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

ibcmets

Purple X,

I think you are very analytical and from the replies many of us can't decipher what you are saying here.  I believe it's much more simplistic.  We need to be more aware of what we are putting into our bodies as food sources.  Today in the western world; there are many hormones and pesticides in milk, all dairy, chicken, beef, vegetables.   We need to eat better and choose our food more wisely.  Juice more often with vegetables & fruits, drink hormone free milk & cheeses, eat hormone free chicken & beef.  Watch the movie Food, Inc to get an idea of how our food is manufactured these days and what they are putting into it. I believe this is why there is so much more cancer in the world today. 

Terri

RunswithScissors

This thread has me utterly fascinated-

At first,  I couldn't figure out what it was that kept me so intrigued.  But finally it dawned on me - it's mostly the way people are responding that I keep pondering.  

It's about morality and mores, and it's about fear, and it's about rational vs irrational thinking. 

So which is less wrong -

being incorrect? being verbose? or being rude?  

And which is worse -

to look like a boogeyman?   or to falsely accuse someone of being a boogeyman?

And is it better to be less wrong about something? How about more worse?  

And if someone cannot explain to you why an idea is not stupid  in 10 posts or less,  does that    mean the idea is stupid? 

Or could it just mean it's complicated?  or maybe the person is  not very good at explaining things? Or, perish the thought, could it mean that you are stupid?

And finally, the most important question of all -

does everyone else's verbal diarrhea stink more than your own?

 

CrunchyPoodleMama

Just a side note as I'm wading through this convoluted thread:

my best advise is to take a daily vitamin (my onc recommened Centrum Silver even though I'm 47 & not silver yet) 

Gg08, I agree it's a great idea to take vitamins, especially the ones that have been shown to help our bodies fight off cancer (such as the ones you mentioned), but please look into a whole-foods-based multivitamin rather than Centrum. Centrum Silver contains 12 known carcinogens plus a handful of others that are suspected carcinogens. I know they would say they're too small of amounts to be of any concern, but I no longer buy that argument.

bluedahlia

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091120/W5_liberation_091121/20091121

What does that article have to do with breast cancer you ask?  It's called thinking out of the box......something we should all try some time.

starwatcher

what are whole foods based multivitamin? Thanks.

Member_of_the_Club

But see, wading through all this I can easily pick out sentences that are just not true.  How about that childhood cancers are "so different."  Well, some cancers are more common in adults and vice versa, but many cancers affect both kids and adults: leukemia (ALL and AML) brain cancer (neouroblastomas, glioblastomas) and more.  Now kids tend to do better but thats because their bodies can tolerate higher dosages of chemo.

Here's another:  somehow we only have improvements in survival for subsets of breast cancer, not for breast cancer as a whole.  Why this doesn't count, I don't know, but since a third of breast cancers are her2neu positive, the revolution of herceptin, even if it just targets that subset, will make a huge overall dent.  Its only ben in widespread use for five years, so it hasn't affected the stats yet.

 On and on and on.  You have a lot of time on your hands.  This is all just silly. 

barbe1958

Amazing article Blue, thanks!

I don't think anyone is criticising Purple's "thinking outside the box", I think they are more concerned with the fact that his post, if you read it all, says a lot about nothing. Assuming that no one had ever researched cancer at the cellular level is just insane.

We ALL have cancer cells in our body...it just takes something to turn them on. Not news.

AnnNYC

I do hope that correcting factual errors is not considered "rude" -- it has been noted as a strength of online discussion boards such as this one that misinformation does get corrected.

As for "complicated" -- to the contrary, I feel the original poster may be oversimplifying, i.e., committing "the fallacy of the single cause."
[see this philosophy website: http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/sci/causalfallacies.php]

And there is a big factual error right at the outset of the whole thesis: There are indeed two, and only two, distinct types of cellular reproduction, but they are not as categorized by purple_X.

