by Tom Valentine

 

Peter Duesberg

A solution to the scourge of cancer is at hand. Researchers now know where to look, and they may soon be uncovering data that brings an end to the monopolized medical nightmare.

Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, who is credited with helping to find the oncogene behind the disease, now must be credited with overriding his own theory and bringing in a more viable and longer-reaching thesis that focuses on the chromosomes of every cell rather than the genes contained in the packet.

What’s going on here?

Have you ever pondered the meaning of the timeless saying, You can’t see the forest for the trees?

Well, Dr. Duesberg, the controversial iconoclast, who became a pariah to many of his peers, and especially to the prostitutes of the major media for challenging the establishment’s HIV-AIDS paradigm, has climbed above the trees to view the entire forest.

To paraphrase Duesberg, as he described the destruction of his old oncogene theory, while a gene may be a page in cell life, the chromosome is the entire encyclopedia.

Oncogenes are the accepted cancer research dogma todaya dogma-for-dollars coveted by the investors in the fascist medical/pharma monopoly.

In 1994, cancer researcher Gerald Dermer exposed the cell culture studies based upon the gene theories as a failed science in his book: The Immortal Cell.

Duesberg was quoted in the book: There is still no proof that activated proto-oncogenes are sufficient or even necessary to cause cancer. The statement was made in 1985.

Duesberg wrote clearly about the matter in the Scientific American back in 2007, and everybody missed it. He wrote this, which is part and parcel oh is present thesis:

Carcinogens take a very long time to cause cancer. Numerous chemicals and forms of radiation have been shown to be carcinogenic in animals or established as the source of occupational or accidental cancers in humans,” the strongest carcinogens at the highest survivable doses never cause cancer right away.

Instead the disease emerges only after years or even decades. In contrast, when substances known to cause mutations are administered to bacteria, the cell begins displaying new phenotypes within hours; in larger organisms such as flies, the effect is seen within days. A gene-mutation scenario therefore does not explain why cells exposed to carcinogenic agents become cancer cells

It is not explained how that concise thinking was ignored four years ago.

Carcinogens, whether or not they cause gene mutations, induce aneuploidy. Scientists have looked for the immediate genetic effects of carcinogens on cells, expecting to see mutation in many crucial genes, but instead have found that some of the most potent carcinogens known induce no mutations at all. Examples include asbestos, tar, aromatic hydrocarbons, nickel, arsenic, lead, plastic and metallic prosthesis implants, certain dyes, urethane and dioxin. Moreover, the dose of carcinogen needed to initiate the process that forms malignant tumors years later was found to be less than one-thousandth the dose required to mutate any specific gene. In all cases, however, the chromosomes of cells treated with cancer-causing doses of carcinogens were unstablethat is, displaying higher than usual rates of breakage and disruption.

Now here is research (without funding) that can likely explain why so many alternatives or unorthodox treatments for cancer have worked so that many good physicians backed them in the face of terrible suppression from the establishment. It also adds serious impetus to the thinking that suggests quality nutrition is vital to avoid the disease.

Newsweek magazine published a version of this discovery in 2009, under the snide heading; The Worlds Most Reviled Genius; Can the scientist who denied the cause of AIDS be trusted to cure cancer?

It was as if the major news magazine did not want this discovery to get the traction it deserves, why not a headline like this?;

Virologist who helped discover cancer-causing Gene expands theory to Chromosomes; New approach may lead to better diagnoses and more effective treatments.


In virtually the next sentence Newsweek added: To honestly evaluate his latest work we will have to separate the science from the scientist. Wasnt that snide as well as irrelevant?

In spite of the magazine’s dutiful put-down approach, the writer, Jensen Interlandi did a good job of summarizing the story:

According to current dogma, oncogenes cause cells to divide uncontrollably spurring a cascade of additional mutations that eventually results in a tumor. So far, this hypothesis has led to a number of apparent cul-de-sacs: some faltering attempts at gene-replacement therapy, a growing roster of targeted drugs that work only for some patients, and not for very long, and more recently, the Cancer Genome Atlasa concerted effort by the National Cancer Institute to sequence the genomes of 10,000 tumor samples, described by more than a few insiders as a colossal waste of time and money. (more trees blocking the forest?)

Duesberg has a different hypothesis, According to him, tumors are created not by the accumulation of individual mutations, but by wholesale changes in the structure and arrangement of a cells chromosomes. The difference between changing a couple of words in a sentence and ripping an entire set of encyclopedias apart. The upheaval is so great that a tumor effectively constitutes a new speciesone that grows like a parasite inside its host. Duesberg says that characterizing these upheavals is the best way to understand how cancer begins and spreads. (metastasis).

The defining trait of any given speciesthe thing that distinguishes it from all other speciesis not so much its genetic code as its karyotype; the number and size of chromosomes into which the genetic code is organized.

Humans and cats and worms all share numerous genes in common, but each has a different karyotype: cats have a total of 38 chromosomes, worms 12, and with a few exceptions humans have two copies each of 23 different chromosomes.

Cells that deviate significantly from this blueprint by making five copies of one chromosome, for example, or only one copy of anotherusually die pretty quickly. But, sometimes a cell will chance upon a new karyotype that does not kill it. These cells are called aneuploidy, and they tend to grow and divide in rapid and unstable fashion. Eventually evolving into something that can grow uncontrollably anywhere in the body.

One wonders why it has taken a decade for this elegant new thesis to emerge, but then, one only needs to consider how much money is involved. In 1992, during the heyday of my radio broadcasts, a press conference was called in Washington, DC that was hardly mentioned in the major media.

A group of 60 top experts in public health and preventive medicine expressed grave concerns about the failure of the war against cancer.

They also issued a statement: The cancer establishment and major pharmaceutical companies have repeatedly made extravagant and unfounded claims for dramatic advances in the treatment and cure of cancer.
Have we finally turned a page?