The general principle for cancer that we think of, is that when you are first conceived, you are created with a genetic load that has a threshold at every point of age which may produce cancer as one of it’s effects. As you get older, imperfect replication adds to that load, and everything that you do in the form of food, drink, damage and environmental stress such as poisons and physical and mental wellbeing adds to that load. Imperfect excesses, stresses and nutrition cause imperceptible damage that the body needs to repair adding imperfections. If the threshold is passed at differing levels at every age, the body’s cells cascade to non-function. A spanner in the works. Some people’s genetic load passes that point when they are born, some quickly pass that point within a few years in an environment, and some initial genetic loads are fortunate to be so low that it takes considerable age and replication so that even with environmental factors such as drinking, smoking and eating the wrong things, it takes considerable time to push them above that threshold. Continued survival is to reduce them to as minimal level as you can, but some thing in small quantities can have the effect of helping rather than hindering the process. An effect of tempering and desensitisation, similar to a small efficient load being a better buffering than no load, or sudden load causing quick breakdown. You see this in driving a car where use, smooth and gradual acceleration and braking is better than no use or hammering the car.

The whole system is one of checks and balance, so to have a positive effect there needs to be finesse and delicacy, sledgehammer implementation causes as many problems as it solves. The trick is to alter the mechanism so that it either has a new balance and flow, or to fractionally disturb the functioning of negative aspects, working with the system rather than as an artificial addition to it.

For cancer to succeed it must be more than a just natural acceptance by the body. It would need to be coded exactly right and given the myriad forms generated is very unlikely, so unless it is a construct that is trying millions of times, constantly probing defences it has to be in a form that can slip under the fence virtually undetected and uses the body to generate itself under the guise of repair, somewhat similar to the case of Aids. Many diseases use the bodies own systems to attack or invade it.

There is a problem in understanding the mechanism, as cancer cells have many numerous types, attaching to various organs, producing cancer by metastasis. Why with these myriad versions of cells are the not automatically found and destroyed by the bodies own systems? If you look at organ replacement, even from almost identical donors, anti-rejection drugs, immunosuppressant’s are constantly needed, quite often for life to stop them being rejected by the same system. What is the defining difference between the cells, where near identical are rejected while completely different random ones are passed? They can’t all have the same identical surface structure or coating, or can they?

The cancers seem to compromise the immune system, so it could be that they generate a natural immunosuppressant that would help in their acceptance by the body. The downside being that the system is more prone to infection by opportunistic organisms. Is it true that most people die from complications that arise from cancers rather than the cancer causing the populated organ to fail completely? The other side of the coin if this is true is another form of natural immunosuppressant where organ rejection is a problem.

Virtually all medicine is in the form of using the body to repair itself, but we are quite often so absorbed with the fine minutiae of chemical interactions and enzyme hook-up to be oblivious of the system. Like a watch, within a watch within a watch, each part feeds and is fed by supposed to be harmonious systems. Poisons and non-specified ill-fitting parts cause it to break down.

Cancer treatments are mainly through poisoning, some through tagging, but what makes a fast or out of control cell different than a non out of control cell? Could it be part of the repurposing of that cell, the cancer cells being closer or changing to new types that are incompatible with its location, causing a malfunction? A heart cell growing on or within a liver? Why some tumours are benign and others are malignant?

The body’s cells replace at a different rate, the longest being something like 7 years before replacement. There needs to be a statistical analysis of cancers in general. I’m willing to guess that the majority of cancers tend towards the cells that replace the most or fastest. The body tends to shed cells that are damaged. On the skin this means that they flake off, but within the body they are normally shed, then travel around until they are repurposed and reabsorbed by the system. Do they get attacked and reabsorbed by the body’s defences? If so are cancer cells damaged cells that are not killed off completely or absorbed, but reattach in another area? This would explain their ability to evade detection, merge and metastasise and their formation on sites of injury, and why skin cancers are so prevalent to spread to other areas, being the quickest to reform.

Metastasis is the principle of transmission of cancer cells around the body. Is it that most people die quickly of secondary cancers and not the primary? Do you get tertiary cancers caused by secondary cancers or is it just from primary? How is it that cancers are considered by the body as part of the body and not as a rogue cell to be attacked even though they seem to be massively changed. Do normal cells metastasize? You can transmit cancer to another animals body by introducing them from another person or animal with cancer. They have done this consistently with mice, so why doesn’t the new body recognise them as foreign cells and automatically destroy them, but use these cells. If you inject cells from a normal pancreas into the centre of the cancer in another infected pancreas will they have inoculation or reforming effects? Effectively a battle of the cancers. Will it give cancer, cancer by similar cell type introduction? Cross inoculation? Is it just the endocrine or lymphatic systems which transmit cancer? Why can cancer cells types from one part of the body affects completely different type cells from another part of the body? Is it the same type of cell that is transmitted which changes to the new cell type. How do the cancerous cells attach different type cells in new parts of the body? Why is it that cancer cells, which are considered as a mutation during genetic replenishment of existing cells get damaged DNA that is generally better accepted and more prone to successful growth than normal cells where evolution suggests that mutations generally are less successful and more likely to die. Or does evolution only to whole constructs? They act more like a virus with semi exponential growth rather than simple pre programmed cell duplication.