The two types are mitosis [when a cell divides into 2 identical daughter cells, with the same number of chromosomes] and meiosis [when a cell divides into 4 cells, called gametes (sperm cells or egg cells) each of which has only half the number of chromosomes of the parent cell].

When the immune system sends signals triggering the reproduction of wound-repairing cells, these new cells are still, nevertheless, produced by mitosis (what purple_X refers to as "the DNA method" and says is different from reproduction triggered by immune system signals -- but it's not).

Reproduction of cells (and even death of cells, as in the case of normal apoptosis, when cells are programmed to die at the appropriate time, as in the developing fetus) is triggered by many signals, some of them coming from the immune system.  Immune system signaling - and many other kinds of cell signaling - are certainly being investigated by cancer researchers.
http://www.jcojournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/9/2941
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2150108/ 

To name just one example, the drug Avastin is aimed at preventing the immune-system-stimulated growth of blood vessels ("angiogenesis") that is an important (good) element in tissue repair/wound healing, but also an important (bad) element in the growth of tumors.

Okay, this will be my last post in this thread, since some are saying "don't feed the troll" and others seem to think it's "rude" -- but I do have a hard time just letting factual errors stand...

purple_X

You mentioned Leukemia and Brain Cancer. The combination of leukemia, and brain tumors, represent the majority of all childhood cancers. The causes of these two cancers remains a complete mystery under the present DNA model. There are not even any lists of substances that one can avoid to lessen their chances of getting one of these diseases.

There has never been an attempt at explaining why there is a differences in childhood cancers and adult cancers. The DNA model makes no attempt at explaining why these two cancers make up half of all childhood cancers, nor why there would be any deviation between adult and child cancers. Here is how this anomaly is explained from the perspective of this new framework for understanding cancer; Right or wrong, it is at least an attempt at shedding some light on this anomaly, and bring Leukemia and Brain cancer into the realm of explainable events.

During the initial development of the body, all organs, muscles and bones undergo a growth period which lasts until adulthood. All tissues in the body undergo development during this time. A newborn baby boy starts out at 6 pounds, and 18 years later he weighs 180 pounds. Thus each pound of mass must multiply itself approximately 30 times. Because of this ongoing development, these tissues are constantly being fabricated and revised. The observed phenomena indicate that these cells, because of this elevated activity, are less susceptible to being stimulated by a faulty immune system . 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 up to and 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. Much of the required repair would be undertaken by the DNA process of cell replacement, which does not have the cosmetically and functionally inferior qualities as does the scar tissue.) The white blood cells, on the other hand, have previously been manufactured in the bone marrow, and now have left this ‘factory' of origin. This circulatory system is best described by using an analogy of a manufacturer with a recycling and maintenance department. Our body continues to manufacture blood throughout our lifetime in this continuous ‘loop' system. Newly repaired or manufactured blood cells leave the factory (bone marrow) and will not be seen by the maintenance department again, until they re-enter the kidney and liver at the other end of the loop. These individual white blood cells 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. As the remainder of the body tissues are undergoing development, these white blood cells become the easiest targets for a defective immune system to divide. Thus if the individual has a faulty immune system, the white blood cells become the easiest target, and leukemia, becomes the most common form of childhood cancer. 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 than 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 at birth, and grows to a weight of between 1300 and 1400 grams in adulthood. Thus, the brain undergoes a mass increase of 3.6 times its original (in contrast to 30 times, for the other tissues). This detail means that the development of the brain tissue is considerably slower, or less intense then the development of the rest of the body. This helps us to understand why brain tumors are the principal form of cancer of a solid mass, in children. Brain tissue is the ‘low man on the totem-pole' as far as cell activity is concerned. Thus, it becomes the easiest tissue for the defective immune system to ‘pick on'. [ Interestingly, eye cancer (retinoblastoma) is the third most diagnosed childhood cancer, and although I don't have statistics to support the observation, it is clear that babies have disproportionately large eyes, and so, this same line of thinking could be applied to account for the high percentage of retinoblastoma cases in childhood cancers.]

