GordonCancerTheory.com
Welcome

Home Page

 

Last Modified:  August 26, 2015


This website has been created for the possible interest of the cancer research community and others with an interest in cancer theory.  It has been created in the hope that those in the cancer research community may consider far broader perspectives that may lead to progress in understanding cancer.
Comments are welcome and may be sent directly to the author at pgordon@starpower.net .

______________________________________________________________


Sponsors/Benefactors/Contributors
 
To become a sponsor, benefactor, or contributor:
You may make a contribution to the Contributions Account through PayPal
 
Contributions are not tax deductible.
Thanks very much to all supporters of this website.
For information about becoming an acknowledged sponsor, benefactor, or contributor,
please contact Paula D. Gordon, Ph.D. at pgordon@starpower.net
 
 _______________________________________________________________


A Notable Breakthrough Reported on in May of 2014: 

The theories of carcinogenesis and anti-carcinogenesis presented on this website complement and help  explain the Mayo Clinic’s landmark success in using a virotherapy involving a high dose level of measles vaccine in treating multiple myeloma.

 

Stephen J. Russell, MD. Ph.D. heads a team at the Mayo Clinic that has made a startling discovery.  In the course of treating a patient with multiple myeloma with a multitude of tumors, they use a  virotherapy that involved an extremely high dose of measles vaccine.  The surprising result is that the patient is now cancer free.  For information about this virotherapy, see “Mayo Clinic First to Show Virotherapy is Promising Against Multiple Myeloma” http://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/mayo-clinic-first-to-show-virotherapy-is-promising-against-multiple-myeloma  and the  Press Release concerning findings reported in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings at  http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/pb/assets/raw/Health%20Advance/journals/jmcp/jmcp_pr89_5_2.pdf . The entire article and a video can be found at http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900332-2/fulltext

The theories of carcinogenesis and anti-carcinogenesis presented here at http://GordonCancerTheory.com complement and explain the findings in this case.  The essence of these theories is that cancer can be regressed by the “hyping” of the immune system.  

Mentioned on this website is the work of Chisato Maruyama.  His use of a tubercle bacillus vaccine seems to have functioned in a somewhat similar way. 

The cases reported on in the Proceedings of an NIH Conference on the Spontaneous Regression of Cancer similarly share the common denominator of a “hyped” immune system, whether through malaria, septicemia, a cobra bite or other “agents” or factors. 
Further information on these findings can be found in the Proceedings of a Conference on the Spontaneous Regression of Cancer
. (National Cancer Institute Monograph 44. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1976.)


___________________________________________________



Some Tables that Illustrate Some Variations of the Carcinogenic and Anti-Carcinogenic Processes  2015-08-25_Paula_D._Gordon_TABLES_DEPICTING_SOME_VARIATIONS_OF_CARCINOGENESIS_AND_ANTI-CARCINOGENESIS.docx
28.6 KB

 

The attached file of Tables provides a way of illustrating the cancer theory described on this website. It might also serve as a basis for  using computer graphics to illustrate the theory:

There is a video which includes a “demonstration” of the kind of movable computer graphics that I thought might work to illustrate some variations of my theory.  The piece called “Endless Bounty” by John F. Simon, Jr.  is featured in the last frames of the very short video.  For a glimpse of this piece and its movable graphics, see the following about 1 minute 14 seconds into the video at  http://www.phillipscollection.org/events/2013-10-17-intersections-simon

 In “Endless Bounty”, the artist utilized a software program, Apple PowerBook  G4.  There are six panels in the "picture" each of which would change so that the overall set of panels periodically change.  As I mentioned  I am looking for someone to help provide a visualization of some of the many variations of the carcinogenic and the anti-carcinogenic processes. I see the processes as involving as a five stage process with each of the stages having four steps. The first four stages can have many variations. My understanding of the carcinogenic and anticarcinogenic processes is that they involve "variations on themes that are themselves varied" (words borrowed from John Cage, the experimental composer, writer, and artist). I am looking for a way to graphically depict a few of the variations on the themes that I have identified. Let me know if such a project seems doable to you.   The background can be found here on my http://GordonCancerTheory.com  website.   The variations that I would optimally like to have illustrated are on the file found by clicking on the heading of this section:  A Model that Illustrates Some Variations of the Carcinogenic and Anti-Carcinogenic Processes.

While the tables begin to illustrate the theory,  I think that it might be possible to illustrate the theory better if there were “moving parts” to illustrate at least one, if not all of the processes depicted in the attached file of tables. If you have the skills to help with this project, please contact me at pgordon@starpower.net .  Many thanks!


