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

ktym

I agree with you Rosemary, what happened to you is heartbreaking and a good reminder to all of us

apple

 I've spent an hour googling and your original post (and more) has been posted on cancer forums since 2002.  (ricwally)..

Do you have an original document you could link?

purple_X

Apple

This is an evolving postulation that I have been trying to refute or get refuted for some time now. I submit the idea on boards such as this and invite readers to poke holes in it. I do get, from time to time, someone who will point out an inconsistency or an unsupported thought, and I go and try to correct ideas that can't be substantiated, or have not been made clear. Most criticisms unfortunately are directed at me personally, and I can't do much with them. I am aware of most of my shortcomings, and to have them repeatedly rubbed in my face serves no real purpose other than allowing the writer to vent their frustration as to what gives someone like me the audacity to question the work of others. But if we don't question the work of others, then we must be content with the present outcome. I just want to get people to question whether our present definition of cancer is right. Could there be another explanation, and if there is, let's explore it because the pharmaceutical industry is not going to do so.

apple

it certainly is good to think outside the box.  There are soooo many ways to treat cancer that are specific to the particular disease.. and I applaud research.. completely.  Thinking outside the box is one reason there are so many approaches,

I certainly disagree with the notion that the pharmaceutical industry is 'at fault'.  alternative therapies can be very helpful and the industry embraces knowledge and research from many sources. 

I don't mean to disagree with you at all.. just would like the opportunity to read the whole body of work.

Yazmin

rosemary-b, you wrote: "...I have about a 20% chance of living 10 yrs from then, it was 70% with just surgery and radiation) from the effects of Herceptin. I had no heart problems  before and I went from normal to very sick in 5 weeks."

I am so sorry for what happened to you. Cases like yours are the reason why I will never give up (and plan to step up) finding ways to encourage patients to question and research every wonderful statistic they hear in the doctor's office.

Case in point

kmmd wrote:

Yazmin, it is interesting you say that.  I was with a friend when she got a consultation from an oncologist who said, 5% benefit, you have to realize that means if I give this to 100 women, 5 will benefit and 95 will be taking it for no benefit.  Not at all the way her first oncologist had explained it to her. 

Every time I come across an oncologist who is able to say it this straight, I feel really encouraged. I personally believe that they can all see the statistics above, but many of them would rather look the other way and preserve their career, instead of going into controversies that they probably realize they cannot win.

Husband11

Purple-X wrote: 

If a single case of cancer is the culmination of a series of events, then where is the corresponding gibberish? It would be expected that there should exist a multitude of occurrences in which the entire chain of events did not occur.

I write:

That's a good question.  I've read that some cancers require at least 7 separate mutations to occur.  It seems improbable at first glance, but considering each life begins as a single cell, and millions (billions?) of cell divisions occur to produce a child, that's a lot of opportunity for transcription error.   I recall from university genetics that repair mechanisms exist in every cell to repair damage to dna.  That certainly suggests that genetic damage is common place.  There are also mechanisms to cause cells to self destruct and or be identified as mutunt and be destroyed by the surrounding cells.  All of these of course must be by-passed to allow cancer to grown and spread.

The corresponding gibberish, to use your choice of words, would be the pre-cancerous conditions that are often observed and treated.  Using the skin for example, sun damage, keratinosis, even lower risk cancers like basal cell carcinoma, might be examples that fit into that category of being on their way to being full blown metastatising cancers.  Also, like stabbing a knife into a finely made watch works, most mutations probably either kill the cell immediately, or result in beneign damage.  Few allow it to continue to work in an altered fashion.  So like the monkeys at the typewriters, the less than Shakespearian work gets trashed or disregarded.  Even fertilized human eggs frequently spontaneously abort, unbeknownst to the woman carrying the fertilized egg, presumably due to some defect in the genetics.

My thoughts are that we have a combination of at least two factors at work: 1)external forces, carcinogenic chemicals, radiation, poisons of all sorts, that increase the rate of either generation of cancerous mutations or the failure of the body to detect and destroy them 2) an organism that simply wears out, and has no value in living to 1000 years.  The human body only has to be so good to result in life, families, next generations.   Somewhere between #1 and #2 we have the profound differences between human beings genetics.  Some can smoke for a lifetime and not get lung cancer, others die from lung cancer from second hand smoke.  We are just not all made the same, and unfortunately some inherit predispositions that increase the likelihood of cancer, by not requiring perhaps as many as the 7 mutations that others may require.