An interesting point is that Sharks and Rays have been found to be unlikely to succumb to cancer. They are living creatures based on the same sort of genetic construction as us although the origins seem to pre date the dinosaurs by something like 100 million years. So they are very, very distant relatives. The only real differences to similar mammals that are prone to such diseases is that they don’t seem to have the ossification that boned creatures have where their cartilage is replaced by a solid calcium / phosphorus structure. I’ve heard of someone undergoing shark cartilage therapy in the past, but this seems to me to be a sort of cargo cult type treatment. I wonder if it’s the case that the system that performs bone deposition and layering is the active mechanism in the metastasic system and actually is laying down cancer cells. Are the calcium / phosphorus levels the responsible part and do people with lower levels have a lower transmission rate? Need to check to see if sharks and rays have evolved like octopus trading off genetic diversity for a better repair system. Can you give a shark, ray or octopus cancer? Also check hyperparathyroidism, with calcium overloads, due to volcanic localities and water supply. Could you give a person the octopus abilities of a more secure repair system without compromising the genetic variability, maybe doing it after reaching a certain age where reproduction is not needed? Hopefully with fewer tentacles, although the suckers may get a better grip.

Also silicised sugars conducting electricity to burn out cells. The idea is to let cancer cells gorge themselves then give them the electric chair treatment.

If calcium deposition may be a contributor to cancer a possible therapy may help with that and osteoporosis. Strontium has been a problem in areas with a fallout from bomb tests and other destructive outputs. It binds to the bones faster than calcium and because of the radioactiveness of strontium 90 it damages the surrounding bone structure and cells. This is true for strontium 90, but strontium 88 may be more beneficial. Does it replace calcium in the same way and as a denser material may make the bones stronger. Can a strontium 88 supplement be more beneficial than calcium ones and because it is absorbed so easily, if ossification and other calcium movement is involved ion metastasis will it slow it down or reduce tumours. It could be that higher levels of strontium may be in some way involved in some remissions of cancer.

Bone is a slightly different form of amorphous hydroxyapatite, but could you replace calcium with strontium in cases of osteoporosis? Would using it make bone adhesion or construction stronger as it has a greater affinity for bonds and reactiveness? You see the use of calcium type hydroxyapatites but strontium based bone compounds, if such a beast exists? The problem seems to come mainly with strontium 90, but strontium 88 does not have the problem of making the other parts of the bone decay.. Check what combination would happen for Sr5(PO4)3(OH) or Sr10(PO4)6(OH)2. Also check fluorine additions against osteoporosis. Have we been substituting teeth strength for bones strength, and what would be the fluorosis effect on strontium hardened bones? Would we get similar good teeth but poor bones when most people and pets have fluoridated water?

Is the mechanism concentrated on particular areas or do they spread just where they get a chance, like a sponge? If they are, or can be concentrated in an area then you should be able to attach a sacrifice organ that will attract the cancer promoting mechanism more than the original host body. A kind of cancer magnet for mutated cells, preferring to infect those rather than standard ones, that have systems that will more freely allow attachment. Are there avenues of maximum infection potential? How long does it take for cancer cells to flow around the body before they actually attach to another part? Is it immediate, with the process taking seconds, hours, days, week, and is it a constant flow? Artificial cancer drains that can be later removed or replaced?

Is the presence of excess osteoblasts a problem that causes metastasis? Or can you wrap a cancer infected organ with non-transmittive cells, blocking its exits as it were? A plastic semi-permeable membrane or a simple diagonal setup turning any organ into two. Injections of cancer growth reducing calcium deposits. There have been cases of organs becoming calcified due to genetic problems, especially by injury. Could it be possible to use this process to slow them down but not stop them?

Why is it that various organs are attacked the first, especially the bones and liver? Is it trying to process the cancer as a attracting it as a natural effect and re-transmitting it being carried by appropriate repair functions?