pupfoster1

Whoa, WAY too much time on your hands purple X.  I wish I had the luxury of posting a thesis online.  Once again we ask, who are you---man/woman and why didn't you introduce yourself?  It's bad enough having BC but to expect us "laypeople" to understand your ramblings is just plain insulting.  If your thoughts are legit I'm sure there is another blog you could find to share them with.  Good luck finding what you are looking for.

bluedahlia

Nothing wrong with a good debate.  The information in the post should be criticized, not the person posting it. That's when it becomes "rude".  I'll be the first to say, I have been guilty of same.  On another forum I belong to, we throw out crazy ideas all the time, with the hope that it might light a bulb somewhere.  You never know who might be reading.

AnneW

pupfoster, somewhere along the way the OP admitted he was "a guy who sits at his computer."

I wonder who else he is bombarding with this "thesis"--which would never pass for research at the thesis level. Maybe an article (if edited!!) for some magazine.

purple_x, I'm perplexed. Why BC.Org for this?

Oh, and while admittedly only skimming your last lengthy installment, the melanoma thing is more complex than just "sun exposure." It's bad burns early in life, which will be more common with the young caucasian than the subtropic black person. And, it's got to be more complex than just one spot getting a lot of burn, because I've seen melanoma in places where the sun don't shine...

No easy answers. Lots to ponder. But if you're doing research, like AnnNYC stated so beautifully, you can't just use stuff that supports your theory. You have to analyze ALL the data.

Carry on.

Anne

Ezscriiibe

With all due respect, Purple X does not have some "interesting points," for one reason: he has completely abandonded any scientific method in researching his hypothesis. He simply has no background in science or medicine, much less molecular biology or any one of a 100 other scientific topics.

By posting such garbage "science" on a board like this there is a huge potential for someone who is unaware of the proper methods of research and discovery to latch onto the bogus claims and end up believing something that has no basis in either science or logic.

I have no idea why this person is doing this. For all I know it's ego driven and he just wants attention and have people who may not know much more than he does to think he's a genius.

But the fact of the matter is, one doesn't present a hypothesis and then cherry pick the research and, worse, misrepresent research to "prove" the hypothesis. That is exactly backwards of how the scientific method works. I think it's very telling that purple x doesn't even know that!

One doesn't try to "prove" a hypothesis under the scientific method, one tries to disprove it. Or, rather, try to falsify the hypothesis. An hypothesis cannot be "proven," it can only be shown to be falsifiable, and, if it is, then the hypothesis needs to be rewritten.

It's clear in this case, this "researcher" has an "hypothesis" and he/she is setting out to "prove" that it is true by adopting cherry picked materials to conform to his/her hypothesis.

The problem with that is that it SOUNDS logical to people who have no understanding of the process. But it is not.

He/she's a scam artist. His/her "ideas" are far from "interesting," they are junk science. Sorry. I don't mean to be harsh, it's just people like purplex rankle me.

hollyann

Hmmmm...I have read all of the posts and frankly I smell a troll!.....Does this person actually HAVE breast cancer?....Or is he just pitching theories?......Breast cancer is so much more than just genes and environment......It is a plethora of different factors........It also includes the body's own ability to heal itself........To say there are only two causes of cancer is erroneous and untrue......IF there were only two causes of cancer we would find the cause fo it and thus the CURE!.....

ananda8

purple x is a troll.

The proper way to deal with a troll is to stop responding to her/him.  Please do not respond.

Beverly11

Can you explain what evidence you have for this first statement of your hypothesis set out below?  and what does this mean if true?   Breaking this down into your two key points of: 1) A faulty immune system stimulates cell division 2) cells undergoing growth during adolescence are less susceptable to the phenomenon purported in statement #1

Because of this ongoing development, these tissues are constantly being fabricated and revised. The observed phenomena indicate that these cells, because of this elevated activity, are less susceptible to being stimulated by a faulty immune system . 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 up to and during adolescence. 

