The ''Root Cause" of Cancer From One of Only Two Origins.

RunswithScissors

starwatcher wrote:  Get off your soap box and take it some where else... Sorry, don't buy it, don't want it.

***********

So don't read it, then.  You're barking like a territorial  old dog who thinks it owns the public park... 

Please let the rest of us decide who and what we want to read on the forum.  

lilith

Well, there might be something in what Purple writes - often there is truth on both sides. It is a fact that investigations and research concentrates on one side... while it may be useful on both. Why not? 

However, there is no truth in the concept of "good ol' times" when cancer didn't exist, as there is no truth in the idea of third world countries not being affected. If anything - life was shorter, diagnostic more limited, and statistics and mass media not existing. Breast cancer - and others - are mentioned since historical times; what we do not know, is how frequently people died of cancer - and politely called it "humours" or in other poetic ways. Lets also remember that without autopsies, the identification of illness and its relation to death was not possible in a systematic way until the end of 1700... and even then it started slowly, thanks to the frowning of the official mainstream religion dogmas.  

purple_X

I am principally concerned with the question ‘why is there a difference between prepubescent breast cancer and post pubescent breast cancer? If our DNA is responsible for this defect in cell reproduction we call cancer, why is there any difference in these statistics at all? By definition, our DNA is constant. It is the blueprint which governs the reproduction of the cell. But the distinction between prepubescent and post pubescent breast cancer is like night and day. If a culture produces individuals with a defective DNA, why does it not show up on a graph as a linear progression with age? Graphically, the statistics start out as being virtually non existent, and then they shoot up exponentially once the woman reaches adulthood. Do people come into contact with an antigen once they reach a certain age that they were not exposed to earlier? If there were such an antigen, or lifestyle link, I would expect that a cause/effect relationship would have made itself known long before I was born. And why is there such a variance between male breast cancer and female breast cancer? With an organism made up of 75 to 100 trillion cells, it is mathematically conceivable that some cells might go on to develop flaws in their orderly reproduction. But since the male of the species is predominantly larger, this would imply a greater number of cells, and thus a greater chance that some of these cells would going on to develop mutations. But the statistics show that something more is going on. To understand the statistics, we need to abandon our inner cell approach to the problem of cancer. There are too many anomalies that point out that the answer lies outside of our DNA. Since there are in fact two (and only two) ways in which a cell can come into being, and one of these two ways has already been studied ad nauseum with a questionable degree of success, then perhaps it is warranted to move on to the only other way that can generate a living cell, and contemplate whether the flaw might lie within this method. If there is not a problem with cancer, and the progress that is being made is satisfactory, we do not need to contemplate an alternative, but you are all reading posts to a site labelled with the word ‘Alternative' in the title, and it is this word that brought me here as well. This is an alternative view to the one we presently have for viewing cancer.

barbe1958

Sorry, I don't think you've "discovered" anything either.

As for why does the incidence of breast cancer raise after puberty? You should know that if cancer is your hobby! Estrogen. That's also why women predominantly get breast cancer.

How galling to believe that you are considering something that the rest of the world hasn't considered! Scar tissue does NOT equal cancer! Scar tissue is NOT linked to skin. Doi! I have scar tissue in my bowels from a previous surgery. Did I get colon cancer? Nope, breast cancer.

"Cultures" don't produce individuals with a defective DNA!! Not everyone around me has breast cancer! What a strange comment.

Environmental issues? Of course! Just like cigarette smoking leads to lung cancer. Not earth-shattering news. Thalidomide causes birth defects. The list goes on and on and on and on....please don't list it!

AnnNYC

purple_X, you said "By definition, our DNA is constant. It is the blueprint which governs the reproduction of the cell."

Honey, it's just not true that DNA is constant.  Yes, it is "the blueprint which governs the reproduction of the cell" but it is not constant throughout life. It can be changed. It is known to be damaged by radiation, viruses, numerous chemicals and compounds that are "mutagens." 