I do however believe there is hope, and that we are on the verge of discovery of therapeutic advancements that will allow cancer patients to live out their lives in full.  In the meantime, for patients and familes, we have to be smart and seek out the best choices we can make, chosing some, disregarding others, complementing different disciplines that don't acknowledge each other.

That's a good part of what we are doing on this forum.  Sharing ideas, getting on the cutting edge of treatment.

Yazmin

rosemary-b, you wrote: "...I don't see Herceptin as a wonder drug but as a baby step on the way to that wonder drug."  

A baby step, I see HERCEPTIN that way, too.  

And I read this further up:

"....One measure of [the fact that chemo did something for this person] is that my tumor markers were measured mid-chemo and were quite elevated, only to go down to normal after chemo...."

Of course, chemo is not ineffective. Sure, chemo will shrink anything but the absolute toughest tumors (one of my support group members has now been going for weeks with chemo without any shrinkage, but that's a very, very, very, exceptional case).

Indeed, chemo shrinks  tumors. Unfortunately, as we have said it time and again: tumor shrinkage and OVERALL survival are 2 completely different matters. That's why surrogate endpoints are used to present survival statistics. So, the use of obscure language like "disease-free survival" and "time to progression" make it possible to sidestep the main point: real survival, which is not even the goal behind such language and mindset.

Husband11

Here's the definition of disease-free survival, from the National Cancer Institute:

 disease-free survival (dih-ZEEZ... ser-VY-vul)

The length of time after treatment for a specific disease during which a patient survives with no sign of the disease. Disease-free survival may be used in a clinical study or trial to help measure how well a new treatment works. Also called DFS and disease-free survival time.

Sounds pretty good to me.  You are alive, and no signs of the original cancer.  But what if you are suffering from disease owing to the medication?  Say life threatening heart damage from herceptin.  Or leukemia from chemo?  Does that count as disease free survival?  Is that the downside you are referring to Yazmin?

Yazmin

Indeed, Timothy. And as previous discussed:

Please see this medical review (only one among many similar ones), entitled, this way:

Tamoxifen Continues to Prevent Breast Cancer for Years After Therapy Is Stopped (From Medscape Medical News): http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/549550

Nevertheless, please read all the way to the BOTTOM of the study, and you will see this, in Medscape's own words:

But  Higher Mortality in Tamoxifen Group 
 
"......However, overall the mortality was higher in the group of women who took tamoxifen for 10 years than those who took placebo, although the difference was not statistically significant. In total, there were 65 deaths with tamoxifen vs 55 with placebo (P = .36), with cause of mortality outlined in the table.

Table: Death and Cause of Death in Tamoxifen Study

 (please see table in link, which I cannot paste here)...."

Member_of_the_Club

Well, if all the treatments do is postpone my recurrence until I raise my children, I'll take that.  I expect them to do more, I expect never to have a recurrence.  And I know the treatments have saved my life.  I would absolutely be dead by now without them.

Ezscriiibe

purplex wrote: Most criticisms unfortunately are directed at me personally, and I can't do much with them. I am aware of most of my shortcomings, and to have them repeatedly rubbed in my face serves no real purpose other than allowing the writer to vent their frustration as to what gives someone like me the audacity to question the work of others

Because your methods and discipline is faulty. And were you simply "questioning" the "work of others," well that would be one thing, but you're not doing that, are you? You are postulating dangerous theories that are based on either thin air or some twisted "connect the dots" badly game.

That's not necessarily a personal attack, but a legitimate attack against your essay, and your methodology. Believe it or not, things like that ARE important.

As it happens, because you are so trollish in your pursuit of this, there is also every opportunity to challenge you personally. It does serve a purpose, as I have pointed out repeatedly and which you ignore: People who are in a vulnerable state and are not aware of the SERIOUS SERIOUS shortcomings in both your methodology AND your conclusions, questions, or hypotheses are being misled and could reasonably question or challenge their own treatment based on your very thin, unscientific, unsupportable, unsubstantiated and out-right manufactured claims. That's a serious issue, as far as I'm concerned. And it begs the question: why--why are you doing this? It's either ego or a compulsion (hence a mental disorder of somekind) that you cannot turn off.

