The Big C – cancer, con game, whatever

I wrote a lengthy post on this in a lot of semi-technical detail, but here is a summary of why I am angry today.


Here’s a link!

I think I need to start with a joke.

The Blonde’s boyfriend gets an agonized phonecall.

“Darling, you must come and help me!”

“What’s wrong, babe?”

“I’m sitting here with the puzzle from hell.  There must be…”  silence as she tries to count then gives up, “probably about ten thousand pieces.”

Boyfriend thinks, probably closer to 500 or so.

“Stay calm, babe.  Do you know what it’s supposed to look like?”

“No idea!”

“What’s the picture on the box?”

A moment, then, “looks like a rooster of some sort.”

“Good.  I’ll be over in a minute.”

A minute later, Boyfriend arrives, stares at the pieces on the table, stares at the box.  He places his arm around the Blonde’s shoulders and sits her down, makes her a cup of tea.  Then he sits down across from her, telling her gravely:

“Babe, sorry to tell you, but that will never, ever make the picture of a rooster.”

*Big sigh.*

“Now, let’s put all the cornflakes back into the box.”


Cancer:  The BIG BS game

To put it in a nutshell (it’s a coconut at least):

Theory 1 (mainstream, endorsed by science, medicine, pharma, big money, fundraising organizations):

  • “Random DNA damage causes cancer.”

Theory 2 (PNI, holistic, cooky, but almost 100% observable in real life: )

  • “Chronic stress and a toxic lifestyle cause cancer.”

Theory 3 (“alternative”, disapproved but not disproved by mainstream, first observed more than 100 years back through a light microscope: )

  • “Microbes cause cancer.”

If these 3 theories were contestants in a “Win and Spin” contest, which one would walk away with the prize?

“DNA” sounds sophisticated,

technological and complex enough to characterize the total confusion that is cancer.  There are 1000 little extra corners to it, every exception to a rule has another exception to its exceptions; so much so that when I found 2x the same chromosome rearrangement in 2 tumours out of 17 I had to report it as “significant”.  2 out of 17?  Evidence, sure, but of what??

The problem I kept having with the genetic theory over 9 years of working in medical genetics labs, working with cancer genetics, was that the findings failed to make any picture.  We were trying to piece  cornflakes into a picture of a rooster.  And like the Blonde, the more we failed to produce a big, coherent picture, the harder we tried.

I kept getting back to this one question, the root cause of it all:  Sure, chromosome damage, but why?  Why would a chromosome break exactly there, in the spot(s) that cause(s) cancer?  What ray of radiation would be so intelligent to break 2 chromosomes at exactly those regions?  Random?  Gosh!

The longer I worked with cancer genetics the less, not more, did it actually make sense to me.  Yes, little bits seemed to fit together – until the next random bit of research knocked them out of alignment again.  Parts of it are certainly plausible.  But as a whole it simply fails to explain cancer.

The Stress Theory

has its merits in that it is highly observable.  It ties in with the immune system, and certainly a strong immune system should do away with cancer cells as they arise.  But – stress causes cancer, how?

That question was not answered.  “By failing to prevent it” does not satisfy.  Cancer arises naturally in our body all the time?  But why?  How?  By which mechanism?

This is the key question, because once we understand the entire mechanism, we can both prevent and cure cancer.  To say “it’s not that easy, there are many different types of cancer” is pure evasion.  All cancer may not look the same but it does act the same:

  1.  It grows.
  2.  It evades detection by the immune system.
  3.  Its cells have hectic DNA damage in specific, non-random places that look highly targeted as though there is an intelligence at work, because a lot if not all break a functional gene or realign it with a switch from another gene (and the cells are sick in other ways too)
  4. It depletes the nutrients around it
  5. It invades other tissue aggressively
  6. It even poisons the surrounds
  7. In its advanced stages it builds itself membranes and a blood supply;
  8. It metastasizes, meaning that new ones of the same cancer form in new places in the body.

So despite ten thousand “sub-classifications” cancer is still cancer – our gut instinct rings true.

The microbe theory

at least has one clearly documented case in mainstream medicine:  Cervical cancer caused by the HPV virus.

They do accept  that much.

But when it comes to Gaston Naessens (yes do look him up and see what they did with him) describing in detail a pleomorphic bacterium, i.e. H. pylori, playing the hijacker; when it comes to him outlining the entire life cycle of that beast, suddenly all this is hocus-pocus and voodoo!

Well, sorry, the microbial theory fits 100% better on what we observe than whatever corner of the random DNA damage theory;  and because it explains so well, it makes things predictable.

In fact cancer acts exactly like a microbial colony hijacking a “vehicle”.


  • Like HPV, it hijacks a cell;
  • takes over the nucleus, non-randomly reprograms the DNA (random damage?  My rat’s backside!),
  • breaks the chromosomes at exactly the places we observed as “random”, that “by coincidence” always involve “cancer genes”;
  • forces the cell to rejuvenate and make itself immortal;
  • forces it to divide aggressively;
  • disables the extensive DNA repair mechanism that guards daily against all random breakage from radiation, toxins etc so it can’t repair the damage the bug does;
  • coats the cell with a substance (details in the linked article) that makes the immune system (which clears up all abnormal cells, normally) not recognize anything wrong with the cell;
  • it uses up a lot of the glucose in the cell for its own food and replication, depleting the cell and making it very weak from internal starvation;
  • and it excretes lactic acid, a toxin that further poisons and weakens the cell, the surrounds and eventually the whole body as the liver tries to cope with all the lactic acid by reconverting it to glucose using up more energy in the process.

It explains everything that the conventional model cannot!

So why are we clinging to a dogma that (sorry, but) failed?  I remember seeing the book of Gaston Naessens when I was a teenager.  This has been a while!  Why is nobody paying heed to the real answers?  Why don’t they even get discussed and dismissed as a failed theory (if they are that)?


Watching 2 relatives succumb to cancer is a pretty helpless thing.
But if we have a better theory, can’t we try better remedies?  Chemotherapy is a “therapy” to kill the patient.  It is based on the assumption that the cancer cells, being sick, will die faster than the “healthy” cells of the very sick patient.  Unsurprisingly these medieval, experimental “cures” have a very high failure rate.

If we tried the alternative theory, we’d be looking at ways of killing helicobacter inside cells.  They exist; they are labelled “experimental” and touted as “very dangerous” to patients who are already half dead from chemo and don’t know if they can handle another “experiment”.  Better the devil they know?

See, this is why I’m so angry at this point.

4 thoughts on “The Big C – cancer, con game, whatever

  1. Love the blonde joke. 🙂 I’m so sorry about your relatives. It must be dreadful to see them suffering and to feel so helpless to do anything. My dad died of cancer. It was too late to do anything once he was diagnosed.

    • 😦 That’s the worst… Thanks AD for your sympathy! My biggest frustration right now is in 2 parts: Firstly, how the heck to verify this research, and secondly how to persuade my 2 relatives (separately) to try the “experimental alternative” remedies.

Your thoughts on this:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s