Re: Devil's Advocate

October 31, 2002

Dean & : Thank you for your discussion. Just thought I'd throw in my 2

cents.

Some theorists (Husemann/Wolff & Otto Warburg to name a few) theorize that

the reason cancer patients typically never got sick, never got the flu,

colds, etc. prior to a cancer diagnosis is actually proof that the immune

system was NOT working. In a person with depressed immunity, pathogens

enter the body & the body simply does not attack (and/or recognize) the

pathogens. Those with depressed immunity fail to mount a fever or any

produce any form of systemic inflammation (localized inflammation may

occur). After years of not defending itself, the body finally succumbs to a

life/death situation -- cancer.

Wasn't it in this group that someone mentioned that long-standing, untreated

chronic fatigue syndrome " ended up " in cancer?

I'm reading a book called Deceits of the Mind by Jane Goldberg. It studies

the mind-body connection in illness with an emphasis on cancer. She posits

that the physiology of cancer -- depressed immunity and failure to respond

until a life-threatening state is reach corresponds to the psyche of the

cancer patient, who is typically, though not exclusively, a Type C

personality. An oversimplified explanation of the type C personality is

pleasant. They hide how they really feel. They respond to attack with

smiles and fear. They may be depressed. They have had a fair to high

number of stressors beginning in childhood, yet they present very pleasant &

are afraid to express their needs. So, too, the body is under stress but it

does not go on the attack. It stays " calm " & " pleasant " (doesn't develop

fever, vomiting, etc) on the outside, but internally (cellularly), disaster

is occurring.

It's all very interesting.

Miki

[ ] Devil's Advocate

I was interested in your " devil's advocate " stance in regard to the immune

system, Dean, and my immediate reaction was to fire off a missive stating

that of course the immune system must be at least depressed, but after some

thought, I suppose it really depends on one's perspective - a little like

approving of one political party or even religion, in comparison to another.

My inclination is to say still, that the immune system must be compromised

at least for any disease to take hold, and so those who would say that

cancer is an immune problem would not necessarily be incorrect. The more we

look at this disease, the more it is understood that very few people know

how it works - we can only surmise theoretical constructs which may answer

some questions. The thing that most constructs have in common, is the

compromised state of the immune system. For example, if we take the theory

of virology - that a virus may be implicated in cell transformation induced

by a viral genetic message, then we must accept that the immune system

failed in it's attempt to find such virus in the first place. This would beg

the question " Why, in an apparently healthy person, was a virus able to

implant it's genetic code? " Some micro-biologists believe one group of

culprits is that of lectin proteins. Bill Giles, a greatly respected

micro-biologist and head of the National Institute of Biological Medicine

here in Australia says that " it is thought that grain lectins alter the

structural integrity of some types of lectin compounds used by our defence

cells. When this happens, these cells inappropriately release chemicals, and

the person experiences symptoms. lectins can alter the biological signals

between cells by changing the coding of receptor molecules on cells

surfaces. "

The upshot of Gile's research(and that of others) is basically, that lectins

provide a " communication barrier " between CD4 and CD8 T cells thus

compromising the immune system. In other words, the immune system simply

doesn't recognise the viral change. So, in someone with, say, the hepatitis

virus, and providing other circumstances are suitable, liver cancer may

result. Of course there are many " other circumstances " required, but even

most of these would require some kind of deficiency in the immune system and

these may have been brought about through major changes to the genome

through diet and hormonal factors, add a few chemicals to the mix, oxygen

deprivation to the mutated cells and an intracellular acidic environment and

bingo! Of course, the cancer cell can't survive in a fully functional immune

system - a system that is not compromised or depressed.

The answer to healing then, becomes one of reversal.. Cancer is, really, one

of a number of circumstances which may include the cell's natural response

to survive in what is basically (for it) an hostile environment - hostile

because of the body's natural defences through the immune system.

Unfortunately, the cancer cell's survival can only occur where the immune

system isn't up to scratch. The answer though, I believe, is not simply the

re-enhancement of the immune system, although in true recovery, such

reinstatement is essential.

Thanks for your time,

A Allan

November 4, 2002

I'm flabbergasted to learn that Otto Warburg, among others, also believed

that cancer patients tend to be people who have had relatively few colds

and flus in their lives. I thought that was just my own rather-dubious

observation! Do you have any references? I'd love to see some of his

original writings on the subject.

Thanks,

Dean

Re: [ ] Devil's Advocate