Either way, it's pathetic. Your "work" has been challenged repeatedly here in this thread and on a variety of other forums, too, over, what? 9 years? And you have FAILED to clear up any damaging or bogus information.

You have serious problems and could cause serious harm to someone who is not made aware of how dangerous your ramblings are.

Other boards have banned you. And that, my friend, is most likely the primary reason why.

apple

very well said Michele

bluedahlia

Ummmmmmmm, what am I missing here.  How can Purple's theories hurt anyone.  He's not telling anyone what protocol they should be on.  He is sharing his ideas on how cancer forms, not how to cure it.  I find it fascinating, myself.

AnnNYC

Bluedahlia, the problem I have is that it is gobbledygook.  Purple_X writes in a very "authoritative" tone that gives the impression that he knows what he's talking about -- while in fact his sentences are heavily larded with mind-blowing errors.  And he doesn't respond to anyone pointing out his major errors!  And he's been saying the same thing for at least 8 years!

Maybe it's not dangerous, maybe it's just annoying -- but I respect you, and if you think he's on to something, that concerns me!!!!

To recapitulate a fundamental error, which appears in the title of this thread, and seems to be the basis of his whole idea, and therefore renders the theory impossible:

Even if it is "the immune system" that is stimulating cellular reproduction, those cells are not reproducing in a mysterious, unknown way that does not involve the DNA of the cell.  Except for sperm cells and egg cells, every other cell of the body is produced by mitosis - by one cell dividing into two daughter cells that have identical DNA, unless there is a DNA error made during the cell division.

ananda8

Are there any moderators for this site or a way to request a lock on a thread?

bluedahlia

We must all remember that anything we read on the internet should be digested cum grano salis.  I hope no one follows anything anyone offers with blind faith.  I've always had an inquisitive mind and am open to others' thoughts.  Doesn't mean I agree or disagree.  We really have no control over others.  We can't even control our own futures.  That old saying.....If you want God to laugh, tell him your plans, comes to mind.

Purple may be annoying but other than that he really isn't harming anyone. Maybe all he wants is a good discussion.  I'm reading the OP as a theory not an argument.

Ezscriiibe

The problem, bluedahlia, is that many people coming to sites like this are not "internet savvy," much less troll savvy.

And often there may be women who don't post, but who read and could well read something by people like this that they feel would help them, when it can't, and, worse, that may well cause them to disregard some other guidance, because they are in a very vulnerable state. People who are afraid, and there are many who are in situations like we are in, and they can and do latch onto things that are not only not helpful, but potentially harmful.

YOU may have enough sense to just read and pass him by, but I've been on the internet long enough to know that indeed people like him can cause harm.

He has been banned from other sites, not only for being annoying, but for being a potential harm as well.

I've run a fair number of sites myself, and most of the times, wordy, wacky trolls are just ignored. When it comes to health issues, however, especially support sites for serious illness or disease, these types of trolls should be neutered. 

ElaineD

I gave up reading his infantile and  flawed post after several prargaraphs. Were the answer so easy, it would have been found years ago. I agree that continuing to give attention to his troll behaviour is only encouraging him to keep going (YAWN). Why don't those who feel strongly that he should be banned report him to the moderators, in the same way that other misleading and offensive posts are reported?

RunswithScissors

Ezscriiibe wrote:

The problem, bluedahlia, is that many people coming to sites like this are not "internet savvy," much less troll savvy......He has been banned from other sites, not only for being annoying, but for being a potential harm as well.

***************

Forum - mommy's are kind of annoying, too.  It's just so inappropriate. Taking it upon yourself to censor what others read on the internet  is galling.    

Some folks may find this type of discussion a good way to release new and  creative  thoughts.  Some might think playing with trolls is amusing. For some people, even a fruitless debate might just take her mind off her troubles for a time...

We're grown ups here. Please stop trying to breast feed them. It's creepy.

Why is it so hard for some follks to just go away when they don't like what they're reading?