I infer from what you wrote ("If a culture produces individuals with a defective DNA, why does it not show up on a graph as a linear progression with age?") that you don't understand the difference between a "germ cell mutation" and a "somatic cell mutation."

Germ cell mutation = when a mutation occurs in the DNA of a sperm cell or an ovum.  Such a mutation will then be present in every cell of the individual resulting from the union of that germ cell with another germ cell ("conception").  The BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations are germ cell mutations, which is why a person can have a cheek scraping or blood test to find out whether they carry a deleterious BRCA mutation known to be associated with heightened risk of developing breast, ovarian, or prostate cancer.

[Germ cell mutations can be passed on to one's offspring.]

Somatic cell mutation = when a mutation occurs in the DNA of a cell in the body of an individual, in any tissue other than an ovum or sperm cell. Many more cancers arise from somatic cell mutations than from germ cell mutations.  Exposure to radiation, including solar radiation (hello, skin cancer), and to any number of substances/chemicals/compounds is known to cause somatic cell mutations.  Also, mutations can occur randomly as cells reproduce (a base pair in the DNA helix can be deleted, inserted, misread -- viruses especially can cause insertions -- changing the "blueprint" governing the reproduction, and behavior, and appearance, of the cell).  The longer we live, the more somatic cell mutations we accrue, which is why the longer people live, the more likely they are to develop cancers.

[Somatic cell mutations, by definition, are not inherited and cannot be "passed on" to one's offspring.]

Yazmin

OMG, thenewme has uncovered something we needed to know.

I thought the theory was interesting but, like many of us here, was unable to get through the whole thing. I am going to persevere, though.

Member_of_the_Club

This guy is the definition of a troll.  He doesn't have BC but because we keep responding he keeps coming back.  So he wrote this incredibly long blather and when posters post reasons why his specific assertions are wrong, he changes the subject.  Classic troll behavior.

fairy49

Wow! you guys are not very friendly! Who cares if Purple doesn't have cancer, maybe they just fancied sharing info with us, it is a flippin discussion board!!! Chill people!!

CrunchyPoodleMama

Hello, Purple_x, I got about 1/3 through your original post before curiosity got the better of me and I skipped ahead to the replies.

I for one don't mind someone who doesn't have breast cancer dropping by to propose a theory sparking discussion, but the reason you're not getting a welcome reception is because you just popped in without introducing yourself or explaining in any way where you were coming from.

Perhaps if you'd started your post by saying, "Hi, everyone - I'm Purple and while I don't have breast cancer myself, it's an issue that I have seriously studied in the last two years after a family member was diagnosed. Here is a summary of a theory I've come up with... I'd love to know your thoughts." Then, try to summarize in, oh, maybe 300 words or less. If you're quoting any other texts, be sure to post your sources (links are especially helpful). Just some ideas in case you'd like to get off on a better foot should you decide to post in another forum.

baywatcher

Purple-

I personally thought your post was interesting and I truly believe much of what you say. It would be great if you could summarize it a bit though (as Crunchy suggests).

Thank you for the info. I am sorry that you are getting so much flack as it is usually friendlier here on the alternative forum. I hope the others don't run you off because I believe we need more people like you doing research (even as a hobby).

luv_gardening

 I try to make no judgements or assumptions and welcome discussions on possible causes of BC, also anyone can name themselves whatever they want, however, I ask Purple_X to state your affiliations if any with manufacturers or sellers of the supplement purple-X, and also to satisfy my own curiosity, are you a woman or a man?

From a web site...

 Our Peruvian purple corn extract, PURPLE-X, is the first ever standardized purple corn extract in the world. We have spent the last 3 years developing this new product, researching its properties and now we are making it available exclusively to you via this website. Please visit our Products section to learn more of our new products containing PURPLE-X.

barbe1958

Purple X never stated that he/she was affiliated with any product. And no, you don't have to have breast cancer to be in the Forum. I think too much is being made of a muddle of silly comments!