___________________________________________________
 
Noteworthy Article in the July 13, 2010 New Scientist:
 
Lizzie Buchen, a San Francisco-based free lance science writer,  has a fascinating article in the July 13, 2010 New Scientist: Crunching Cancer with Numbers  (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727680.400-crunching-cancer-with-numbers.html ).  Especially note the last lines of the article where she quoted Dr. David Agus of the Physical Sciences Oncology Center at USC concerning an exploratory multi-disciplinary approach to understanding cancer in which he and other associates are engaged::
 
“To Agus the oncologist, meanwhile, that knowledge gap might turn out to be an advantage: great insights often come from those unencumbered by intellectual baggage. 'Galileo would go out every night and map stars,' he says. 'After four months he had a beautiful map where he could predict where every star would be. But he didn't even know what a star was.' "
 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 
Synthesis of a New Theoretical Perspective
on Carcinogenesis and Anticarcinogenesis

By
 Paula D. Gordon, Ph.D.

 

Last modified: 7:11 PM
, December 28, 2009

 

Preface


This website and the paper that is posted here represent the culmination of a long term interest of mine in the field of cancer research.  In 1979 and 1980, I spent a year deeply exploring the topic.  At that time, I had a contract with an institute that enabled me to attend mainstream medical conferences as well as conferences focusing on alternative medical approaches to preventing and treating cancer.  I also met with researchers here in the United States and in the U.K., Australia, Japan, India, and Jamaica.  Among the most notable of the doctors and researchers whom I met were the following:

·         Josef Issels (author of Cancer: A Second Opinion),

·         Chisato Maruyama (Tokyo) (inventor of the Maruyama vaccine),

·         Thelma Arthur (inventor of a blood test for cancer), and

·         John Holt (Perth Radiation Oncology Centre, Perth, Australia) (innovator in treatment regimen involving microwaves and radiation in combination).

The paper posted here was also influenced by my reading of D.W. Smithers’ famous lecture entitled “Possibilities in Cancer Prevention.” (The Seventh Maurice Bloch lecture delivered within the University of Glasgow on 23rd November, 1965, http://library.unl.edu/record=b1796333*eng.)  Smithers had called for a wide ranging theoretical perspective.

          While Josef Issels, Chisato Maruyama, and Thelma Arthur have all passed away, John Holt’s work apparently continues.   What is happening with Thelma Arthur’s legacy is unclear.

        Issels Treatment Centers are in San Diego and Florida among other locations.  (See http://www.issels.com  and http://www.issels.com/clinics_ITC_about.aspx  for further information.) 

For information about Dr. Maruyama’s legacy, see http://ezinearticles.com/?Do-Bacteria-Cause-Cancer?&id=641484 .  This posting includes information about the Maruyama vaccine.  Further Google searches seem to indicate that the clinical treatment that he had started may still be continuing.   His clinic in Tokyo was quite a thriving enterprise in 1979 when I visited Dr. Maruyama.  The oncology community was not at all on his side, however.  This might well have being owing to the fact that not only was his medical specialty in a field other than oncology, but his treatment regimen was unorthodox.)

I am not sure about the current status of Dr. Arthur’s work at her Research Laboratory in Chula Vista, California and her cutting edge breakthrough in testing.  Her blood test in the 1970s and 1980s enabled doctors to know the stage of a person’s cancer. Her innovative work was both cutting edge and controversial.

Dr. John Holt, according to a Google search, seems to be continuing his cutting edge work using microwaves in conjunction with radiation in Perth, Australia.  His eclectic background, includes medicine as well as physics.  His eclectic background seems to have made it very difficult for mainstream medicine to understand what it is he is doing and why his approach to treating cancer is effective.  While engaged in cutting edge research and developing innovative treatment modalities, he also maintained roles in the orthodox medicine, including serving as Medical Director for Western Australia.   

In preparing these comments and doing some new Google searches, I found what appears to be an interesting article entitled “Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments” by R. Webster Kehr on the difficulties that medical researchers have faced in getting their research accepted or even seriously considered.  (See http://www.life-enthusiast.com/index/Concerns/Cancer.)  I mention the article here in that the Kehr article may be helpful to those who are new to the controversial nature of medical breakthroughs and the difficulties that innovators too often have in gaining serious consideration of the merits of their innovations.

One of the publications that I came across while doing my secondary research on the subject of cancer was the Proceedings of a Conference on the Spontaneous Regression of Cancer. (National Cancer Institute Monograph 44. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1976.)  I had obtained a copy of the proceedings from MEDLARS at the National Institutes of Health when I was doing my research.  The insight that I gained from reading the proceedings of that conference and the numerous cases involving the spontaneous regression of cancer that were reported on at that Conference was this: 

 The one thing that the anecdotal clinical information about cases of the spontaneous regression of cancer  that all such cases shared in common was the hyping of the immune system.

            “Hyping” is my term, not theirs. 

            Cases of spontaneous regression involved everything from a cobra bite, to septicemia, and malaria:  things that induce high fevers.  Indeed, the Maruyama vaccine (which utilizes tubercle bacilli) and Dr. Holt’s use of microwaves would also have the effect of hyping the immune system as would other treatment regimen that elevated the temperature of the body.

