. The second method is the

slightly altered and inferior procedure of the body's own immune

system rapidly reproducing the surrounding tissues in an attempt to

heal over an area by way of `scar tissue'. A clinical definition is

as follows:

Scar tissue formation is a ubiquitous feature of adult wound

healing, with the resulting repair both functionally and

cosmetically inferior to normal skin. At microscopic level,

the main difference between scar and normal tissue is in the

alignment pattern of the collagen fibers of which they are composed.

www.google.com final report on Grant GR/K71394

Mathematical Model of Scar Tissue

This excerpt acknowledges that there are indeed two distinct ways

that a cell can be reproduced.

Firstly, by the well understood way of the cell's natural means of

replicating itself as outlined in the cell's DNA code, which is

referred to above as `normal' cell replacement, and secondly, by a

less obvious, and less understood process whereas the bodies immune

system triggers the cells into this slightly altered scar tissue.

Note that this second means of cell replacement (scar tissue)

is described as " functionally and cosmetically inferior " . Both the

rapid growth, and the inferior quality of tissues, are two

attributes shared by tissues manufactured by the immune system, and

the tissues manufactured by cancer cells. These inferior qualities

are not attributed to the DNA method of cell replacement. Observe

that the purpose of a Burn Unit is to hinder the bodies

tendency to rapidly heal over the burned area with scar tissue, when

the trauma of a burn has set off this immune response, and allow the

slower process (but cosmetically superior) of natural cell

replacement to have enough time to heal the area.

When we analyze the immune system more closely, we notice that it

actually has three distinct components;

i) to `identify' foreign antigens that are deemed to be `enemies of

the body'

ii) to `destroy' these enemies of the body; and

iii) to `repair' any damage that may have occurred during this

onslaught.

This article will be focusing on this `repair' aspect of the immune

system, which expressed simply, is the bodies ability to promote

rapid cell division (the formation of scar tissue) to quickly heal

over breaks, wounds or openings in the skin. The mechanism that

starts this process is not yet fully understood, but it is known to

be triggered when the body experiences some form of trauma.

Obviously; once this process has been started, there also needs to

be some mechanism in place to inform the body of when the healing

process has been completed. That is to say, the body must be made to

know when the rapid formation of scar tissue is no longer required,

so that the immune system can cease this elevated activity, and

restore itself to the level of activity that existed prior to the

trauma. It does not require too much imagination to realize that the

inability to shut off this `repair process', would result in a

situation comparable to that which we presently attribute to cancer.

For example, a trauma to the breast would trigger the immune

response of repairing any tissues that may have been damaged. If the

immune system lacked the ability to know when this process was

completed, it would go on to repair the tissues in the breast, and a

tumor resembling the scar tissue process(firmer density, different

collagen alignment, different pigment, etc.) would be the result.

Similarly, if a faulty immune system were to commence this healing

process without there first being a requirement for it,(a fault in

the `identify' process) then this too would result in an activity

that would definitely fit the description of cancer.

Since there are two distinct ways in which a cell can be

reproduced, we should be considering both of these scenarios as

possible explanations that might be the cause when something goes

wrong. Thus far, only the DNA model has been investigated as being

the cause of this affliction.

This article will now examine scar tissue as a possible cause of

this non-requested cell replacement that we commonly refer to

as `cancer'.

The immune system has in its arsenal, the ability to inflame an

area with increased blood flow, as it stimulate the neighboring

cells into rapidly reproducing themselves. It is known that this

process is set in motion when the body experiences some form of

trauma. When we can readily observe scar tissue, as in the case of

skin surface scars, we can immediately detect that this is an

altered form from that of the surrounding tissue. Because it was

manufactured rapidly, and by a different process than that of normal

tissue replacement (normal cell division, as outlined in that

cell's DNA), it has different characteristics. For example, scar

tissue made from skin cells has a distinct appearance with a

smoother surface, firmer density, (described as a waxy appearance)

and a different pigment from that of the surrounding tissue. Notice

that there are similarities between cancerous activity; and the

inflammation and formation of scare tissue.

The easiest cancers to observe this phenomenon are the surface

cancers. Basil Cell Carcinoma has all of the characteristics of scar

tissue, and the same words are used in its definition (smother,

denser, waxy.). This common skin cancer could conversely be

described as a slow formation of scar tissue that is both

unnecessary, and unyielding. This cancer is not considered to be a

dangerous cancer because it is slow growing and easily removed

surgically. With this new approach to understanding cancer, we could

regard this cancer to be different in that; although it

has the cell division element,( cells being divided by either of the

two methods; a faulty DNA, or a faulty immune system) it does not

have the accompanying blood supply (inflammation) which

is necessary to support the existence of these newly formed cells.

Note that the shape of the basil cell carcinoma would indicate that

it can only grow to a size that can be supported by the existing

blood supply, and as it grows, the center cells cannot receive

oxygen or nutrients, and as a result, these center cells die off,

leaving a hollow in the middle. If this tumor were to have its own

blood supply, it would become considerably more dangerous.

Both the `DNA theory', and this `Scar Tissue theory' are able

to adequately account for the cancer cells having shared

characteristics from the `host' cells, however the latter theory

becomes much more complex by virtue of the fact that it must also

account for the modification of the existing blood supply.

The `Scare Tissue theory', is not required to account for the

accompanying increased blood supply, because the same elements that

brought about the reproduction of the cells, also caused the

accompanying blood supply (inflammation). Both of these events are

normal functions of the immune system responding to a trauma. The

DNA theory, must further account for the presence of the

accompanying blood flow to support the life of these newly generated

cells. With over six billion cells in the human body, it is

conceivable to hypothesize how the DNA of some of these individual

cell might go astray, and start to reproduce themselves repeatedly.

But this event would be limited to grow only to the size that

could be supported by the existing blood supply. It should yield

a `pea' sized growth. If this chain of events were to occur, the

first step would be the cell replicating itself. It is reasonable to

expect that there would be a number of occurrences in which this

chain of events started, but did not complete itself. That is to

say, there should be occurrences in which the cell did reproduce

itself, but the accompanying blood supply did not transpire. The

scientific community acknowledges the need to address the blood

supply issue, and with great difficulty they have postulated a

complex chain of events that is both mathematically and logically

absurd. We are told that these cancer cells take on an `immortal'

status, and acquire the ability to `disguise' themselves,

and `recruit allies' in there defense, and a multitude of other

special powers that are attributed only to cancer cells. When you

examine this supernatural chain of events, and the obstacles that

the cancer must overcome, and the safeguards that are in place to

prevent these occurrences from happening the way they are described,

you would wonder about the mathematical likelihood of this occurring

even once. It requires much less credence to simply hold that the

immune system is causing the lawless proliferation of growth, (since

it is its job to do so,) and the immune system is also supplying the

essential blood supply to support this new growth, by way

of `inflammation'(again, since it is its job to do so.). If we make

this simple adjustment in our model for explaining cancer, (by

taking the blame away from the individual

cell's DNA, and placing the blame on the immune system as a whole,

or more specifically, the

repair aspect of our immune system,) then we simplify things

immensely. This phenomena then

becomes a candidate to apply `Ockham's razor'. Why employ a complex

set of beliefs when a

simple explanation already exists? Unexplainable events become, for

the first time explainable.