Member_of_the_Club

Except that at least one woman posted that he was making her anxious with all his talk about the failure of treatment.

barbe1958

And that's why these kind of posts are so stupid! 

Gee, did anyone think to check for the cause of cancer at the molecular level? No? Duh!

mumito

I can't believe you ladies took the time to read a post that long.

barbe1958

I was curious to see if it started making sense....it didn't.

luv_gardening

Clearly a massive amount of work has gone into this piece of writing and it's obviously all by the same author, due to the consistency of different spelling errors and writing style so I don't see why anyone would doubt it's authenticity.  I see also that quotations are fully referenced so I wonder why anyone is questioning that. Also it doesn't seem in any way like advertising though it would be good to clear up any affiliation with the supplement purple-X.  It's just so unusual and that's why people are wary I guess.  I had to click the scroll bar 21 times to get through it and it's hard to follow so would take me a week to get through it all properly. 

The main premise from what I've read by skimming some parts and reading other parts carefully is interesting and worth proper consideration, but the method of getting to that premise is full of errors.  As I'm no scientist or biochemist I can't critique that part but the general factual and logical errors are so many that I wouldn't know where to start.  Some have been mentioned, here are some which jump out at me.

The difference between the rate of BC in women vs men and girls is obviously estrogen and other female hormones, as pointed out, that's a very basic ommision or error which made me wonder about the knowledge of the author.

To say that cancers in modern man are caused primarily by modern medicine is something I've never heard and seems to defy logic.  Iatrogenic illness is certainly common but cancer?   Surely industrialisation, pollution and bad diet, obesity etc would be more likely.

Wild animals do get cancer but of course they wouldn't be seen by the vet as they would be killed by predators once they become too weak to defend themselves.  At the moment a whole species of Australian marsupial is in danger of being wiped out by facial cancer. The Tasmanian Devil is the mammal in question and the cancer is infectious, being passed on when they bite each other on the face.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Devil

I'd love to see the source for the information that wild animals don't get as much cancer.  

Similarly it was pointed out by a reader that cancers did exist in the past, again not recorded so much as the medical knowledge was not there nor the means to do autopsies. Today in 3rd world countries such as India, many in rural areas would just die and be burnt or thrown in the river.  No diagnosis or autopsies due to the poverty and remoteness. As pointed out already, most would die younger from illnesses due to poverty.  How they get statistics I have no idea unless they take known statistics for affluent areas and extrapolate that to the entire population.

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. 

I think this statistic may only be for melanomas as the media keep telling us that one in 3 women and 1 in 2 men will at some time in their life be diagnosed with cancer.That would mean around 40,000 going on to get some form of cancer, a massive difference to 225. * see footnote

Dr Servan-Schreiber  MD, Phd, who wrote the book Anti-Cancer: A New Way of Life, has a massive amount about how the immune system deals with cancer which is in opposition to what the OP is saying if I've read it correctly.

 Please if anyone had the medical or scientific knowledge to understand this piece of writing, come forward and let us know if the writer has a legitimate theory here as the many general errors, bad logic, and assumptions just don't seem to give me any confidence at all in the body of work even if the intention, good will and sheer hard work are genuine.

In regard to the discomfort being expressed by many, that is because this is primarily a support forum where we feel comfortable discussing matters relating to our personal experiences in regard to having cancer or supporting a loved one with cancer.  As much as I also feel that discomfort, I want so much to get to the bottom of this beast and welcome new theories, but would feel more comfortable doing so in a different forum.  No disrespect is meant in anything I have said but if people put theories up on a forum then they may attract critical feedback.  Even incorrect theories may lead to breakthoughs and I encourage the author to keep researching.

It's 2am here in Eastern Australia and way past my bedtime so I won't be replying to any responses as I will be out most of tomorrow.  A reiki session in the morning...  great!

----------------------

Edited to say the 225 going on to get cancer probably means they will get it as babies, not adults,so it was just the way it was written that confused me.