The bottom line is, are any forum rules being broken here?  If they are, I don't see it. 

purple_X

Ezscriiibe

People are continuing use phrases like" Believe it or not, things like that ARE important."

with the intention of having them appear to have come from me. I have yet to use the phrase ‘doesn't matter‘, or ‘not important‘.

If this site were to be named ‘People with cats who belly dance and have cancer", I could respect that the opinions of one member might reflect the opinions of the board as a whole, because it would be a board of like minded people who share a lot in common. But this is a board entitled ‘Alternative, Complementary,& Holistic Treatment:" I take this to mean the members are willing to discuss alternatives. But you have shown a propensity towards not wanting to explore alternatives. At the same time, you have taken on the role of gate keeper to prevent other members from discussing alternatives. Is your mind that superior to the other members that you feel the need to shelter them from the very thing they came to a site like this to do? I'm sure that you mean well, and I respect that you are doing this because you feel you need to. I am acting in a similar manner. This post isn't for everyone. I trust that there are moderators who have the ability to make it all disappear if it is deemed to be harmful. But if you manage to achieve this, are you doing a service to this board, or are you creating a situation which will allow only your views to perpetuate. This is just an alternate view, (like green M&M's and pirates) on an alternate site.

Timothy: You said that you "have read that some cancers require at least 7 separate mutations to occur....most mutations probably either kill the cell immediately, or result in beneign damage. Few allow it to continue to work in an altered fashion."

I don't doubt that this is true, but note that we could substitute the number 7 with a 9 or 12 and it wouldn't change anything. For the purposes of studying cancer , we can confine our search to view only those mutations that manage to go on to survive. For them to survive, they need a blood supply. If the body destroys mutant cells before they can reproduce, or spread there mutation, or if the mutated cell cannot survive on its own, then this becomes a self correcting problem like you point out in your post. But cancer is the fulfillment of at least two requirements, the mutation itself and a corresponding blood supply to maintain the existence of these newly generated cells. Shingles or inflammation could be viewed as the one element (modified blood supply) without the other. Basil cell carcinoma could be viewed as a mutation of cells, but lacking the corresponding blood supply to keep the cells alive. The hollowing in the middle of the Basil cell seems to indicate that the blood supply did not follow to keep these cells alive and as a result, they die off leaving a hollow.Although this has been labelled as a cancer, it is not a viewed as a serious cancer because it is slow growing and easily removed surgically. This is the only example of this type of occurrence that I can think of. But if each case of cancer were to be the fulfilment of both the mutation of cells and the corresponding blood supply, then there should be many cases similar to the Basil cell. That is to say, we should all be filled with a cluster of small tumors and shingles, and only those who are unfortunate enough to have a mutation occur in an area of the body that was experiencing inflammation, would go on to develop cancer. There should be cases where one event happened without the other, and I would expect that the number of cases should vastly exceed the number of people who go on to develop cancer.

You wrote:

"my thoughts are that we have a combination of at least two factors at work: 1)external forces, carcinogenic chemicals, radiation, poisons of all sorts, that increase the rate of either generation of cancerous mutations or the failure of the body to detect and destroy them 2) an organism that simply wears out, and has no value in living to 1000 years. "

I would agree with all that you have said here. The aging process is a fact of life. I remember when the discovery of the DNA model ( double helix) first came out and there were some wishful thinkers who predicted that this discovery would lead to mankind achieving immortality. We would some day be able to turn off the aging process. Alas, that day has not come and we are meant to wear out.

motheroffoursons

I feel this whole thread is bogus, and worthless.

I just read the above post. I wanted to correct your understanding of Basal Cell as compared to other forms of cancer.

 Other cancer tumors can have area of necrosis, comedocarcinoma.  This is one of the types of DCIS, early stage breast cancer..  From what I have read, the cancer cells grow so fast that the interior cells are unable to get the needed nutrients, and the cells die.  It is a ductal carcinoma, and I believe it can be found in prostrate cancer and other cancers involving ducts.

Mr. Purple,  I don't think that you have the medical expertise to be purporting any theories or offering any advice here.  The women and men with BC have been ardently asking questions, and know a lot more than you do. You have presented a meaningless theory rife with errors.

