Understanding the nature of cancer is fundamentally wrong? Even after forty years of conducting the complex “traditional” (surgery and chemotherapy) and “nuclear” (radiation therapy) war against cancer, one in four is diagnosed with this disease - and, if you believe the predictions

Since Richard Nixon officially declared war on cancer by signing the American Anti-Cancer Act, over a hundred billion dollars from taxpayers' money was spent on research and drug development in an effort to eradicate the disease, the patients themselves have trillions more, but the results are disappointing.

Understanding the nature of cancer is fundamentally wrong?

Even after forty years of conducting the complex “traditional” (surgery and chemotherapy) and “nuclear” (radiation therapy) war against cancer, one in four is diagnosed with this disease - and, according to forecasts, the number of cases will continue to grow steadily.

Perhaps this grand defeat reflects the fact that the nature of the cancer was interpreted fundamentally wrong, and at the same time our attempts to prevent or cure it are also erroneous? Not so long ago, it was revealed that acidosis is a precursor of cancer, although previously nothing was known about it.

So the question that needs to be answered anew is: what is cancer?

Perhaps we should return to the fundamental question: what is cancer? In the end, until we find an exact answer to it, all attempts to “prevent” or “cure” a disease that we do not understand are doomed to failure.

Over the past half century, “mutational theory” has provided the prevailing explanation for the cause of cancer, according to which the accumulated mutations in our cells lead some particularly vulnerable ones to “insanity.” Their “crazy” and “distorted” behavior is the result of a multitude of destructive phenomena in DNA, which usually supports their “civilized” activity regarding the vast multicellular community as a whole - the organism.

From this point of view, these rogue cells continuously multiply and form a tumor, imitating the characteristics of infectious processes in the host’s organism in various ways until the new growth interferes with vital processes, which will eventually lead to death.

According to this hypothesis, which was strongly influenced by the Darwinian theory of evolution (sometimes called “internal Darwinism”, which drives the evolution of healthy cells into malignant), this process is very similar to natural selection, i.e. random mutations are useful for the survival and reproduction of cancer cells in a tumor.

DNA damage can occur both through the inheritance of defective DNA sequences (“bad genes”), and under the influence of destructive chemicals (for example, tobacco) or radio emission.

Although this point of view provides some explanation, it may also be erroneous. For example, one of the basic principles of evolution is that random mutations are almost always dangerous and lead to cell death. However, in this case, cancer cells seem to be the real "lucky ones."

Instead of dying like normal cells, faced with random mutations, they demonstrate the exact opposite reaction: they become immortal, unable to undergo programmed death, as it happens with healthy cells.

Then is it the basis of turning a healthy cell into a cancer is randomness and chaos? Tumor cells, in the end, exhibit highly organized behavior, so it seems impossible that they are stimulated by such completely random forces as mutation ...

Cancer cells (tumors or neoplasms), for example, are able to build their own blood supply system (angiogenesis), are able to protect themselves by silencing cancer-suppressing genes and activating tumor initiator genes, releasing aggression enzymes to freely move around the body, they can change their metabolism, to live in an environment of low oxygen, high sugar and high acidity, and also know how to remove their own surface receptors to avoid being detected leukocytes.

Can these complex behavioral patterns be the result of a random mutation? And is it possible that random mutations can lead to the formation of the same “successful” sets of genetic properties each time new forms of cancer are formed in the human body?

Random mutations undoubtedly play an important role in the initiation and stimulation of cancer, but only one of them is not enough for a full explanation.

Cancer as an ancient survival program

An outstanding theory presented by Arizona State University Paul Davis and Australian National University scientist Charles Lineviver will help shed much-needed light on the true nature of cancer.

“Cancer is not an accidental accumulation of selfish rogue cells with bad behavior, but a highly effective programmed reaction to stress, honed by a long period of evolution.”

In their pioneering work, entitled Cancers as Multicellular 1.0: Distant Ancestor Genes, Davis and Lineviver suggested that cancer is an atavism taken from a genetic arsenal that is at least a billion years old and still rests - usually slumbers - deep in the genome of our cells.

Davis calls this hidden genetic layer multicellular 1.0. It contains paths and programs that were once needed for our ancient cellular progenitors and their early proto-communities to survive in a completely different environment.

Without highly differentiated cells and specialized organs of higher multicellular (multicellular 2.0), cells with multicellular 1.0 genetics would have useful properties that would allow them to survive by direct contact with what would be a completely different, more rigid (for us) environment.

