Most Cancer Mutations Are Due To Random DNA Copying 'mistakes'

[Drareg]

@Regina @Base Ball There is only so much nonsense parents of a child dying with cancer can buy into particularly when more information is out there to question doctors with,these charities are getting found out.
Asking you to wear ribbons is the equivalent of tagging an animal,let me brand you.
Most of the decent people involved with these charities are oblivious to the motives at the top.

@Lilac Your observation is similar to my own, also suicides amongst men in their mid forties.
I'm curious if any of these people were on meds of some sort aggravating an already stressful diet and socioeconomic status.
Population increases don't really cover the numbers,iatrogenics being the elephant in the room.

It's clear with the rise of medical interference and diagnosis we have a rise in deaths and issues all round,the early days of medicine when knowledge was limited medicine had some level of humility,respect for experiment,through trial and error we got penicillin which helped extend lives.

 

[Texon]

The study is bunk. Here are two things to consider. A recent study which even made the front page on CNN found dramatically increased rates of colon cancer in people in their 20s. Colon cancer is one of the cancers considered definitely an "old person" cancer and this is why screenings do not start until the person hits 50. As the study itself says, neither genetics nor obesity can explain this increase.
Breaking News: Colorectal Cancer Rates In Young People Have Doubled

Second, the idea of a genetic mutation causing cancer is the central dogma of modern medicine. Peat has been saying it ain't true for decades but only recently a study came out and said exactly that - the mutations are a result of the metabolic dysfunction in a cancer cell, not a cause of the cancer. So, this metabolic dysfunction (aka Warburg effect) is the actual cause, not some stupid mutation or evil gene that nobody has managed to pinpoint over the last 80 years. And believe me, they searched hard and spent a lot of taxpayers' money while at it.
The Warburg Effect drives oncogenesis: researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and in Japan show cancer really does have a sweet tooth • r/science

How about this: Epigenetic changes, e.g. PUFA consumption, birth control pills, environmental estrogens, viruses, bad bacteria, non-native EMFs (this is a big one I think), water fluoridation...basically pollution of all kinds > heightened signaling disruptions at the mitochondrial/DNA level > increased stress/cortisol > increased inflammatory status > increased degenerative diseases of all kinds?

Perhaps a more light-hearted view has some truth worth considering as well...

Hercule Poirot: Are you feeling better, Hastings?
Captain Hastings: Yes. Yes, I am, as a matter of fact. Takes the pressure off the pancreas, you see.
Hercule Poirot: Hein, the pancreas is nothing. Of the digestive organs, the liver is the key. Look after the liver and life will take care of itself.

 

[Texon]

BTW, Dr. Revici also thought cancer had a parasitic/viral cause of some kind

 

[haidut]

BTW, Dr. Revici also thought cancer had a parasitic/viral cause of some kind

Viral agents do not pose much danger to a properly energized organism. Viral infections are shown to require serotonin to take hold, and possibly cortisol as well. The link between stress and viral infections is well established, so thyroid/tebaolism is once again of primary importance. Bacteria may be a viable candidate but the direct cause is not the bacteria but the deranged metabolism during chronic infection. I guess it is a bit of chicken-egg problem, but so far I have not see much evidence of bacteria causing cancer directly. Even H.pylori causes years/decades of ulcerations before stomach cancer forms, which suggests the process is not directly tied to the infection but to the dysregulation it induces.

 

[Texon]

They would, if you weaken the person with chemotherapy and radiation. Cancer is simply an attempt at repair that does not get turned off since the environment in some organ/tissue is so bad the organism thinks it needs to keep repairing. Any attempt to kill these dividing cells is an incredibly strong signal to the organism that not only are thing not improving but more "repair" needs to be done. So, the cells keep dividing and conquering until there is nothing left but a de-differentiated primitive life form that existed on this planet 3 billion years ago. So, a person with cancer reverts back to the bacterial stage of evolution.
The goal should be to show the repair process that no more repair needs to be done. So far, the things that have been shown to act as such a strong signal include steroids like T3, progesterone, testosterone, DHT (maybe), and blockers of the serotonin "receptor" 5-HT2B. Overwhelming the repair process with oxygen and reactive oxygen species (ROS) can also stop the excessive cell division, so naturally tissue oxygenation agents like CO2, methylene blue, and quinones like emodin and vitamin K often works quite well.
In general, anything that restores electron flow tends to correct any existing pathology. Any diseases has at its base an interruption somewhere of the electron flow from food to oxygen.