Sorry to say so.

AnnNYC

Also, "shingles" is not another name for "inflammation"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ananda8

It is a real shame that this forum does not have moderators.

otter

I've been accused on other parts of these boards of being a member of the "Post Police," if not the "Post Sheriff" herself.  So, if I thought purple_x's posts were violating any of the Community Rules, I would post an example of the violation, cite the rule being violated, and report the post(s).

In this case, though, I am going to have to agree with Blue and others who've said purple_x's posts are not violating the board rules. And, even if purple_x has been banned from other sites (something that I haven't tried to verify), I really don't see anything in his posts here that warrants a ban.  He hasn't offered any specific medical advice regarding diagnosis or treatment of cancer, so I can't see how his posts could be dangerous to our more naive readers.

Please understand that I am not saying those things in order to defend purple_x.  I happen to think the information he has offered here is unlikely to advance our understanding of the biology of cancer.  The value of his posts might be in their ability to entertain us, although few people really enjoy working on a Sudoku puzzle that has no solution. (Note that I am not criticizing purple_x; I'm criticizing the information he has posted.) 

I happen to have a fairly strong background in biology and genetics, and especially immunology; so I've tried mightily to follow and sort through his various theories and supporting "observations".  What he has said here has violated hundreds of years of widely held and well-proven principles of biology in so many ways that it is impossible to cite all the errors.  I had originally thought I might cite some of the most egregious falsehoods -- the ones that are causing me the worst heartburn -- but, by the time I'd copied and pasted the ninth one, I decided it wasn't worth it. Others here have already pointed out most of them anyway.

I keep coming back to this thread, I suppose out of a perverse curiosity. I often end up needing to turn off my computer and seek out a state of zen, just to bring my blood pressure back down. Still, even though purple_x's posts are rife with misinformation, I haven't seen anything in them that would pose a risk to someone's health (other than their effect on my blood pressure).  He has taken advantage of this forum to disseminate his personalized, baseless, untested theory -- but that's all it is.

All I can say is this:  purple_x, would do himself and his followers a service if he would log on to Amazon.com, buy himself a modern high school biology textbook, and read it cover-to-cover.  Then, he might reconsider some of the key points of his theory and the evidence he's used to support it.

As starters, I suggest looking up "scar tissue".  Contrary to what he has claimed, the process through which scar tissue forms (i.e., wound-healing) is understood at the subcellular ("DNA") level and is taught in basic pathology courses. Similarly, he might revisit the notion that an over-active immune system somehow "generates" the "unwanted" ductal epithelial cells that become a malignant breast tumor.  And, he might ponder why it is that nulliparous adult women over the age of 50 (women who have never borne, much less nursed, a child) are at the greatest risk of developing spontaneous breast cancer; when his theory argues that an over-active immune system operating in the "open" lactiferous ducts of the breast is at fault. He might also review (try googling) on-line information dealing with childhood cancers.  He said this:  "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."  While the first of those statements is true, the second is false.  It reveals the fact that purple_x has invested little effort in establishing the legitimacy of the "observations" he has offered in support of his hypothesis.

So, while I agree wholeheartedly that purple_x's posts are way too long (as are my own), and are mostly filled with false or unsubstantiated claims, and offer us little that will advance knowledge of the causes and cures of breast cancer, ... we can easily ignore his posts if we find them too annoying. IMHO, there's no need to try to silence him.  That's probably impossible, anyway.

otter 

bluedahlia

Excerllent post Otter.  If Mr. Parkinson's didn't have a grip on my dexterity, I would have summed up your exact points.  As it is I need to keep my posts short and to the point.

ananda8

It would be nice if a moderator could keep the original post by purple X on the first page of this thread and after that shorten the original post on all following pages.  I find it a waste of space to have the very long op repeated on every page.  I have searched this forum and can find no way to report a post.  There are no moderators to report to.