There are various radioactive forms of short-lived versions of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. With these you could make your own selectively radiating form of sugars or other carbohydrates which seem to aid in the fast growth of cells, especially cancer and metastatic ones. See chart of isotopes and allotropes for most likely suitable versions for combinations and compounds.

Maybe there is the possibility of using synthesized radioactive sugars you would find they would burn out a cancer or tumour from within itself. It would need to be elements that had a small amount of Alpha particle radiation ideally. This is the most destructive to cells, but at a level of accumulation for normal cells that would not cause too much damage, but in the cancer cells would accumulate to do damage. They cannot penetrate very deep, unlike beta or gamma types, but the accumulation would be internal to the subject cancer. There may be damage around the edges of the cancer, but as it’s likely this would be an area of metastasis, this would not be an altogether disadvantage. The main problem would be disposal of the radioactive content after the cancer destruction, so you would need to find something that binds to a sugar to remove it, or by immediate surgery at that point.

The best effect would be with an a-particle emitting atom, which had a half-life of days to weeks. This would give time for the sugar to be used by the cancer to build, but would give a length of time for the radiation level of the sugar to be disposed of when it was no longer needed. You would get a similar effect with higher energy b-particles but the radiation vectors would allow a higher penetration, but the surface and build would accumulate as a mass. But may need an operation to remove it once the job has been done.

Bacteriophages as a replacement of Antibiotics. They seem to be 1000’s of times as numerous as bacteria. Use them to destroy bacteria. We have lived alongside both phages and bacteria and seem to defend against them well for a complicated organism. Will we be able to construct nanobots of a suitable size to attack viruses?

It has been said that UV light can destroy bacterium on the surface but could we produce UV producing particles, not necessarily up to the level of nano bots that could attach themselves to cancer cells and irradiate them out of existence. A clumping of uncontrolled growth would accumulate them and cause its demise. Talk about somebody glowing! Some creatures use bioluminescence, but can such a bioluminescence operate in the UV spectrum and can you use it for hunter cells?

Maybe a crystal that can irradiate the cells around in when piezo activated. It’ll soon put a stop to its plan to spread. UV reflecting or re-emitting capability for sugars? Give the cancer a medium to grow and attach itself to then at a convenient time switch it on, or irradiate it externally, using its characteristics to topple it as in aikido, with an atemi strike.

As cancer cells are those which generally grow faster than other cells could they be doped with compounds that could react to various radiations such as microwaves, so at a certain point they could be activated to destroy tissue they were composed of. Poisonous sugars so that the cells would stuff themselves silly to the point of their own destruction. Possibly sugars formed with radioactive carbon, which would accumulate in cancers and metastasic areas for identification or self-irradiation.

If a person or ‘expert’ says, this is why a person gets cancer; in most cases they are using a personal view. It is just substituting their belief as fact. Statistics are very imprecise, and impressions influence the thinking of even experts as much as the rest of us. An example is getting a new car. You find that the same car seems to appear everywhere. They’re not, it’s just you’re focus is now on that particular type, the rest you don’t notice. Many jumps in logic and misrepresenting facts have been listed here, mocking people as being uninformed, when research into actual causes has quite often been poorly conducted, and in many cases the pre-defined conclusions have directed what is included in the surveys, how they’re conducted, and the conclusions drawn. Is it dealing with odds and percentages where substances increase a chance past a threshold? How true is the statement ‘everybody has cancer when they are conceived.’ Is it simply passing a threshold by accumulation that the body can’t deal with?

In industry there is a system known as Failure Modes Effect Analysis, which is a bit like Spearman’s Rank for causes. It’s a rough and ready tool to try to pinpoint root causes, not relying on assumptions, which can cause a sense of statistical sureness and directed thinking, but simply trying to find the best way of locating the likeliest root cause, taking the view that there is no level of correctness. With the mass of medical, survey and sales data that is available, can they be amalgamated into lifestyle models? Stochastic monitoring, or a massive neural net life.

Increased levels of Corticosteroid, Adrenaline, Noradrenaline and the wrong types of Cholesterol, have all been linked to Stress directly. Are the doctors involved, stating that stress has no deleterious effect on the body or immune system? Or that cancer has nothing to do with the body’s repair and counterbalanced systems? Coping methods through eating habits, smoking, drinking, and not being active, have all been linked to stress indirectly. To deny an extremely limited psychological view of stress as unimportant or fantasy, laughs in the face of other professionals who are trying to understand the root causes. Smoking is directly linked to an increased chance of cancer. Obesity likewise has been linked to an increased level, but as far as I know there has never been a study comparing percentages overweight to the increased chance. Likewise, being severely underweight to an increased chance. Age is another factor that is linked to higher levels of risk. We eat more junk food and weigh more than any other generation, but we live longer than any other generation, and cancer is luckily quite rare in younger people. Drinking is another risk factor, although teetotallers seem to have a higher risk of dying than small to moderate drinkers.