We now will not have to address why the immune system makes no

attempts at attacking the

cancer cells. If the cancer were to be shown to be a legitimate

product of a defective immune

system, we would not expect these cells to be attacked. It should be

included here that the only

occasion in which our immune system permits any non-legitimate cells

to coexist in its domain,

is when the foreign cells are from an identical twin.

The belief that cancer cells somehow become unrecognizable by

the immune system is a

necessary stratagem of the present DNA theory. But there are no

occurrences of this

`unrecognizable' phenomena in nature. To give credence to the

concept that some cells are

unrecognizable to the immune system, we could phrase this phenomena

to read; " cells from an

identical twin are unrecognizable to the immune system. " We would

then have at least one

natural occurrence of this `unrecognizable' phenomenon. But this

begs the question, Why? The

answer I believe is intuitive. These cells go unrecognized because

they have the same

characteristics as the bodies own cells, and therefor the immune

system lacks the ability to

distinguish these foreign cells from the body's own cells. Therefore

it could be concluded that

since cancer cells are also treated in a like manor to cells that

are not recognized as being

different, then they too are deemed to be not foreign. To say that

they are not foreign, is

equivalent to saying that they are domestic, or rather, a legitimate

part of the body. If there were

other occurrences in which living cells were granted the same

privileges as the cancer cells, then

this conclusion would not be as incontestable. Since there are no

other occurrences (outside of an

identical twin) in which this phenomena can be observed to occur,

then I feel that this conclusion

is warranted, namely that cancer cells are a legitimate product of

the body, and their function

(stimulating cell reproduction) asserts that they are a part of our

immune system. If we grant this

point, then we avoid the burden of having to explain why our immune

systems leave the cancer

cells alone. Similarly, we would no longer have to account for how

cancer manages to travel

throughout the body and take up residence in a new location, without

being detected or

encountering resistance along its route. If we accept the cancer

cell as being a legitimate body

cell, all these perplexing problems go away. We would no longer have

to consider how cancer

spreads from one cell to another, or how it overcomes the multitude

of safeguards that the body

has in place to prevent the sporadic mutation of cells, and the

proliferation of this event into

neighboring cells. Cancer becomes much simpler (and mathematically

feasible ) when we adapt

this new framework.

The immune system can make scar tissue by dividing cells from

tissues other then the skin

cells. The immune system repairs broken bones by rapidly stimulating

the regeneration of bone

mass at the break site. Similarly, muscle tissue, tendons, or

cartilage tissue can undergo this

immune systems rapid repair process. Again this scar tissue is

different from the original tissue.

In fact, the body has over 200 different types of cells, so in

theory there could be, and probably

are, over 200 different types of scar tissue.

Under this new theory, we would view cancer cells as an

integral part of the immune system,

similar in nature to the B cells , T cells or natural killer cells,

but with a different function.

Whereas the B cells are involved in the `identify' process, and the

T cells and natural killer cells

are involved in the `destroy' process, the cancer cells function is

in the `repair' aspect of the

immune system, specifically the formation of scar tissues. It copies

the surrounding tissue, and

then making copies of the copies, until the wound is impervious.

With over 200 different types of

cells, there would therefor be a potential for that many different

cancer types. To date, just over

100 cancers have been documented. If we use this new model to

describe Proteus Syndrome (i.e..

ph Merrick known as the Elephant Man) as the immune system

starting to relentlessly

reproduce the bone mass in some individuals, then this too might be

categorized as a cancer. I

believe that the same elements are at work that cause this disease

as are any cancerous tumors.

But because this disease effects the skeletal system , and has no

adverse effect on any vital

organs, or their blood supply, it has never resulted in a direct

cause of death, and therefore has

avoided being labeled as a cancer. Another disease that I believe

has avoided the classification

are some forms of heart disease and strokes. It is reasonable to

expect from what we know about

cancer, that there should be incidents of `heart cancer'. The heart

is a vital organ with access to

an unlimited blood supply, just as the liver, pancreas, lung etc.

yet we never hear, nor have we

needed the term `heart cancer'. Using this new model, I would deduce

that the same element

exist in heart disease, as in cancer. Hardening of the arteries

would be accounted for by the

immune system relentlessly repairing the cells of the artery walls

with the formation of scar

tissue. Scaring can be observed in many heart attack victims.

Postmortem's and biopsies of heart

attack victims have shown that there is both fat and fibrosis (scar

tissue) replacing the muscle

cells in the heart. Often a patient can be identified as having

suffered a heart attack by observing

scaring of the heart tissue, even if the patient is not aware that

he or she has had a heart attack. A

long drawn out fight with the disease is unlikely because any

blockage or restrictions caused by

the scar tissue will have immediate and severe consequences. It is

of interest to note that

myocardial infarction (heart attacks) were rare at the start of the

twentieth century; as was cancer.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, heart attacks caused less

then three thousand deaths in

the United States as late as the year 1930. Your lifetime risk of

developing heart disease now is

one in two if you are male and one in three if you are female. It

would therefor be logical to

entertain the possibility that whatever is causing our cancer

statistics to skyrocket, might also be

contributing to, or causing these escalating heart disease

statistics. If we adapt this new `scar

tissue theory `, then both of these anomalies become grouped

together, and could perhaps be

construed as one disease.

One could point out that cancer activity can be clinically

observed. If it were in fact, a normal

body function, then how come it shows up on tests designed to

indicate cancerous activity? In

most cases, the cancer tests show thermal heat being generated.

This " heat " being generated, is

then interpreted as the immune system battling with the foreign

carcinogen that is believed to be

causing the cancer.( As to why this `battle' did not take place

previously while the carcinogen

journeyed to the present post, is dismissed as a `mystery'.)

However; it could be viewed that this

`heat' is not from a fight, but rather, a bi-product of the

unauthorized work that is taking place

by this arm of the immune system; namely the cancer cells

stimulating the rapid cell division and

inflaming the area with increased blood flow (the lifeblood of these

new cells that are being

created.). If there were no activity, the area would operate at body

temperature, and register as

cold (not register). It is never observed that a foreign antigen is

present. Every cell that can be

observed in the cancerous area is legitimate. Yet the present

explanation for cancer is that some

foreign type of antigen has journeyed to this location and is

causing the DNA of these cells to

lawlessly divide. But neither of these phenomena (the antigen or the

cancer cells themselves) has

ever been observed as it flows through the body. The cancer activity

can only be observed when

it takes up residency and starts to inflame and stimulate the cell

division in a new area. Under the

DNA model, if this `heat' was in fact the immune system objecting to

the presence of a foreign

carcinogen, then we could expect to be able to follow this reaction

(between the carcinogen and

the immune system objecting to its presence) along its route, and

not just when it materializes at

a new site. Why would the immune system wait until this carcinogen

stopped at a location in the

body, before it begins to object to the carcinogen's presence? The

inability to explain why cancer

can travel undetected, is a major defect in the present DNA model.

It is not reasonable to accept

that the carcinogen too, is given the same superpowers and abilities

that are awarded to the

cancer cells themselves, in order to avoid detection. The DNA model

does not address this

anomaly. In fact, when you probe more deeply, one must question the

need for a `cancer cell' at

all in the DNA model. If the foreign carcinogen is causing the

proliferation of the cell's DNA to

suddenly mutate itself over and over, then what is the role for the

cancer cell? This tumor growth

has already been accounted for. The existence of the cancer cells is

acknowledged, only because

they can be observed. As to why the cancer cells are there, the

present DNA model has

recognized that they have always been there, and they are in all of

us. Under the DNA model, the

reason for the cancer cell is not fully explained. They are

attributed with the task of spreading

this DNA flaw to the surrounding tissue cells. This appears to be

merely an acknowledgment

that the cancer cell exists, and then assigning it with a function.