Ezscriiibe

It's absurd to read and validate a post by someone who is not qualified, by his/her own admission, to be doing the research and making any conclusions, much less leaky correlations, to something as complicated as cancer.

A poster upthread was correct, this is nothing but a troll post and I don't in the least feel bad trouncing him/her for his/her unscientific, unsubstantiated, and unsupportable "allegations."

My grandson could write a similar "essay" and be as well received. It's bogus and not even logical in its conclusions or correlations. And could well create very bad misinformation to someone who did take the time to read it all and think it might have some value. It doesn't. 

purple_X

　

My 24 hour curfew is up. First ;

I am not affiliated with corn extract or anything else.

I chose the name because I find the whole thing very perplexing.

As for ulterior motives, if you come up with one, please share because I have an inquisitive mind too. I have no ulterior motive. I have nothing to sell. I don't have a web site that I want you to visit. I don't want your vote.

I believe this study to be original. With over 6 billion people sharing the planet, I can't say for certain that I am the only one looking in this direction, but I am not aware of any similar inquiry. If it is not in quotation marks, it is from me. Whenever I have used extracted material, I have included the reference at the end of the quotation.

There appears to be a tendency to want to ‘kill the messenger'. Cancer is the enemy. I‘m just a guy sitting at a computer. I'm on your side. I hate cancer too. This is a rant about some of the things that bother me about the pursuit to find a cure for the disease. Support can take many forms, only one of which is to hold on to each other's hand and walk toward the sunset. I am surprised at how many people just want someone to pat the back of their hand and say everything is going to be just fine. When an article like this one comes along, it rubs some people the wrong way and they don't want to read it, and they want to prevent everyone else from reading it too. But there may be some who are unwilling to take this approach. It is for them that I share my views.

There seems to be a deliberate attempt to make things appear better than they are, and I find that frustrating. Are we really O.K. with this? Are things really getting better? One might conclude that I have an overtly pessimistic interpretation of the statistics. If it does appear pessimistic, it is only to contrast optimism, and only after 130 years of being optimistic has led nowhere. We still do not have a cure for even one of the close to 200 documented types of cancer. And yet we are being told that progress is being made. The World Health Organisation is claiming that cancer has increased over this period from 1 in 8,000 to 1 in 2 persons. A quick look back into old encyclopaedia articles confirms that there has been little or no progress over the years. The scientific, and medical communities are focusing exclusively on our DNA as being the culprit. It would be expected that after more then a century of pursuing this one angle, we could expect more progress then is presently seen. A considerable amount of money has been spent in the pursuit of finding a cure. Many new carcinogens or potential causes have been brought to light. If we are not ready to accept that there is a problem , then someone suggesting a solution would be annoying. It is not my intention to upset or annoy anyone. I derive no pleasure from stirring up hostility, but I am willing to forgo this with the belief that some might wish to read my views on this "Alternative" site. I don't know what it is about human nature, but it seems like it is preferable to view cancer as something that is being done to us, rather than something we are doing to ourselves. It is easier to accept if it is completely out of our control. I am proposing that it may be something within our control, and that scares and angers some people.

There is another modern tendency that has avoided being studied and coincides with all this. That is the pre packaged food industry, which constitutes more and more of the products that enter the food chain in Western Societies. 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 to do. Our ancestors did not have health departments overlooking 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 the third world paradox, and 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. 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 deal 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. As cancer statistics continue to rise , we as a society, in an ever increasing act of paranoia 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 cancer statistics then become a self fulfilling prophecy. 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 is the ‘cancer paradox'; which has people scratching their heads wondering why ‘couch potatoes' and people who are less concerned with their health, tend to outlive those who take their health concerns seriously.