(oops and sorry, I didn't realize my wife Bev had logged onto the computer first!  This is her husband, Timothy)

Husband11

If I understand you correctly, you believe a faulty immune system can cause cancer.  Do you have any evidence for this?  How do you explain the multiple genetic changes observed in cancer cells, and how does this fit into your hypothesis that the immune system causes cancer?

AnnNYC

Good sleuthing, thenewme... 

http://www.everydayhealth.com/CS/forums/595759/ShowThread.aspx#595759

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5242.msg297766;boardseen

Between 2006 and 2010, this person ought to have taken a few basic biology courses!

purple_X

Ezscriiibe:

I am not a scientific researcher. I am not a molecular biologist. I have no background in science or medicine. This is not a scientific research paper. Everyone at this site is already aware of my shortcomings with regards to my communication skills. If I had the ability to express this idea in a more efficient manner, I would choose to do so. I am merely a layman with an idea. I have brought my idea to a site that invites discussions on alternative ideas. Your time is being spent on trying to teach me that I am not a scientist. Perhaps it would be better spent on poking a hole in the idea itself. Apply your advise and "try to falsify the hypothesis". I am aware that I am not a scientist.

Merilee

Good Grief, While Purple x is a bit long winded ( LOL) I don't see anything harmful here. If you don't like reading these things you have a choice not to click on this forum. I for one think that research has been way too narrow and now that DNA damage has been  identified as one cause, it seems that big business doesn't want to hear it because they don't want to change the way they process products that we eat and use that can cause the DNA damage. There is also an element of denial in the general population as most people don't want to believe that we are indeed being poisoned by our food and products.

purple_X

Beverly11

There appears to be a hierarchy amongst our various cells with regards to stimulating them into reproduction. This would hold true no matter what was causing this cell reproduction. If the DNA were to be responsible, then there is a hierarchy of cells that make some forms of cancer more prevalent then others. We can manipulate this hierarchy by employing or avoiding the substances that are on the lists of various things that have been linked to cancer, thus making that tissue to become either more, or less susceptible to uncontrolled cell division. The same holds true if this un requested cell activity were being generated by the repair arm (scar tissue) of a faulty immune system that had either received a signal to commence work on a tissue type (justified or unjustified i.e. from a false start code), or a faulty immune system that was not receiving the stop code. It is only thru observations that I conclude that there must be a hierarchy amongst cell types, otherwise cancer statistics should be evenly distributed amongst the 200 or so types of cancer. The fact that these cells are not evenly distributed, implies that there is some sort of hierarchy amongst them. For the purposes of my approach to the problem, I have attributed this hierarchy to mean the ease with which the faulty immune system can stimulate a given tissue type into this unwanted cell activity (without knowing why certain cells are more prone than others). Much of the ongoing study today if focused on understanding the criteria that go to make up this hierarchy. Cancer cells are thought to be fast dividing cells, so chemotherapy drugs are tailor made to attack fast reproducing cells. The hair follicle has many cells associated with it that are also fast reproducing, and as a result, these cells come under attack along with the intended victim, the cancer cell. The present thinking is that if we can understand the hierarchy of cells we can discover what makes them distinct, and fine tune the attack on the cancer cells themselves. In the process of trying to discover the hierarchy, we are generating lists of items that have been linked to cancer. It is the currant belief that the lists will lead to the cause. If we understand the cause, we can derive a solution. But this approach is failing. It's like a deer hunter looking for deer tracks on the ground. The discovery of the prints proves that there are deer in the area. It is hoped that if you follow the prints it will lead you to the deer. But as long as our heads are down looking at the deer prints, we are failing to see what is making the prints, namely the deer itself. It's as if we have been studying prints on the ground now for 130 years. I'm willing to concede that there are deer in the area. But at what point do we stop looking at the prints, and start looking for the animal that made them? Compiling lists of substances that are linked to cancer is proving to be fruitless. Lets set a deadline. If 130 years is not long enough to find just one cure for even one cancer type, then lets wait until 150 years is up. But at some point in time it will be necessary to abandon the hope of finding the solution to the sporadic reproduction of cells in our DNA. (or at the very least, embracing the possibility that the answer may lie elsewhere.) Its time to turn the page. Lists achieve nothing. I wish that they would lead to a concrete definitive cause/ effect relationship that would end all this. But my wish has not come true. I have abandoned this approach. We were told that the mapping of the human genome back in 1990 would ultimately lead to a cure for cancer. The mapping of the DNA genome was completed in 2003. That didn't happen. Science is locked into this linear thinking that starts and stops with the DNA angle. This post is merely an alternative approach which I believe warrants consideration, despite the fact that it was written by someone who is not qualified to voice an opinion on scientific matters.