          My secondary research efforts resulted in the following paper on a new theoretical perspective on carcinogenesis and “anticarcinogenesis.”  The paper was never formally published although it was widely circulated.   I gave several presentations on the original version of the paper, including a presentation at an annual meeting of the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia in Melbourne and another at the 4th Asian Cancer Conference in Bombay, both in 1979.  In the same year, I met with the Director of the National Cancer Institute, others in the government, and several doctors affiliated with major cancer institutes in the U.S. and the U.K., including the Director of M.D. Anderson Cancer Institute.   The present version of the paper  has been modified in only minor ways.
 

Abstract 

While the medical and scientific literature of the past century is rich with insights and facts bearing on the causes and cures of cancer, no truly comprehensive theoretical perspective based on what is known has been evolved.  This paper represents an attempt at synthesis of a comprehensive theoretical perspective on cancer etiology, prevention, and treatment.  The perspective that is described is based on the assumption that cancer can be viewed as a systemic disease, even at such times that it manifests as a local site or localized disease.  Carcinogenesis is viewed a process that can involve twenty or more different causal or preconditioning factors, including genetic factors.  As the process evolves, it is seen generally to traverse the five same phases and repetition of phases, the sequencing and timing varying to greater or lesser degrees from one case to another.  The carcinogenic process then is seen as one that can be characterized by themes and variations on those themes that are themselves varied.  Those themes and variations are then described in very general terms. The five same phases and repetition of the first four phases that can be differently ordered and even reordered from case to case are as follows:

  • Causal or Condition Factors 
  • Impairment of Cell Functioning and Structure
  • Impairment of Cellular Respiration or Metabolism
  • Impairment of Cell Cycle Regulation or Differentiation
  • Final States of Carcinogenesis


The onset of carcinogenesis is seen as being characterized by innocuous insults, injuries, deficiencies, or imbalances that, depending on host conditions and environmental circumstances.  These in turn can trigger other more serious insults affecting systemic and cellular health, and eventually snowball until the overt manifestations of cancer appear. 

A perspective on a counter process of anticarcinogenesis is also presented.  Anticarcinogenesis can involve reversing the carcinogenic process and arresting the carcinogenic process, as well as protecting against carcinogenesis in the first place.  An understanding of these perspectives on carcinogenesis and anti-carcinogenesis is seen as being essential in the successful replication of measures aimed at preventing, controlling, treating, and curing cancer.
 

 
Introduction:  Synthesis of a New Theoretical Perspective on
Carcinogenesis and Anticarcinogenesis

               The theoretical perspective on carcinogenesis described here has been evolved an off shoot of a technical planning study completed for the Electrical Power Research Institute in 1980.  The study assessed the linkages between trace elements, heavy metals, and carcinogenesis.  Sometime after undertaking the study, it became clear that it would be necessary to attempt to synthesize a new theoretical perspective on carcinogenesis – to, in effect, evolve a contextual framework in which the role of trace elements and heavy metals in both the carcinogenic and “anticarcinogenic” processes might be better understood.  As a consequence, the focus here is on that new theoretical perspective on carcinogenesis and anticarcinogenesis.  (The role that trace elements or heavy metals can play in the carcinogenic process is not addressed in this paper.)

            It is hoped that this new theoretical perspective may help in some way shape and influence future efforts in cancer research and the application of cancer research results.

A New Perspective

            A perusal of the recent history of cancer research reveals that no truly comprehensive theoretical perspective based on what is currently known about cancer has been evolved.  Far from reflecting efforts at synthesis, the present state of cancer theory reflects great fragmentation, with few efforts made to look at the whole.  As D. W. Smithers had once noted, the forest has simply not been seen for the trees.[i]  Few persons have attempted to look at the whole forest and too many have concentrated their sole attention on a few trees – or even on a few splinters from a few trees.  This has led to some very misleading conclusions.  The various theories concerning the etiology and pathogenesis of cancer are very often seen as being in conflict.   These might include Otto Warburg’s theories of impaired cellular respiration in cancer[ii] and the work of Berenblum and Shubik, initiator/promoter theorists.[iii]  Also included might be viral theories, bacterial theories, genetic theories, and metabolic and environmental theories.   The perspective described here is one that considers the possibility that any and all of these theories might well come into play in cancer and that the theories do not necessarily have to be seen as being mutually exclusive.  