Is there a difference between the

cancer cell, whose presence and existence has not fully been

accounted for, and the repair aspect

of the immune system, whose presence and existence can fully been

accounted for? The immune

system is a legitimate part of the body with a specific function.

The cancer cell is reluctantly also

acknowledged as legitimate (because to account for how it

spontaneously came into being

without being able to say that it always was there, is too

incomprehensible), and then also

reluctantly assigned a function. The cancer cell is deemed to be

fulfilling the same function as the

repair aspect of the immune system. If there is no distinction, then

there is no need for both

terms. We could therefor use the term `cancer' to represent

something going wrong with the

`repair aspect of our immune system. (Specifically, when the system

fails to first ascertain that a

repair is required, or when the system fails to ascertain that a

repair has been completed and

therefor no longer required.) When the immune system starts to

relentlessly divide the

surrounding tissues, without this event first being deemed to be

necessary, then this would

become a phenomenon that would be labeled as cancer. If it repairs a

wound, and doesn't stop,

then this too is cancer. This phenomenon can be observed in thyroid

cancer patients. Often the

thyroid is completely removed, yet the patient has recurrences of

tumor growth at the site

previously occupied by the thyroid. The most plausible explanation

for this is that, after the faulty

immune system has healed over the surgical cut made to remove the

thyroid, it simply does not

stop repairing the tissues at this site and as a result, there is

the formation of a new tumor made

solely of fibrosis tissues (since the thyroid tissue had previously

been removed). These tumors

cannot be detected by the iodine method which was used to detect the

original thyroid cancer,

because the fibrous tissue has different properties then the thyroid

tissue, and does not absorb the

iodine. The failure of the radioactive iodine to detect this new

growth is further proof that this is

not a reoccurrence of the original thyroid cancer. Using the DNA

theory, it would be expected

that the thyroid tumor should have the same characteristics as the

host cells. That is to say, the

cancer tissue at this site should still absorb iodine. This is a

continuation of the faulty immune

system which has not been addressed by surgically removing the

thyroid. Note that it was earlier

pointed out that the present DNA model holds that an antigen causes

the lawless proliferation of

cells. Under the present DNA model, I can appreciate that the

objective for removing the tumor,

was to rid the body of the offending cancer cells as well (and any

carcinogens that might be at the

site). This objective can only be achieved so long as the premise

holds true that the cancer cells

that are causing the tumor are contained within the boundaries of

the tumor. If these faulty tissues

contain the cancer cells that made them, then by removing these

tissues, should render the patient

cured, and with the same bill of health as someone whom had never

acquired the disease.

Unfortunately the evidence does not support this, and gives rise to

questioning the original

premise; which holds that the cancer is contained within the cells

of the tumor itself.

When medical professionals discovers an active tumor being produced,

they may opt to

surgically remove the tumor and the offending cancer cells that made

it (excision biopsy). As this

radical surgery has not yielded the desired success rates, the

medical profession has expanded the

scope of the surgery to include the surrounding tissues (margin),

believing that this tissue might

contain some stray cancer cells. They test this removed tissue and

may confirm that it too was

cancerous. They then close up the wound and hope that they have

managed to remove all of the

cancerous tissue. Now they must wait until the immune system has

had time to heal up the

surgical wound before testing the area, because the activity of the

inflammatory nature of the

healing process will read as `hot'. We then have the defective

immune system, which may turn

out to have caused the tumor to begin with, being invited back to

the site, and being expected to

heal up this surgical cut. Healing is what the immune system does.

Therefore, this is an exercise

for it. Often, the immune system heals over the surgery and then

stops. The surgery was a

success. Sometimes, however; the immune system doesn't stop. The

immune system continues to

produce scar tissue, and rapidly divide the adjoining tissues

without receiving the message that

the task has been completed. The poor surgeon is mystified that he

or she could have missed

some of the cancer cells, and now they appear to have merely taken

up where they left off. This

patient, now rid of the offending tissues, should mathematically be

given the same bill of health

as a non patient. But the statistics do not support this optimistic

outlook. Quite often, the cancer

patients who undergo surgery, have recurrences at the original site.

If the cancer recurs at another

location, then the surgery would be statistically labeled as a

success, but even with this clemency

being granted, the statistics for the surgery are not to favorable.

The apparent failure of the

surgery has given birth to the suspicions that exposing the

cancerous tissue to the air, helps it to

spread. Or exposing the cancer to the light of the Operating Room,

perhaps, is what causes it to

flourish. Exposing the cancer to the light and air is a byproduct of

the fact that these cells have

been operated on, and as a result, the immune system is re-invited

back to the region to repair the

surgical wound. The suppositions that the light or air has anything

to do with any reoccurrence

can be dismissed because surgeries that are performed on patients

who have not been diagnosed

with cancer, are not subject to similar reoccurrence of tumors,

despite also being subjected to the

light and air.

Even the supporters of the DNA model, acknowledge that cancer cells

are in all of us, because

the `spontaneous existence of matter' is a hard sell. If we were to

attribute this reaction to the

light and/or air as yet another mystical feature enjoyed only by

cancer cells, we would still need

to account for why every surgery was not subject to the same level

of reoccurrence. The non

cancerous patient has a properly functioning immune system which

still has the ability of

knowing when to stop the healing process. In the cases of cancer

patients, since the immune

system may have already shown to be defective, it should not be

surprising to find out that

sometimes it does turn out to relentlessly continue the healing

process and in so doing, inflict the

area with a new cluster of cancerous activity, despite how diligent

and careful the surgeon had

performed.

Biopsies are tests that examine the cell structure at a tumor

site. From the removed cells the

medical professional can determine whether this tissue is currently

undergoing non requested cell

division, or whether it had previously undergone cell division.

Cold-Hot ; Inactive-active;

benign-malignant. These are the differences between non life-

threatening benign tumors, and

life-threatening malignant tumors, specifically one is active

(cancerous) and one is benign (scar

tissue). The benign scar tissue has already been manufactured by the

immune system, and is now

dormant. Scarring can be observed on the lungs, heart, liver or

anywhere that cancer can be

observed. Everyone freely accepts that the inactive scar tissue was

previously manufactured by

the immune system. It should therefore be easy to accept that

cancer, or active scar tissue, or

perhaps `runaway scar tissue', is currently being manufactured by

the immune system, though be

it a defective one. The immune system accepts this benign tumor (or

malignant tumor, if it is

currently undergoing development) as part of the `self', because it

possesses all the

characteristics of the legitimate body cells. This point could also

be used to explain why the

bodies own immune system is useless against fighting cancer, which

in turn makes sense of the

fact that all attempts to employ the immune system into attacking

the cancer cells have thus far

failed. The cancer cells that created the tumor, and then stopped,

have either been reclaimed by

the immune system, and may function normally in the future, or they

may resume there non-

requested work in the future, or perhaps travel to another part of

the body and start to stimulate

cell division at a new location.

