I ran across this article by Ty Bollinger discussing cancer:
http://www.cancertruth.net/
But the article is full of many of the same old myths that have been circulated for decades.
The first myth is something I have even heard an allopathic doctor claim. This is that we all produce cancer cells throughout our lives, but they are normally destroyed by the immune system before they can take hold. There is no evidence to back this claim, but evidence to disprove it. Cancer cells actually use several mechanisms in order to evade the immune system. If we all produced cancer cells throughout our life then the majority of these cancer cells that evade the immune system would take hold and kill us.
Next he claims that the cancer cells take in glucose as a fuel and creates lactic acid as a waste product. Cancer does use glucose as a fuel source, but it also uses several other fuel sources such as lactate and amino acids. The biggest mistake though is the claim that cancer cells produce lactic acid. Cancer cells DO NOT produce lactic acid, they produce non-acidic lactate.
Next he claims that the quick shrinkage of cancer by radiation and chemo is a sign of complete immune suppression, not "recovery" from the cancer. Granted, the shrinkage of the tumor does not mean a successful treatment, but this does not mean complete immune suppression either. Some forms of radiation therapy for example can reduce tumor size with minimal damage to the surrounding tissue. And these forms of radiation therapy do not cause immune suppression. Radiation and chemotherapy treatments can knock back the tumor in some cases through free radical formation, but these do not address the cause of cancer and often cannot kill all cancer cells. This is why these therapies generally fail.
Next he claims that tumors fill with CD cells and macrophages that kill and devour cancer cells. First of all CD cells include immune enhancer and immune suppressive cells. More importantly though the immune cells that kill cancer cells are natural killer (NK) cells. The problem is again though is that cancer cells have several mechanisms that allow them to evade the immune system. This makes it nearly impossible for the immune system to find and kill cancer cells to begin with. He clearly has virtually no understanding of how the immune system works.
Finally he claims that the consumption of cancer cells results in an inflammatory response, which is not true. But then he goes on to say "cancer fighting agents that work with the immune system to facilitate both increases in CD-cells and at the same time being cytoxic (selectively killing cancer cells)". First of all chemotherapy agents are cytoxic, but this does not mean they are specific to cancer cells. Cytoxic means kills cells. This includes healthy cells. This is one of the reasons why chemotherapy has so many dangerous side effects. Secondly, his comment contradicts his earlier comment. Earlier in his article he states that the reduction in tumor size by chemotherapy and radiation therapy is a result of "complete shutting down of the normal immune response. If this is a complete shutting down of the immune system then how is there an increase of CD immune cells?
I was just listening to his interview on Coast to Coast as well. Found out that his background is not in medicine, but rather is an accountant.
I applaud the fact that at least he has been looking at some medial studies to try and learn about cancer. But this does not make him an expert. In fact, listening to the interview I heard numerous other cancer misconceptions being stated. Again, this is why it is important for people to verify claims they read or hear when it comes to their health. Just because someone makes a claim this does not make it true. Many of the claims I heard him make sound like they come straight from the sales sites, especially alkaline sales sites. Sales sites are generally very poor sources of information.
For example, cancer is not caused by acidity and baking soda or other alkalinizers do not cure it.
Finally he claims that the consumption of cancer cells results in an inflammatory response, which is not true.
I read that some alternative treatments -- the ones that kill cancer cells -- cause a temporary inflammation of the tumor, which happens when the immune system's NK cells attack the cancer cells. This inflammation even if temporary is very dangerous for patients with lung cancer, brain cancer, any cancer of the digestive tract, cancer of the bile duct and a few other situations where there is a life-threatening blockage (e.g. the tumor is pressing on a vital organ or is obstructing the flow of fluids).
Isn't it logical -- and we see it all the time -- that there is inflammation whenever/whereever the body (immune system) is fighting an infection? Isn't it also the same when the immune system is fighting cancer cells?
On the other hand, I also read that there are some alternative treatments that do not kill cancer cells but simply cause them to revert into normal cells. (IIRC they do this by killing the microbes inside of cancer cells so when the microbes are dead the cancer cells turn back into normal cells). These are the ones that are recommended for brain cancer and other types of cancer in which inflammation at the tumor site is very dangerous and cannot be tolerated. I think frankincense is one of these treatments.
