Are You Ready For The Most POWERFUL Healing Technology Ever Discovered?

Is Cancer a Genetic Disease?

Is cancer a genetically mutated monster?

The cancer industry is fully committed to the idea that a cancer cell is a genetic frankenstein cell whose only goal is to destroy and kill the patient.  This is the only way the use of knives (surgery), toxic injections (chemotherapy) and ionizing radiation (radiotherapy) can be justified as treatments.  If it is ever proven or acknowledged that these treatments are doing more harm than good, the industry falls.

This is part 2 of 5 of our series titled Cancer: The Mystery Solved.  To view the other parts of this series, here are some quick links: [Part 1][Part 3][Part 4]

The official position of the cancer establishment is that “cancer is a genetic disease,”(1) whereby a specific set of genetic mutations cause a single cell to turn irreversibly cancerous and multiply out-of-control, until enough of its mutant clones collectively form a tumor that strives to kill the host.

If this theory is correct, it means that cancer cells are like parasites that must be eradicated at all costs; even if patients are injured or nearly killed in the process.  It also means that nothing in our environment or the way we live our lives have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not we develop cancer – if we get it, it’s simply bad luck.

And in this paradigm, since there’s nothing we can do to prevent cancer from arising or stop it from progressing, if we happen to be one of the ‘unlucky’ ones who are diagnosed with the disease, we must depend on people more sophisticated than us for answers.

However, if cancer truly were a genetic disease then you’d think the 500 billion dollars spent on genetic cancer research over the past 50 years would have rendered us at least some progress.  It makes you wonder – maybe researchers have been looking in the wrong place for answers?

Questioning The Genetic Theory of Cancer

genetic dna double helix

The structure of DNA was first discovered in 1953 by James D. Watson and Francis Crick.

In search of another paradigm that could adequately explain the underlying cause of cancer and why the war on cancer has been such a failure, I stumbled upon a series of fascinating studies whose conclusions completely contradicted the genetic theory of cancer.  If cancer is a disease of genetic origin, then none of the following observations would have occurred:

Cloned Mice from Tumor Cell DNA

Researchers from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, cloned a mouse using DNA derived from a mouse brain tumor cell in 2003.  Published in the journal Cancer Research, the study found that the development of the cloned mouse occurred normally without cancer formation.(2)

Normal genetic mice cloned from tumor cell DNA

Frog Egg Tumor Transplants

In 1969, a group of researchers transplanted frog tumor cells into frog eggs and found that despite the mutant cancer DNA contained within the transplanted tumor cells, from within the eggs emerged healthy, swimming tadpoles – demonstrating once again that mutated cancer DNA can direct normal development.(3)

Normal genetic tadpoles following tumor cell transplant into egg

Cell Cytoplasm-Swapped ‘Cybrids’

Since the 1970’s, scientists have been experimenting with swapping normal cell cytoplasms (containing the energy-producing mitochondria, not DNA) with cancer cell cytoplasms and vice versa.  They call the resultant cells ‘cybrids.’  When scientists transplanted normal cell cytoplasms into cancer cells (containing mutated DNA), the cancer cells transformed back into normal cells,(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) and when cancer cell cytoplasms were transplanted into normal cells (containing normal DNA), the cells turned into cancer cells.(11)

These findings show that mutant cancer DNA doesn’t cause cancer and that normal DNA doesn’t prevent cancer; the cytoplasm seems to dictate carcinogenesis.

cytoplasm swapped cybrids - cancer not genetic

Flaws in the Genetic Theory of Cancer

Taken together, it appears that DNA has little (and perhaps nothing) to do with a cell becoming cancerous.  Harry Rubin, Professor Emeritus of Cell and Developmental Biology from the University of California demonstrated in 2006 that cells can have hundreds of mutations and still behave normally within the organism.(12)

Another apparent flaw in the genetic theory is the claim that cancer cells are irreversible.  There are hoards of studies in which scientists have observed cancer cells transform back into normal cells.(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)

“…our data suggest quite strongly that nonmalignant tumor populations can be converted to a more malignant phenotype without additional mutations taking place and, conversely, malignant populations can be downregulated to a nontumorigenic phenotype,” wrote researchers from Ohio State University in 1995.(19)

But if cancer cells can revert back into normal cells, how can the cancer establishment justify carving out tumors, scorching patients with radiation and poisoning them with chemotherapy?  They can’t… and so their only option if they wish to remain in business is to pretend this evidence doesn’t exist.

Despite the many experiments profoundly challenging the genetic theory of cancer, medical doctors are not presented these controversies in medical school and are instead taught the genetic theory as if it were fact, which is unfortunate because as the American Nobel Prize-winning virologist Peyton Rous said in 1959, “the somatic mutation theory acts like a tranquilizer on those who believe in it.”(33)

What better way to resolve the controversies surrounding cancer’s elusive origins than with the biggest and most comprehensive scientific investigation ever conducted on the genetics of cancer?