When the immune system is healthy and functioning properly,

these cancer cells are kept at

bay and in harmonious balance with the rest of the system (identify

and destroy), so most of us

live out our lives oblivious to their presence. It is only when

something goes astray that we come

to know of their existence. Thus, cancer cells have the connotation

of being `bad'.

This model does not yet attempt to account for the various forms

of cancer that a defective

immune system may opt to take. Why does the defective immune system

start to randomly

multiply the tissues of the breast in some individuals, and the lung

tissue in others? In order for

us to address this anomaly, we need to recognize that there are

different types of tissues in the

body, and the observable data supports that some of these tissue

types are easier then others for a

defective immune system to stimulate into unnecessary formation of

scar tissue. The evidence

tends to support that there is a hierarchy amongst tissue types. The

evidence also tends to support

that the cancer activity takes place where the immune system happens

to be located.

The immune system is free to be located throughout the body.

However, due to its function it

tends to be in higher concentrations on the surface and near body

orifices in adults. The immune

system is designed to protect the body from foreign antigens

(carcinogens). A carcinogen can

enter the body in one of two possible ways, either through the skin,

or through an opening in the

skin. The skin is the body's largest organ, and the immune system

must be located throughout

this organ to defend the body from carcinogens that try to enter by

way of this route. In many

cultures, skin cancer is the #1 form of cancer. If a carcinogen is

to enter the body, and cannot do

so by way of the skin, it must then do so by way of one of the

bodies orifices. When you consider

that the lungs are subjected to the outside world with every breath

that we take, it would be

understandable that this organ, too would require an intense

presence of the immune system's

arsenal of defenses. The lung takes its rightful place in the #2

position of likely locations for

cancerous activity. We then move down the list of the various body

orifices, all of which require

defending by the immune system. Another tissue type that has shown

to be amongst the easier

tissues to mutate is the mucus membrane tissue. These tissues are

located through out the body,

but this tissue is not located arbitrarily throughout the body.

Notice that polyps that grow out of

the mucus membrane tissue, only grow on this specialized tissues

that are always located

adjacent to a body orifice. All of the body orifices have adjacent

mucus membrane tissues which

house the immune systems defense mechanism (`T' cells, `B' cells,

natural Killer cells etc.). The

existence of polyps is often observed at these sites (adjacent to

body orifices, we find Colon

polyps, Esophageal polyps, Endometrial polyps, nasal etc.). I am not

clear as to weather these

polyps are normal immune system tools, or a sign of something going

amiss. Different cultures

have different rankings as to the various cancer types associated

with the various orifices,

however there is a noticeable correlation between cancer and the

positioning of the immune

systems defense mechanisms. The female breast is not an orifice to

the outside world until the

woman reaches puberty. Thus this portal does not require an immune

system defense until this

time. This is precisely why pre-pubescent breast cancer is as scarce

as male breast cancer. Once

the woman reaches adulthood, however, this new orifice requires the

presence of the immune

systems defense mechanism as much as the other orifices. It is worth

mentioning that oral

contraceptives have been linked to breast cancer. Oral

contraceptives are a method of birth

control that works by chemically `tricking' the body into not

ovulating by supplying hormones

that cause the body to behave as though it were already pregnant.

When the body behaves as

though it is pregnant, it makes a number of changes, one of which is

to prepare the breast for

nursing. This then becomes an orifice that requires a defense

strategy from the immune system,

because it is now a new portal to the outside world. If the immune

system is defective, and takes

up residency at this new location, then by using this model, we can

now understand how the oral

contraceptive could have `caused ` the breast cancer. This

relationship can not be explained using

the DNA model.

The present DNA model does not account for the differences in

childhood cancers and adult

cancers. What is more troubling is the fact that the DNA model can

not, and will never be able to

account for these differences. Our DNA does not change from

childhood to adulthood, but the

list of cancers that can affect us certainly does. This point alone,

causes me to believe that the

answers to this disturbing paradox will ultimately be found outside

of the DNA model. To look

more closely at our immune systems (the only other means by which a

cell can be reproduced)

makes complete sense to me.

The internal organs that do not have a direct association with

a body orifice, have rates of

cancer that are far down the list of likely tissues to come under

attack from cancerous activity.

This is understandable using this new model when you consider that

the immune system would

have a smaller presence at these locations. This phenomena can be

best observed by studying

childhood cancers. We need to also recognize that the immune system

would exist in infants, but

would have to be located deep inside the infant, as any presence of

the immune system that were

located on the surface, would be forced by design to attack the

foreign tissues that surrounded it

in the womb.(recall that the only instance when the immune system

accepts the existence of a

foreign cell, is when it is from an identical twin. Thus even the

surrounding tissues of the womb

would be subject to being rejected. The mothers system produced the

cells of the fetus, so these

would not be identified as foreign.) It could also be that there is

no call for the immune system at

the surface of newborns because the mothers immune system has

previously dealt with any and

all foreign antigens. In either case, it appears that the immune

system is not located on the surface

of an infant, but has a tendency to `migrate' from the center of the

trunk of the body at birth, to

the perimeter (skin and orifices) as the immune system develops.

This helps to explain why there

is a list of over one hundred rare cancers that, for the most part

have only been observed in

children. Infants and toddlers have an immune system that is both

undeveloped, and not yet

assigned specific functions. This undeveloped immune system would

not have a tendency to be

directed towards any specific tissues at the beginning of the

child's life. If a defective immune

system were to exist in this child, and the immune system were not

located on the surface, it

would be expected to arbitrarily start to reproduce any tissue that

it came into contact with. This

would account for the list of over one hundred strange sounding

tissue types that can come under

attack only in childhood cancer cases. As toddlers become older,

this long list becomes shorter,

and the tissue types that can come under attack become more refined.

Eventually the list of over

one hundred is reduced to a shorter list of familiar sounding names,

and as a result the majority

of all childhood cancers fall into one of two categories; leukemia,

or brain tumors. (Note that the

childhood cancers still do not have the orifice association that is

prevalent in adult cancers.)

I will address how leukemia and brain cancer fit into this theory

later.

DNA defects could play a role in some individuals immune systems

being more prone to

defect then others, however if this was a genetic defect, I would

expect it to be self correcting, by

causing the carriers of the defect to parish prior to being of age

to reproduce themselves. Since

cancer appears to be more of a modern epidemic, I tend to lean

towards the belief that it is

something that we are doing to ourselves in modern times that is

causing it (specifically, this

modern tendency to `assist' our immune systems.).

We now need to modify this new model to include a provision that

points out that cancer

appears to be an `opportunistic disease'(2*). That is to say, the

immune system will `pick- on' or

stimulate the tissue that it finds to be the easiest tissue to do so

with. This revision allows us to

move on to understand many of the other anomalies surrounding this

disease. We can now look

at the various links (environmental links; lifestyle links; heredity

links; etc.) as carcinogens that

either promote a tissue type towards being the easiest tissue from

which the defective immune

system can operate on, or the link may demote a certain tissue away

from being the likely

candidate from which the defective immune system can operate.

Tobacco smoke, or asbestos

dust have been linked to cancer of the mouth, esophagus and lung.

Using this new model we can

view these tissues as having been chemically weakened by these

carcinogens, and now represent

the easiest forms of tissue that this individual is in possession

of. If this individual also possesses

the requisite faulty immune system, then this person will get

cancer, and it will be cancer of one

or more of these weakened tissues. Conversely, a high fiber diet has

been linked to a decrease in

the number of colon, prostate and bowel cancer patients. Using this

new model we can view the

high fiber diet as having physically strengthened the tissues in

this region away from being the

easiest tissue from which the defective immune system can operate.

