Has Cancer Been Completely Misunderstood?

Has Cancer Been Completely Misunderstood

A Failed War On Cancer

Ever since Richard Nixon officially declared a war on cancer in 1971 through the signing of the National Cancer Act,[i] over a hundred billion dollars of taxpayer money has been spent 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, one in every four Americans will be diagnosed with the disease within their lifetimes – and this number is projected to grow – unabated -- not unlike the process of cancer itself.

Could this colossal failure reflect how profoundly misunderstood the condition is, and misguided are our attempts to prevent and treat it?  

The Question That Must Be Answered Anew: What Is Cancer?

Perhaps we need to return back to the fundamental question of 'What Is Cancer'?  After all, until we find an accurate answer to this question, all attempts to 'prevent' and 'treat' a disease we do not understand are doomed to fail.

For the past half century, the "Mutational Theory" has provided the prevailing explanation for the cause of cancer, where, as the story goes, accumulated mutations within our cells lead a few susceptible ones to "go berserk," their "insane" and "violent" behavior a result of multiple destructive events to the intelligent code within the cell (DNA) that normally keep them acting in a 'civilized' manner relative to the larger multicellular community as a whole (i.e. the body). In this view, these rogue cells replicate incessantly and form a tumor which spreads outward in a cancerous manner (cancer = Greek for "crab"), in many ways simulating the characteristics of an infectious process within the host, until the growths obstruct vital processes, resulting in morbidity and death.  

According to this theory, which was heavily influenced by the Darwinian theory of evolution and is sometimes called "Internal Darwinism," what drives the evolution of the healthy cells into cancerous ones is a process very similar to natural selection, i.e. random mutations beneficial to the survival and reproduction of cancerous cells in a tumor are naturally selected for and conserved, driving them towards malignancy. Damage to the DNA can occur either through inheriting defective DNA sequences ("bad genes" in the family) or exposures to DNA-damaging chemicals (e.g. tobacco) or radiation.

While this view has some explanative value, it can also be quite misleading.  For instance, a fundamental tenet of evolution is that random mutations are almost always harmful, resulting in immediate cell death. Cancer cells, however, seem to get quite 'lucky' because they appear to thrive on them.  Rather than dying like normal cells when faced with random mutations, they exhibit the exact opposite response: they become immortalized, incapable of undergoing the programmed cell death required of healthy cells.

Is randomness and chaos, then, really at the root of the transformation of healthy cells into cancer?

Tumors, after all, express highly organized behaviors, seemingly impossible to induce through strictly random forces such as mutation...

A collection of cancer cells (tumors), for instance, are capable of building their own blood supply (angiogenesis), are able to defend themselves by silencing cancer-suppression genes and activating tumor-promoter genes, secreting corrosive enzymes to move freely throughout the body, alter their metabolism to live in low oxygen, high sugar and acidic environments, and know how to remove their own surface-receptor proteins to escape detection by white blood cells.  Could these complex behaviors really be a result of random mutations? And is it possible that random mutations could result in the formation of the same "lucky" set of genetic properties, each and every time a new cancer forms in a human?

Random mutations, no doubt, play a major role in the initiation and promotion of cancer, but are not alone sufficient for a complete explanation.  One group of scientists, in fact, have offered a much more compelling explanation. They view multiple mutations causing an unmasking of an ancient survival program within the cell....

tree of life

Cancer as An Ancient Survival Program Unmasked

A brilliant new theory, introduced by Arizona State University scientist, Paul Davies, and Australian National University scientist, Charles Lineweaver, sheds much needed light on the true nature of cancer. According to Davies:

"Cancer is not a random bunch of selfish rogue cells behaving badly, but a highly-efficient pre-programmed response to stress, honed by a long period of evolution."

In their seminal paper, titled "Cancer tumors as Metazoa 1.0: tapping genes of ancient ancestors," Davies and Lineweaver propose that cancer is an evolutionary throw-back, drawing from a genetic 'tool-kit' at least a billion years old, and which still lies buried – normally dormant – deep within the genome of our cells.  Davies calls this subterranean genetic layer Metazoa 1.0, and it contains pathways and programs that were once indispensable for our ancient cellular predecessors and their early proto-communities to survive in a radically different environment.

