There is the fable of a philanpisces (lover of fish) who had the forever urge to pull fishes out of water lest they get drowned. The Awareness –Jihads smacks of the same. Sucking persons-at-peace into their crusade with a definitive motive to convert them into patient-at-dis-ease.
Experts closer to averting cancer
Scientists have discovered a potential new drug target – an enzyme – which could help weed out the progression of deadly cancer. Although past studies have revealed that the enzyme, Wip1phosphatase, plays a critical role in regulating the budding of tumours, scientists have for the first time unearthed a mechanism for its mode of action. Researchers at ASTAR’s Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, Singapore found that the enzyme causes point mutations to sprout human cancers.
The Times of India, November 11, 2013
The above is closest to the Nixoniandictat of Conquest of Cancer, by the USA, by 1976, the 2nd centenary year of American Independence. A headline of September 25, 2013 declares “Drug kills brain tumour cells in mice: Scientists have for the first time been able to completely erase human brain tumour cells in mice. The tumor-targeted is glioblastomamultiforma, known to be the deadliest of brain cancer.” This piece of research is clearly oblvious to the axiom that “natural or authochthonous cancer” is 100% resistant to the drugs that are100% effective against the so-called transplanted cancer” as in the results reported above. The Mumbai Mirror of October 30, 2013 reported on the emerging field of theranostics – a term that refers to nanoparticles that can diagnose and treat disease. “Chemical engineers from the University of New South Wales (Australia) have synthesized a new iron oxide nano-particle that delivers cancer drugs to cells while simultaneously monitoring the drug release in real time.” The report has obviously glossed over the fact that a drug against cancer has never existed. And what is euphemistically called a cancer drug has been a non-specific anti-cell agent as much capable of causing cancer as may be “curing” it.
All therapeutic breakthroughs remind you of the Hollywood movie – The Man who Never was. All therapeutic claims against cancer are therapies that have never existed nor shall ever do.
A special word about Gene therapy of Cancer. The very entity gene is sub-judice, nobody having defined it. The term is traceable to Bateson’s idea of there being a tiny representative – “gene” – in any genesis. It is interesting etymologically that the terms general, gene, genetics, genesis have a common root gignere (L), to produce or to cause. (The authors have an indexed article – An epitaph for the gene, an obituary for genetics, and an adieu to heredity). Gene is thus a basket or portmanteau term meaning whatever the user want it to mean. The moot point is “How do you refine or modify what you have never satisfactorily defined?”
We personally heard in 1995 Professor Kenneth Culler, the then Professor of Gene-therapy of Cancer, at the Iowa University, USA. He showed how the brain tumours in rats regressed under gene therapy. The only snag was that it was transplanted cancer and hence no cancer as such, and therefore the claims were as fallacious as the regression of transplanted cancers, nearly 100% in experimental animals, and o% when occurring in the animal/human body.
Gene therapy invokes recalling 6 teachers Kipling
deployed to solve an issue. They are Who, What, When, Why, Where
and How. Who are the therapist and the cancer. When when the
cancer is fait accompli or that is is the Where. Why is because
of the assumption that cancer is genetic in origin and hence
available to modifications. The How and What are theory issues:
How do you put a therapeutic gene into a cell – by a viral
reactor whose side effects an nature remain undefined and
therefore potentially dangerous. What is the gene
harvested/manufactured elsewhere and hopefully carried into the
cell. All 6 teachers honestly declare the unwisdom of
gene-therapy that is good on paper but nebulous in practice.
Cervarix and Gardasil are the prominent, most successfully marketed vaccines promising to prevent cervical cancer in women, assuming that HPV causes cervical cancer . The publicity drive and market-manipulations are proportionate to the profits their manufacturers rake in. During the decade of 60s – 70s virus was linked with leukemia. The theory fizzled out as no causal link could be established. Again in the late 90s – 00 the theory of virus propped up by linking cervical cancer to Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). If viruses were to cause cancer we need to declare cancer as infectious but none of the cancer establishments are in a position to do so as there has not been any trial which could prove that when microorganism (virus) are introduced to a healthy individual it will cause the disease. Two authorities on the subject Peter H. Duesberg and Jody R. Schwartz Progress published a paper in Nucleic Acid Research and Molecular Biology 43:135-204, 1992 – “that neither HPV nor HSV plays a direct role in cervical carcinomagenesis. Moreover, the HPV-cancer hypothesis offers no explanation for the absence of a reciprocal venereal male carcinoma”. The market which went agog on the vaccine for the prevention of cervical cancer from the Gardasil has received serious setbacks when reports poured in of the severe side-effects of the vaccine including deaths (there was furor in the Parliament on four deaths in Andhra Pradesh). “…impact of vaccine will only be known after decades and questions like whether vaccine will prevent cervical cancer and death remains un-answered” (New England Journal of Medicine 21/8/2008). The proponent of this vaccine including Gardasil is also unsure and so they advise “…the vaccine will NOT provide protection against all types of HPV that cause cervical cancer, so women will still be at risk for some cancers”: Further Journal of American Medical Association [JAMA 15/8/2007] carried out a study on the efficacy of the vaccine and the result can be summarized – “We observed no evidence of vaccine effects when we stratified the analysis on selected study entry characteristics reflective of disease extent, including HPV-16/18 antibody results, cytologic results, and HPV viral load (TABLE 3).” In fact based on this report “Natural News” conducted a investigation and reported that “……the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer”
The 2011 medicine Nobel Prize went to 3 scientists – Jules Hoffman from France, Bruce Beutler of USA, and Montreal-born Ralph Steinman, USA – for their pioneering work in immunological solution against cancer. vis-à-vis Steinman, a headline poignantly declared: "Cancer kills Nobel physician (4 hours) before he hears of prize.” The report added: “The work of all three prize-winners has been pivotal to the development of improved types vaccines against infectious diseases and novel approaches to fighting cancer. The research has helped lay the foundations for a new wave of “therapeutic vaccines” that stimulate the immune system to attack tumours.’ Modern medicines’ vacillations vis-à-vis cancer vaccines are age-old and will so remain.