Where would you place chaparral and other anti-microbials in the scheme of things? Do they kill cancer cells or do they revert cancer cells into normal cells?
Thanks!
Finally he claims that the consumption of cancer cells results in an inflammatory response, which is not true.
I read that some alternative treatments -- the ones that kill cancer cells -- cause a temporary inflammation of the tumor, which happens when the immune system's NK cells attack the cancer cells. This inflammation even if temporary is very dangerous for patients with lung cancer, brain cancer, any cancer of the digestive tract, cancer of the bile duct and a few other situations where there is a life-threatening blockage (e.g. the tumor is pressing on a vital organ or is obstructing the flow of fluids).
Isn't it logical -- and we see it all the time -- that there is inflammation whenever/whereever the body (immune system) is fighting an infection? Isn't it also the same when the immune system is fighting cancer cells?
I should have probably expanded on that more to begin with. Part of the problem with his claim is that he was making claims about various white blood cells that were also incorrect.
But as far as the immune system dealing with cancer cells, caner cells have developed various ways to evade the immune system. This is why we cannot simply rev up the immune system with something like immune stimulating polysaccharides to cure all cancers.
Now, if we kill cancer cells then the resulting uric acid can irritate the tissues contributing to inflammation. But the process of inflammation is a result of hormones known as prostaglandins, not from immune cells engorging the tumor and eating the cells. If the immune system was that efficient at killing cancer cells then cancer would be a rare thing.
But the easiest way to explain this without going in to a long explanation of the immune system is to consider healthy cells. There is not a single cell in your body as old as you are. Cells in our body are constantly being destroyed by the immune system and replaced. How the immune system deals with old, damaged cells is the same as they do with cancer cells when the immune system is able to detect them. If the consumption of regular cells by immune cells is the same as for the consumption of cancer cells and the consumption of cells caused inflammation then why doesn't everyone have chronic inflammation?
On the other hand, I also read that there are some alternative treatments that do not kill cancer cells but simply cause them to revert into normal cells. (IIRC they do this by killing the microbes inside of cancer cells so when the microbes are dead the cancer cells turn back into normal cells). These are the ones that are recommended for brain cancer and other types of cancer in which inflammation at the tumor site is very dangerous and cannot be tolerated. I think frankincense is one of these treatments.
I have also heard the claim that ozone in low concentrations also does this. But I doubt the mechanism would be simply by converting the cell back to normal by the destruction of the cancer microbes. The problem with that claim is that cancer viruses insert their genetic material in to our own DNA. Trying to get that genetic material back out without causing severe genetic damage to the cell would seem about impossible. More likely this would have something do do with activating or deactivating some genes within the DNA.
Where would you place chaparral and other anti-microbials in the scheme of things? Do they kill cancer cells or do they revert cancer cells into normal cells?
It would depend on the antimicrobial. For example, one of the known effects of chaparral other than killing microbes is the inhibition of mitosis. Again, this would point more towards activation or deactivation of the genes rather than removal of viral genetic material. On the other hand antimicrobials high in sterols work by lysing the cell membrane. Others work by cytokine activation or other mechanisms. So again, it all depends on the herb.
Thank you! I have a deeper understanding now.
I am actually addressing a lot of the cancer myths more in depth in the book I am working on. I will be covering myths such as oxygen surviving without oxygen, cancer being killed by high oxygen or high alkalinity, cancer being a "modern" disease, cancer being a fungus, etc.
The book is really about alternative cancer cures coving what works such as ozone, betulinic acid, etc., what is quackery such as "oleander soup" and cesium chloride, and what has been shown to have some promise such as DCA.
Can't wait for your book to come out! Will it be anytime soon?
I don't know how long it will take. It is slow going with all the research required. And I have found some flaws in the medical research such as numerous researchers interchanging lactic acid with the word lactate, which are not the same thing. And these mistakes have led to mistakes on where the acidity around tumors is coming from. So it is taking longer than I expected on some chapters having to weed through all this and get it all straightened out.