It’s very likely that it is really down to threshold levels of risk, and banding within each of peoples vices. To make the jump from morbidly obese risks, equivalent to slightly overweight is an unverified jump. To make the jump from alcoholics risks to the occasional pint is an unverified jump. To make the jump from living at McDonalds and takeaways every night to an occasional coffee and a cake, is an unverified jump.

With drinking, not drinking is a risk factor, a couple a weeks less of a risk, but for each extra drink you start adding to the risk. One extra drink is a not a 50% higher chance, until you get to much higher levels, where you get tipping points.

And why are things called highly carcinogenic, especially a lot of cleaning agents and additives? It’s because they can severely damage cells, and misrepairing of cells seem to be the origin of many cancer cells. Or are the rest of the scientists just making carcinogens up? Statistics are a very imprecise form of evidence, and the statement ‘proven causes of cancer’ is actually lying. They will increase your chance of cancer, but not necessarily cause it. My father who was a smoker, slightly overweight, lived on ready meals, drank half a glass of whisky every night, rarely ate fruit or veg, and went down into town every day, died aged 91 after a fall. He didn’t have cancer, but was very fortunate to have been born with a low genetic load. You’re born with a load, and through the years you add to that figure, some things you do to excess while young not showing up until later. Each area of overdoing it adds to the figure, the more extreme, the higher the count. At any age you’re left with a number that your body has to cope with when it tried to repair. If you’re lucky, the triggers for cancer won’t take it over the threshold. If it does, then you need to catch it early.

There have been a number of studies recently that compared long term vegetarian and meat eating populations, which found that the long term vegetarians had a higher rate of cancer than the meat eaters, and lower levels of fertility. But like a lot of ‘respectable’ agencies they used this anomaly as proof. If you look at a lot of the studies undertaken, there is a lot of bias and dubiously planned and executed surveys

Nature is very lazy in its nature and tends to use the same system over and over again. You find this common in convergent evolution, where similar type solutions appear for similar type problems or environments. The whole of nature tends to conform to this tendency to simplistic answers. Nature is constantly trying as many alternatives as possible. Occam’s Razor being not just a theoretical principle, but the basis for the combination of maximum statistical chances, as though reinforcement pre-defines a path, as in a river cutting a the path of a valley through a mountain dependent on weakness of the terrain. In bones, wear appears where it is most used, but strongest in areas it’s most replaced, but often weakening where it isn’t stressed. If you had a system that could record the nerve impulses from a place before damage of a nerve or even the spinal cord you may be able just to re-send the same impulse to an area after the damage if it has not stopped through lack of use and feedback. The principle of the same system comes in the form of that you might be able to collect the impulses from a person who did not have the damage at the same certain point in their body and use this impulse in another body. Is a transplanted hand completely a new system in a new body?

Further to the possibilities of ossification contributing to metastases

If calcium uptake were the case then there would be a need for a person with a primary cancer to reduce his calcium levels by reduction in vitamin D and possibly cobalamin – B12 as well as reducing the amount of the same D and B12 vitamin in the food.

Is there a natural drug that reduces calcium uptake or levels?

What about C, E, K, Magnesium and Boron? Reduce especially B12 and Folic Acid as these seem to help cell replication and division, temporarily, a situation you may not want with metastasis.

Is it in principle the healthy body in its own repair system facilitating the production of abnormal cells?

Accumulation of Cytogenic / Pathogenic compounds in Cancers.

Do cancer cells actually lose functionality or can their speed of growth be shapes and controlled to grow new organs. Cancerous stem cells to quickly regenerate damaged cells. Are they cells that are tricked into thinking they are repairing damage but actually causing it?

Battle of the Tumours. Transplanting of similar abnormal cells into another host, say using cancer cells in one slow acting benign tumouric liver to fight or stimulate the fight a similar fast aggressive tumouric liver in another host. How would the new hosts body attack or not attack the cells that go into massive overload. Is it a snowball effect that gets out of control so that the defences are overwhelmed. If so can they be reduced for the body to regain control of its defences?

What is the fastest regenerating cells that would possibly respond to localised stimulation over a period of time.

Digestive cells and white blood cells seem to regenerate 2-6 days so total suppression would not be practical, just enough to regain a balance.

Carbonised or silicised sugars which could conduct electricity, possibly utilising graphite (graphene?) to burn out cells at certain stages. They would grow and accumulate faster than normal cells reaching a conductive level, then burn them out.

