Topic: Why Research CANNOT Find a Cure.

Mar 25, 2012 09:00PM rosemary-b wrote:

So Paul can you give us a concise summary of your point?

Mar 26, 2012 08:59AM - edited Aug 10, 2012 05:50PM by del4

Apr 5, 2012 06:23AM nodules wrote:

The Mods, in their infinite wisdom, locked me out untill this morning so that I would have plenty of time to prepare my stuff and send emails to universities, Larmarkian sites, the NYT etc so that they too can join in what promises to be a riveting discussion.  As I am probably the only rooster in this cage full of hens, please don't turn me into a feather duster just yet.

Apr 5, 2012 06:55AM nodules wrote:

Amateur Scientist?

Oh yeah, but it gets worse. I've been in the bin twice and twice in jail, only for civil disobedience unfortunately. Now do you really think that dozens of highly qualified cancer researchers, oozing compassion from every pore, weeping as they troll through these forums looking for desperate women they can help pro bono, will put themselves out when they are pulling $300,000 PA, rather than watch tele or down the pub sinking a few ales? I don't think so. Five thousand PROFESSIONAL AACR 'scientists' hold about 5 conventions, 5 symposiums going at once and they are further away from understanding cancer than they were 30 years ago when at least the subject was holistic, included endocrinology, metabolism, histology and so on. I'll tell you what a professional cancer researcher is.

He is almost certainly a molecular biologist ONLY who doesn't even know simple inorganic high school chemistry. He is a fervent disciple of Richard Dawkins in that the more accidental things are in biology the more likely they are to be right. He will know everything there is to know about ONE binding site on ONE protein. To find out about about another binding site on the SAME protein you'd have to go another delegate. This psychosis comes about because each one is looking for a target for an existing drug or to design a new drug for what he reckons is a good target. The target will most likely be in a signalling pathway that promotes proliferation, in order to block it, or activate apoptosis (cell suicide) etc. This is purely applied science in that only those parts of a cell that one can make a quid out of are researched, whilst those that one cannot (pure science), which might include genes for total remission, are not because one will not get funding for such nonsense. Anyway, remission is ALWAYS an accident and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any lunatic health regime undertaken by the patient. He therefore totally demoralises the patient by saying so so that when she drops the health regime and the cancer bounces back with renewed vigour he can say smugly, "See, I told you so." his reputation intact. He will conveniently overlook dozens of research discoveries that don't accord with Dawkinism because they make him feel very uncomfortable and go out of his way to forget them. Those that did the discovery will also do likewise.

One glaring example is the number ONE tumour repressor protein p53. It was discovered that when mutated in certain sites along the gene the resulting protein had every role (about 8) as a repressor REVERSED so that it became an INDUCER of cancer, hardly an accident. He never uses the word dedifferentiation any more as that suggests that cancer cells go backward as they become more malignant. That could mean that in Nature they might carry genes all the way back to the germ plasma and THAT smacks of LARMARKISM shudder, shudder. Larmark, the dreaded antichrist of biology who sends Dawkins into violent convulsions, causes drug company share prices to plummet, researchers to throw themselves off buildings. I'm one of them and being at a conference is a bit like being a member of the KKK in the Vatican, well not quite as they really do love me, just as long as I don't start talking biochemistry or endocrinology or haematology or whatever, unless he or she is alone and half drunk at 'mixers' in the evening. Mixers is the torrent of booze and horse's douvers financed by the trade, in front of the trade hall where delegates can wander in and groove on the latest fluorescent microscope or PCR gizmo. Mixers is where collaboration in science takes place except they don't remember what they collaborated about or with whom next day.

To keep me out of the conversation they herd, and I can go up to a Sir Something to ask him a question and Hell can freeze over a million times before they will stop yapping with each other and politely say, 'Hello, did you want to ask Sir Something as question,' him being a highly prestigious lecturer and me being just an amateur. The cardinal sin is the disrespect shown to a highly prestigious lecturer by asking him or her a question that he doesn't know the answer to, IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE, especially when one is just an amateur. But I studied everything in biology because I didn't realise that I wasn't supposed to until I started going to the conferences. Because I did study everything I loved biology and soaked it up like a blotter, especially when I began to see all of the mechanisms of biological evolution in CANCER. How far do you reckon I could have gone at University. Gone to ten classes at once and as a heretic. All one needs is the lump of meat between one's ears, an unbridled passion, a big pile of textbooks and of course now a computer. I don't need a lab as I've got access to millions of research papers on the web and for patients, thousands of you forum posterers.

Apr 5, 2012 07:09AM nodules wrote:

Just as well they listened to me at least once.