The Cancer Genome Atlas Project

woman peering through a microscope at genetic materialIn 2005, the National Cancer Institute launched a giant multi-national initiative called The Cancer Genome Atlas Project (TCGAP).  The goal of the project was to expand human understanding of cancer genetics and to pinpoint a common sequence of genetic mutations that drive carcinogenesis so that new drugs targeting each mutation could be developed.(34)

If there ever were a project that could finally either prove or disprove cancer as a genetic disease, this billion-dollar medical behemoth – spanning more than a decade – is it.(35)

As you can imagine, the debut of the project spurred enormous excitement and hope among its many participants and supporters.

One of the greatest successes of the project, still underway, has been the accelerated speed at which scientists can fully sequence the genetic code of a cell.  Each cell in our bodies is said to contain around 25,000 genes,(36) and using state-of-the-art technology scientists are now able to churn out the entire genomic sequence of cells with lightning speed.  To date, TCGAP has compiled data from more than 10,000 tissue samples from over 30 types of cancer,(37) but to the surprise of many, the results have been vastly disappointing.

Looking at cancer cells from different people with the same type of tumor, scientists discovered the mutational signatures of cells were so immensely different that they appeared to occur completely at random.(38)(39)(40)

Scientists also looked at the genomes of cells from within the very same tumor, but instead of finding a distinct series of mutations that could explain cancer initiation, every cell was found to have its own unique set of mutations.(41)(42)(43)(44)(45) 

Metastatic cancer cells were also analyzed, and researchers found their genetic defects were completely different than the genetic defects in cells of the original tumor.(46)(47)(48)

Time and time again, the story was the same: not a single gene mutation – or any combination of mutations – was found to be absolutely responsible for initiating the disease.(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)

In 2010, researchers from the University of Washington called the results of the TCGA project ‘sobering’ and conceded, “it is becoming increasingly difficult to envision how it will be possible to develop a realistic number of targeted chemotherapies to be directed against a discrete panel of commonly mutated cancer genes.”(55)

Dr. David Agus, the University of California oncologist who treated Steve Jobs, suggested in a recent speech that cancer is simply too difficult to understand and that we should stop trying.(56)

The Cancer Genome Atlas Project – a fascinating milestone in the history of cancer research – has confirmed to us unequivocally that, above all – cancer is not a genetic disease.  The 81-year-old “father of DNA” James Watson himself responded publically to these findings in 2013, recommending a shift in the focus of cancer research from genetics to metabolism.(57)

Summary

Evidence from research dating as far back as 50 years has been showing that genetic defects are not the drivers of carcinogenesis in cells.

  • Clone a mouse using the dna of a tumor cell and that mouse will likely grow up completely normal and without cancer.
  • Transplant tumor cells into unhatched frog eggs and you’ll find the tadpoles that emerge will develop normally.
  • Transplanted normal cell cytoplasms into cancer cells (containing mutated DNA) and the cancer cells will transform back into normal cells
  • Conversely, transplant cancer cell cytoplasms into normal cells and the cells will turn cancerous

Although genetic defects are undeniably ubiquitous features of cancer cells of all types, they have little to nothing to do with carcinogenesis and they ultimately arise as downstream consequences of something else occurring first within cells.

SUBSCRIBE TO ENDALLDISEASE

And don't worry, we hate spam too!  You can unsubscribe at any time.

THANK YOU!

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.