The meat they are planning is not created using cells that can just be multiplied from an existing muscle cell. They are planning to use stem cells, so they have to be progressed or engineered into the appropriate type of cell.

With cloning you are replicating the whole of the genome in its entirety, hoping that the DNA program will produce exactly the same form as the original.

Is it right that with your monoclonal antibody therapy you are creating an ideal environment to produce more of the same with very minor modifications? Any replication of cells probably increases the genetic load and the chance of cancer creation, and with severe cases of cancer it’s often ‘what the hell, it’s worth a try’, with a worst case of dying, from someone who is probably dying.

To try and produce an exact ‘meat’ replica, you need to select what you think is the exact section of the DNA program, hoping that there are no modifiers or reprogramming sequences elsewhere in the DNA. If I remember rightly a Prion is just really a badly folded or damaged Protein. Something is added or missing, probably radiation, virus or phage modified.

With synthesized radioactive sugars you would find they would burn out a cancer or tumour from within itself. It would need to be elements that had a small amount of Alpha particle radiation. This is the most destructive to cells, but at a level of accumulation for normal cells that would not cause too much damage, but in the cancer cells would accumulate to do damage. They cannot penetrate very deep, unlike beta or gamma types, but the accumulation would be internal to the subject cancer. There may be damage around the edges of the cancer, but as it’s likely this would be an area of metastasis, this would not be an altogether disadvantage. The main problem would be disposal of the radioactive content after the cancer destruction, so you would need to find something that binds to a sugar to remove it, or by immediate surgery at that point

It’s quite possible, or it might be just a bunch of prions. It’s not about just making short chains of amino acids, it’s about generating sustainable stable chains and mechanisms, not using what are basically rogue proteins. Things like cancers and Alzheimer’s are probably only going to be eventually sorted by studying something like BSE

For cancer to succeed it must be more than a just natural acceptance by the body. It would need to be coded exactly right and given the myriad forms generated is very unlikely, so unless it is a construct that is trying millions of times, constantly probing defences it has to be in a form that can slip under the fence virtually undetected and uses the body to generate itself under the guise of repair somewhat similar to the case of Aids.

With microwaves and metallised sugars, I’m not suggesting that you cook the patient, but increasing the metallic aspect, given the propensity for tumorous cells to sugars as a food of choice, lower levels of the spectrum which normally would have little effect, may concentrate them to the exact target, like an aerial. You may find that even low-level intensities at near the radio spectrum may have a beneficial effect. Wouldn’t it be interesting if a simple process of eating the right cancer building blocks actually causes cases of remission unintentionally? The altered source of construction by a change in diet that is susceptible to natural irradiation.

There are various isotopes and combinations of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen that may suit the bill. Using it in the correct concentrations so that a cancer will incorporate it in its makeup is not so easy. If radioactive sugar compounds are not used, you might use one of the types of constructor cells, as proximity is the key. Low levels of radiation may not have that much higher impact than bananas. The natural radiation in fruit or other intakes, especially bananas which contain traces of K40, may be the basic reason for spontaneous remissions, where the sudden intake of radioactive material has a damaging effect on cancer growth, basically building itself out of existence. The potassium, linked to sugar absorption may in some way be the basis for at least one kind of remission process, so it might be a case of ‘just keep eating the bananas guys.’ Need to investigate higher levels of potassium K40 in foods, as it’s a curious element that might suit the purpose for metallised sugars or accumulation. The key is disposal once its job has been done.

H3, tritium has a half-life of 12 years.

C14, C15 are not that good, having half-lives of thousands of years, but we are looking at trivial amounts to enact change

Oxygen doesn’t seem to have any useful isotopes.

K40 might be useful, but long-lived, and decays into Calcium and Argon, both non-radioactive versions. 40K10(PO4)3(OH)?

The next area to cover is the area of DNA repair. Octopi, like Naked Mole Rats have an unusual configuration in their DNA linked to the HAS2 gene that seems to hamper mutation, but does it also hamper proliferation? A cancer is very problematic in that the single mutation that spawns the massive variations in mutation means that cancer treatments are only effective for a short while until the mutations reach a point that the anti cancer treatments can’t cover. It’s a case of too many variations too quickly, and most treatment are wide band but reasonably specific. But there seems to be a competition in cancer cells for resources, so a treatment that may be related to the mole rat gene could possibly be used to regulate growth so that it doesn’t stop the cancer, but limits it to a cancer that is a known set of mutations that are treatable. Sort of using the characteristic as a cancer guide to funnel it to certain types.

—–

List of suitable isotopes to be attached to sugars. Doc2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *