Sayer Ji,
Green Med Info
Waking Times
A Failed War On Cancer
Ever since Richard Nixon officially declared a war on cancer in 1971
through the signing of the National Cancer Act,[i] over a hundred
billion dollars of taxpayer money has been spent on research and drug
development in an attempt to eradicate the disease, with trillions more
spent by the cancer patients themselves, but with disappointing results.
Even after
four decades of waging full-scale “conventional” (surgery and chemo) and “nuclear” (radiotherapy) war against
cancer,
one in every four Americans will be diagnosed with the disease within
their lifetimes – and this number is projected to grow – unabated — not
unlike the process of cancer itself.
Could this colossal failure reflect how profoundly misunderstood the
condition is, and misguided are our attempts to prevent and treat it?
The Question That Must Be Answered Anew: What Is Cancer?
Perhaps we need to return back to the fundamental question of ‘What Is Cancer’? After all, until we find an
accurate answer to this question, all attempts to ‘prevent’ and ‘treat’ a disease we do not understand are doomed to fail.
For the past half century, the “Mutational Theory” has provided the
prevailing explanation for the cause of cancer, where, as the story
goes, accumulated mutations within our cells lead a few susceptible ones
to “go berserk,” their “insane” and “violent” behavior a result of
multiple destructive events to the intelligent code within the cell
(DNA) that normally keep them acting in a ‘civilized’ manner relative to
the larger multicellular community as a whole (i.e. the body). In this
view, these rogue cells replicate incessantly and form a
tumor which
spreads outward in a cancerous manner (cancer = Greek for “crab”), in
many ways simulating the characteristics of an infectious process within
the host, until the growths obstruct vital processes, resulting in
morbidity and death.
According to this theory, which was heavily influenced by the
Darwinian theory of evolution and is sometimes called “Internal
Darwinism,” what drives the evolution of the healthy cells into
cancerous ones is a process very similar to natural selection, i.e.
random mutations beneficial to the survival and reproduction of
cancerous cells in a tumor are naturally selected for and conserved,
driving them towards malignancy. Damage to the DNA can occur either
through inheriting defective DNA sequences (“bad genes” in the family)
or exposures to
DNA-damaging chemicals (e.g.
tobacco) or radiation.
While this view has some explanative value, it can also be quite
misleading. For instance, a fundamental tenet of evolution is that
random mutations are almost always harmful, resulting in immediate cell
death. Cancer cells, however, seem to get quite ‘lucky’ because they
appear to thrive on them. Rather than dying like normal cells when
faced with random mutations, they exhibit the exact opposite response:
they become immortalized, incapable of undergoing the programmed cell
death required of healthy cells.
Is randomness and chaos, then, really at the root of the transformation of healthy cells into cancer?
Tumors, after all, express highly organized behaviors, seemingly
impossible to induce through strictly random forces such as mutation…
A collection of cancer cells (tumors), for instance, are capable of
building their own blood supply (angiogenesis), are able to defend
themselves by silencing cancer-suppression genes and activating
tumor-promoter genes, secreting corrosive enzymes to move freely
throughout the body, alter their metabolism to live in low oxygen, high
sugar and acidic environments, and know how to remove their own
surface-receptor proteins to escape detection by white blood cells.
Could these complex behaviors really be a result of random mutations?
And is it possible that random mutations could result in the formation
of the same “lucky” set of genetic properties, each and every time a new
cancer forms in a human?
Random
mutations, no doubt, play a major role in the initiation and promotion
of cancer, but are not alone sufficient for a complete explanation. One
group of scientists, in fact, have offered a much more compelling
explanation. They view multiple mutations causing an unmasking of an
ancient
survival program within the cell….
Cancer as An Ancient Survival Program Unmasked
A brilliant new theory, introduced by Arizona State University
scientist, Paul Davies, and Australian National University scientist,
Charles Lineweaver, sheds much needed light on the true nature of
cancer. According to Davies:
“Cancer is not a random bunch of selfish rogue cells
behaving badly, but a highly-efficient pre-programmed response to
stress, honed by a long period of evolution.”