@haidut @Dante @burtlancast @Regina Not sure how to best get this broadcast, but if this information is true, it seems revolutionary and mind blowing in its implications IMHO. Maybe keep in mind also that Dr. Revici used special fatty acid compounds to achieve a high rate of "remission" in cancer. Calling all scientists/researchers to please take a critical look at this...

 

[Base Ball]

I paid for advice from a MD for about a year that trained with and worked under Revici in NYC. Revici's methods are different but the whole idea is to get your body into a homeostatic state where you are not too "anabolic" or "catabolic." They determine that from blood tests they run through their own algorithm as well as twice daily urine ph levels. The treatments used are specific for your blood chemistry. If they think you are too catabolic they try to give you things that increase your anabolic level to where you are in homeostasis. One person's treatment may be completely different than someone's else. That is one reason why it is hard to generalize about Revici's methods. Salt, magnesium, and minerals were big with this doc. Like Peat, you are forced to experiment to know what works best for your specific circumstance. I think Revici's methods worked because he was trying to cooperate with the body in its attempt to heal rather than use the sledgehammer approach we see so often in medicine today.

 

[haidut]

@haidut @Dante @burtlancast @Regina Not sure how to best get this broadcast, but if this information is true, it seems revolutionary and mind blowing in its implications IMHO. Maybe keep in mind also that Dr. Revici used special fatty acid compounds to achieve a high rate of "remission" in cancer. Calling all scientists/researchers to please take a critical look at this...

Thanks, we posted about this in another thread some time ago.
Vitamin D And Taurine As Actual Treatment For Many Cancers

There are some good points raised there such as optimal dose of any supplement/drug being dependent on metabolism and not so much on body weight. I think Peat would agree with that statement. But the overall paper has some references that are too whacky to discuss with mainstream medical doctors as they would immediately dismiss the paper and the proponent as insane. One of the whacky ideas in there is diagnosis of cancer by having people draw pictures with their feet. I am not saying it is wrong, I am saying there is so little evidence for it that it cannot be discussed with anybody except its authors (e.g. Dr. Omura).

 

[burtlancast]

Salt, magnesium, and minerals were big with this doc..

Magnesium chloride was advertised since the 1920's by Pierre Delbet as both preventive and (in some cases) curative agent against cancer.

Salt has been shown by Revici to accelerate tumor growth; i've posted his salt experiments in a separate thread.

I believe it was Linus Pauling who stated all disease states originate in a mineral imbalance/deficiency.

 

[Texon]

I paid for advice from a MD for about a year that trained with and worked under Revici in NYC. Revici's methods are different but the whole idea is to get your body into a homeostatic state where you are not too "anabolic" or "catabolic." They determine that from blood tests they run through their own algorithm as well as twice daily urine ph levels. The treatments used are specific for your blood chemistry. If they think you are too catabolic they try to give you things that increase your anabolic level to where you are in homeostasis. One person's treatment may be completely different than someone's else. That is one reason why it is hard to generalize about Revici's methods. Salt, magnesium, and minerals were big with this doc. Like Peat, you are forced to experiment to know what works best for your specific circumstance. I think Revici's methods worked because he was trying to cooperate with the body in its attempt to heal rather than use the sledgehammer approach we see so often in medicine today.

@haidut @Regina @burtlancast @tyw @ Dante Didn't convey this quite as I should have. The attachment has nothing to do with Dr. Revici, although my wife (fortunately in her case) does have first-hand experience with his treatments. Plus, when I tried to search this subject via the internet on another computer today, lo and behold, I found this exact topic discussed by Haidut and others in this forum on a thread that started back in about mid November last year. The thread even has the identical attachment given above. The search string I used to find the prior discussion was 'taurine cilantro cancer' and voila there it was in first position on the Google page. So, guess I'll go back to that thread and see what's up.