            Another tendency has been to view cancer in terms of its overt, readily recognizable symptoms, not holistically, not in terms of its systemic origins or the systemic way in which the disease may progress.  The theoretical perspective that is the focus of this paper is based on the assumption that cancer is a systemic, not a local site, or localized, disease.  This perspective has been evolved from clues and facts taken from the following range of sources:

   1)  The orthodox, “mainstream,” refereed scientific literature, including the epidemiological literature and the literature on the   spontaneous regression of cancer;

             2)  The unrefereed literature, including scientific symposia proceedings;

             3)  The unorthodox, unrefereed literature;  and

     4)   Study of unorthodox approaches or recent breakthroughs that    have resulted in successful cancer diagnosis, prevention, and treatment.

 
The view of cancer that has emerged and that is described in this paper is one in which cancer can be as a disease that can be characterized as variations on themes that are themselves varied.[iv]   These themes, or “phases” as they are referred to here, are seen as being key to understanding the variations in the patterns in cancer.   Note: Tables and appendix have been included in the paper that depict  a few of the many variations that can be found in the patterns of cancer etiology.

 
The Five Basic Phases in the Carcinogenic Process
 
            In almost all cases of carcinogenesis, five basic phases can be found.  These are characterized her in the following way:
 

Table 1.  The Five Basic Phases in the Carcinogenic Process
 
1)  Causal or Conditional Factors
2)  Impairment of Cell Functioning and Structure
3)  Impairment of Cellular Respiration and Metabolism
4)  Unchecked Cell Proliferation or Differentiation
5)  Final Stages of Carcinogenesis

 
            Any or all of these phases may recur in a more intensified or altered form in any given case of cancer.  In some cases, the five phases will be differently ordered.  Figure 1 below shows one possible sequencing of phases.  In this sequence, the phases appear in the same numbered order as in Table 1.  In Figure 2 below, phase 3 is seen preceding phase 2.  In Figure 3 below, phases 2 and 3 are seen occurring simultaneously.  In Figure 4 below, phase 4, unchecked cell proliferation or differentiation, is seen as following directly after the causal phase.



  For Figures 1-4, see the Appendices.                                                                                          

                                 

                                                                      

 

 

                                       


 
              Phase 1.  The Phase Involving Causal or Conditioning Factors

Several things bear noting when discussing causal or conditioning factors:

1)  Cancer can have many different causes, including a number that have received little attention as yet;

2)  These multiple causes can act in a wide variety of ways; and

3) The same causal factor(s) or conditioning factor(s), given different hosts or environmental and contextual factors can trigger vastly differing effects.

 
The list of causal or conditional factors can be seen as including the following:
 
·         Subjection to environmental toxins, mutagens, carcinogens, radiation;

                   ·        
Subjection to harmful substances in the diet or in medical treatment or hygienic or cosmetic regimens;

·         Inadequate diet, including poorly balanced diet with respect to vitamins, trace elements, minerals, amino acids and fatty acids;

·         Impaired immune defense that can be exacerbated by chronic infections, including infected tonsils and teeth or by trace element or vitamin deficiencies;

·         Unwanted free radical reactions;

·         Inadequacy of exposure to fresh air and full spectrum sunlight;

·         Histological abnormalities, including injuries, irritations, scars, and moles

·         Deterioration of cellular integrity, including weakening brought about by bacterial, microbial, or viral attack;

·         Degeneration of the extracellular environment;

·         Cellular disorganization, including that brought on by sodium/potassium imbalance, anemia, or trace element or mineral imbalances;

·         Shock, trauma, prolonged stress, including stress cause by grief, or stress caused by long-term subjugation to harmful ion or magnetic imbalances;

·         Impaired digestion;

·         Impaired detoxification of the body;

·         Poor health and hygienic habits, including overweight, mental depression, or anxiety;

·         Impaired respiration, including that caused by inadequate oxygenation, e.g., caused by or associated with shallow breathing, anemia, or development of atherosclerotic plaque;

·         Poor overall health;

·         Poor health history; and

·         Genetic predisposition.


While the effect of the initial insult, injury, deficiency, or imbalance in the carcinogenic process can be innocuous at first glance, the subsequent processes that this initial insult can set in more may be anything but that.  It is these processes that, once set in motion, can eventually culminate in the final stages of carcinogenesis.  The following children’s rhyme describes a chain reaction involving consecutive losses; similarly the carcinogenic process can also be described as a series of sequential losses beginning at times with rather innocuous ones and culminating in the total wasting of the organism.
 

For want of a nail, the shoe was lost;
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost;
For want of a horse, the rider was lost;
For want of a rider, the battle was lost;
For loss of the battle, the kingdom was lost;
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
 

 
Phase 2.  The Phase Involving Impairment of Cell Function and Structure

 
            This phase can be directly or indirectly caused by the wide range of causal and conditioning factors listed above. Particularly characteristic of this typically early phase of the carcinogenic process are any or all of the following:

·         Unwanted free radical reactions;
·         Inadequate free radical scavengers;
·         Enzymatic alterations;
·         Hormonal imbalance;
·         DNA damage;
·         Faulty DNA repair;
·         Cellular disorganization;
·         Alteration of cell membrane permeability and/or electrical charge;
·         Alteration of normal electrolytic character of the cell;
·         Degeneration of the extracellular environment.