This hierarchy of tissue types tends to show that our melanin cells

appears to be one of the easiest

cells from which a defective immune system can wreck havoc. One of

the best ways to

demonstrate this principle, is to look closely at malignant melanoma

(3*)

One of the most bizarre anomalies in my opinion, is in regards to

melanoma. Melanoma has been

linked to sun damage, and yet it is less prevalent in the tropical

regions of the globe. Dark

skinned races seldom acquire this or any form of skin cancer, and

yet skin cancers are the most

prevalent form of cancer. In the rare cases in which a dark skinned

person does acquire

melanoma, it will be under the fingernails, on the palms of the

hand, sole of the feet, or inside the

mouth. These areas are surface tissues that do not posses the darker

pigment, and due to their

location, these cases of cancer could not be caused from sun damage.

Those regions closest to the

equator, have people whose skin has evolved or adapted to the more

intense sunlight. Their

darker skin is a consequence of the human melanin cells having

adapted to convert the sunlight's

harmful ultraviolet waves, into harmless heat waves. Thus, the

people who reside in the tropical

regions of the globe, have skin that has already adapted to a

harmful attack (ultraviolet waves)

and therefore, using this new model, we can view these cells as no

longer being the easiest cells

for

the opportunistic cancer to `pick on'. People in the tropical

regions who do posses defective

immune systems will find that they have cells other then their

melanin, which are easier for their

immune system to stimulate. Or if the cancer does choose to divide

the melanin cells, it will be

the tissues that do not poses this modification(palms of hand, sole

of foot, etc.).

Using this model we would predict that similar cultures would

produce similar cancer statistics.

This fact has eluded no one. We have always been aware that people

who share the same culture,

same lifestyle, same access to health services and facilities, same

documentation methods etc.

would have the same life expectancy, and the same mortality rates

for diseases. If however, one

group of a society were to be immune to one form of cancer, then we

would expect,

mathematically, that the numbers would have to be made up for, in

other forms of cancer. We see

a prim example of this theoretical prediction by examining cancer in

African Americans. They

share the same culture as the North American Caucasians, and yet

they could be considered to be

`genetically immune' from acquiring skin cancer. Thus we see African

Americans with

alarmingly higher rates of lung cancer, for instance. The slight

deviation in smoking habits can

not account for the vast deviation in cancer statistics. It has been

acknowledged that African

Americans suffer disproportionately from chronic and preventable

disease compared to the White

Americans. Similar anomalies have been observed in American Indians,

Hispanics, and

Asian/Pacific Island minorities. It has been acknowledged

statistically that these groups all

smoke less cigarettes per day then there White counterparts, yet

these groups all have alarmingly

higher incidents of lung disease, and lung cancer. No justifiable

explanation is offered by the

present DNA model for this anomaly. The explanation that perceptively

follows from this new model, makes far more sense to me. Prior to

this new model, we were at a

loss as to how to account for the vast discrepancies in these

numbers. I would expect that this

phenomena could be observed by viewing statistics between

Australians, and Aborigines as well.

Consider the plight of the Australians. Here we have a culture of

displaced Europeans who were

originally placed there as a penal colony. They do not posses the

required genetically modified

skin to live in this more tropical environment. Thus we now see, as

this modern trend of

possessing weaker immune systems takes effect, the skin of the

Australian Caucasians is coming

more and more under heavy attack. This trend can also be observed by

studying the cancers of

Northern Europe and comparing these to countries closer to the

equator in Southern Europe. This

explanation accounts for countries nearer to the equator, although

their incidence of melanoma is

lower, do have a higher incidence of other types of cancer. Liver

cancer for instance, is six times

more prevalent in Southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, and Italy) than

it is in Northern Europe

(Denmark, Finland and Norway). This principle can be applied across

the board in explaining

why some types of cancer are more rare then others. The rarer forms

of cancer have a cell

structure that is more difficult for the immune system to stimulate

into scar tissue.

This same principal (cancer cells `picking on' the easiest

target ) can be used to explain

childhood cancer, and help to explain why the list for adult cancers

and child cancers is so

different. I will now attempt to explain how childhood leukemia and

brain cancer fit into this

new model.

During the initial development of the body, all organs, muscles

and bones undergo a growth

period which lasts until adulthood. All tissues in the body undergo

development during this time.

An infant boy starts out at 6 pounds, and 18 years later he weighs

180 pounds. Thus each pound

of mass must multiply itself approximately 30 times. Because of this

ongoing development, these

tissues are constantly being fabricated and revised. The observed

phenomena indicate that these

cells are less susceptible to being stimulated by a faulty immune

system, undoubtedly as a result

of this elevated activity. That is to say, the defective immune

system will not assess these cells as

requiring accelerated cell division, because these cells are

currently undergoing accelerated cell

division, which is a natural part of development of the body during

adolescence.(A wound that

would result in a scare formation on an adult is less likely to form

scare tissue when a similar

wound is received by a child, due to this phenomenon.) The white

blood cells, on the other hand,

have previously been manufactured in the bone marrow, and now have

left this `factory' of

origin. This circulatory system is best described by using an

analogy of a manufacturer with a

recycling and maintenance department. Our body continues to

manufacture blood throughout our

lifetime in this continuous `loop' system. Newly repaired or

manufactured blood cells leave the

factory (bone marrow) and will not be seen by the maintenance

department again, until they

reenter the kidney and liver at the other end of the loop. These

individual white blood cells begin

there journey through the body in the state of decline (no longer

being maintained). They have a

short life span of between several days, up to two weeks. Since all

the other cells in this

adolescent are undergoing intense development, these are the cells

that become the easiest

targets for a defective immune system to divide. Thus leukemia,

becomes the most common form

of childhood cancers. Once the body is fully grown, the organ

tissues no longer have this inherent

advantage of the ongoing development, and so these organs become

susceptible to cancerous

activity to the same extent as the rest of the adult population. The

observed phenomena supports

the hypotheses that developing tissues are less prone to cancerous

activity then the matured

tissues are.

In the developing years, the human brain undergoes the least amount

of mass variance. The brain

starts out between 350 and 400 grams and grows to a weight of

between 1300 and 1400 grams.

Thus, the brain undergoes a mass increase of 3.6 times its original

(in contrast to 30 times, for all

other tissues). This fact means that the development of the brain

tissue is considerably slower, or

less intense then the development of the rest of the body tissues.

This helps us to understand why

childhood brain tumors are the principal form of cancer of a solid

mass. Brain tissue is the `low

man on the totem-pole' as far as cell activity is concerned. Thus,

it becomes the easiest tissue for

the defective immune system to `pick on'. The combination of

leukemia, and brain tumors,

represent the vast majority of all childhood cancers.