In their seminal paper, titled “
Cancer tumors as Metazoa 1.0: tapping genes of ancient ancestors,”
Davies and Lineweaver propose that cancer is an evolutionary
throw-back, drawing from a genetic ‘tool-kit’ at least a billion years
old, and which still lies buried – normally dormant – deep within the
genome of our cells. Davies calls this subterranean genetic layer
Metazoa 1.0, and it contains pathways and programs that were once
indispensable for our ancient cellular predecessors and their early
proto-communities to survive in a radically different environment.
Without the highly differentiated cells and specialized organs of
higher multicellular/animal life (Metazoa 2.0), cells with the genetics
of Metazoa 1.0 would have favored traits that enabled them to survive
direct contact with what was a much different and harsher (to us)
environment.
For example, 1 billion years ago atmospheric oxygen was exceptionally
low, since photosynthesis has not yet evolved to produce an abundant
supply. This means that cellular life at that time would have had to
learn to thrive in a low or no oxygen environment, which is exactly what
cancer cells do, using aerobic glycolysis for energy instead of
oxidative phosphorylation.
Davies and Lineweaver summarize their view as follows
“The genes of cellular cooperation that evolved with
multicellularity [animal life] about a billion years ago are the same
genes that malfunction to cause cancer. We hypothesize that cancer is an
atavistic condition that occurs when genetic or epigenetic malfunction
unlocks an ancient ‘toolkit’ of pre-existing adaptations,
re-establishing the dominance of an earlier layer of genes that
controlled loose-knit colonies of only partially differentiated cells,
similar to tumors. The existence of such a toolkit implies that the
progress of the neoplasm [cancer] in the host organism differs
distinctively from normal Darwinian evolution.”
Instead of viewing the hallmark trait of cancer, namely, incessant
proliferation, as a newly evolved trait spurned by random mutations, it
would be considered the default state of the cell, having been developed
a billion years ago when ‘not dying’ would be the first priority.
Remember, this ancestral assemblage of cells would not have had the
differentiation of cell type and specialization of tissue associated
with higher animals, i.e. skin, hair, claws, etc., with which to protect
themselves against the environment.
Damage to the skin in animals, for instance, results in the rapid
death and sloughing off these ‘extra’ cells, to be replaced by new
healthy ones. A still barely multicellular entity would not have this
luxury, and would entrench itself within genetic traits associated with
resilience, the ability to resist all manner of environmental assault,
and would express a highly ‘selfish’ form of behavior we now consider a
fundamental property of cancer.
If cancer is an ancient survival program unmasked, this does not mean
that the “Mutation Theory” does not still hold some truth. Genetic
damage and mutations do in fact contribute to cancer, but rather than
view them as ‘causing’ the complex set of behaviors associated with
cancer, they unmask an already existent set of genetic programs
[atavism].* For instance, there are over 100 oncogenes known to exist
within our DNA and are shared by a vast array of different species
including the fruit fly, indicating how ancient (at least 600 million
years old) and universal they are (found in most multicellular
organisms).
Numerous studies confirm that dinosaurs had tumors. These
cancer-promoting genes are normally suppressed by more recently evolved
genes (Metazoa 2.0), such as tumor-suppressor genes, but when enough
damage to the more recently evolved genetic overlay occurs, the system
goes into “Safe Mode” and the older genetic pathways (Metazoa 1.0) are
activated once more.
Within
the horizon of this new way of thinking, cancer can no longer be viewed
as some predestined gene-time bomb setting itself off within us, nor
simply a byproduct of cumulative exposures to
genotoxic substances,
alone. Rather, cancer is an ancient survival response to an
increasingly toxic environment, and an increasingly unnatural diet and
compromised immune function. These cells have learned to survive the
constant abuse, and have flipped into survival mode, which is
self-centered, hyper-proliferative (constant self-repair/replication)
and aggressive (metastatic), i.e. what does not kill you makes you
stronger
Cancer As Something Our Body Does To Survive
Cancer can no longer be viewed as something bad that happens
to an intrinsically healthy body. Rather, cancer is something the body
actively does in
response to an intrinsically unhealthy cellular, bodily and planetary
environment. Instead of an expression of bodily deviance, it may be
expressive of bodily intelligence, and the capability of our cells to
survive in conditions that threaten to destroy cells beyond the critical
threshold beyond which survival is impossible.