I have been a moderator on a international forum and all I can say is that it is a miracle that this forum has not attracted even stranger people than purple X. 

purple_X

Otter

 If you were the official Post Sheriff, I think that would be a worthy appointment as I respect you opinions. I acknowledge that I do have a lack of biological principles, but it is from this position that I am allowed to come to any conclusion I want. I have no preconceived notion of how things are thought to work at present, and have not been steered to think in any given way. There is a tendency for everyone to view this idea from the point of view that it may be interesting or entertaining, but unfortunately this is not what cancer is. Cancer is the following...and then they go on to set me straight. For you to suggest that I buy my "a modern high school biology textbook, and read it cover-to-cover"  is similar to saying ‘get in line and think like the rest of us.'. If we are all forced into thinking the same way, we are forced to coexist with the present fight against cancer, and cancer seems to be winning. According to The World Health Organisation, global cancer statistics are expected to increase by 50% between now and 2020. These statistics tend to anger a lot of people currently in a fight with the disease, and I tend to inherit that anger by reciting these negative stats, but ignoring them doesn't make the problem go away. I don't like these statistics either, in fact I hate them. I would like to avoided using statistics altogether. There is a sea of information out there, and some stats contradict others, and I lack the ability of knowing which ones are right and which are wrong. But if you put forward an idea without substantiating it with some statistics, it's no better than submitting a ‘dream' or a ‘vision‘. I will grant that some of my statistics are erroneous, but I vow I did not fabricate any statistics or pull them out of the air. I believed them to be true, and perhaps am guilty of not verifying them with other sources. But is it good science to say ‘the statistics lead you to this theory. The statistics are wrong, therefore the theory is wrong.'? Would it not be possible for us to sidestep the bogus statistics and tear down the theory line by line. I know we can tear down this theory by saying that it doesn't jive with what we presently know, but this whole exercise is intended to question whether what we presently know is correct. Might there be another explanation? If we simply dismiss this idea without first destroying it , it is like saying to Copernicus, the world cannot be round because it is flat.

 When I hear the word ‘anomaly' an alarm bell goes off. It is equivalent to saying that the present definition or model is lacking. If this theory is wrong, there must still exist one that is right, or at least more right than the present explanation. The presence of so many anomalies with our current definition of cancer suggests that we should be open to at least entertaining the idea that there may be another explanation. This theory may not be the other explanation, but can we agree that one could exist? (or are we stuck with the one we have got?)

motheroffoursons

Mr. Purple,

So you want a new theory of cancer great.

However, for a theory to be valid, its presuppositions or facts upon which the theory is based must also be valid.  That is the problem with your theory.  It is deduced from seriously flawed scientific information.  That is why the theory is bogus.

Learn the correct facts, and then try to come up with a new theory.  Earn a Nobel Prize by doing it.

ananda8

purple x

Why don't you learn about the scientific method.  You seem to be relying on the science of meat-heads. 

The very first step you must learn is "just because you think it doesn't make it true".  After you have mastered this first step you can go on to the scientific method itself.  This is a paraphrase from Wiki.

In the 5-step method ... we see the formation of the problem, a prediction that provides explanation, a procedure used to test the ideas, the observation of results in the procedure, and a conclusion based on all of the other steps...

1. Ask and define the question.
2. Gather information and resources through observation.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Perform one or more experiments and collect and sort data.
5. Analyze the data.
6. Interpret the data and make conclusions that point to a hypothesis.
7. Formulate a "final" or "finished" hypothesis.

With the investigation concluded, the published results will be verified by other investigators, and the "tested" knowledge integrated into a larger whole of scientific information.

You  will note that the results of the experiments supporting the hypothesis must be published and those results must be able to be repeated by other scientists.  If the scientists perform the same experiment and come up with different results, the hypothesis is falsified.

Your understanding of how science actually works is so minimal as to be non existent.  I don't understand why you persist in your ignorance.  Why don't you take the time to actually learn something about biology, chemistry, pharmacology and other scientific disciplines?

thenewme

Purple X is clearly not interested in a "debate" or any kind of meaningful discussion about the cause of cancer.  It's obvious to me that he thrives on this sick game of cat-and-mouse that he's been playing for years all over the internet.  If he had any common sense, good intentions, or legitimate theories, he'd go about this altogether differently.  I think it's incredibly ignorant, insensitive, cruel, and offensive.

Purple X- Do you score points in this game of yours based on the number of words you post or the number of people you can bait?

I'm outta here.