barbe1958

Sweetie, this "Alternative Thread" isn't for "different ways of thinking how we got cancer". It's for alternative ways to deal with fact that we ALREADY have cancer. We could bang our heads on the wall all day long to try to figure out how we got cancer. It doesn't matter at this point to us...because we already have it!

If someone were to live in a bubble, perhaps that would be an environment which would create a cancer-free life style. I doubt it. The stress of living in a bubble alone would break down an immune system. We know so many factors that cause cancer. So if you can figure out how to not eat/breathe/drink or otherwise come in contact with the toxicities in this world, have at it! Otherwise, telling us how we might have gotten the cancer we already have is defeative.

EVERYONE has cancer cells in their body. Even the healthiest person in the whole wide world. It's the second they get turned on that matters....

Merilee

 How we got it, does matter to me. I want to avoid a recurrence. There are many people looking at the immune system, this is not a new idea. One theory states that the immune system is so busy ( taxed) that it is unable to keep up with all the demands that our environment throws at us. While it is busy killing off one poison, we are exposed to another and so on. Purple X you should check out the Natural Girls thread under alternative treatments. I think you will find a group of women  there who will welcome this discussion and have plenty to add as well.

Husband11

Purple X, one of your most basic premises seems to be that a faulty immune system stimulates cell growth and one form of cancer (as opposed to an immune system that fights cells that have gone cancerous).  What is your evidence for this idea?

purple_X

My basic premise is this: the definition of cancer is the generation of unwanted cells. The present belief is that these cells are being generated by a faulty DNA gene that is allowing the cell in question to go on and replicate itself/themselves, over and over in an uncontrolled manner. But we can achieve this ‘definition of cancer ‘ in another way. The immune system has the ability to also generate cells rapidly in the form of scar tissue. Scar tissue is the result of our immune system being sent to a region of the body to commence work in an endeavour to seal over a wound. This healing process can be preformed on any type of cell. It is not yet fully understood how this process is set in motion, but it is known to be set in motion when the body receives some form of trauma. Obviously , once this healing process has been put into motion, there needs to be a corresponding mechanism to notify the body that the healing is complete. What if the body doesn't receive this ‘stop code'? What if the body goes on to stimulate neighbouring cells into replication themselves without end? We would have a situation identical to what we presently refer to as ‘cancer'. This definition of cancer is a cause from outside the individual cell. This definition of cancer is much simplified in that it does not need to go on to explain how the newly generated cells are sustained by a mystical blood supply that must happen in unison with the DNA explanation, because the inflammation that would accompany this procedure is already a function of the immune system.

Husband11

Scar tissue is unique and easily identifiable.  It is not the same tissue as the damaged base tissue.  It is mostly made of connective tissue as a result of the action of fibroblasts, and not controlled or uncontrolled division of the damaged cells.  Nor do the fibroblast cells have the hallmark genetic deletions found in most cancer cells.  While the healing process of scar formation can be performed on many types of tissue, it is the result of a specific  type of cell the fibroblast, laying down extracellular collagen matrix (connective tissue).