If it does turn out to be a defective immune system that is

causing cancer, and not some

environmental agent, as is the present focus, then it should be

possible to show a concrete

`cause-effect' relationship between cancer and a defective immune

system. A concrete

relationship has thus far proven to be impossible using the present

model for cancer. Under the

new model, it would be predicted that a concrete relationship could

not be found using the

present DNA model, because it is missing half of the equation. They

will only be able to compile

lists of suspected cancer causing substances and activities. To

defend the tobacco industry, a

lawyer needs merely to produce one or more `healthy' individual, all

of whom have smoked for a

long period of time, in order to show that there is not a concrete

relationship between their

product and cancer. It will always be possible to find a healthy

smoker, or a healthy asbestos

miner. If however, this healthy individual were to have their immune

system become weak (the

other half of the equation), the resulting maverick cancer cells are

most apt to attack the

weakened lung tissues of this individual (thus showing further

support to an identified link to

cancer). Therefore, tobacco becomes an environmental `link' that has

been shown to cause

cancer in some individuals. Smoking cigarettes does not guarantee

that you will get lung cancer.

Sun-tanning does not guarantee that you will get skin cancer. But as

was stated earlier, while the

list of `links' to cancer becomes longer, there is no real progress

being made.

Immunosuppressant medications are the exception to this, and this

fact lends itself beautifully to

add support to the theory that the immune system contains the cancer

cells, and is responsible for

cancerous activity. These medications were developed to

intentionally decrease the effect of the

immune system in organ transplant patents, so that the bodies

defense mechanism would not

attack (reject) the foreign tissue. If the patient survives the

transplant operation, and overcomes

the rejection, they will live longer lives then they would have, had

they not had the transplant

operation. However, the transplant patient will ultimately succumb

to a bout with cancer. This

phenomenon has scientists struggling for an explanation:

" Scientists believe transplant recipients were already at risk for

cancer because their weakened

immune system could not keep healthy cells from becoming malignant " .

" The use of immunosuppressants(cyclosporine) increases the chance

cancer cells will divide and

invade surrounding tissue. However it is not clear if cyclosporine

can change normal cells into

cancer cells researchers say "

web search for `organ transplants'

Organ Transplant Drug Increases Cancer Risk

Friday, Feb.12, 1999

Here we have a conclusive `link' between cancer cells, and

immunosuppressants (tampering

with, or weakening the immune system). Thus we find that a

deliberately weakened immune

system will doubtlessly, cause the patient to succumb to cancer.(4*)

It would be anticipated that

this fact is what scientists have been yearning for.

This phenomenon begs the question; If a weakened immune system has

been shown to causes

cancer, would it not therefor follow that a strengthened immune

system, should overcome, or at

least prevent cancer? This incident clearly establishes that there

is a cause-effect relationship

between cancer and a weakened immune system, and by using this new

model for explaining

cancer, we would predict that by creating a defective immune system,

we can expect that some

form of cancer will result. All the other `links' and `markers'

merely help to ascertain which of

the numerous types of cancer the patient is likely going to acquire.

That is to say, the numerous

lifestyle links, environmental links, and dietary links all have a

tendency to either promote, or

demote, any given tissue in the body, towards, or away from

cancerous activity. I believe that

these patients were pre-determined to obtain cancer merely by having

an immune system that had

lost control over their cancer cells. Regrettably, it then became

only a question of which type of

cancer they would ultimately acquire. If colon cancer can be averted

by implementing a high

fiber diet, then I believe that this is merely a pyretic victory.

The patient who avoids colon cancer

by eating a high fiber diet, will unfortunately succumb to some

other type of cancer, if they

already posses the requisite weakened immune system, and do nothing

to change this. Again, the

evidence tends to support this belief, which has led to the dilemma

whereby doctors manage to

overcome one type of cancer, only to have the patient succumb to

another type. Often this

phenomenon has been dismissed similar to a child who acquires wills'

tumors. That is to say, the

patient was merely allowed to live longer, and thus was permitted

the time necessary to acquire

some other type of cancer (blind optimism on the defense). I believe

that the real problem is that

the doctors and scientists are devoting their efforts in treating

the attacked tissues, while ignoring

what is attacking them, namely the immune system itself. It is of

interest to note here that the two

treatments which have thus far shown to be the most promising in the

fight against cancer have

been chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Aside from being the most

successful treatments,

these two strategies have one other thing in common, and one thing

that differentiates them from

all the other cancer treatments. The one thing they have in common

is that neither treatment

makes any attempt at employing the immune system to help with the

attack on the cancer cells.

These treatments attack the cancer cells themselves, directly. This

is also the one thing that

differentiates these (most successful) treatments from all the

others. All other treatments attempt

to trigger the immune system into attacking the cancer. They all try

to stimulate; enhance,

activate, invigorate, boost, assist, etc., the immune system. But if

the cancer cells are a part of the

immune system, it becomes easy to see why all these attempts have so

far failed, and why the

attempts that do not involve the immune system have shown to be the

most promising. I believe

we will not discover a cure for cancer, so long as our efforts are

focused on employing the

immune system to attack itself. The immune system is designed to

recognize and not attack itself.

Perhaps this explains why there are presently only treatments for

cancer, and not yet any cures.

It is conceivable to think that the many labor saving

devices that we enjoy today, have lead

to our muscular system being weaker then those of our ancestors. The

remote control for a

television set, saves the operator the task of having to get up to

change the channel. The price

that is paid, is less exercise, and therefore a weaker muscular

system then if the person did not

have this labor saving devise. Any `labor saving devise', by

definition, saves labor, and thus

evades the exercise that otherwise would have occurred. In a similar

manner, we could consider

pharmaceutical medications as `labor saving devices' for our immune

system, which have lead to

our immune system being weaker then those of our ancestors. I

believe that it is this failure or

refusal to fully develop our immune systems, which has led to this

modern epidemic of cancer

patients. Our modern Western Society has led us to believe that we

are doing ourselves a favor

by `treating' our bodies to these health enhancing concoctions.

One could point out that modern science has permitted us to

experience a longer life span then

that of our ancestors. Even with this modern epidemic of cancer, we

are living longer lives then

before the industrial revolution. Inarguably this is a fact. I

believe however that the pendulum has

swung too far. I hold that cancer is an unnecessary byproduct of our

modern lifestyle, which is

now attempting to bypass nature in this endeavor to provide for our

health through the use of the

vast array of pharmaceuticals. This phenomenon brings to mind a

quote from Dryden, " God

never made His work for man to mend. "

The consequence of this action, is a weaker immune system, which I

believe can lead to the

development of cancer (which I define as a defect in the `repair'

aspect of our immune system).

Further, this helps to explain why cancer is less prevalent in

undeveloped countries, and more

prevalent in developed countries. Third World countries do not have

access to anywhere near the

amount of immune enhancing medications that are available to Western

Societies. As a result,

they don't have near the incidents of cancer either.

Some studies show Thailand as having the lowest incidences of

cancer. Bangkok, the capital

of Thailand, and one of the largest cities in the world, has a

population density of 3,292 people

per square kilometer. This is a city that grew around a river and

canal system which provides for

its transportation needs, its waist removal needs, as well as its

bathing and drinking needs. Those

famous/infamous photographs of traffic police wearing respirators,

were taken in Bangkok. Thus

these people would possess an immune system that is accustomed to a

good workout, having to

fight off a higher frequency of circulating antigens in their

culture. A strong immune system

would be mandatory to endure in this environment. These global maps

of cancer clusters show

that you are forty times more likely to acquire cancer from being

raised in Denmark, then you are

if you're from Thailand.