 
It should be noted here that the different causes of cancer in phase 1 can trigger various effects,  that  in turn, in phase 2 or in other phases, can become secondary causes or contributory causes, triggering yet other effects, all of which may contribute the creation of conditions that are conducive to the advancement of the carcinogenic process.
 

Phase 3. The Phase Involving Impairment of Cellular Respiration and Metabolism
 
Causal and conditioning factors involved in this phase can include any or all of those just listed.  This phase can exhibit some, if not all, of the following characteristics, that typically occur in increasing degrees of severity as the disease progresses:


·         Respiration of affected cells changes toward anaerobic respiration;
·         Enzymatic alterations;
·         Degeneration of the extracellular environment;
·         Increasing vascularization and nutrient utilization of tumor cells;
·         Impairment of host capacity to get rid of affected cells owing to a protective sheath surrounding tumor   cells and  overtaxing or absence of an adequate immune response, altered enzymatic activity, and impaired detoxification capacity of the host;
·          Impairment of metabolism with breakdown in carbohydrate   metabolism with accompanying impacts on essential body systems.

 
Phase 4. The Phase Involving Unchecked Cell Proliferation or Cell Differentiation

All the factors that have been listed in the previous three phases can be either directly or indirectly involved in the fourth phase that is characterized by unchecked cell proliferation or differentiation.  Most typically, this phase would seem to be characterized by or accompanied by the following:

·         Movement toward total breakdown of the immune response;
·         Movement toward serious or total impairment of the body’s detoxification capabilities;
·         Nutritional imbalances, including major imbalances in body chemistry;
·         Cellular and systemic health degeneration;
·         Degeneration of mental and emotional health.


Phase 5. The Final Stages of Carcinogenesis Phase


            This phase is simply a culmination of the previous phases.  Despite the variety of causes found in the beginning phases, the end phases of the carcinogenic process usually have a great deal in common.  The final phase can involve the final degeneration of some if not all of the body’s systems and a final breakdown at the cellular level.  It can also simply involve the breakdown in one necessary vital function of the body.  Such a breakdown can short circuit the prolonged version of the process and culminate in early death.

            The final phase can be characterized by some if not all of the following:

·         Near total degeneration of nutritional status and near total imbalance of overall body chemistry;
·         Near total collapse of the body’s detoxification capacity;
·         Near total collapse of the immune response;
·         Near total cellular and systemic health degeneration;
·         Near total degeneration of mental and emotional health. 


Applicability of the Perspective to Any Given Case History of Carcinogenesis


Any given case history of carcinogenesis can have many unique characteristics as far as the various different combinations and groupings or sequencing of the causal factors and of the different phases.  Differences in the full range of exogenous and endogenous conditions and circumstances can explain most fully the variations that can be found.  Included in the endogenous conditions are those latent conditions that differ from person to person and that can come into play at different times as the disease progresses, thus explaining some of the other variations that can be seen.

The tables that follow describe two hypothetical cases that have progressed to the final phase of carcinogenesis.  Each case progresses through the five basic phases, with a repeat of the causal and conditioning facts phases.  The sequencing of these phases varies in the two cases. 

In no early appearances of a phase would one expect to find in play at once and in equal prominence all the potential factors or elements that can potentially characterize that phase.   In the early phases most typically only a few of these factors or elements will play prominent roles at one time.  For this reason each phase in the two hypothetical cases described here is characterized by several different factors that one would not be surprised to find in play at once.

This depiction of the historical evolution of two hypothetical cases demonstrates two major uses of the theory:

·         The theory provides a way of characterizing the progressive phases involved in any given case of carcinogenesis; and
·         The theory serves to reveal cancer as a disease involving variation on themes that are themselves varied, e.g., varying with respect to the character of the phases of the process and the sequencing and time of those phases.
 

Table 2.  Case A:  Causal or Conditioning Factors Phase

·         Subjection to environmental carcinogens
·         Inadequate diet
·         Deterioration of cellular integrity
·         Stress
 
             Table 3.  Case A:  Impairment of Cell Function and Structure Phase

·         Inadequate free radical scavengers
·         Unwanted free radical reactions
·         DNA damage
·         Faulty DNA repair
 
Table 4.  Case A:  Impairment of Cell Respiration and Metabolism Phase

·         Enzymatic alterations
·         Respiration of affected cells changes toward anaerobic respiration
·         Impairment of metabolism
·         Impairment of host capacity to get rid of affected cells
 
Table 5.  Case A:  Causal or Conditional Factors Phase (Phase 1 Recurs Involving Different Factors)

·         Impaired immune defense
·         Histological abnormalities
·         Deterioration of cellular integrity
·         Impaired detoxification of body wastes
 
