Newsflash 2008: Case Closed, Closed, Closed…IT is NOT Genetic

The Special Edition of Scientific American (Vol. 18, No. 3, August/September 2008) devoted the entire issue to cancer. Many of the articles repeated the previous nonsense we hear time and time again that leads nowhere. However, the article “Untangling the Roots of Cancer,” by W. Wayt Gibbs, was excellent in presenting the truth, starting with the failure of the “oncogene theory.”

• “But the oncogene/tumor suppressor gene hypothesis has also failed, despite three decades of effort, to identify a particular set of gene mutations that occurs in every instance of any of the most common and deadly kinds of human cancer.”

The article then details how geneticist Lawrence A. Loeb led cancer researchers astray with the silly notion that your cells are capable of having 10,000-100,000 mutations each.

• “For many years, he suggested that ‘early during the genesis of cancer there are enormous numbers of random mutations—10,000-100,000 per cell,’ but he had little evidence to support the idea.“ (Emphasis added.)

In 2006, researchers actually measured the number of mutations and it was a mere “65-475 mutations per 100 million nucleotides.” [Note: This is .000475% – .000065%—next to nothing.]

◗ Life-Systems Engineering Science Commentary

The number of misleading researchers in the medical sciences never ceases to amaze me, nor how they completely throw all the researchers off track. This type of behavior simply doesn’t occur in sciences like physics or engineering, where scientific standards are much higher. Witness the contrast in results — amazing advances in technology every few years. Contrast this with thirty (30) wasted years of cancer researchers looking in completely the wrong “genetic-based” direction for cancer’s source and cure. Are we doomed to another 30 wasted years before researchers get it right and discover Dr. Warburg?

Read more in “Good News: It’s NOT Genetic” on http://www.brianpeskin.com

Passing of Genes During Cell Division

When scientists speak of “cancer genes” and diseases being passed along via genetics, they also commonly refer to another means of passing genetic traits: the process within one single organism or human body in which　genes are duplicated and passed to a new cell during cell division. Scientists　speak of the possibility that a gene mutation in one cell may then be passed along when the cell divides, and spread a disease throughout the body.

But many scientists and researchers believe that, despite the massive hype that has been put forth to persuade the public that genetic answers to disease are just around the corner, trying to cure cancer or other serious diseases via genetics is still so far off in terms of what we understand about how genes “work,” that it is wasted effort.

See more at www.brianpeskin.com “Good News: It’s Not Genetic”.

They DID Track Cancer in the 1900s

Genetic manipulation has been the buzz for years now. We hear almost daily about the Human Genome Mapping project and how mapping the sequence of all the human genes is supposed to help us find “disease genes”and lead to the cause and cure for many diseases.

But let’s backtrack for a moment. Few doctors or researchers acknowledge that in the early 1900s there was an overall extremely low level of cancer in this country. Don’t believe anyone who says there was just as much cancer then as now, but it just wasn’t tracked. Physicians and the medical journals did track cancer rates at that time, and so did our government. One hundred years ago, only about 3% of us developed cancer! Yet cancer has skyrocketed to a current staggering 50% of the population today.

For cancer or other diseases to be caused genetically by the passing of genetic mutations from one generation to the next, one or more of our genes would have had to mutate into “cancer (or other disease) genes” and be passed along from generation to generation through reproduction.

But there simply hasn’t been enough time for a “genetic mutation” to be passed to 50% of the population. A genetic mutation would take, at the least, many hundreds of years to become significant. So the likelihood of any type of genetic-based component, such as a mutation, reaching 50% of all Americans in 2003, when it was only 3% in 1900, is almost nonexistent.

Read more by downloading my report, “Good News: It’s Not Genetic” from http://www.brianpeskin.com, today