Cancer is not limited to the human species. Farm animals and

pets also have been diagnosed

with cancer. But observe however, that the animals that are

diagnosed with cancer, all tend to be

animals that routinely receive treatments from veterinarians, or

care giving owners, who attempt

to improve the animals health with enriched or fortified feed,

medicines and booster shots

designed to assist the immune system. Animals such as raccoons,

bats, foxes and skunks have all

been diagnosed with rabies, but it is extremely rare to learn of

these animals, which are outside of

the domestic category (wild animals, who receive no treatment of any

kind) being diagnosed with

cancer. On the other hand, horses, cats, and dogs, have nearly the

same rates of cancer as humans

have. (There

will always be exceptions. Just as an animal can be born with a

defective heart, or defective liver,

it is conceivable that there might also be cases in which an animal

could be born with a defective

immune system.)

What can we do about this dilemma?

Nature provides us with many examples which illustrate that it

operates on a " Use it or Loose

it " philosophy. If you are presently able to lift heavy objects, and

stop lifting anything heavy for a

long period of time, your ability to lift those objects will become

lost. If you can run a mile in

five minutes, and stop running, your ability to run at that pace

will eventually be gone. The body

will stop, or slow down the production of hormones such as natural

steroids, melatonin, estrogen,

etc. if they were being produced for it. Science has shown that even

the mind is subject to this

`use it or loose it' rule.

It stands to reason then that the immune system is also subject

to this rule. Each time you assist

your body in fighting off a disease or virus, you retard its natural

ability to do the job on its own.

As with everything else in the body, the immune system is subject to

atrophy. If you don't use it,

it won't be there for you when you really need it.

How is someone to prepare there immune system to handle a fight with

cancer? (Or as I am

suggesting, not to `fight' but rather, to reclaim control of these

cells?) Through exercise. Exercise

your immune system just as you would any other system; in increasing

increments. If the ability

to lift heavy objects, or the ability to run a five

minute mile can be re-acquired through exercise in increasing

increments, and the immune

system is subject to the same rules as the muscular system, or

cardiovascular system, than it is

reasonable to assume that the immune system could be put on an

exercise agenda that would

allow it to re-acquire the necessary strength, so as to redeem its

domain over these cancer cells.

Consider the treatment of chemotherapy, which is described as a

process of almost killing the

body with poison. This protocol tends to make the entire body ill,

thereby inadvertently

exercising the immune system. When the body rebounds, it rebounds

stronger than before,

similar to a body that had been in an exercise workout. This new

strength allows the immune

system to reclaim the body for a period of time, (called a

remission) but if the patient continues

the lifestyle that allowed the cancer cells to take over in the

first place; i.e. weakening their

immune system with modern methods of immune supplements and

pharmaceuticals, (trying to do

the immune systems job, for it) then one would expect the statuesque

to return. This perhaps

helps to explain why chemotherapy; although it is not a cure, does

tend to prolong a patients life.

Most of the scientific studies and protocols that presently offer

treatment to cancer patients tend

to focus on the immune system. These studies have two things in

common: 1) they are

unsuccessful at curing cancer, and 2) they all try to stimulate;

enhance; activate; invigorate;

boost; assist etc., the immune system.

It would seem foreign, or perhaps even absurd to introduce

infectious contaminants into the

human body. It would seem ludicrous to do this to someone who is

already ill. Yet it could be

that it is this inverse line of thinking that would help to explain

why a successful cure has eluded

so many, for so long. It would be difficult to find a solution to a

problem that lies in the opposite

direction from where everyone is looking. The concept may

sound `ludicrous', but from the

perspective of this new model for cancer, this is still a logical

supposition. If we can produce a

remission from inadvertently exercising the immune system once, with

poison (as in a

chemotherapy session), imagine the results of setting out to

systematically exercise the immune

system repeatedly, without harming the entire body in the process. I

believe that the successful

protocol will not stimulate, but rather, aggravate the immune

system. Instead of trying to

invigorate, we should irritate. Assisting becomes tormenting.

Helping becomes hurting. Hurt

your immune system like you hurt your muscular system during a

vigorous workout. Hurt your

immune system like you would hurt your cardiovascular system running

a marathon. Helping the

immune system, I believe has shown to be counter-productive. If you

are getting the opposite

results to what you desire, than logic dictates that you should do

the opposite to what you are

doing to get that which you do desire. The byproduct of helping the

immune system, is to weaken

it, which allows the cancer cells to go out of control. It should

follow then that the byproduct of `

hurting' the immune system would be to strengthen it, and thus,

allow it to regain control over

these maverick cells. Under this new model, it is conceivable that

the successful treatment would

take the form of `clinically' torturing the body, which is precisely

what chemotherapy is doing,

but on an exhaustive scale. A series of allergy tests would discover

some things that the immune

system reacts to, but avoid the full spectrum attack that is

presently provided by chemotherapy.

Things that irritate the immune system would be a good exercise

tool. I have a suspicion that

these `alternative medicines' that seem to miraculously cure some

individuals, and mystify the

professionals, are by chance exercising that patients immune

system. This individual is simply

allergic to one or more of the ingredients in these concoctions.

This would help to explain why

some cancer fighting cocktails respond miraculously in some

patients, and yet can be utterly

useless or unresponsive in the majority of patients. The patients

who are not allergic to any of the

ingredients, unfortunately, do not get the workout. Similarly, the

evidence supports that

combination strategies have been shown to be more effective then

single treatments. This could

be accounted for using this same logic. Introducing a greater number

of ingredients merely

increases the chances that the cancer patient will be allergic to

one or more of the ingredients. I

suspect that finding out what a patient is allergic to, and then

provoking an immune response

with this antigen, would be a productive approach, if this new model

holds any merit. This line of

thought is consistent with the observable data that shows that few

allergy sufferers ever develop a

cancer. Several studies have raised the possibility that people with

over stimulated immune

systems may have a reduced risk of brain cancer (the most mysterious

cancer in terms of being

able to find any " cause-effect " relationship).

No single medicine has been discovered that works for everyone. If

everyone were allergic to the

same thing, then that substance would no longer be considered as an

allergy. It would be labeled

as a `poison'. Accordingly, a poison could be described as

a `generic substance' that everyone is

allergic too. Chemotherapy could therefore be considered as an

exercise of the immune system

using a universal antigen that everyone is allergic too. The logic

used in employing poison,(as in

chemotherapy) is to slowly harm everything, and hope that the cancer

cells are the first things to

die. Similarly, radiation therapy is a broad spectrum attack on all

living cells, and the hope is that

the cancer cells are the first to die. What I believe is actually

taking place, is an exercise of the

immune system, being forced to repair or reconstruct the body from

all the harm being caused by

this poison or radiation. Because these poisons cannot distinguish

between cancerous and normal

cells, they disrupt or kill normal, healthy cells throughout the

body besides attacking the tumor.

This protocol has been somewhat successful due to the fact that it

inadvertently forces the

immune system into the scenario, and simultaneously creating an

intense workout for it.

But the scale of the attack doesn't need to be of such a broad

spectrum. The attack could be

much more specific. This, perhaps, is why we have allergies in the

first place. Everything in

nature it seams, has a purpose. It is logical to assume that

allergies too have a purpose. Allergies

are an inappropriate (unnecessary) immune response to a substance

that is actually no real harm

to the body. By employing these antigens, it should therefore be

possible to give the immune

system the exercise, without simultaneously giving it the body any

of the accompanying

destruction that is inherent with chemotherapy and radiation.

Unfortunately, this philosophy will

vanish; because there is no way to bottle and brand this approach.

