The Conclusion of a Johns Hopkins Study: 2/3 of Cancer Is Caused by "Bad Luck"
Updated: 17 hours ago
Consider this new study out of Johns Hopkins:
It states in its conclusions:
"The majority [of cancer] is due to “bad luck,” that is, random mutations arising during DNA replication in normal, noncancerous stem cells."
Really?
This Johns Hopkins mathematical study model statistically measures the proportion of cancer incidence, across many tissue types, caused mainly by random mutations that occur when stem cells divide. The gist of the article actually tells me something about the brick wall that researchers have hit, who are trying to work within the SMT (Somatic Mutation Theory)[1].
Speaking on the BBC Radio 4, co-author of the study, biomathematician Dr Cristian Tomasetti, also from Johns Hopkins University, said: “I’m not claiming any cancers, overall across the population, are the result of pure chance, but what I am claiming is there are some tissues – for example blood cancer – where there is very little evidence of any hereditary or environmental factor.” What he's not saying is that this study is completely based on looking only at SMT research and data. They appeared to have ignored the work of Pete Pedersen (who has worked at Johns Hopkins for decades), Thomas Seyfried (who wrote "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease", from Boston College), and of course Otto Warburg (the Nobel prize winning scientist and doctor who showed that damaged metabolic processes lead to damaged respiration as the primary cause of cancer).
It's laughable really. So much brain power and such a prestigious institution have, all focused on the wrong thing. Basically they're saying that there are so many variations in the genetic mutations of cancer (as many as 30,000 in one colon tumor for example), that they can't find a root cause. It reminds me of a time when scientists looked into the vacuum of space and said there was an "Ether" layer (an imaginary transitional medium used by physicists to explain the propagation of electromagnetic or gravitational forces finally debunked by Einstein) or when medicine said that illnesses were caused by "bad humors" or that vermin appeared in rotting food as "Spontaneous Generation" (the idea that life can emerge from inanimate matter debunked by Pasteur). The last time I checked, neither science nor medicine continued to use the term "bad humor", so to get around that, they have created a new euphemism "Bad Luck", as the primary cause of this disease. Reading between the lines it seem that what they are really saying is: "We can't make heads or tails out this so it's just your bad luck."
The fact that researchers can't look past the DNA is telling. It's as if they are mesmerized and boxed in by their complete dedication to the genome projects. This tunnel vision has not only dead-ended their careers but has prevented resources from going to metabolic research that can explain a single cause for 95% of cancers.
Notes
Tripping over the truth, by Travis Christofferson (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014): pages xvii-xix)
In his book "Travis Christofferson tells us:
"In 2006 the NCI (National Cancer Institute) started funding a massive, multinational project called The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). Most researches, especially those at the head of the NCI, unwaveringly believe that cancer is caused by DNA mutations that are thought to sequentially rewire critical cellular circuitry - marching a cell step by step, toward becoming a chaotic, aggressive, uncontrolled, and invasive killer. So in order to understand cancer in its entirety, the entire genome of a cancer cell (all the DNA inside the cell) would have to be sequenced identifying and cataloging all the 'driver' mutations within the DNA. This is the goal of the TCGA. It is The Manhattan Project of cancer, an outcome-based effort supposed to be the final chapter in the war against cancer. Laboratories throughout the world are churning out the genomic sequence of multiple types of cancer with inconceivable speed and efficiency.
The project compares the sequence of normal DNA to that of different cancer types to determine the exact mutations responsible for the origin and progression of the malignancies.Researchers will finally know cancer in its entirety-they will be starting the shape shifting enemy directly in the face. Make no mistake, everything has led to this-If one could fast forward through one hundred years of research, every intellectual avenue would lead to TCGA as the flagship endeavor required for a cure. That is if cancer is really precipitated and driven by mutations to DNA.
When I dug into the data coming out of the TCGA, what I found was stunning. Nothing made sense..........What the sequence data revealed was anything but orderly. It exposed an almost random collection of mutations-not a single one, or any combination for that matter, being absolutely responsible for initiating the disease..........This is when the story became really interesting. In the fall of 2012, I began to call and e-mail the scientists involved in the project. I wanted to know if they saw what I saw or if I had misinterpreted the data or was missing something. What I found was a collective moment of shock and confusion. Some acknowledged the stunning randomness, capitulating to the complexity of the disease, declared their resignation-'Maybe it is just too hard to figure out'."
Comments