So it seems that we are faced with a conundrum and it has got me thinking.
I've noticed substances that delay senesence (eg. NOS inhibitors - methylene blue, etc) also turns off the ability for the body to regulate the death of cancer cells via apoptosis (NOS being the usual signaller). The studies I've read for MB indicated that the more pronouced the NOS-I effect. the higher the incidence of lymphatic cancer, etc.
Likewise, the papers on that extremely exciting enzyme, telomerase, showed that repairing the DNA/telomeres in healthy cells also repaired cancerous cells and improved their efficiency.
Studies show Vitamin C helps prevent cancers, yet improves the blood flow to established tumors.
This is also noticeable with the double-edged sword of antioxidants - they clean up the free-radicals in 'healthy' people, but the anti-oxidant effect will stop natural apoptosis in tumors, yet again.
In recent times, we've learnt that 'Bavituximab' is a very impressive engineered drug that has the potential to kill HSV-1,2, EBV, HCV, HIV and even some cancers. It works by binding to a lipid called phosphatidylserine, which is flipped outside the cell wall, only when the cell is infected with an envelope virus. The body's immune system then targets the BTM 'marked' cell and kills it. Normally, the immune system cannot detect or destroy latent viruses hiding inside the cell.
A staggered combination of telomerase and bavituximab would extend life, seemingly indefinitely, as well as taking care of our most feared virii & cancers.
...
To me, this says that we may have been looking at cancer all wrong and that tumors are an intended feature of our autoimmune system, not a defect.
...
A research paper recently posted on here also showed that tumors also have stem cells and that you can eliminate the rest of the tumor 'colony' by killing those stems cells. This appears to show a strong indication that the tumor is a programmed function, not just random growth. http://www.longecity...cer-stem-cells/
Until the recent studies involving HPV, virii were not considered carcinogenic. We now know that cervical cancer and more recently neck, throat and lung cancers have origins in HPV.
Similarly, the (strangely discredited) Italian doctor, Simoncini, observed a link between the fungus 'candida' and tumors. He may have over-extrapolated, but his research and case studies demonstrated that candida was the source of the white, cheesey appearance of many tumors. Conventional wisdom held that candida was able to invade organs because they were diseased/cancerous. Simoncini was reportedly able to make a malignant tumor disappear after 5 days, simply by injecting it with a highly alkaline solution (bicarb soda + water), killing the fungus. Simoncini was advocating that pharmaceutical companies should be researching anti-fungal drugs for a new chapter of cancer treatment, before his medical license was revoked.
Dr Burzynski has had an impressive success rate, treating cancer patients with a peptide they were deficient in- suggesting that the immune system did not have the raw building materials to deal with the original cause.
The fact that bavituximab is able to selectively kill some cancer cells, because they have exactly the same lipid-flipping qualities of cells infected with envelope virii, suggests heavily that envelope virii may actually be responsible for a large number of cancers.
My hypothesis (and I would welcome medical researchers to either prove or falisfy this), is that tumors are created - just like a cyst - to contain a substance or pathogen that is invading cells and damaging the host DNA. It is a triggered response to shield the DNA from excessive mutation. This could occur after multiple, smaller mutations to the DNA have occured over time to a group of cells, or after a single incidence of high mutation. The cells then switch modes and become a container until the body possesses / learns the ability to deal with it. Normal, 'healthy' people have potentially thousands of 'micro tumors', which are handled by their bodies on a daily basis, without causing alarm. http://www.guardian..../cancer.science
This also may explain why some fauna do not get tumors - their autoimmune system simply doesn't include that function in its programming.
This hypothesis would also explain why some tumors are malignant and others benign:
If the contents of the tumor do not have the ability to replicate (eg. foreign substance / heavy metal), the tumor 'wraps up' the substance, but is unable to immediately kill or process the invader. The tumor doesn't grow and doesn't shrink.
If the contents of the tumor are replicating, the tumor 'wraps up' the invader, as per normal, but is unable to immediately kill or process it. The pathogen keeps replicating and escapes outside the tumor. The body then creates more tumor cells to contain the pathogen and this process repeats as necessary. If the pathogen is able to replicate faster than it can be contained in the tumor and enters the blood-stream, we call it metastasizing and the cycle repeats wherever the pathogen finds a new home.
Radiation derived tumors would be created when the damaged cells become radioactive and then damage the DNA of the cells around them, as well as causing them to become radioactive, thus triggering the tumor response. This is much more difficult to treat, without surgery, as even if the damaged / radioactive cells are contained as a tumor, the radioactivity will still spread to surrounding cells, causing further tumor growth. The immune system will be unlikely to contain and repair the damage by itself.
...
So in summary, I am theorising that a tumor may simply be a method of isolating foreign invaders. If the immune system is able to successfully deal with the invader, it then induces normal apoptosis in the cancerous cells via JNK / NOS and begins repairs. The early methods of treating cancers with chemotherapy and radiotherapy probably have been semi-successful, because these extremely harmful substances are sometimes capable of killing the foreign invaders - unfortunately at the same time as the healthy cells. It's a race to see who/what dies first.
Monoclonal treatments, like BTM - if you can isolate the pathogen, or enabling / training the immune system to deal with the pathogen will be far more successful than any previous methods.
I actively welcome all comments or criticism.