The first Cancer conference I attended about 16 years ago was a joint Lorne (Vic Aust) AACR (American Association of Cancer Research) conference. A lecture on the second day was about bowel cancer in which the number one tumour repressor p53 was mutated, presumably the reason for the tumour, and it secreted a prostaglandin PGF2. Now I knew that PGF2 constricted or narrowed blood vessels supplying the gastrointestinal tract and suddenly I had a different spin on the sequence of events. At question time I suggested that hypoxia or oxygen starvation was the cause of the bowel cancer, not the mutations in the p53 tumour repressor. I suggested that the mutations in the p53 were a RESULT of the hypoxia. As I said this tumour secreted a prostaglandin PGF2 which is a vasoconstrictor. Adrenalin activates PGF2 in the gastro-intestinal tract in response to 'fight or flight', stress in other words. My theory went like this. Stress>adrenalin>PGF2>vasoconstriction>HYP OXIA>p53 mutation>CANCER.

At the end of the symposium a chap approached me and suggested that this was a very interesting idea as he was working on the same cells. It turned out that he was the AACR convenor. I saw him later and explained to him what is called the RAS pathway by which adrenalin works. He said, "You must be a very good biochemist" I was nonplussed by this as I didn't thing my suggestion was anything extraordinary and I replied that "I'm not a biochemist, I'm an electronic technician, this is just a hobby for me. He looked dumbfounded as if I was taking the Mickey out of him and didn't say anything, then took off. I didn't run into him again for the rest of the Conference.

The following year when I went to pay the Conference secretary for everything, registration, all meals and accommodation she whispered as she handed me my bag, "Don't worry Noddy, it all been taken care off" ($750}. I was gobsmacked as there was no explanation as to why. The same thing happened for the following two years the gradually tapered off. I know now. You see my answer that day involved endocrinology, biochemistry, haematology, oncology, molecular biology etc. all of which I had studied BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THAT I WASN'T SUPPOSED TO. All of the delegates were molecular biologist looking for GENES to blame, then design the appropriate drug. It is pure commerce and that blinds totally. These conferences would not be possible without large scale funding from lab suppliers, pharmaceutical companies etc. This, plus Dawkinist dogma, makes it IMPOSSIBLE to understand cancer, let alone find a cure. How could the delegates POSSIBLY admit that an amateur scientist had worked something out that the entire global community of cancer researchers couldn't.

At the last cancer conference that I attended about 5 years ago there were two lectures on the discovery of the HIF (hypoxia induction factor) genes that switched on proliferation of cells and angiogenesis (growth of blood vessels to allow cell growth), CANCER in other words and based on my suggestion all those years before, yet I got no recognition whatsoever. Hypoxia is probably the most important tumour inducer of all.

THE WARBURG EFFECT.

The Warburg effect refers to a characteristic in which cancer cells use less and less oxygen as they become more malignant. Cancer researchers use the term but it has fallen into misuse as cancer is seem more and more as simply a stuff up. I use a LOT as it is pivotal to my theories on cancer. The other night I decided to check the history of what Warburg did to arrive at his conclusion. I ALMOST FELL OFF THE CHAIR AT WHAT I READ. Fifty years ago Otto Warburg discovered that when normal cells in a Petri dish were deprived of oxygen they transformed into cancer cells. That's it, nothing else, just deprived of oxygen. So this has been known for FIFTY years yet all of those 500 delegates at my first Cancer conference, half from the biggest cancer research organisation in the world, didn't know about. If I had known that day I would NOT have suggested it and the genes might not have been found. But then it's not my job to know. HYPOXIA can be caused by a number of things, primarily vasoconstriction. Vasoconstriction to the gastro intestinal tract, resulting from persistent stress, means malabsorption of nutrients such as IRON needed for red blood cells to transport OXYGEN. Now add gunked up blood vessels due to glucose and cholesterol forming plaques and thus even worse hypoxia.

BLOOD PRESSURE.

Blood vessels have carbon dioxide detector nodes along them, so that if CO2 builds up in the bloodstream, meaning reduced oxygen, then the heart increases its output, the result being higher blood pressure. Now gunked up blood vessels inhibit the flow of blood through them so the heart has to increase it's output to compensate, meaning higher blood pressure and risk of stroke. So you take blood pressure controls e.g. beta blockers and you lower your blood pressure but increase your RISK OF CANCER by definition, the Warburg effect.

Apr 5, 2012 07:30AM camillegal wrote:

Wow u r extremely interesting altho with me u'd have to speak to me like I'm a 4 yr. old--and I'm not bein sarcastic--I just have no  knowledge of all the theories (or facts) that u have. There is one thing I had a theory about yrs ago--before I got cancer--it was in my family--and I called it chemo=brain and the Drs just looked and smiled but I could see the difference in the people who where getting chemo and i fiured it was a side effect. Then yrs. later when I did get cancer it was recognized as a real thing. I was not being foolish---that's my theory oh I have many more now--but there's no way i could write or explain as well as everyone else. LOL