For example, a billion years ago, the level of oxygen in the atmosphere was extremely low, since photosynthesis had not yet formed to produce its abundant supply. This means that cell life at that time would have to learn to grow in an environment with low oxygen content, or even in an oxygen-free environment — that is what cancer cells do, using aerobic glycolysis to generate energy instead of oxidative phosphorylation.

Davis and Lineveiver briefly stated their opinion as follows:

“We assume that cancer is an atavism that occurs when genetic or epigenetic malfunctions reveal the ancient“ arsenal ”of already existing devices that restore the dominance of an earlier layer of genes that controlled free colonies of only partially differentiated cells, similar to tumors. The existence of such a toolkit suggests that the progress of the neoplasm (cancer) in the host’s body is clearly different from the normal evolution of Darwin. ”

Instead of considering such a distinctive feature of cancer as continuous reproduction as a newly evolved property that the random mutation neglected, it should be considered the “default” cell state, developed a billion years ago, when “immortality” was the first priority.

Do not forget, this ancient collection of cells did not have such a differentiation of the cell type and tissue specialization, as in higher animals (ie, skin, hair, nails, etc.), for protection from the harmful effects of the environment.

If a crayfish - this is an unmasked ancient survival program, this does not mean that the “theory of mutation” still does not contain a grain of truth. Genetic damage and mutations, in fact, contribute to the development of cancer, but instead of considering them as "causing" a complex system of behavior associated with cancer, it would be more accurate to assume that they reveal an existing set of genetic programs (atavism). *

For example, more than a hundred oncogenes are known that exist in our DNA and are common to a wide range of different biological species, including fruit flies, which shows how ancient they are (at least 600 million years) and universal (they are found in most multicellular organisms).

As part of this new way of thinking, cancer can no longer be seen as some kind of predetermined timebase gene bomb embedded in us, or simply as a by-product of a cumulative effect on genotoxic substances.

Most likely, cancer is an ancient survival reaction in an increasingly toxic environment, with unnatural nutrition and weakened immunity. These cells have learned to survive with constant excessive loads, carrying out constant self-healing (replication) and following the principle: everything that does not kill makes you stronger.

Cancer can no longer be considered as something bad happening inside a healthy body. Cancer is what the body actively undertakes in response to an unhealthy cellular, physical and planetary environment. Instead of expressing a physical deviation from the norm, it can be an expression of physical intelligence and the ability of our cells to survive in conditions that threaten to destroy them to a critical point where survival is impossible.

It also sheds light on the destructive nature of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Tumors contain a wide range of cells, many of which, in fact, are benign (never harm the body), and some of them also inhibit more harmful cells.

Invasive cells are more primordial in their genetic configuration (multicellular 1.0) because of how much damage they have to endure during their life cycle. It is these cells that are most resistant to chemotherapy, less likely to die when exposed to them. Therefore, chemotherapy and radiation therapy kill cells that are not really dangerous.

Cancer is a symptom, not a disease

It is more reasonable to consider cancer not as a "monolithic disease", but as a symptom of deteriorating cellular and environmental conditions. In other words, the cell environment has become unfavorable for its normal functioning, and to help it survive, profound genetic changes occur in the cell, repeating the ancient genetic paths that we associate with the cancerous phenotype.

This “ecological” approach again returns our attention to the preventable and treatable causes of the “disease”, instead of the obscure and outdated concept of “defective genes” that we cannot influence.

In fact, we have to switch our thinking from the point of view that cancer is something unnatural that happens to us, to the one where we see that cancer is a completely natural reaction of our body in order to survive in unnatural conditions. Change these conditions for the better, and you will get much more benefit from this than from fighting cancer as an enemy.

* The concept of cancer as an atavism can be explained as follows: atavism is an older genetic feature, a property that is no longer used and therefore is suppressed by newly evolved genes. An example is the membrane between the fingers.

While we are in the womb, everyone has them, but in the process of embryonic development they disappear. This is done through the “programmed cell death” process, also known as apoptosis. The body simply includes apoptosis of genes in tissues associated with membranes, and these cells calmly disassemble themselves, with the result that we have normal, hands and feet free from membranes. The most interesting is that cancer cells are cancerous because they do not die.

They either forgot how to go through the programmed death (apoptosis), or were forced due to injury (genetic disturbance) or environmental stress (epigenetic change) to suppress genes that would allow them to die.

Cancer cells, in fact, are copied from ancient genetic tools that their predecessors used more than a billion years ago to survive in very harsh conditions, and where replication was a much more preferred feature than death.

PS And remember, just changing your consumption - together we change the world! © econet

Join us at Facebook , In contact with , Classmates