References

  1. Canadian Cancer Society. What is Cancer? [Online]. Available: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/what-is-cancer. [March 1st, 2017].
  2. Li L, Connelly MC, Wetmore C, Curran T, Morgan JI. Mouse embryos cloned from brain tumors. Cancer Res. 2003;63(11):2733-6.
  3. Mckinnell RG, Deggins BA, Labat DD. Transplantation of pluripotential nuclei from triploid frog tumors. Science. 1969;165(3891):394-6.
  4. Shay JW, Werbin H. Cytoplasmic suppression of tumorigenicity in reconstructed mouse cells. Cancer Res. 1988;48(4):830-3.
  5. Israel BA, Schaeffer WI. Cytoplasmic suppression of malignancy. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol. 1987;23(9):627-32.
  6. Howell AN, Sager R. Tumorigenicity and its suppression in cybrids of mouse and Chinese hamster cell lines. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1978;75(5):2358-62.
  7. Shay JW, Liu YN, Werbin H. Cytoplasmic suppression of tumor progression in reconstituted cells. Somat Cell Mol Genet. 1988;14(4):345-50.
  8. Giguère L, Morais R. On suppression of tumorigenicity in hybrid and cybrid mouse cells. Somatic Cell Genet. 1981;7(4):457-71.
  9. Koura M, Isaka H, Yoshida MC, Tosu M, Sekiguchi T. Suppression of tumorigenicity in interspecific reconstituted cells and cybrids. Gan. 1982;73(4):574-80.
  10. Shay JW, Lorkowski G, Clark MA. Suppression of tumorigenicity in cybrids. J Supramol Struct Cell Biochem. 1981;16(1):75-82.
  11. Israel BA, Schaeffer WI. Cytoplasmic mediation of malignancy. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol. 1988;24(5):487-90.
  12. Rubin H. What keeps cells in tissues behaving normally in the face of myriad mutations?. Bioessays. 2006;28(5):515-24.
  13. Mckinnell RG, Deggins BA, Labat DD. Transplantation of pluripotential nuclei from triploid frog tumors. Science. 1969;165(3891):394-6.
  14. Li L, Connelly MC, Wetmore C, Curran T, Morgan JI. Mouse embryos cloned from brain tumors. Cancer Res. 2003;63(11):2733-6.
  15. Nikolaou N, Green CJ, Gunn PJ, Hodson L, Tomlinson JW. Optimizing human hepatocyte models for metabolic phenotype and function: effects of treatment with dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Physiol Rep. 2016;4(21).
  16. Weaver VM, Petersen OW, Wang F, et al. Reversion of the malignant phenotype of human breast cells in three-dimensional culture and in vivo by integrin blocking antibodies. J Cell Biol. 1997;137(1):231-45.
  17. Brinster RL. The effect of cells transferred into the mouse blastocyst on subsequent development. J Exp Med. 1974;140(4):1049-56.
  18. Mintz B, Illmensee K. Normal genetically mosaic mice produced from malignant teratocarcinoma cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1975;72(9):3585-9.
  19. Milo GE, Shuler CF, Lee H, Casto BC. A conundrum in molecular toxicology: molecular and biological changes during neoplastic transformation of human cells. Cell Biol Toxicol. 1995;11(6):329-45.481.
  20. Postovit LM, Margaryan NV, Seftor EA, Hendrix MJ. Role of nodal signaling and the microenvironment underlying melanoma plasticity. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2008;21(3):348-57.
  21. Zhou S, Abdouh M, Arena V, Arena M, Arena GO. Reprogramming Malignant Cancer Cells toward a Benign Phenotype following Exposure to Human Embryonic Stem Cell Microenvironment. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0169899.
  22. Abbott DE, Postovit LM, Seftor EA, Margaryan NV, Seftor RE, Hendrix MJ. Exploiting the convergence of embryonic and tumorigenic signaling pathways to develop new therapeutic targets. Stem Cell Rev. 2007;3(1):68-78.
  23. D’angelo RC, Wicha MS. Stem cells in normal development and cancer. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2010;95:113-58.
  24. Verney EL, Pierce GB, Dixon FJ. The biology of testicular cancer. III. Heterotransplanted choriocarcinomas. Cancer Res. 1959;19(6, Part 1):633-7.
  25. Postovit LM, Seftor EA, Seftor RE, Hendrix MJ. Targeting Nodal in malignant melanoma cells. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2007;11(4):497-505.
  26. Hendrix MJ, Seftor EA, Kirschmann DA, Quaranta V, Seftor RE. Remodeling of the microenvironment by aggressive melanoma tumor cells. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;995:151-61.
  27. Hendrix MJ, Seftor EA, Seftor RE, Kasemeier-kulesa J, Kulesa PM, Postovit LM. Reprogramming metastatic tumour cells with embryonic microenvironments. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7(4):246-55.
  28. Díez-torre A, Andrade R, Eguizábal C, et al. Reprogramming of melanoma cells by embryonic microenvironments. Int J Dev Biol. 2009;53(8-10):1563-8.
  29. Lee LM, Seftor EA, Bonde G, Cornell RA, Hendrix MJ. The fate of human malignant melanoma cells transplanted into zebrafish embryos: assessment of migration and cell division in the absence of tumor formation. Dev Dyn. 2005;233(4):1560-70.
  30. Seftor EA, Brown KM, Chin L, et al. Epigenetic transdifferentiation of normal melanocytes by a metastatic melanoma microenvironment. Cancer Res. 2005;65(22):10164-9.
