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

hollyann

Mumayan, just because you stopped your exercise and healthy eating a year or two prior to your diagnosis does not mean that is what caused your cancer.......Form what my oncologist and breast surgeon both told me it took my 1.6 cm tumor 8 to 10 years to grow....That being said it is highly likely that it took your tumor at least 10 to 12 years to grow.....Nothing to do with diet and exercise.....Also, my oncologist told me that with my diagnosis chemo would not be benficial to me and could be harmful instead........Even though I have this little voice in my head that kept saying go somewhere else and get a second opinion..........I am sticking with my final decision........

ananda8

AnnNYC,

You said, "Notself (are you an immunologist, by the way? the term "notself" is famous in immunology!),"

How is the term notself used in immunology? 

I am not an immunologist but I did major in microbiology in college.  I ended up working for the FDIC during the last banking crisis. Life is strange.

I am concerned on how the process will eliminate the virus from the patient's body after the cancer is gone.  Herpes simplex is a very inconvenient little bugger.  Vaccinia and Newcastle are less problematic as long as they don't mutate into inconvenient little buggers.  We aren't talking about a scratching of the skin implanting a few virus in order to trigger an immune response but a large dose of virus that are designed to multiply sufficiently to destroy a large tumor.  Comfort me.  Tell me that the chance of things going horrible wrong is extremely small.

By the way there is a reason that I use the screen name notself.  I'll tell you in my next post.

hollyann

Purple_X, what class are you using this forum for?.......What kind of experiment are you doing?......i keep reading all this bunk you put out and am really shocked no one has reported you yet..........What kind of sick kick are you getting out of this?........Do you like messing with cancer patients?.........If we really knew the "Root Causes" of breast cancer, we would have a cure.........And your theories are as baseless as the boogieman.........Can you show links to back up your theories?......So far, no........Ignorance is bliss but in your case it's dangerous........I for one don't like being used as an experiment or lab rat........I am fighting a disease that could one day kill me like it killed my mother, grandmother and sister...........I just can't believe this has gone on as long as it has........

purple_X

AnnaNYC I would agree that your explanation for this event is feasible, but it appears to differentiate from the original explanation enough for this to be classed as an alternate explanation as well. Perhaps I am getting caught up in semantics. The intention is that the virus kills the cancer cell. The death of the cancer cells causes the proliferation of cell regeneration to stop, and the development of the tumor comes to a standstill. The introduction of the virus is deemed to be good. The role of the immune system is a concern because it is feared that the immune system will attack the virus before it can get inside the cancer cell. The role of the immune system in cancer is not a concern because the observations tends to support the belief that the cancer sits idle as all this activity takes place (because the cancer has the ability to disguise itself and recruit allies in its defence, etc.). But let's examine the role of the cancer cell from the point of view of the DNA model. In this model it is thought that the root cause of cancer is from an antigen journeying to a given site and entering a given cell, causing that cell to replicate itself without any controls or boundaries. That cell begins to reproduce itself over and over, causing a cluster of cells called a cancerous tumor. But notice that all this activity takes place without there being a need for a ‘cancer cell‘. What is the role of the cancer cell? Everything has already been accounted for. But the cancer cell must be acknowledged because it can be observed. Scientists can look at a biopsy of cancerous tissue and see the presence of these cells. Note that in the definition of the scar tissue repair process, although a lot is still unknown, it is held that the body sends ‘special cells' to the area to stimulate the surrounding tissues into reproducing themselves in an endeavour to close over the wound. So, on the one hand we have an explanation which accounts for and actually requires the existence of the cancer cell, and on the other hand we have an explanation which does not account for nor require the existence of the cancer cell, yet must go on to account for them because they are an observed phenomenon. They do exist. They can be extracted and put on a microscope slide and observed in a laboratory. But since they do not have an immediate role to play in the DNA model, they must be attributed some function. The cancer cells are attributed with the task of spreading the flaw of the original defect brought on by the antigen and apply this flaw to other cells. One might ask why this flaw could not be recreated by the original antigen that caused the lawless proliferation of cells initially. If it happened in one cell, what is stopping this same process from happening in adjoining cells? Unfortunately this explanation would leave nothing for the cancer cells to do, and would beg the question, then why are they there? From the scar tissue model we can ask how did these cells get to the site, and the answer is that they were sent there by the immune system when it received the start code. We are told that the immune system sends a number of special cells to do exactly what the cancer cells appear to be doing. So we know why they are there, and how they got there. From the DNA model, the explanation for how the cancer cells got there is explained away with the phrase "they were always there.' By simply saying that they were always there, they avoid having to account for how they got to the site, and why the body would go to the trouble of manufacturing a cell that would ultimately cause its demise. And why the existing safety measures that the body has in place to prevent this, would on this occasion, permit this event to occur.

Overcomer3

Hi

I had surgery in January and I am doing 33 days rad.  I don't plan on doing anything else but God,  diet, and supplements.  The onc wants me to take Arimidex, did you have any side effects? 

Overcomer3

sorry i posted a reply on the wrong one

limegreen

purple_x, this is not the place for you to be preaching your theories about DNA and the immune system.  This is a support forum for those of us living with this disease.  Respect that! 

It is very sad that you feel the self centered need and arrogance to take up all kinds of space and force your 'philosophies' upon us here.   

By the way, I don't think you really care about any of us.  I think you care about yourself and in some twisted way need an auidience.