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
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
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
Hypothesis: assuming the
Unitarian or Trophoblast Theory of cancer,
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
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...