The debate as to whether our new found longevity might in itself be responsible for our increasing cancer statistics is not new. At the turn of the 1900's it is reported that the average life expectancy was just 47 years. But it is also reported that 95% of childbirth took place in the home. Infant mortality and early childhood disease took many lives which tends to skew the statistics. Those individuals who signed the U.S. Declaration of Independence, all had documented lives that shows they lived into their 80's and 90's. When one person lives to be 90 and another dies before their first birthday, their average life expectancy would be 45. If you were lucky enough not to succumb to an early childhood death, you could go one to live a respectably long life even by today's standards.

Cancer could be viewed as the fulfillment of a two part equation. First, the individual must be in possession of a faulty immune system that is capable of generating cells without there being a need, and/or generating cells and not receiving the stop code. Secondly, this individual must then have their defective immune system directed to perform this non requested work on a specific group of tissues.

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 their immune system, then perhaps some concrete relationships could be observed.

Many strides have been made towards extending the lives of those afflicted with this misfortune. But much of this ‘deemed' success could be attributed to the ‘early detection' alone. Consider two hypothetical cases of an identical cancer that has a duration of twelve years. The first case goes undetected until the tenth year of the ailment before it is discovered. We then have a documented case that will be deemed as an aggressive cancer, which took its toll within two short years. In the second case, the patient is detected early, let's say in the second year. This patient will be logged as having had a ten year survival rate, before finally succumbing to the disease, which again took twelve years to run its course. This scenario illustrates how the move towards detecting the cancer early, in itself has led to the appearance of great medical strides being achieved, even if this second hypothetical patient received no medical attention after his or her early diagnosis. It is not my intent to ridicule or demean the medical profession. Rather, it is just one more example of one set of data having more then one conclusion. Early detection has been attributed to being of paramount importance in the survival rates of cancer. It could be that ‘early detection' is merely giving a head start to the timepiece that measures success. Another critique that I have is the tendency to dilute the figures for cancer into an ever increasing number of categories. This tendency gives the appearance that the numbers of patients that are afflicted with a certain cancer type is on the decline. For example, in past years , there was but one type of breast cancer. All cases of the ailment fell into this one category. Presently there is a tendency to siphon off some of the occurrences of breast cancer into their own categories. Inflammatory Breast Cancer, and Male Breast Cancer are often removed from the big picture to be viewed as separate issues. The remaining cases are divided into ductile versus lobular categories; or invasive versus in-situ. Since it is not possible for a patient to simultaneously come down with both types, they must therefore fall under the category of one or the other. By virtue of the numbers now being divided, they are now being used to represent the appearance of a decline in cases of cancer for any one category. This gives a misleading impression that the medical community is making great strides in their efforts to combat this ‘disease'. However, it can be observed that the overall picture is getting uglier. If we sum these categories back together so that we can compare them with the earlier statistics of breast cancer, then we are forced into the grim realization that there is no progress being made. This trend can also be observed in the categorization of colon cancer patients. In earlier years, there were no individual categories of anal cancer, prostate cancer, rectal cancer, bowel cancer, and colon cancer. These were all under one category. As science became more knowledgeable, it could be detected that there were differences in these types of cancer, and as a result, new categories were required, and warranted. Since it is not possible to go back in time and properly re-categorize the earlier statistics into the new categories, we would need to sum these current categories together for comparison purposes, in order to see if any progress was being made in this sector of cancer research. These figures, too are discouraging. Oestrogen has been around when cancer was a rare disease. If something was going on to cause it to be the culprit for BC today, we would then have to find the culprit for the other types of cancer. With over 200 different types of cells in the human body, there is a potential for over 200 different types of scar tissue. To date, there have been close to 200 different types of cancer documented. With this many potential culprits, we increase the likelihood of stumbling upon at least one of them. Yet all types of cancer have eluded scientists for 130 years from finding a definitive cure for even one of them. This detail leads me to believe that there is but one underlying culprit that is responsible for all this torment, and I believe that the answer will ultimately lie outside of the DNA.