Table 6.  Case A:  Unchecked Cell Proliferation or Differentiation Phase

·         Movement toward total breakdown of immune response
·         Movement toward serious or total impairment of host detoxification capacity
·         Cellular and systemic health degeneration
·         Degeneration of mental and emotional health
 
Table 7:  Case A:  Final Stages of Carcinogenesis Phase

·         Near total degeneration of nutritional status and near total imbalance of overall body chemistry
·         Near total collapse of the body’s detoxification capacity
·         Near total collapse of the immune response
·         Near total cellular and systemic health degeneration
·         Near total degeneration of mental and emotional health

 
Table 8.  Case B:  Causal or Conditioning Factors Phase

·         Impaired detoxification of body wastes
·         Impaired metabolism
·         Inadequacy of exposure to fresh air and sunlight
·         Impaired respiration
 
Table 9.  Case B:  Simultaneously Occurring Phases:  Impairment of Cell Function and Structure Phase along with *Impairment of Cell Respiration and Metabolism Phase

·         DNA damage
·         Alteration of the normal electrolytic character of the cell
·         Enzymatic alteration
·         Cellular disorganization
·         *Respiration of affect cells changes toward anaerobic respiration
·         *Degeneration of extracellular environment
·         *Impairment of capacity to get rid of affected cells
·         *Impairment of metabolism
 
Table 10.  Case B:  Causal or Conditioning Factors Phase (Phase 1 Recurs Involving Different Factors)

·         Inadequate nutrition
·         Deterioration of cellular integrity
·         Impaired immune defense
·         Impaired detoxification of body wastes
 
Table 11.  Case B:  Unchecked Cell Proliferation of Differentiation

·         Cellular and systemic health degeneration
·         Movement toward total breakdown of immune response
·         Nutritional imbalances, including major imbalances in body    chemistry
·         Serious impairment of host detoxification capacity
 
Table 12.  Case B:  Final Stages of Carcinogenesis Phase

·         Near total collapse of the body’s detoxification capacity
·         Near total collapse of the immune response
·         Near total systemic health degeneration
 
Having provided an overview of this theory of carcinogenesis and having demonstrated how it can be used to describe variations in the way in which the carcinogenic process can progress, I will now turn to the concept of anticarcinogenesis.
 

The Theory of Anticarcinogenesis

            Potentially of enormous importance to cancer prevention and treatment, as well as diagnosis and prognosis, is the counter theory of anticarcinogenesis and the anticarcinogenic strategies that it suggests.  H.L. Falk [v] and Harold G. Petering [vi] had been concerned with this concept in their work.  Anticarcinogenesis was first defined by H.G. Crabtree in 1947. [vii]   Crabtree’s definition has been slightly augmented here.  (The most significant modifications are indicated in bold font in the paragraph below.)


The term “anti-carcinogenesis” applies to any or all aspects of processes which delay or prevent the emergence of malignant characteristics or cause or contribute to the regression of malignant characteristics in any tissue of any species of organism.   Within a given species, the factors involved in such processes range from those relating to the natural biological background of the host; that is, its genetic, endocrine, and metabolic constitution, to the many varieties of interference—dietic, hormonal, chemical, or physical – imposed in, as well as out of, clinical of,  laboratory settings.


 
A briefer way of defining “anticarcinogenesis” would be as shown in Table 13:

Table 13.     Anticarcinogenesis

Processes or measures that are anti-neoplastic in character
that aim at or result in the prevention, arresting, or regression
of neoplasia, including steps taken to enhance cellular or
systemic health that protect against carcinogenesis.
 

The premise underlying this theoretical perspective is that once the essential aspects of a given case of cancer are comprehended, anticarcinogenic measures that need to be taken to reverse or regress the carcinogenic process can be more readily identified and acted upon.

Another major premise is that maintenance of an optimal level of health is an essential in the prevention of cancer.  The epidemiological literature provides abundant support for this premise.  Steps taken toward the progressive optimization of overall health are essential to the effectiveness of treatment and to the successful regression of cancer.

The measures that can be taken to regress or prevent cancer can actually be seen to be counter steps or measures, that is, steps or measures that are counter to each aspect or element of each phase of the carcinogenic process as they have been described above.


The Five Basic Phases in the Anticarcinogenic Process

The first phases in anticarcinogenesis can be seen as being counter to the causal or conditioning factors phase of carcinogenesis.  In anticarcinogenesis, the first phase can be thought of as involving the maintenance of cellular and systemic health.  All five phases in anticarcinogenesis are shown in the following table.



Table 14.   The Five Basic Phases in the Anticarcinogenic Process

·         Maintenance of cellular and systemic health

·         Normalization of cell function and structure

·         Normalization of cellular respiration and metabolism

·         Arresting of unchecked cell proliferation or differentiation

·         Gradual restoration and regeneration of overall health, especially rebuilding of cellular and systemic health and the immune response.



