Re: What Is Cancer? by Ty Bollinger- A review

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.