| |
Back to
Quack Off
Quack Off
by
Free
Market Duck
When Good Cells
Go Bad
What is cancer? What, exactly, causes cancer cells to
express themselves? What is the solution to cancer?
Two theories of
cancer exist: (1) the viral theory and, (2) the trophoblast theory.
The predominant
viral theory says that outside agents invade your body, or that somatic
(good) cells mutate into cancer cells, and that there exist an infinite
number of different cancers. Each type attacks different parts of the body
because each type is different. Hence we have leukemia, melanoma, brain
tumors, etc. No common thread is postulated in the viral theory and,
therefore, no silver bullet to solve all cancers. The current solution by
orthodox medicine is slash, burn, and poison: surgery, radiation, and
chemotherapy. Slash, burn, and poison is a multi-billion dollar a year
business, heavily subsidized by the government with lots of corporate
welfare. Still, over 500,000 die every year with no solution in sight.
The trophoblast
theory of cancer was postulated over a hundred years ago by Scottish
embryologist John Beard, a professor at the University of Edinburgh. He and
subsequent researchers say that, morphologically, there is only one type of
cancer cell, the trophoblast cell. The trophoblast cell has a natural body
function: it arises from the meiosis (cell division) of a woman’s diploid
totipotent cells after fertilization. The natural function of a trophoblast
cell is to carve a niche into the uterine wall of the mother to allow the
fetus to attach and thus obtain nourishment from her blood supply. In this
natural function, the trophoblast cells are extremely invasive and corrosive
but are held in check by enzymes that protect the fetus. At 56 days, the
fetus’ pancreas kicks in and the trophoblasts stop their invasive activity.
In rare cases when they don’t stop, doctors call it chorionepithelioma, one
of the most deadly cancers. If not corrected, the mother and fetus will die
in about two weeks.
In the viral theory
of cancer, nobody knows why cells mutate into cancer cells.
In the trophoblast
theory of cancer, everybody already contains potential cancer cells since
the precursor cells – the diploid totipotent cells from which trophoblast
cells arise – were naturally dispersed throughout the fetus’ body during
development when some 20% of the diploid totipotent cells migrating to the
fetus’ future gonads ended up elsewhere -- such as in your future lungs,
skin cells, brain, or left elbow. That’s where they sit, until stimulated
by steroids such as estrogen. Estrogen helps repair damaged cells, damaged
as from UV, tobacco, real viruses, or bonks on the head. But remember: no
trophoblasts, no cancer. That’s why some smokers get lung cancer, others
don’t (dirty lung cells, yes, but cancer, no). That's also why some
13% non-smokers die from lung cancer. It has nothing to do with
smoking per se. It has to do with: are
the diploid totipotent cells already in the lungs and did they reduce to
trophoblasts?
In the viral theory
of cancer, leukemia is regarded as a different cancer than Hodgkins or skin
cancer.
But the trophoblast
theorists claim when you look at internal cell morphology, all cancer cells
are exactly the same as trophoblast cells. Outwardly, cancer cells appear
different because the trophoblast cell is reacting to different parts of the
body in which it finds itself. 90% of a tumor, for example, is comprised of
benign somatic cells that are responding to the 10% carcinogenic action of
the trophoblast cells. The phenotype (outward appearance) is simply masking
the trophoblast’s internal morphology. Internally, there is only one type
of cancer cell: the trophoblast cell in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If all cancer cells
are simply the naturally occurring trophoblast cell in the wrong place at
the wrong time, we should be able to protect ourselves in somewhat the same
method by which the mother’s and fetus’ bodies protect themselves when they
cut off the natural function of the trophoblast during pregnancy. We can.
Trophoblast cells
release lots of beta-glucuronidase. In fact, this is, indirectly, the basis for
pregnancy tests. If a man tests positive in a pregnancy test, he is not
pregnant; he has cancer. Why? Because we’re indirectly testing for the
existence of trophoblasts. Food with locked-in cyanide – much like
poisonous sodium and chlorine comprising common table salt, Sodium Chloride
– releases cyanide by reaction with the trophoblast’s beta-glucuronidase,
the cyanide destroys the trophoblast cell, while good cells are protected by
an enzyme called rhodanese that locks up the cyanide molecule and flushes it
away. Thus, like vitamin C for scurvy, Amygdalin (vitamin B-17) is a silver
bullet against the trophoblast.
The viral theory of
cancer explains nothing and costs a fortune. The trophoblast theory of
cancer explains everything and costs you the price of an apricot kernel,
buckwheat, and cheap food containing Amygdalin.
The real question
is not which theory of cancer is correct. The real question is freedom of
choice in medicine. Once again, it’s the individual vs. the state.
If I want to gobble
up apricot pits to get vitamin B-17 FOR WHATEVER reason, that’s my choice.
If I choose orthodox chemotherapy, that’s also my choice. But when the
government mandates one theory over the other, it infringes upon my freedom
of speech, freedom of voluntary association, and freedom of choice in the
free market of ideas, commodities, and services.
Should Congress
provide the Idaho Downwinders with $50,000 as compensation for their
possible consumption of Iodine-131 from the 1960s nuclear test fallout? The
correct answer is that it is far better for each individual to understand
how to solve their current or future cancer problems than to argue about
$50,000 from Congress. From my point of view, it’s like a bunch of ignorant 18th
century sailors arguing whether the British Parliament should pay them 50
Pounds for contracting scurvy at sea when all they needed to do was eat a
lime.
back to top... |
|