What leads you to believe that the immune system stimulates division of breast, lung, brain or other cancerous cell types?  Why do these cell lines continue to divide in petri dishes, in the absence of an immune system?  Why will they continue to divide when transplanted into immune impaired mice?

You say "The definition of cancer is a cause from outside the individual cell".  Where do you get this definition from?  Doesn't sound right to me.

I'm also at odds with your statement that children have different cancers because they don't form scar tissue like adults.  Is not the process identical for scar tissue formation in children, adolescents and adults? 

I'm just not following the observation of scar tissue formation to the conclusion that a similar process might be involved in cancer cell division.  You might be on to something, but I'm not sure what evidence you have to make this statement or speculation.  Yes, there is cellular activity, but you need more than that to equate it to cancer.

barbe1958

I don't believe I've heard in years that cancer is caused by DNA faults. That is very old thinking. The changes occur much later after birth. Wouldn't more people be diagnosed with cancer at an earlier age if the fault was there when they were born? I believe cancers are caused by deviant cells that change their growth patterns and defect. It's what trips them off that is of concern. We can't change all the air/water/food in the world as there is too much forward momentum to all of a sudden stop and most things are out of our control. So the body has to learn through evolution how to deal with these issues. That's when the DNA begins to change. Takes thousands of generations. Note that we no longer need our appendix and that baby toes are slowly disappearing as more of us don't live in trees...

RunswithScissors

AnnNYC wrote:

I do hope that correcting factual errors is not considered "rude" -- it has been noted as a strength of online discussion boards such as this one that misinformation does get corrected.

******

Absolutely. Most of us can discern the difference between a robust discussion, incorrect facts, territorialism, and mommy-itis. I didn't call out the rude remarks specifically because, well, they seemed kind of obvious.

AnnNYC wrote:

As for "complicated" -- to the contrary, I feel the original poster may be oversimplifying, i.e., committing "the fallacy of the single cause."

*********** 

Yes, I agree, in a way.  There is a strong clue about  that right in title of the thread.  On the other hand, I don't think a "single cause" is always a fallacy.  And Purplex has expanded  his ideas on possible causes a bit since the original post.

AnnNYC wrote:

there is a factual error right out the outset....

***************** 

You pointed out several important factual errors, (as have quite a few folks here) and I appreciate the links to some of the ideas  that researchers are exploring.  

However, I strongly  agree with Purplex regarding the point that research is inadequate. That fact seems to boil down to the old "follow the money" problem. Any ideas on solving that one, Purplex? 

 

thenewme

PurpleX, do you go by the name ricwally too?  There is a ricwally who has been posting all over the internet since at least 2002 with these same proposals and "theories," even with the exact same wording and style.  If you are the same person, has your "research" progressed at all in the past 9 years? 

If you believe so strongly in your hypotheses, have you presented them to any research bodies or entities that may be able to act on them so that some good may come of it? 

As has been pointed out and you have acknowledged, neither you (as a philosopher/hobbyist) nor we (as patients) are in any position to  advance your theories. 

As a philosopher, surely you can appreciate the difference between philosophizing and action.

Since you don't address and/or correct the inaccuracies pointed out by people here and MANY other forums you've posted on over the years, your motives and credibility are certainly suspect.

ETA: ...or maybe it's simply the entertainment value of the "discussion" you thrive on?

RunswithScissors

Another thought just occurred to me.

Only certain types of research are limited by the interests of those who fund it. 

There are certainly some extraordinarily brave researchers right here on the forum. They are the folks who have been singled out by this disease, and are doing experiments with their own bodies -

reading, learning and  trying new ideas  of the most of expensive kind-  the possible cost of their own lives. 

It's ironic that the results of their research is regarded with disdain and dismissed as anecdotal. 

A meta-analysis of all that anecdotal information might actually be quite enlightening.