Last Modified: January 2, 2019
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 .
Note: The content of GordonEbolaImmunity.com is now available in a file. Request the file from 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,
_______________________________________________________________
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:
“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.
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.
[vii] H. G. Crabtree. Anti-Carcinogenesis, British Medical Bulletin, 4:5-6,
345-348, 1947.
Paula D. Gordon, Ph.D.
July 18, 2013
(202) 241 - 0631