Phase 1: The Maintenance of Cellular and Systemic Health Phase

            The first phase of anticarcinogenesis includes the following:

·         Protection against environmental toxins, mutagens, carcinogens, radiation, including by the use of anticarcinogenic regiment;

·         Removal of harmful substances from the diet or from medical treatment or hygienic or cosmetic regimens;

·         Rectification of dietary imbalances;

·         Optimizing of immune defense, including removal of treatment of infected tonsils or teeth and remediation of trace element and vitamin deficiencies;

·         Protective measures to prevent or buffer effects of unwanted free radical reactions;

·         Adequacy of exposure to fresh air and sunlight;

·         Protective measures to prevent histological abnormalities or irritations or to buffer their effects;

·         Adequacy of exposure to fresh air and sunlight;

·         Protective measures to prevent histological abnormalities or irritations or to buffer their effects;

·         Steps to strengthen cellular integrity;

·         Steps to strengthen the integrity of the extracellular environment;

·         Steps to assure maintenance of intracellular organization with particular attention to the maintenance of a balance in body chemistry;

·         Protective measures to prevent shock or stress and to buffer effects when it occurs, including periodic removal from an environment when ion or magnetic imbalances persist;

·         Optimizing of digestion;

·         Optimizing of detoxification processes;

·         Rectifying of enzymatic or hormonal balances;

·         Rectifying of poor health and hygienic habits, including overweight and mental depression or anxiety;

·         Optimization of respiration, including adequate oxygenation, adequate depth of breathing, treatment of anemic or atherosclerotic conditions;

·         Enhance of metabolism, including adequate exercise;

·         Optimization of overall health;

·         Attention to factors in health history that could lead to systemic, organic, or cellular degeneration; and

·         Protective measures to counter genetic factors that may predispose to cancer.


Phase 2: The Phase of Anticarcinogenesis Involving
Normalization of Cell Function and Structure
 

 The characteristics of this phase are the following:

·         Preventing or buffering unwanted free radical reactions;
·         Assuring the adequacy of free radical scavengering;
·         Normalization of enzymatic activity;
·         Reestablishment of hormonal balance;
·         Protection against DNA damage or buffering of the effects;
·         Repair of DNA or managing of the consequences, including maintaining of fully functioning immune defenses;
·         Steps to protect against cellular disorganization;
·         Steps to assure integrity of cell membrane and the normalization of cell functioning and structure;
·         Steps to normalize the electrolytic character of the cell;  and
·         Steps to normalize and strengthen the integrity of the extracellular environment.


Phase 3: The Phase of Anticarcinogenesis  Involving
Normalization of Cellular Respiration and Metabolism

     This phase can be seen to include the following:

·         Return of the cells to normal oxygen utilization;

·         Return to normal enzyme production and activity;

·         Strengthening and maintenance of the integrity of the extracellular environment;

·         Normalization of vascularization and nutrient utilization of tumor cells;

·         Enhancement of capacity to get rid of affected cells that can be stimulated by the use of proteolytic enzymes to help break down the protective  sheath surrounding tumor cells and by stimulating or otherwise enhancing the host’s immune response, normalizing enzymatic activity, and improving the host's detoxification capacity;  and

·         Return to normalization of carbohydrate metabolism with return to normalization of metabolism generally.


Phase 4: The Phase of Anticarcinogenesis Involving
Arresting of Unchecked Cell Proliferation or Differentiation
 

    This phase can be seen to include the following:

·         Priming and rebuilding of the immune response;

·         Enhancement or rebuilding of the host's detoxification capacity;

·         Restoration of nutritional balance, including balancing of body chemistry in general;

·         Reversing the process of cellular and systemic health degeneration; and

·         Maintenance of positive mental and emotional health.

 
Phase 5.  The Final Phase of Anticarcinogenesis

In the final phase of anticarcinogenesis involving the gradual restoration and regeneration of overall health, the following are included:

·         Intensified efforts to prime and rebuild the immune response;

                   ·         Intensified efforts to enhance and rebuild the host's detoxification capacity;

·         Intensified efforts to restore nutritional balance, including balancing of body chemistry in general;

·         Intensified efforts to reverse the process of cellular and systemic health degeneration; and

·         Intensified efforts to maintain positive mental and emotional health.


This final phase focuses on the gradual restoration and regeneration of overall health, especially emphasizing the rebuilding of cellular and systemic health and the immune response.  Success is least assured in the final phase because of the extensive general damage that may have been done.  When cancer has progressed to this phase, the essence of efforts must be to intensify the full range of counter measures pertinent to the other four phases in the case in question.  Just as the carcinogenic process involves variations on themes that are themselves varied, so too does the anticarcinogenic process.


