Alternate Cancer Cell Paradigm Two
Disclaimer: I’m not a doctor I’m just a disheveled individual who likes to ask questions and go down the rabbit hole. The following is a collection of my own observations and research.
Intro
Caused by DNA damage
Growth Without A Signal
Prevents Immune System Counterattacks/ And Is a Vampire
Where Did The Deadly Disease Narrative Come From?
Wrap Up
Intro
In part one way back when I talked about my skepticism of the current model of fighting cancer, specifically breast cancer. I then brought up an alternate paradigm on cancer in that it’s the body's healing mechanism and I began to look at some of the aspects of cancer cells from this paradigm. Here, I will continue on this path down the rabbit hole exploring…
Cancer caused by DNA damage
Cancer growing without being signaled by the body
Cancer prevents the immune system from attacking it as well as redirecting blood toward itself
Caused by DNA damage
The established narrative is that there are certain genes that become damaged. The gene has in it a protein that can help repair other things around the body. Genes carry within it a number of sequences of DNA and the DNA contains within themselves instructions for how to make certain proteins. And all this is within the chromosome.
Using this paradigm you can think of
Chromosomes as the state
Genes as the city
DNA as the laws and ordinances
Proteins as the individuals ensuring these laws are adhered to
Since the city is a mess, it can’t produce laws, it doesn’t have anyone to enforce them, and so a peaceful protest ensues…
How was it determined that the DNA was damaged?
I believe this to be the most important question. This whole framework starts from the standpoint that the body is malfunctioning. To know that something is broken we first have to understand how it works. Does modern science understand how the body works?
You might have heard of this concept as, “Junk DNA.” 2% of our DNA codes for proteins that serve in the building and maintenance of our body and are classified as, “Coding” DNA. Junk DNA is classified as no-coding. Well, it accounts for 98% of our genome, and for the longest time, junk DNA was thought of…well, junk. It serves no purpose.
However, this is starting to change and scientists are starting to see that some of this, “Junk” assists in
It may serve as part of the equation in understanding epigenetics3 which is the expression of our genes in relation to the environment.
Science went from saying 98% of our genome is junk to it maybe serving its purpose in a little over half a century. The start of our modern research on cancer goes back to the 19th century4which is two centuries before the human genome was fully mapped. Near the end, halfway through the 20th century, was when they started using drugs to treat cancer the first being methotrexate.5 Why do I get the sense that this is a sort of, “We’ll find out as we go along” type thing?
Could you imagine you and your neighbors taking your car to the town car shop year after year barely getting your problems fixed and then coming to find out that the mechanics there have a large gap in their knowledge when it comes to how cars work?
“Despite more than six decades of research into the mechanisms that cells use to divide, some of the nuts and bolts of the process remain a mystery.6”
From what I could gather looks like modern science has determined that certain genes are damaged through what is called, “Reverse Immunlogy.” This is where they look at the DNA of a healthy individual and compare it with those that are sick or vice versa. Through doing this they have discovered an abundance or a lack of certain proteins in various areas of one’s DNA. Some of these are.
If you’re familiar with Stanislaw Burzinsky he found some polypetides that folks with cancer were deficient in. Polypeptides are within amino acids and those are within Proteins. Because of this, I believe there is some legitimacy when it comes to using reverse immunology. But Mr. Burzinskyi started looking at a scale much smaller than doctors/scientists are doing these days. However, a more important question would be whether there is some outside influence that causes this if the DNA is damaged. Possibly one that’s manmade…
As mentioned previously it seems some of this non-coding DNA is related to epigenetics. Whatever is in the environment either harmful or beneficial, this portion of our DNA will adjust with the appropriate measures. If we let it. I believe the body is smarter than most scientists give it credit for. That’s what all medicine on this side of industrial medicine is based on.
“The human body is a flawed collection of space dust.” - Labcoat
But if cancer is part of a last-ditch healing effort brought about by the body, then it might make sense that certain regulatory processes in cell division might be placed on hold. Cell division to me sounds like a bad idea given what I’ve been taught for so long. But, it’ll be important to determine what these cells do after they divide. Do these cells have zero or a negative purpose or are there positive aspects of their presence?
Overall, I believe damaged DNA to be a solid description of what is happening. But I would ask is, if given enough time can the body correct itself, and what outside influences are causing this damage?