There is an intrinsic trouble with ‘statistics'. There are always some you can grab on to if you want to, and there are always some that you can muddy up if you want to. You can dismiss statistics because they are from an old encyclopaedia set. You can dismiss statistics because they were gathered in a culture that has inadequate means to properly categorise, diagnose, or document statistics. But as we play with statistics, the status quo remains. Are we content with the status quo? I am merely offering an alternate approach to a problem. If we don't have a ‘problem' then we don't need to consider an alternative. Perhaps cancer isn't really a problem after all. Perhaps it's just people playing with statistics. For those who do not accept that cancer is merely a by-product of our longevity, I have posted an alternate view for them to consider. The idea can be attacked, it can be ignored, or it can be considered. The choice is yours, and the ‘idea' doesn't care. It's just out there.

dlb823

Purple ~ I, for one, am glad to read what you just posted, which sounds like it's from your heart and your own conclusions, without any agenda. 

I wanted to comment on something you said that, if I'm understanding the context, is not accurate about breast cancer... "Since it is not possible for a patient to simultaneously come down with both types, they must therefore fall under the category of one or the other."   Although not the usual diagnosis, multiple types of bc in one woman are not totally rare.  I actually had DCIS, invasive ductal, invasive lobular, and a spot of tubular, all in the same breast, caused, I'm sure, by prolonged use of HRT.  Not sure if this is what you meant by not possible, but if so, then I wanted to add to your understanding of bc.      Deanna

edited to fix typos

ananda8

I will make two comments regarding the original post.

1.  Correlation is not causation.  There is a correlation between the reduction of the number of pirates in the world and global warming.  This does not mean that the reduction in the number of pirates caused global warming.

2.  The comment of lower breast cancer rates in third world countries can be attributed to any number of things.  These include

(a) lower life expectancy in women (breast cancer is more common in older women)

(b) the heavy use of turmeric and other anti-inflammatory spices in food along with reduced amounts of alcohol and sugar in the diet.

c) the higher amounts of Vitamin D due to a rural lifestyle and year round sunshine.  This last point is very important to breast cancer incidence in Northern latitudes.

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/media/download/20091103heaney.pdf

Over all I think the original post contains one or two good points floating in a sea of poppycock.

purple_X

For the purposes of documenting cases, the numbers would become meaningless if one patient were to be counted in more than one column. This is what I meant with the comment "Since it is not possible for a patient to simultaneously come down with both types..." For the purposes of compiling data for instance, a patient cannot be entered as having succumb to both brain cancer and lung cancer even if the patient had both. In the gruesome task of studying data, one number represents one patient.

bluedahlia

I welcome new thoughts and ideas.  I have been reading many theories, not just about cancer, but other diseases, becaue I'm one of the lucky ones contending with more than one disease, and much of the theories point to autoimmune problems.

In my case, my bc location was on a scar site on my breast, that I got when I was 18. I find that very interesting.

fairy49

Again, this is a discussion board, I think Purple has some interesting points, I find lots of interesting stuff on these boards, some I agree with some I don't but I still like to read them!

fairy49

Again, this is a discussion board, I think Purple has some interesting points, I find lots of interesting stuff on these boards, some I agree with some I don't but I still like to read them!

mollyann

madalyn-- could you be more specific in your refutation of purple's facts?

thanks

thenewme

Purple_x, I don't suppose you're related to "ricwally," are you?  It doesn't take much Google sleuthing skill to find that these same "theories" have been spammed around the internet since at least 2002! Surely you've had time to research your facts by now...?

Logorrhoea or logorrhea (Greek λογορροια, logorrhoia, "word-flux") is defined as an "excessive flow of words" and, when used medically, refers to incoherent talkativeness that occurs in certain kinds of mental illness, such as mania. The spoken form of logorrhoea (in the non-medical sense) is a kind of verbosity that uses superfluous or fancy words to disguise a useless or simple message as useful or intellectual, and is commonly known as "verbal diarrhea."  

bluedahlia

Wow....Not nice!

MJLToday

LOL I love a good troll

jinnypel

Well said thenewme ... I agree