The mutation theory
First it must be stated that even in allopathy there is no real agreement on how cancer is caused. There are reports of cancer being caused through viral infections e.g. Burkitt-Lymphoma, through the Eppstein-Barr virus, liver cell cancer through hepatitis B, and T-cell leukemia through a retrovirus named HTLV-1. For the most part however the reports involve cancer-causing substances, so-called noxa in the form of radiation and chemicals. These noxa then ensure that certain genes, which normally would repair these genetic defects, are inactivated, and a malignant tumor can develop. Since our cells are exposed again and again to these attacks in the course of aging, naturally the probability of contracting cancer also increases with age in a parallel relationship. In summary we can say that cancer occurs because mutations occur in our cell nucleus, the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), and over years a tumor forms from this. This is why it is called the mutation theory.
Let’s say that the mutation theory is correct, then we should be able to take the nucleus of a cancer cell, transfer it into a healthy cell, and this cell would then become a cancer cell. Naturally this also applies the other way around. If we were to transfer a healthy nucleus into a cancer cell, then this cancerous cell must then become healthy again. Unfortunately this is not the case, as McKinney demonstrated in 1969 and B. Mintz and Karl Illmensee published in 1975. For example McKinney replaced the nucleus of an egg cell of the leopard frog with the malignant nucleus of a cancer cell. But after fertilization completely healthy frogs were born. Please think about this for a moment. That part of a cell, which according to prevailing academic opinion, is responsible for determining whether a person develops a tumor, is transplanted, and what happens? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Also Seeger’s research findings, that tumor cells, which are freed from their mitochondria and then immunized do not generate cancer, clearly contradicts the mutation theory.
How come our heart does not get cancer?
The answer to this question contains an additional argument as to why in most cases cancer in the onset stage has nothing to do with our DNA. I emphasize the word onset stage here because today we know that cells that have once degenerated through various mechanisms of activation, which I do not want to discuss in more detail at this point, invoke DNA changes. If cancer is a problem of our nucleus, then it is also logical to assume that each cell nucleus can degenerate, including the billions of cells in our heart. However the fact is that certain cells, or that almost the entire heart does not get cancer, although there are billions of cells there with a DNA. Unfortunately this fact is not explained with the mutation theory, however the mitochondria theory, which I will discuss in more detail later, does explain this.
This is just one important objection as to why the mutation theory cannot be correct, not to mention the facts that have been confirmed for years that cancer cells produce increased H2O2, that an increased peroxilipid production is present, that a charge reversal with potassium outflow from the changed cell takes place, that there is a shift of hydrogen concentration towards alkalosis, that an accumulation of cholesteroal ester in the cancer cell occurs, as well as various types of membrane damage, there is a depolarization (shift of electric potential) etc. etc. Just using studies from the 50s and 60s I can list more than 100 changes that cannot be brought into harmony with the mutation theory. For some time now the central issue for many holistic doctors has not been whether the mutation theory is correct or not, but rather: Why isn’t there practical application of this knowledge and why, in spite of information to the contrary, in all probability, are far more than 90% of all cancer patients worldwide treated in accordance with the totally outdated mutation theory which says: Destroy the tumor and the cancer is gone. Millions of cancer fatalities prove every year that cancer is not simply a tumor that can be cut out.
Now add metastasis!
When tumors return within a short time, then it means that the tumor has metastasized, i.e. metastases are present. From the allopathic perspective metastases are tumor cells that have removed themselves from the original tumor and have settled elsewhere in the body. But before you accept this theory as a given, I would like to point out a few contradictions within this theory.
1. If metastases were really daughter cells of the primary tumor, then they would also have the characteristics of the “parents”. Frequently however metastases consist of many different cell types. If they are all descendents of a degenerated cell, then how can they suddenly consist of different cell types?
2. According to conventional opinion we permanently develop cancer cells, which are destroyed daily by our immune system. Would it not then be logical after an operation to do everything in our power to strengthen our immune system, or restore it so that it can destroy the remaining tumor cells. Instead we destroy our immune system with toxins or radiation.
3. If it were true that radiation only represents a problem for metastases, but not for our healthy cells – which is again and again maintained by all radiologists in the world – then it would certainly be logical that people who are subjected to radiation treatment several times a year, would thus support their immune system because they would be destroying existing cancer cells.
This radiation then would make cancer avoidable – naturally given the prerequisite that the statements of these radiologists would contain a bit of truth. Have you ever wondered why there is not a single oncologist has had himself radiated for preventative reasons?