This perspective also sheds much needed light on the devastating
nature of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Tumors contain a broad range of
cells, many of which are intrinsically benign (will never become
malignant or cause damage to the organism) and some of which keep more
malignant populations in check.
The invasive cells are more primordial in their genetic configuration
(Metazoa 1.0) due to just how much shock/damage/poisoning they have
been made to endure during their life cycles. It is exactly these cells,
therefore, that are MOST resistant to the chemo, and less likely to die
when exposed to it. The chemotherapy and radiation, therefore, actually
kill the very cells that do not represent a threat, and select for more
invasive ones.
This explains why at first the introduction of chemotherapy/radiation
may cause tumor regression, but the small population that survives
(including cancer stem cells) technically comes back even stronger
thereafter. In the same way that antibiotics like methicillin spawned
the monster that is methicillin-resistant Staphyloccocus aeureus, which
creates a population of bacteria with highly up-regulated multidrug
resistance proteins and genes, chemotherapy and radiation CREATE a
genetically more resistant population of super-cancers, and often is the
reason why the patient dies. Sadly, in these cases the death is blamed
on the “chemoresistant” and “radioresistant” cancer and the victim is
blamed, if you will, for being killed by the very treatment they were
being told they would die much sooner without.
Cancer Is “A Symptom” And Not A “Disease.”
So, instead of a monolithic “disease,” it makes more sense to view cancer as a
symptom of
cellular and environmental conditions gone awry; in other words, the
environment of the cell has become inhospitable to normal cell function,
and
in order to survive, the cell undergoes
profound genetic changes,
drawing ancient genetic pathways which we associate with the cancerous
personality ( phenotype). This “ecological” view puts the center of
focus back on the preventable and treatable causes of the “disease,”
rather on some vague and out-dated concept of “defective genes” beyond
our ability influence directly.
It also explains how the “disease” process may conceal an inherent
logic, if not also healing impulse, insofar as it is an attempt of the
body to find balance and survive in inherently unbalanced and dangerous
conditions. Fundamentally, we need to shift our thinking away from the
view that cancer is something
unnatural that happens to us, to one where we see that cancer is something
natural our body does to
survive unnatural conditions. Change and improve those conditions, and
you do more to change cancer than attacking it as if you were fighting a
war against an enemy.
[i] The National Cancer Act,
http://legislative.cancer.gov/history/phsa/1971
*Additional explanation of the cancer-atavism theory
*The concept of cancer-as-atavism can be explained this way: An
atavism is an older genetic trait that is no longer used, and therefore
suppressed by newly evolved genes. An example is webbed feet. Everyone
in the womb has them, but as embryogenesis proceeds genetic sequences
kick in that cause them to disappear. This is done through a process of
‘programmed cell death,’ also known as apoptosis. The body simply turns
on the apoptosis genes in the tissue associated with webbing between the
toes, and those cells peacefully disassemble themselves, resulting in
normal web-free hands and feet. Now the interesting thing is that
cancer cells ARE cancerous because they DO NOT DIE.
They have either forgotten how to undergo programmed cell death
(apoptosis), or, have been forced through injury (genetic damage) or
environmental pressures (epigenetic changes) to suppress the genes that
enable them to die. The cancer cells, in effect, draw from an ancient
genetic tool kit which its predecessors over a billion years ago used to
survive what was at the time a very harsh environment, and where
replicating was a much more preferred trait than dying, and where cells
had yet formed highly evolved multicellular communities found within
animals.
About the Author
Sayer Ji is the founder and chair of GreenMedInfo.com. His writings
have been published in the Wellbeing Journal, the Journal of Gluten
Sensitivity, and have been featured on numerous websites, including
Mercola.com, NaturalNews.com, Infowars.com, Care2.com. His critically
acclaimed essay series The Dark Side of Wheat opens up a new perspective
on the universal, human-species specific
toxicity of wheat, and is now available for PDF download.
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/02/12/cancer-completely-misunderstood/
