It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is Cancer An Ancient Survival Program Unmasked?
Ever since Richard Nixon declared a war on cancer in 1971 through the signing of the National Cancer Act, over a hundred billion dollars has been spent by our government on research and drug development in an attempt to eradicate the disease, with trillions more spent by the cancer patients themselves, but with disappointing results. Even after four decades of waging full-scale conventional (surgery and chemo) and nuclear (radiotherapy) war against cancer, close to one in every four Americans will be diagnosed with the disease within their lifetimes. Could this colossal failure reflect how profoundly misunderstood the condition is, and misguided are our attempts to prevent and treat it?
The time has come to shift the conceptual framework away from the idea that cancer is something bad that happens to the body, to something the body does in order to survive vis-à-vis an increasingly toxic and nutrient-deprived environment. Only then we will begin to unravel the mystery behind the colossal failure of the conventional medical system and why the ‘war against cancer’ will only be successful when we embrace our enemy with greater compassion and understanding, instead of blasting it (and ourselves) into oblivion.
For the past half century, the “Mutational Theory” has provided the prevailing explanation for the cause of most cancers, where, as the story goes, accumulated mutations to the DNA within the nucleus of our cells lead some to “go berserk,” their “insane” behavior a result of multiple destructive events to the intelligent code within the cell (DNA) that keep them acting in a ‘civilized’ manner relative to the larger bodily whole. In this view, these rogue cells clone themselves inordinately, spreading outward in a characteristically cancerous manner (cancer = Greek for “crab”), not unlike the characteristics of an infectious process within the host, eventually obstructing vital processes, resulting in morbidity and death. One paper summarizes this view as follows:
Cancer is derived from a single somatic cell that has accumulated multiple DNA mutations.
The default state of cell proliferation in metazoan (animal life) is quiescence
Cancer is a disease of cell proliferation caused by mutations in genes that control proliferation and the cell cycle.
The problem with this view is that over 100 cancer-promoting genes (oncogenes) have already been discovered nested deep within our genome – hardly a byproduct of chance mutation within individual cells. Proliferation may very well be the default state of all cells, and much of the behavior of healthy, well-differentiated cells in higher animals is a regulatory overlay (suppressing ancient genes) on top of a far more ancient program which becomes unmasked during carcinogenesis. Cancer, therefore, may be an “evolutionary throwback” to a time before we became multicellular organisms and a more rudimentary type of cooperation between cells existed (i.e. tumor) which enabled them to survive in a dramatically different, and perhaps far harsher environment.
Cancer cells are, in fact, surprisingly well-coordinated for cells that are supposed to be the result of strictly random mutation. They are capable of building their own blood supply (angiogenesis), are able to defend themselves by silencing cancer-suppression genes, secreting corrosive enzymes to move freely throughout the body, alter their metabolism to live in low oxygen and acidic environments, and know how to remove their own surface-receptor proteins to escape detection by white blood cells. These complex behaviors, which involve the type of cooperation between cells which is the very definition of Metazoan behavior (multicellularity, i.e. animal life), call into question the view that mutation within ‘rogue cells’ is the primary cause of cancer. What if cancer was the unmasking of a more ancient survival program within the cell, activated as a last ditch effort to survive an increasingly hostile bodily environment, saturated through with carcinogenic and immunotoxic agents?
This new view may shed light on why chemotherapy and radiotherapy have such dismal track records. Tumors often contain a mixture of both highly malignant and benign cell populations. The treatment may destroy the benign cells, releasing the “chemoresistant” and “radioresistant” populations to wreak havoc on the body of the patient. Often treatment failure is attributed to the “treatment resistant” nature of the cancer, when it is a direct result of the inherent toxicity and lack of effectiveness of the therapy being used. In the same way that antibiotics like methicilin have spawned “super germs” like MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus), conventional cancer treatment is often responsible for generating greater resistance and subsequent malignancy within certain tumor populations.
The time has come to shift the conceptual framework away from the idea that cancer is something bad that happens to the body, to something the body does in order to survive vis-à-vis an increasingly toxic and nutrient-deprived environment. ...
...In other words, cancer is not some predestined gene-time bomb setting itself off within us, rather, is the logical result of decades worth of cell shock/damage/adaptation to environmental poisoning, nutrient deprivation and psycho-spiritual and/or emotional stress? These cells have learned to survive the constant abuse, and have flipped into survival mode, which is self-centered, hyper-proliferative (constant self-repair/replication) and aggressive (metastatic).
Instead of a monolithic “disease,” it makes more sense to view cancer as a symptom of a bodily milieu gone awry; in other words, the environment of the cell has become inhospitable to normal cell function, and in order to survive, the cell undergoes profound genetic changes associated with the cancerous personality (phenotype). This “ecological” view puts the center of focus back on the preventable and treatable causes of the “disease,” rather on some vague and out-dated concept of “defective genes” beyond our ability influence directly. It also explains how the “disease” process may conceal an inherent logic, if not also healing impulse, insofar as it is an attempt of the body to find balance and survive in inherently unbalanced and dangerous conditions.
the question is, what is it defending it from?
The time has come to shift the conceptual framework away from the idea that cancer is something bad that happens to the body, to something the body does in order to survive vis-à-vis an increasingly toxic and nutrient-deprived environment
Originally posted by Night Star
It is certainly wise to eat nutritional diets and lead a healthy life style, however, there have been people who have taken very good care of themselves, ate healthy, exercised and did everything right who still got cancer. There are also people who have had horrible diets, didn't exercise etc. and they lived long lives cancer free. Just saying.
A POTENT “super aspirin” that can cause cancer cells to self-destruct has been developed by scientists.
The hybrid version is much more powerful than the conventional painkiller but far less toxic.
Prolonged use of traditional aspirin can cause stomach ulcers and kidney failure.
But the new compound, known as NOSH, can be used in lower doses and has fewer side effects.
In tests on mice, it has been shown to shrink cancer cells by 85 per cent.
The pill is effective against 11 different forms of cancer, including colon, pancreatic, prostate, breast and leukaemia, researchers have found.
Professor Khosrow Kashfi said: “If what we have seen in animals can be translated to humans it could be used in conjunction with other drugs to shrink tumours before chemotherapy or surgery.”...
The new drug is a hybrid of two compounds, one of which releases nitric oxide to protect the stomach lining and the other releases hydrogen sulfide to increase its cancer-fighting ability.
Lower doses would minimise or potentially eliminate its side effects.
Writing in the journal ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, Professor Kashfi said any working therapy for humans was still years away, but toxicity testing and clinical trials would be the next step.
His findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in Chicago next month.
Originally posted by Night Star
reply to post by kn0wh0w
That's true. I wasn't thinking of those things. Well I had cancer recently and beat it anyway! Yay! It is a horrible and scary thing and happens to too many people. Some are lucky like myself, others are not. Very sad.