FreeMarketDuck.com

Idaho's Weekly Journal of Local & National Commentary  Week 3314

 

Home • Up • About us • Contact • Glossary • Links

 

 

Back to Quack Off

 Quack Off               

 

 


by Free Market Duck

Does surgery for cancer cause more cancer?

Removing a tumor may trigger a series of biochemical processes that stimulate even more cancer.

So far, reasons FM Duck, only the Unitarian (Trophoblast) Theory can explain this observation.

International Journal of Surgery, Italy WSJ writer Amy Dockser Marcus reports that surgeons throughout the world from Harvard to Italy have noticed a strange phenomenon:  removing a cancer tumor appears to trigger a process that leads to new growth in other parts of the patient's body.

   Question number one:  is this observation correct?  Question number two:  if true, what is the cause?

   Studies of 1,173 women at the Milan Institute of Cancer in Italy who underwent (is 'underwent' a real word, Margie?  It is now.) breast surgery showed a larger than expected number of new cancer growths in other areas of their bodies within a short period of time (1-2 yrs).  This is often referred to in medical jargon as "a relapse" or "oh damn, girl, we caught it too late, your cancer has mysteriously spread to all over hell and back, sorry Charlie, go home and cry yourself to sleep, don't sue us, sign here, it's not our fault."  Similar observations have occurred by researchers at Harvard Medical School, Indianapolis, Boston, and other medical facilities.  They call it:  "surgery-induced angiogenesis" which means the process by which the body forms new blood vessels and feeds new tumor growth.  The cause?  The surgery itself.

   Let's assume that the doctors and researchers are wearing their bifocals and thus their observations are correct.  That answers question number one, i.e. there is a correlation between cancer surgery and, shortly thereafter, an increase in more cancer growth throughout the patient's body.

   Question # 2:  How come, Margie?  Standard answer in all the medical journals:  we don't know, Margie.  Note that the current theory of cancer is that it is some sort of virus, that there exist many types of cancer viruses, that cancers either occur through spontaneous generation (which does not fit into any known biological paradigm for cell replication) or that cancer is an invasion by outside agents, and that although billions and billions of dollars have been spent on cancer research, the current paradigm cannot explain exactly what triggers or causes cancer to appear -- and thus how to stop it.  Cancer is a mystery to modern medical science -- and all the trillion dollar pharmaceutical companies selling chemotherapy, radiologists burning tumors out of your body, and surgeons removing mostly (90%) benign tissue and the 10% invasive tissue.  (Note:  removing the 90% benign tissue is often necessary since it interferes with the proper functioning of neighboring somatic tissue but, more importantly, the surgeon should have noticed the morphological (biochemical) correlation between ALL types of the 10% invasive core and a pregnant woman's naturally-occurring trophoblast cells until the fetus' pancreas cuts in and stops the invasive action of the trophoblast.)  To not understand this correlation -- and it is not taught in med school -- is to not understand the basic nature of cancer, which is simply the trophoblast cell in the wrong place at the wrong time.

   Hypothesis:  assuming the Unitarian or Trophoblast Theory of cancer,  (Review basics here), it is quite true that surgery for cancer -- or any surgery, for that matter -- can trigger the growth of new cancer.  Why?  Because the underlying diploid totipotent cell which reduces to a haploid gametogenous cell can be reduced by meiotic meiosis to the most basic natural cell in the human body, the trophoblast cell, stimulated by a steroid such as estrogen which the body naturally sends out to repair injured tissue (oooh, Margie, does that ring a bell?  surgery, surgery, ding-dong).  Oh no, the surgery itself now stimulates -- like UV sunlight, or smoking -- the bod to produce a chemical process that ends up triggering the 20% diploid totipotent cells which during fetus development didn't make it to your gonads but rather ended up in your lungs or left elbow.  These undifferentiated cells in the wrong place are now candidates for future cancers.

   So the researchers are correct in their observations but have no idea how this can possibly happen.  Only the Unitarian or Trophoblast Theory of cancer (read basics here) explains their observations.  If the Unitarian Theory is correct -- and I suspect it is partly because it is so simple and elegant and as Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe" -- then we already have silver bullets and the knowledge to solve the Big C.  All you red-hot med researchers out there should read Prof of Embryology John Beard's results (from over a hundred years ago, boy are we slow or what?) and the results of many other researchers such as the Krebs in San Francisco regarding the Trophoblast Theory of cancer.  Until you do, you know nothing about cancer. -- FM Duck

      back to top...

 

               Home • Up • About us • Contact • Glossary • Links


freemarketduck.com   all contents copyrighted 1994-2014   Free Market Duck tm   all rights reserved