Who saw the cancerous liver cells in the lung, or kidney, or vice versa?? NOBODY! So why and on what basis we declare that the cells travel? The cell of any organ has only the cancer cells that is identical to a healthy cell of the body and healthy cells of the body, it has degenerated. Of course, this casts doubt on the theory of metastasis. Medicine does not know any secrets of cancer, nor the secrets of such structures, which we used to call metastases. And the author does not reveal the essence of metastasis. Assumptions are many, but the real evidence as yet and no, not in the experiment, neither under a microscope. Absolutely can not use such findings and explanations, as we try to do in medicine.
- M. Jolondz: - "Thus, the cancer eventually, begins with one of the many simultaneously and systematically regenerate normal cells. But cancer never starts immediately with the rebirth of one normal cells. Meanwhile, such an incorrect claim is common in the literature.
This conclusion the author is really closer reality than the conventional. But even here ignorance of the mysteries of cancer are not given to the author to see a more realistic picture. And conventional wisdom is also correct, it should not be considered incorrect. Cancer can really start as a single cell (apparently very rare), and from many cells simultaneously and systematically reborn.
The most important thing is that cancer may arise and starts in the tissue (tissue), where the accumulation of carcinogens. Elsewhere, the cancer will never be?
And one of the important features of cancer, long before the rebirth of healthy cells into abnormal (cancerous) in a particular tissue first appears Oncology process. It was only later, as one of the outcomes of this process - in his area of flow can be reborn (or may not be reborn in low onkoprotsesse) healthy cell into a cancer or a portion of healthy cells into cancer cells.
- M. Jolondz notes: - "Incorrect mix of ideas about cancer and cancer cells and tumors brand name viagra characteristic of modern oncology, and serves as a source of other serious errors."
- Well noticed. But the author himself did not escape this fate of serious errors. Why is it, as shown above, uses a classic, but here - suddenly not. Maybe he knows the secret of cancer, but none of his works, he was so her and did not disclose. Everywhere the author is talking only about the effects of cancer.
You can not divide these abnormal cells to cancerous or malignant. This variety of pathological cells, which is the result of the cancer process, cancer. Ie We in cancer cells, we have only one type: the cancer, or anyone - the tumor, or cancer. By the way, why is the conversion of benign into malignant tumors.
And the so-called "cancer" and the so-called "malignant" cells from the healthy differ only in that in both there is uncontrolled growth and uncontrolled division. Therefore, it was assumed that such abnormal cells are cancer. It should be noted that neither the author nor the classical science does not show the fundamental difference between healthy cells and abnormal. And this difference is that (personal conclusion) that, within certain limits (in homeostasis) in healthy cells, all changes are reversible, and in pathological cells - these changes become irreversible. But this requires a separate discussion.
And "cancerous" and "malignant" cell - this is only the outcome (outcome) of cancer of the process, which by virtue of circumstances arose and developed in the body. As long as the medicine will be tentative and unproven, questionable, and other acts, regulations, hypotheses and definitions until you can not find effective means of combating the disease.
M. Jolondz: - "All the hormones can only be regarded as promoters (activators, stimulators) of carcinogenesis, ie, themselves do not cause cancer transformation.
It must be noted that the surprising finding that the author did! It was the closest to reality. Only it is not clear, on the one hand, the author remains a supporter of the view that direct carcinogens cause cancer transformation, and on the other hand - has denied that hormones, which are often carcinogenic properties (it has repeatedly proved by experiments), suddenly it does not cause ...?? Here the apparent contradiction.
Secondly, the promoters - are substances which add to the catalysts increases their activity and selectivity, and sometimes resistance. If hormones are the author's opinion - it's promoters, then who is the catalyst? So, the author was right that the hormones themselves do not cause cancer transformation, and if he had gone farther in this direction, he would see that and carcinogens by themselves do not cause cancer transformation, and are only catalysts.
And most importantly, the generally accepted theory of cancer in all operate on the theory of carcinogenesis, but still no one showed - as well as carcinogens affect healthy cells? There just is not confirmed by experiment and conclusions. And it is easy to show and prove.
- M. Jolondz notes: - "In recent years, found that chemical carcinogens first penetrate the cell, and then subjected to in her transformations and metabolized by the cell. Carcinogenic agents have not the chemical carcinogens, and the products of their metabolism (metabolism) in a cage. "
- It's generally a paradoxical conclusion. Why did the author does not explain what he meant by "metabolic products of chemical carcinogens? This is generally something new. Secondly, no one has yet been able to find or see (there is only speculation) in the simulation of cancer to chemical carcinogens interact with the cell at least in some way.