I believe the cure for cancer will be as individual as our own

immune systems are. Not everyone

catches a cold when a cold virus comes around. (although, perhaps

everyone should try to.) There

is no cure for the common cold, and I believe there never will be.

The cold virus is natures way

of running the immune system through a series of exercises, thus

attempting to keep it

functioning in top form. In the fight against cancer, everyone seems

to concede that the answer

lies within the immune system. All efforts are being focused on

finding out what causes the

immune system to kick in and finally go after the cancer cells in

some individuals. My thoughts

are also linked to the immune system, but I hold that we must find

out what it is that wakes up

our own immune system, and causes it to reclaim control over these

maverick cancer cells, which

I believe are an integral part of the immune system. A good place to

start this search would be

finding antigens which cause allergies in a patient. Perform

chemotherapy using this antigen,

which is a poison only to this individual's immune system, and does

no real harm to the body.

The results should be the immune system receiving the exercise,

without the body receiving any

significant adverse effects. The stronger immune system should then

be capable of regaining

control over these cancer cells (as in a remission), and the body

should revert back to near normal

conditions.

(1*) I thought I should start by re-evaluate this original theory of

cancer. After kicking around the

present day theory for 120 plus years, with no significant progress,

I deem that a change in venue

is warranted. But anyone can criticize. I believe that it is

fruitless to attack an idea without

offering an alternative to consider. This is why I am proposing an

alternate hypothesis that I

believe warrants investigation. While others focus on better ways to

treat the attacked tissues,

and earlier ways of detecting this attack, and ways to avoid being

attacked, I am focusing on why

there is an attack in the first place, and where it is coming from.

I include this critique to disclose

why I am not content to wait patiently while the scientific

community figures it all out. I will at

least consider alternatives.

As we are all no doubt aware, there is a sea of information out

there. One might expect the

subject of cancer data to be mathematical, and therefor, very cut-

and-dry. But in reality, it is all

very muddy. People have different agenda for collecting information,

and with a sea of available

statistics, it becomes arbitrary as to which are included and which

are excluded. Most collectors

of data are employed by Pharmaceutical firms and obviously want the

data to appear favorable to

the health care industry. The pessimists and `nay-sayer's' are

outnumbered. Because of the

choices available in the data, you therefore walk into an

unavoidable trap when you choose the

data that you wish to include. The best means to avoid this dilemma

that I could come up with

was to journey back into old encyclopedia sets, where cancer deaths

were documented as a

number per 100,000 people, in districts such as Wales and England,

and they would then

compare this to the United States. In this manner, we can get raw

figures of how many people

actually died of say ` lung cancer' in the year 1949. We can then do

this with older encyclopedia

sets and compare these numbers. It can then be observed that the

numbers virtually stay the same.

We then have the burden of comparing these statistics with modern

statistics. To do this we need

to sum all the numbers that have been factored off, and un-adjust

figures that have been adjusted.

This leads us back into the problem of selective data collecting. A

task that you would expect to

be easy, is actually quite difficult. With so many factors to

consider in collecting data, and so

many ways to present the data, and so many agendas to be considered,

it will always be subject to

ridicule. I wish that I could point to a web site that had just raw

numbers in columns

representing cancer types. The closest site to this would be the

World Health Organization

(www.who.org) mortality tables. But these figures too are subject to

the same criticisms as

others, and the categories of cancer types are still changing. It is

hard to see patterns when there

are so many variables. For this reason, I thought the safest

approach would be to accept the

statistics gathered by the American Cancer Society, whose agenda

would obviously be to have

the data look as favorable as possible, and then examine the means

with which they present this

data. That is why I included their quotation " there has been little

overall increase over the

previous 40 years in either the number of new cases reported or the

number of cancer deaths " .

This is the most favorable way of reporting the progress that they

could come up with, and then

only after factoring off the statistics that were unfavorable,

namely lung cancer, melanoma and

AIDS-related cancers. To paraphrase the American Cancer Society it

could be said that the

overall view of cancer is not getting any worse, so long as we

ignore lung cancer, melanoma and

AIDS-related cancers. If however, we do not go along with factoring

out unfavorable statistics,

then we would be forced into the realization that the overall

statistics are in fact, getting worse. I

have tried to steer clear of the statistical battle that will always

be available for anyone who wants

to argue about statistics. For those who wish to believe that things

are getting better, there will

always be an abundance of statistics available to comfort this

belief. It seems to be human nature

to look on the positive side of things and dismiss the pessimists as

being negative thinkers. On

this point, I would no doubt be considered as a pessimist. To deny

that things are getting worse is

natural, and has allowed for cancer to become this modern day

epidemic. I can appreciate that the

medical profession has made strides in their efforts to prolong the

lives of people who have been

diagnosed with cancer. I find it frustrating, the claim that they

are `winning the battle ` against

cancer, when I am not convinced that they even know what cancer is.

In 1971, U.S. president

Nixon symbolically declared war on cancer. Scientists were

burdened since they did not

even know what caused cancer. They hastily came up with an

hypothesis which explained what

cancer was. The hypothesis put forward, was, and is the present day

DNA model, which

describes cells as suddenly reproducing themselves, because of a

defect in that individual cell's

DNA(an expansion of the original Cohnheim theory). This model

provides few answers, does not

allow for any predictions to be made, and leaves unaccounted for,

most of the phenomena that is

observed in the field of cancer research. I am offering an alternate

approach that I believe

addresses these anomalies and warrants consideration. Since there

are two distinct ways in which

a cell can undergo replacement, why not analyze both ways as

possible causes of when

something goes wrong? If we are all content that sufficient progress

is being made in the field of

cancer research, then it would not be necessary to look elsewhere,

or consider other explanations.

I attack this claim that we are winning the battle against cancer,

only to then go on and offer up a

different possible solution.

(2*)Our skin is also the largest body organ, and therefore,

mathematically, it would be the most

susceptible organ to cancer. Lung tissue is the second largest

organ, and the second most attacked

tissue by cancer. This mathematical approach does not hold up in

predicting the rarer forms of

cancer however. Some tissue cells are merely more easily stimulated

by the cancer cells than

others. There are countless examples that show it is a natural

phenomena to take the " path of

least resistance " . Cancer attacking the easiest target, would merely

be one more example of this.

(3*). There has been attempts at deriving a vaccine from melanoma

patients for decades,

however this attempt has thus far, been unsuccessful. Science has

not been able to derive a

`serum rich in antibodies' from a cancer survivor, undoubtedly

because no serum exists. If the

ability to overcome (survive) cancer were to come as a result of the

cancer patient merely

reclaiming control over their unrestrained immune system, then the

body would not have

developed its own serum of antibodies. Since the existing phenomenon

shows the immune

system does not develop any special antibodies in patients who have

overcome cancer, this

becomes further overwhelming proof that cancer is not a foreign

antigen but rather, is part of the

immune system.

(4*). I have heard that there is a new Immunosuppressant

named `rapamycin' that does not show

this concrete cause-effect relationship between cancer and tampering

with the immune system. I

would account for this as being a drug that had a scope more defined

to the `identify' or the

`destroy' aspects of the immune system, while not adversely

affecting the `repair' aspect. This

would then have the desired effect of having the body not reject the

transplanted tissues, but at

the same time, not impede the immune system into unnecessarily

repairing tissues that did not

require this service.