  31. Postovit LM, Seftor EA, Seftor RE, Hendrix MJ. Influence of the microenvironment on melanoma cell fate determination and phenotype. Cancer Res. 2006;66(16):7833-6.
  32. Coleman WB, Wennerberg AE, Smith GJ, Grisham JW. Regulation of the differentiation of diploid and some aneuploid rat liver epithelial (stemlike) cells by the hepatic microenvironment. Am J Pathol. 1993;142(5):1373-82.
  33. Rous P. Surmise and fact on the nature of cancer. Nature. 1959;183(4672):1357-61.
  34. Tomczak K, Czerwińska P, Wiznerowicz M. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA): an immeasurable source of knowledge. Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 2015;19(1A):A68-77.
  35. Kaiser J. Genomics. Billion-dollar cancer mapping project steps forward. Science. 2008;321(5885):26-7.
  36. Poethig RS. Life with 25,000 genes. Genome Res. 2001;11(3):313-6.
  37. Lee JS. Exploring cancer genomic data from the cancer genome atlas project. BMB Rep. 2016;49(11):607-611.
  38. Greenman C, Stephens P, Smith R, et al. Patterns of somatic mutation in human cancer genomes. Nature. 2007;446(7132):153-8.
  39. Loeb LA. A mutator phenotype in cancer. Cancer Res. 2001;61(8):3230-9.
  40. Parsons DW, Jones S, Zhang X, et al. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science. 2008;321(5897):1807-12.
  41. Salk JJ, Fox EJ, Loeb LA. Mutational heterogeneity in human cancers: origin and consequences. Annu Rev Pathol. 2010;5:51-75.
  42. Gibbs WW. Untangling the roots of cancer. Sci Am. 2003;289(1):56-65.
  43. Steeg PS. Heterogeneity of drug target expression among metastatic lesions: lessons from a breast cancer autopsy program. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(12):3643-5.
  44. Wu JM, Fackler MJ, Halushka MK, et al. Heterogeneity of breast cancer metastases: comparison of therapeutic target expression and promoter methylation between primary tumors and their multifocal metastases. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(7):1938-46.
  45. Gabor miklos GL. The human cancer genome project–one more misstep in the war on cancer. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23(5):535-7.
  46. Wu JM, Fackler MJ, Halushka MK, et al. Heterogeneity of breast cancer metastases: comparison of therapeutic target expression and promoter methylation between primary tumors and their multifocal metastases. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(7):1938-46.
  47. Stoecklein NH, Hosch SB, Bezler M, et al. Direct genetic analysis of single disseminated cancer cells for prediction of outcome and therapy selection in esophageal cancer. Cancer Cell. 2008;13(5):441-53.
  48. The patterns and dynamics of genomic instability in metastatic pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2010;467(7319):1109.
  49. Gibbs WW. Untangling the roots of cancer. Sci Am. 2003;289(1):56-65.
  50. Seyfried TN, Shelton LM. Cancer as a metabolic disease. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010;7:7.
  51. Stratton MR, Campbell PJ, Futreal PA. The cancer genome. Nature. 2009;458(7239):719.
  52. Mandinova A, Lee SW. The p53 pathway as a target in cancer therapeutics: obstacles and promise. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(64):64rv1.
  53. Gravendeel LA, Kouwenhoven MC, Gevaert O, et al. Intrinsic gene expression profiles of gliomas are a better predictor of survival than histology. Cancer Res. 2009;69(23):9065-72.
  54. Dang L, White DW, Gross S, et al. Cancer-associated IDH1 mutations produce 2-hydroxyglutarate. Nature. 2009;462(7274):739-44.
  55. Salk JJ, Fox EJ, Loeb LA. Mutational heterogeneity in human cancers: origin and consequences. Annu Rev Pathol. 2010;5:51-75.
  56. Agus, D. [TED]. (2010). David Agus: A New Strategy in the War Against Cancer. Available:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRxgDMSp9Gs.[March 1, 2017].
  57. Begley, S. (2013). DNA pioneer James Watson takes aim at “cancer establishments”. [Online]. Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cancer-watson-idUSBRE90805N20130109.[March 1, 2017].

Not a day goes by where my thoughts, passions and visions aren’t focused on creating you amazing content, improving the EndAllDisease website to enhance your experience and making the world a better place to live.
Donate to EndAllDisease and you can rest assured that you’ve done something good for all of humanity.

Donate Now!

SUBSCRIBE TO ENDALLDISEASE

And don't worry, we hate spam too!  You can unsubscribe at any time.

THANK YOU!

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.

SIGN UP to GET ENDALLDISEASE NEWS DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX

THANK YOU!

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.

About Mark
Infared Light Therapy Handheld Device
 
Cancer Cured - Victory Over the War on Cancer

WATCH A SIMPLE FRUIT OUTPERFORM
CANCER SURGERY!

YOURS

FREE

>>

Enter Your Email Below
For Your FREE Ebooks

Simply enter your email address into the box below and click the button to receive your free ebooks.

Your information will never be shared with any third party.

THANK YOU!

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.