4. Why are we not able to find these metastases in the blood, in spite of the most modern laboratory equipment.
5. How do we know that the circulating tumor cells that apparently can be found in the blood, come from the tumor, and are not “totally normal cancer cells” that the body apparently produces daily anyway?
6. Let’s assume that a patient with a primary liver tumor develops a brain metastasis. Since these cells are supposed to be daughter cells of the liver tumor, do these patients then have a “little liver” in the brain?
7. A 1cm3 tumor has approximately 1.073.741.824 cells (over a trillion). Usually tumors can only be detected when they are 6-8mm in size. At a size of only a cubic millimeter a tumor already consists of more than a million cells. Do you really believe that a tumor which “only” has one million cells, has not already been forming metastases for some time. This would indicate that basically every tumor had been producing metastases for some time before it was diagnosed.
8. For most cancer patients, tumors return after the first treatment, or the cancer patients already have additional tumors when the primary tumor is diagnosed. In these cases allopathic practitioners then say that unfortunately the primary tumor has formed metastases. This is logical because the smallest tumor that can be detected with current diagnostic processes already consists of billions of cells. What is not logical is that when blood is donated it is not examined for micro-metastases. Wouldn’t it be a compelling necessity to examine blood for cancer cells? If it is true (which I personally do not believe) that these cancer cells are responsible for new tumors, then every doctor runs the risk of transferring cancer with every blood transfusion. Because we are using blood that was donated in other countries for transfusion, naturally any logically thinking person may ask the question, “What role does the government play in this regard”? The lapidary answers such as: “The blood is previously treated or cleaned are not satisfactory from a microbiological standpoint.
9. If it is true that metastases wander through the body and settle elsewhere, then why does this almost always occur in the liver, the lungs, in the head, and in the bones? Isn’t it odd that these cells never settle in the pancreas, the spleen, the kidneys, or in the left ring finger?
I am aware that this may sound somewhat sarcastic, but no one today talks about why for instance there is so much metastases in the liver. Everyone knows that the liver is our most important detoxifying organ (next to our lungs, which many people do not know) and every doctor, who thinks, also knows that detoxification therapies play an important role in any chronic illness. And although this association so to speak is presented on a silver platter, conventional doctors still dispute that there is a connection. The reason for this is quite simple. If doctors were to finally admit that there is a connection here, then they could no longer sustain the outdated metastasis theory. At the same time there is not even an approach to a theory in any textbook as to why cancer cells always settle in just a few places. Either I am the only person that has thought about this, or there are very good reasons why this is never discussed.
10. Nor does the mass of tumor cells seem to be important. As part of their study, researchers associated with the US scientist, Michael F. Clarke, investigated cells that they had isolated from the cancerous tissue obtained from nine women who had breast cancer. With special antibodies the researchers were successful in isolating the different types of cancer cells within a tumor, in individual populations. The different cell populations were subsequently injected into mice with deficient immune systems.
What was interesting in this regard was that for many cell types, just 100 to 200 of the newly discovered cells formed malignant tumors, while thousands of other isolated cancer cell types did not cause any new tumors. All of the cancer stem cells discovered in this manner had a certain protein marker (CD44). And they had either just a small amount of another marker (CD24), or it was not present at all.
In lay terms this means that we can forget the oft-cited argument: “You better have an operation soon, before the tumor spreads”, because neither the quantity of cancer cells, nor even the size of the tumor are significant.
Even if there are many different viewpoints about metastasis, we cannot avoid one fact: The whole issue of micro-metastases remains a theory to this day, and as long as this theory is not proven, all therapists and patients should not act as if micro-metastases really exist. Here we must consider what would happen to today’s oncology, if the metastases theory would be dismissed. 90% of oncologists would then become just surgeons, because without chemotherapies and radiation against metastases there would only be a little work for the rest.
Again and again I am surprised that oncologists who are involved with cancer on a daily basis know so little about these scientific facts. The answers to the question why would unfortunately fill an entire book, and cannot be discussed in more detail here. Direct answers, which have to do with money, satisfying egos, and building up a power base are most likely familiar to you.
But we should not go so easy on ourselves and ascribe the total blame to doctors; we are the ones who still believe that the doctor makes us healthy. As long as we do not work on ourselves collectively, and finally come to understand, that only we can heal ourselves, there will be doctors who satisfy a market where healing is sought through third-parties or through medication.
The mutation theory approach to therapy:
Destruction of the tumor and the metastasis. As a patient of a conventional doctor, you must be aware of how your doctor thinks; namely: Tumor = cancer and tumor gone = cancer gone.