Without the highly differentiated cells and specialized organs of higher multicellular/animal life (Metazoa 2.0), cells with the genetics of Metazoa 1.0 would have favored traits that enabled them to survive direct contact with what was a much different and harsher (to us) environment.

For example, 1 billion years ago atmospheric oxygen was exceptionally low, since photosynthesis has not yet evolved to produce an abundant supply. This means that cellular life at that time would have had to learn to thrive in a low or no oxygen environment, which is exactly what cancer cells do, using aerobic glycolysis for energy instead of oxidative phosphorylation.

Davies and Lineweaver summarize their view as follows

"The genes of cellular cooperation that evolved with multicellularity [animal life] about a billion years ago are the same genes that malfunction to cause cancer. We hypothesize that cancer is an atavistic condition that occurs when genetic or epigenetic malfunction unlocks an ancient 'toolkit' of pre-existing adaptations, re-establishing the dominance of an earlier layer of genes that controlled loose-knit colonies of only partially differentiated cells, similar to tumors. The existence of such a toolkit implies that the progress of the neoplasm [cancer] in the host organism differs distinctively from normal Darwinian evolution."

Instead of viewing the hallmark trait of cancer, namely, incessant proliferation, as a newly evolved trait spurned by random mutations, it would be considered the default state of the cell, having been developed a billion years ago when 'not dying' would be the first priority.  Remember, this ancestral assemblage of cells would not have had the differentiation of cell type and specialization of tissue associated with higher animals, i.e. skin, hair, claws, etc., with which to protect themselves against the environment.

Continue to Page 2

Pages :
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You're going in the right direction!



It would be of immense interest to you to delve into the lifetime work of Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer. This brilliant scientist / doctor has spent more than 30 years working on what he has called, the German New Medicine. I can assure you that you would be astounded should you take the time to investigate his work on cancer and disease. Many of his students are working and practising this work with exhilirating effects. Unfortunately, this does not go well with the cancer institute and Dr. Hamer himself has faced persecution for his discoveries. www.learninggnm.com with gratitude for your work, Joanne Kersten

"The Question That Must Be



"The Question That Must Be Answered Anew: What Is Cancer?" is answered for about 30 years; comprehensible and falsifiable for everybody who really want to know. It doesn't need to be reinvented or rediscovered. There is no more time to waste. Make use of it, right now! It's far more interesting to ask: "Qui Bono" NOT to use it? The answer ist the key to understand why so many suffer torment and die in squalor under the claws of mainstream medicine. But don't get me wrong: they're brilliant in emergencies, kudos! But this is skilled crafts and trades, pure cause and effect. A broken leg or a delivery is no disease at all, never was. The rest of the so called mainstream medicine is not anyway near natural science. Take a look at it at http://universitatsandefjord.com Best regards, Martin

You two need to go back to



You two need to go back to school. Theorizing and hypothesizing about what the code or a 1 billion year old cell was like is akin to believing on a provable "Big Bang" to kick start a universe. Cancer... the cells that become tumors... are protoblast cells which are created within the body during a woman's pregnancy or in response to an injury. When the condition has healed or repaired and the protoblast cell is no longer required the body has a built in response mechanism that destroys these now unneeded cells and rid them from the body. That mechanism is found in our diet... the ingestion of certain vitamins that contain enzymes specifically designed to contact and destroy these protoblast cells that left unheeded, become 'cancer cells' in the body. The only thing the paper got right was that we are faced with a higher toxicity through our environment which we breath in and absorb through our skin and the lack of vitamins and nutrition that was 'once' in the foods we ingested but have now been genetically removed. Cancer is on the rise because of a d deficiency in our diet (think GMO ie: Monsanto)... not because of a 'never-have-have-to-actually-prove-our-theory" 1 billion year old genetic survival code for a cell.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to write a comment