Is the author does not know that any interaction should leave a trace, ie residues in something else? Is the author does not know that until now scientists could not explain the apparent fact, as observed in experiments - where and how they disappear carcinogens in the event of a cancer cell (tumor)? This fact was among the unresolved and it simply forgot.
Is the author does not know that at the first stages of the transformation of healthy cells into cancer cells are no remnants of carcinogens in the DNA of cells not?! This was confirmed experimentally! This means that carcinogens can not possibly hit the DNA!
In the previous paragraph it was noted that carcinogens do not cause malignant transformation. Experimentally established that the carcinogenic substances and inert substances with DNA do not interact. It is unclear why proponents of the classical theories and the author continued to argue The rush of love misplaced about the mutagenic effects of carcinogens to DNA cells?
And yet, it should be noted the excellent idea of the author's conclusions, that carcinogens do not have a carcinogenic effect. It was a great line of thought. But then the author of it went away and came down on the metabolic products of carcinogens. Strongly influenced by the generally accepted theory.
- M. Jolondz: - "Here, we show that tumor cells for a long time (several years) are developed in isolation from the circulatory system."
- Going forward, we can say that the author has not demonstrated that he had promised. At least, in his writings that could not be found.
And the show will not succeed. And just because the tumor or cancer cells arise in the absence of the circulatory system, and at her, but only in the tissue (tissue), where there was accumulation of carcinogens, and only some time after that, as in this outbreak originated Oncology process .
Cancer cell and tumor - it is the same kind of abnormal cells that arise in cancer trials. Until the emergence of cancer in certain tissues (tissues) of the body, cancer (tumor) cells in the body NO!
M. Jolondz wrote: - "Thus, interferon can prevent the development of tumor process, initiated by tumor viruses, but almost not able to provide therapeutic effect with already formed tumor processes."
It is unclear, because there is now evidence that interferon can prevent the development of cancer. That is based on the author? And indeed the viral theory of the origin of cancer has not yet reveal to us the mystery of cancer. But the author is further admits: "viral oncogenes in themselves do not reveal a common mechanism for turning healthy cells into cancer." We can not, on the one hand (this is nearly always) assume that a common mechanism for turning healthy cells into cancer, but on the other - immediately recognized that while the mechanism for turning healthy cells into cancer is unknown.
Somehow, in the future a similar assumption about one or another mechanism has a leading role, and becomes the head. The fact that when something is supposed to tend to forget. Today we know a large number of alleged theories. But things are there, the mechanism of the transformation of healthy cells into cancer remains a "sealed". This is the main mystery of cancer. Until now, scientists have not answered the question - why a normal cellular gene that suddenly becomes a cancer at the initial appearance of the tumor, and thus they do not have any differences?
And if indeed interferon was capable of preventing the development of tumor process, without any exceptions to interferon cured cancer patients. This conclusion is easily provable.
- And M. Jolondz recognized further: "oncogenes is in every body of any vertebrate animal, but they are in a special form, which does not cause cancer. Say, smoking leads to the fact that the chemicals that enter the cell, activating oncogenes. And start a cancerous growth ... The inclusion of the viral oncogene is influenced by chemical or physical carcinogens ... Given the presence of many carcinogens, we can propose the following mechanism of carcinogenesis. Chemical and physical carcinogens lead to different chromatin damage.
- It is not clear above, the author states that carcinogens do not have a carcinogenic effect, as already said here that carcinogens activate oncogenes!? Where, in this case, right? And what a special form of the supernatural, which does not cause cancer ... and suddenly carcinogens activate these oncogenes. We must not forget that the tumor may occur in the body, neither the first nor the second input of carcinogens, ..., but only with repeated their input, and after some time. This means that carcinogens do not activate oncogenes. And, moreover, that in the early stages it is no different from the healthy gene oncogene. Does not exist in any healthy organism, Oncogene!
If the review is carried out experiments on the modeling of cancer processes, it becomes clearly apparent that the genes in the initial stage of the transformation of healthy cells into cancer have no effect on this conversion! And it is a fact that can be convincingly confirm the new evidential experiments. Why nobody wants to notice this?
The huge presence of carcinogens and experiments with them have not yet named suggest a mechanism of carcinogenesis associated with damage to the genome, which until now have not found a real confirmation. And even on the contrary, it is possible to see clearly and (as described in many experiments) that the carcinogens themselves can not cause damage to the chromatin, since there are no residues in their DNA is not, and they all disappear to nowhere. Ie obvious - the refutation of this conclusion. To disappear carcinogens? In response to this question lies the mystery of cancer.
Red blood
Basic massage techniques
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น