Growth Without A Signal
As we established in the previous section, certain cell division regulators are absent causing the growth of cancerous cells. Now why this is, the scientists haven’t established and using the framework that cancer is a disease, and from this belief they deem it as a malfunction or that the protein-coding process is damaged. In some areas, they also say that these cells grow without signaling.910
When I was in the Corps I always enjoyed going to the rifle range. You get away from the hustle and bustle of the unit for a week and all you have to focus on is shooting. During some of our courses of fire that were at close range, there would be times in which some of the range hands would need to fix a target. During these times we would need to face a different direction or, “Up range” in order to prevent us from accidentally shooting the range hand. Once they were done fixing we could turn back around. The range hand’s absence from the target they were fixing signified that operations could continue moving forward.
I bring up this analogy to say that maybe these cell division regulators taking a step back is a signal within itself. If these cells, which might have a purpose to them need to divide in order to solve another issue, then it would make sense that these regulators step aside.
Prevents Immune System Counterattacks/ And Is a Vampire
If you do some digging on cancer research regarding the immune system, the narrative is that cancer cells bypass the immune system or, “Trick it” into not attacking. In addition to this, it also redirects blood supply towards itself.
But if you’re involved in any type of physical activity, you know that every contraction calls upon an amount of the blood supply. You’re starting the rep of a shoulder press with a dumbbell so blood flows in higher concentrations through your shoulders, triceps, and traps. It needs blood to do the work.
From the established narrative this is all part of it commandeering your body to do what it wants. But from the alternative, this is all part of the system mobilizing to deal with a threat and remove a toxin.
You know what that reminds me. All this is from the framework of cancer being a disease. Where did it come from?
Where Did The Deadly Disease Narrative Come From?
5th Century BC “It is better not to treat those who have internal cancers since, if treated, they die quickly; but if not treated they last a long time.” (p230, Hippocratic Writings)
No not there.
“A history of cancer and its treatment”
I found this study11 and there are many like it for example if you browse around on the National Cancer Institute’s website.12 My only problem with the latter, from my amateur historian standpoint, is that they don’t have sources. If you’re going to tell me that
Rudolph Virchow found the link between cancer and Inflammation in 1863
Or that in 1909 Paul Ehrlich brought about what would be known as "immune surveillance" hypothesis
And that Hilário de Gouvêa in 1886 determined that cancer is genetic…
Can I at least be given some information so I don’t have to go on an epic quest for the information myself?
Because, it’s not as important as to what they discovered, but how. Charles Darwin determined that folks like me were the intermediary between whites and apes just by looking at some birds with a salty atheist paradigm. Even if someone discovers something, their methods might be straight garbage.
But from what I find and have read, the history of cancer and the treatment of is almost nonexistent.
There are some possible examples of cancer treatment with a Atossa, a Persian queen in 520BC. Who asked her Greek slave to rid her breast of an abscess. But the first question we need to establish is was it actually cancer. Second, if it was, did she want it removed because it might kill her, or because it was a blemish on her skin that made her look less attractive?
We, here in the 21st century need to be aware of what assumptions we hold when looking into history. Just because we have certain fears and concerns these days doesn’t mean that folks in the past shared those same concerns. Unless, it can be proven through primary resources. Looking at what Hippocrates said about cancer seems like they weren’t as urgent about treatment as we are today.
From what I can find we didn’t start fidgeting with this stuff till about the 19th century. Which was long before we knew what DNA was and before the mapping of the human genome.
Land navigation, aka looking for red boxes (with specific numbers) in the woods, was an experience in Marine Corps training I mostly enjoyed. But, if the azimuth you set before your journey to a location is off even by a degree or two, you will not find your box and could be hundreds of yards away from it.
Wrap Up
If cancer is a healing mechanism then it should not be destroyed but should be aided in the repair process. However, as I look at it now, this worldview is not entirely accurate but can give us the perspective to address the problem better. Stanislaw Burzynski’s treatment came from the perspective that cancer is a problem that should be dealt with using drugs. And he did deal with it in a safe manner compared to established methods. His methods worked by getting down into the roots and looking at elements smaller than proteins. If we can go further down the rabbit hole of root causes we can possibly address, in a natural way, the maintenance of our health. A patent can be blocked by the FDA. A lifestyle can’t.
In the next and last part of the series, I’ll cover
Depends on sugar for fuel #Warburgeffect
Are oxygen-deprived or, “Hypoxic”
Pumps out lactic acid (which has some positive benefits/more on this later)
As well as strategies I’ll use in light of this altered perspective.
Thank you for making it to the end and being a paid subscriber. Let me know your thoughts down below.
Until next time.
...which makes me wonder anew, especially in light of Covid: how many thousands who died, would have lived if they had not been under a doctor's "care"?