 

[Texon]

Thanks, we posted about this in another thread some time ago.
Vitamin D And Taurine As Actual Treatment For Many Cancers

There are some good points raised there such as optimal dose of any supplement/drug being dependent on metabolism and not so much on body weight. I think Peat would agree with that statement. But the overall paper has some references that are too whacky to discuss with mainstream medical doctors as they would immediately dismiss the paper and the proponent as insane. One of the whacky ideas in there is diagnosis of cancer by having people draw pictures with their feet. I am not saying it is wrong, I am saying there is so little evidence for it that it cannot be discussed with anybody except its authors (e.g. Dr. Omura).

I agree there is a huge amount of woo woo in the paper that would probably put off almost anyone. But what if it's just crazy enough to be true? And, all the researchers seem to have such great credentials. Also, I have to believe they must have known the criticism they would've faced the minute they put all this up for public scrutiny. Have you thought of trying to contact any of them, or do you think it's just too fringe to waste time on it?

 

[sladerunner69]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170323141403.htm
Saw this a few days ago, i am just the messenger here , want to know what the people here think about it.
Some random points -
-- "Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center scientists report data from a new study providing evidence that random, unpredictable DNA copying "mistakes" account for nearly two-thirds of the mutations that cause cancer. Their research is grounded on a novel mathematical model based on DNA sequencing and epidemiologic data from around the world"

-- "it is not as well-known that each time a normal cell divides and copies its DNA to produce two new cells, it makes multiple mistakes," says Cristian Tomasetti, Ph.D., assistant professor of biostatistics at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "These copying mistakes are a potent source of cancer mutations that historically have been scientifically undervalued, and this new work provides the first estimate of the fraction of mutations caused by these mistakes."

-- "the scientists took a close look at the mutations that drive abnormal cell growth among 32 cancer types (Supplemental Materials, Table S6). They developed a new mathematical model using DNA sequencing data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and epidemiologic data from the Cancer Research UK database."

--"Looking across all 32 cancer types studied, the researchers estimate that 66 percent of cancer mutations result from copying errors, 29 percent can be attributed to lifestyle or environmental factors, and the remaining 5 percent are inherited"

--"Vogelstein says that people with cancer who have avoided known risk factors should be comforted by their findings. "It's not your fault," says Vogelstein. "Nothing you did or didn't do was responsible for your illness.""

Thoughts ?

This is the mechanistic view that Ray talks about in his articles. It is mostly incorrect, and serves to conviently fit into the narrative of biology and medicine that the pharmeceutical and medical industrial complex benefit from.

 

[haidut]

I agree there is a huge amount of woo woo in the paper that would probably put off almost anyone. But what if it's just crazy enough to be true? And, all the researchers seem to have such great credentials. Also, I have to believe they must have known the criticism they would've faced the minute they put all this up for public scrutiny. Have you thought of trying to contact any of them, or do you think it's just too fringe to waste time on it?

Well, there is probably no need. The main findings of the paper are about vitamin D and taurine being anti-cancer compounds. I have enough evidence to know that this is true. Also, human studies in people with cancer have been done with 400 IU vitamin D and the results were not better than higher doses, so on that claim the whacky study is unconvincing. I have no problem with whacky studies, I did follow up on the evidence I have access to and the general claim are true but the specific ones related to doses do not match what I have seen.

 

[Texon]

Well, there is probably no need. The main findings of the paper are about vitamin D and taurine being anti-cancer compounds. I have enough evidence to know that this is true. Also, human studies in people with cancer have been done with 400 IU vitamin D and the results were not better than higher doses, so on that claim the whacky study is unconvincing. I have no problem with whacky studies, I did follow up on the evidence I have access to and the general claim are true but the specific ones related to doses do not match what I have seen.

Weird to say the least...thanks anyway.