Summation


This paper has described a synthesis of a comprehensive theoretical perspective on carcinogenesis.  This perspective is based on the assumption that cancer is a systemic, not a local site or localized, disease.

Carcinogenesis is viewed as a process that can involve around twenty different causal or preconditioning factors.  As the process evolves, it is seen generally to traverse the five same phases and repetition of phases, the sequencing and timing varying to greater or lesser degrees from one case to another.  The carcinogenic process then is seen as one that can be characterized as involving variations on themes that are themselves varied (with a tip of the hat again to John Cage for his use of this wording in the realm of musical composition).  The onset of carcinogenesis is seen as being characterized by what are often at first, innocuous insults, injuries, deficiencies or imbalances that, depending on host conditions and environmental circumstances, can trigger other more serious insults affective systemic and cellular health and eventually lead to a chain reaction that results in the appearance of the overt manifestation of cancer.

A perspective on a counter process – anticarcinogenesis – has also been presented.  Anticarcinogenesis involves measures that can be taken to reverse or arrest the carcinogenic process or protect against carcinogenesis in the first place.  The major role played by the immune response is highlighted.


To build upon an established maxim, we cannot hope to prevent, treat, or control that which we do not understand.  The theoretical perspective on carcinogenesis presented here has been evolved with a view toward the enhancement of general understanding concerning the process of carcinogenesis and the counter process of anticarcinogenesis.  A sound theoretical perspective is bound to be an integral factor in the successful replication of measures aimed at preventing, treating, and controlling cancer.  And a sound perspective is also absolutely essential in the conceptualization and generation of useful research as well as in the successful application of the results of research that are aimed at preventing, treating, and controlling cancer.

*******
 
 

Important Notes Concerning the Appendices


 
Appendices A-1 to A-4 duplicate Figures 1 - 4 which depict a few of the general variations in phases that might be found in a case of cancer.  Figures 1 - 4 have now been integrated into the paper.
Appendices B-1 to B-5 provide a more detailed overview of some of the sequential steps that might be found in one hypothetical case of cancer.  By printing out these Appendices and lining them up with B-1 on the top and B-5 on the bottom, one can see on the left hand side of the five pages the plausible steps that might be found in the progression of one hypothetical case of cancer.  If one lines the five pages up with B-5 on the top and B-1 on the bottom, one can see on the right hand side of the five pages the plausible steps involving anticarcinogenesis  that might be found in the regression of  the same hypothetical case of cancer.
Similarly Appendices C-1 to C-5 provide a more detailed overview of some of the sequential steps that might be found in another hypothetical case of cancer.  By printing out these Appendices and lining them up with C-1 on the top and C-5 on the bottom, one can see on the left hand side of the five pages the plausible steps that might be found in the progression of one hypothetical case of cancer.  If one lines the five pages up with C-5 on the top and C-1 on the bottom, one can see on the right hand side of the five pages the plausible steps involving anticarcinogenesis  that might be found in the regression of  the same hypothetical case of cancer.
Efforts are underway to depict the variations of the sequential steps that can be involved in both the carcinogenic and anticarcinogenic processes.  When these efforts have been completed, some additional files will be posted in the Files section of the http://GordonCancerPrevention.com website  along with instructions on how the files might be used on Firefox or Internet Explorer to view a few of the multitude of ways in which these variations might be depicted.





Links to  Appendices:


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[i] D.W. Smithers in his famous lecture entitled “Possibilities in Cancer Prevention.” (The Seventh Maurice Bloch lecture delivered within the University of Glasgow on 23rd November, 1965.  (Retrieved at http://library.unl.edu/record=b1796333*eng .)
 
[ii] Otto Warburg.  The Prime Cause and Prevention of Cancer.  English edition by D. Burk, NCI.  Wurtzburg, Germany: Konrad Triltsch, 1969.
 
[iv]  John Cage, the experimental composer and writer, had used such terminology in speaking about some of his musical compositions.
 
[v] H. L. Falk  Anticarcinogenesis—an alternative,  Progress in Experimental Tumor Research, Vol. 14, Inhibition of Carcinogenesis, 105 – 137.  F. Homburger, ed., 1971.

[vi]  Harold G. Petering.  Diet, nutrition, and cancer:  inorganic and nutritional aspects of cancer, Advances in experimental medicine and biology   New York:  Plenum Publishing Corp. Vol. 91, pp.  207-228.  1977.  (Abstract information at http://www.find-health-articles.com/rec_pub_605849-diet-nutrition-cancer.htm  )

[vii]  H. G. Crabtree. Anti-Carcinogenesis, British Medical Bulletin, 4:5-6, 345-348, 1947.
 

Paula D. Gordon, Ph.D.
July 18, 2013
with minor modifications August 25 & 26, 2015
http://GordonCancerTheory.com

pgordon@starpower.net
                                                                                                                                 (202) 241 - 0631
 
Website Builder