Re: This is What I Think Cancer is..what about Dr.kelley's theory

It is conceivable to view that it is a failure or refusal to fully develop our immune systems that has led to this modern epidemic of cancer patients. Further, it helps to explain why cancer is more prevalent in developed countries, and less prevalent in undeveloped countries. Third World countries do not have near the amount of immune enhancing medications that are available to Western Societies. As a result, they don’t
have near the incidents of cancer either. One study shows the country with the lowest rate of cancer is El Salvador. It residents have an average income of just over $1,000.00 U.S. per year. They find themselves in the enviable position of being too poor to inoculate themselves, yet too rich to qualify for world aid or any of the outreach health charities that go around ‘helping’ these poor nations with inoculations and immune
system enhancing medications (antibiotic etc.). There are poorer nations then El Salvador, but these nations all tend to receive various forms of aid, one form of which is medical aid.
At the other end of the scale we find Denmark with the highest rate of cancer. These people experience one of the highest standards of living in the world, thus they have disposable income to spend on health enhancing products and services. The Scandinavian countries also have a reputation to uphold, boasting of their renowned longevity. Coincidentally, they also have world renowned spa’s and health clinics. Thus we
have a group of people who have the money, and the desire to spend it on promoting their own health, and so Danish people, as a group, tend to try anything and everything that is promoted as enhancing their health.
When you promote your own health with these products and services, you are demoting the immune system,
whose job it is to provide your health. It should not be a surprise to find the immune system acting like it
has been demoted.
Other mappings of Global cancer clusters seem to imply that countries with high population densities,(Thailand, Japan, etc.) have lower rates of all types of cancer. This could be explained and fit into this model if we conceive of these cultures as having an inadvertent “shared immunity”. In these areas, when one person caught a communicable disease, it would be spread and shared with others, due to the higher population density, and closer contact between people. Bangkok, the capital of Thailand, and one of the largest cities in the world, has a population density of 3,292 people per square kilometer. This is a city that grew around a river and canal system that provides for its transportation and waist removal needs, as well as its bathing and drinking needs. Those famous photographs of traffic police wearing gas masks is from Bangkok. Thus these people would possess an immune system that is accustomed to a good workout, having to fight off a higher frequency of circulating antigens in their culture. A prerequisite of a strong
immune system would be required to exist in this environment. The statistics for Japan are similar to those of Thailand due to these cultural similarities. These global maps of cancer clusters show that you are forty times more likely to acquire cancer from being raised in Denmark, then you are if you’re from Thailand.

The relocated Japanese citizen will be subjected to the same cultural and environmental links as the rest of the people in this new location. They may have purchased their food in an open air market before. The food may have been exposed to air born contaminants that their own immune system would then have to deal
with. In this new culture, perhaps they purchase their food from a supermarket that must abide by strict food handling guidelines. And the food producers were subjected to strict guidelines as well. Thus, the percentage of contaminants left on the food that they will ingest, is less. There is less for their immune system to do in this new culture. Thus it becomes weaker. Thus this relocated Japanese citizen has a higher chance of acquiring cancer then his or her countrymen.(this is a hypothetical scenario to illustrate one possible cultural difference that might help explain the differences we see in the statistics and is not intended to imply lower standards or less healthy environment. Subtle differences in behavior could have an
impact on the workout that our immune system receives.)

If it does turn out to be a defective immune system that is causing cancer, and not some environmental agent, as is the present focus, then it should be possible to show a concrete ‘cause-effect’ relationship between cancer and a defective immune system. A concrete relationship has thus far proven to be impossible using the present model for cancer. The present cancer theory will only be able to compile lists
of suspected cancer causing substances and activities. To defend the tobacco industry, a lawyer needs merely to produce one or more ‘healthy’ individual, all of whom have smoked for a long period of time, in order to show that there is not a concrete relationship between their product and cancer. It will always be
possible to find a healthy smoker, or a healthy asbestos miner. If however, this healthy individual were to have their immune system become weak, the resulting maverick cancer cells are most apt to attack the weakened lung tissues of this individual (thus showing further support to an identified link to cancer).
Therefore, tobacco becomes an environmental ‘link’ that has been shown to cause cancer in some individuals. Smoking cigarettes does not guarantee that you will get lung cancer. Sun-tanning does not guarantee that you will get skin cancer. But as was stated earlier, while the list of ‘links’ to cancer becomes
longer, there is no real progress being made.
Immunosuppressant medications are the exception to this, and this fact lends itself beautifully to add support to the theory that the immune system contains the cancer cells, and is responsible for cancerous activity. These medications were developed to intentionally decrease the effect of the immune system in organ transplant patents, so that the bodies defense mechanism would not attack (reject) the foreign tissue.
If the patient survives the transplant operation, and overcomes the rejection, they will live longer lives then they would have, had they not had the transplant operation. However, the transplant patient will ultimately succumb to a bout with cancer. This phenomenon has scientists struggling for an explanation:

“Scientists believe transplant recipients were already at risk for cancer because their weakened immune
system could not keep healthy cells from becoming malignant”.

“ The use of immunosuppressants(cyclosporine) increases the chance cancer cells will divide and invade
surrounding tissue. However it is not clear if cyclosporine can change normal cells into cancer cells
researchers say”
web search for ‘organ transplants’
Organ Transplant Drug Increases Cancer Risk
Friday, Feb.12, 1999

Here we have a conclusive ‘link’ between cancer cells, and immunosuppressants (tampering with, or weakening the immune system). Thus we find that a deliberately weakened immune system will doubtlessly, cause the patient to succumb to cancer. It would be anticipated that this fact is what scientists have been
yearning for.
This phenomenon begs the question; If a weakened immune system has been shown to causes cancer, would it not therefor follow that a strengthened immune system, should overcome, or at least prevent cancer? This incident clearly establishes that there is a cause-effect relationship between cancer and a weakened immune
system, and by using this new model for explaining cancer, we would be able to predict that by creating a defective immune system, we can expect that some form of cancer to surface. All the other ‘links’ and ‘markers’ merely help to ascertain which of the numerous types of cancer the patient is likely going to
acquire. That is to say, the numerous lifestyle links, environmental links, and dietary links all have a tendency to either promote, or demote, any given tissue in the body, towards, or away from cancerous activity.

Alert Webmaster & Moderators

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?
How do you feel about this message?     Agree     Disagree       Hide this question