What Exactly is Cancer?

I can’t think of much to write about tonight. I’ve been reading all sorts of stuff, but when Arnott and co are sitting around polishing their nails and collecting their massive salaries for nothing, very little of what I have been reading applies.

Carl Phillips has done a quite masterly analysis of the Glantz lawsuit:

The academic scandal hiding within the Stanton Glantz sexual harassment scandal

When I first read the accusations, the main thing that hit my eyes was that of removing Neely from the list of authors of a study. As far as I can see, all the other accusations are subjective – “…. was leering at my chest”, etc. My only concern is that Glantz might have a very simple get-out. The employee might have accepted a contract which states that all information belongs to the university, and is not the personal property of the researcher. That would not surprise me one bit. I suppose that, if that were the case, the results of Neely’s work would be at the mercy of Glantz. Even so, had it been normal practice for people who have contributed substantially to a paper, which it seems that Neely did, to be named as one of the authors, then deleting her name was, at the very least, autocratic. It is also very revealing of the character of the man, that he would believe that he was sufficiently powerful to have his way. What would be interesting would be if Neely had copious written or computer notes of all the work that she did.

I also wonder if other ‘students’ have already been recruited to back up her claims.

I suppose that the facts will all be revealed – unless the case is settled with a substantial bung of taxpayers’ money.

I have also read a couple of interesting articles, here and there, which are Brexit related, which vaguely suggest that some parts of the MSM which are in favour of Brexit, are rebelling against the blanket approval of all things ‘Public Health’. The connections between PHE (public health England), the EU and the UN are too obvious not to be invisible. Even more so as regards Scotland, Ireland and Wales. If a newspaper is strongly in favour of Brexit, it would make sense for that paper to be very much against EU directives. It doesn’t take much thinking to realise that ‘qualified majority voting’ hands great power to the biggest states. Malta, for example, (which ought not to be ‘a state’ at all) has 3 votes. Its population is so small that it ought not to have any votes at all, or at least not more than one. The point, however, is that Malta has no power at all. If it wants to be in the EU, it must do what it is told. How many other ‘states’ are in the same position?

There are all sorts of possibilities. I wonder what the UK ambassadors to small, individual states in the EU are saying to their Governments? What is their ‘balance of trade’ situation with the UK? It need not be Germany’s exports of cars to the UK which garners votes and support.

I must admit that I can see how the Brexit negotiations are difficult. The UK will leave the EU, of that there is no doubt, but there are bound to be thorny problems, such as the Irish situation. My gut feeling is that it has nothing to do with the EU what happens between the Irish Republic and the UK. It is for our two Governments to sort out.

And is that not part of the problem? Why are we negotiating with the EU at all? Why are we not negotiating with each, separate state?

Nisakiman left a comment about the smoking situation in Greece. It has the ‘rules and regulations’ imposed by the UN/EU syndicated monopoly, but just does not bother to enforce them.

Has that not ALWAYS been the problem with the UK? Our politicians itch to use FORCE.

Is it possible that the UK is too wealthy? Is it possible that there is a waste of tax monies which is too small to be bothered about in general terms? For example, how many customs officers are chasing imports of cannabis? In 1957, I rode my bicycle from home (near Manchester) to Brussels and back. Not quite accurate – I cycled to London, got the boat train from London to Calais, and cycled from Calais to Brussels, and returned in the same way). Wait a minute…. I had forgotten. Somewhere in the return journey, I got a train in France. The only reason that I remember doing so is that I swapped a Senior Service cig for a Gauloise, standing in the corridor of the train. As best I can recall, the Gauloise was disgusting.

I go to Mallorca three times a year. I really must visit Greece. Our whole family went on holiday to Kos a few years ago, but I do not think that Kos would be representative of Greece proper.

Maybe Easter next year would be a perfect chance to have a change, but flights by Jet 2 are bound for holiday islands, at a quick glance. Further investigation is required.

It would be great to meet up with Nisak if possible, and buy my stock even cheaper than Mallorca.

I have been cursing myself. My tobacco plants are dead, but still standing. I should have dug them out by now and added the stalks to my compost heap. Also, I should have deeply dug the plot, and exposed the soil to the air. Last year, I did so, but we had no frost. This year, through laziness, I have missed the opportunity of severe frosts. Damn! Maybe I am getting too old. But I am not ready to give up yet. “Fight, fight against the dying of the light”, said Dylan Thomas, who drank himself to death. Or did he? We do not know what precisely happened, or what were the causes of his death.

It is an interesting idea that there might be several ’causes’ of death. My own thinking is that there is only one ’cause’, which is that the heart stops beating. There might be many contributing factors which cause the heart to stop beating, but it is THE governing organ in the body. Simplistic thinking? Indeed, but if you look at the mortality statistics, you will see that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of ’causes of death’. And it is likely that that number will grow and grow.

‘Lung Cancer’ is a generic phrase. There are dozens of forms. The problem is that medics have not been able to a CAUSE for any cell anywhere in the human body to become cancerous, meaning splitting and reproducing exponentially. But I do not know for certain if that is what cancer is. Why are we left in such ignorance? It really is simple. A ‘lump’ appears. Suppose that a ‘lump’ appears in one’s bladder. If the ‘lump’ grows and grows, then it will eventually render the bladder useless.

Years ago, the Big C was not talked about. It was too disgusting, as though it was ‘sexually transmitted diseases’ like AIDS. Disgusting. My point is that TC has perpetuated the Big C ignorance.

I do not have any proof, but the lack of clear info about what cancer IS suggests that something is being hidden. Let’s face it. The POSITION of a growth is not the REASON for the growth. A ‘MASS’ in the lung is just a thing. Personally, I would prefer a MASS in my lungs to a MASS in my bladder. It would be awful to be perfectly healthy, but have a bladder which is full of some sort of cabbage.

I have searched on the net for clear explanations of Cancer, but one comes up against a code of secrecy. I don’t know why. It is almost as though the Powers-that-be simply do not want the People to know the facts.

It would require Politicians to become more knowledgeable to get to the truth, but that is unlikely.

Perhaps readers might explore further than I can to find out what cancer IS. It ought not to be so secret.

 

 

Advertisements

3 Responses to “What Exactly is Cancer?”

  1. Ed Says:

    “Perhaps readers might explore further than I can to find out what cancer IS.”

    My understanding is that cancer cells (not all) differ from normal cells because they can activate an enzyme that repairs their telomeres. Chromosomes have a tiny end cap known as telomeres which protect the chromosome. Each time a cell divides, these telomeres get shorter but the DNA remains intact. Eventually they become too short to function properly, so the cell ages and dies. In essence, telomere shortening is the aging clock at the cellular level.

    Cancer cells differ because they produce telomerase, so can divide without limit. The only other cells that can do this are embryonic stem cells. Cells from these cancers are known as Immortal. I’m not sure if you have ever read about Henrietta Lacks,

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/

    it explains quite a bit a bit about these immortal cancer cell lines that are used throughout the research community.

    There’s also quite a bit of info out there on experimental anti-cancer vaccines composed of telomerase, it’s interesting stuff.

    Also as a little aside, they are working hard on the immortality aspect of the cancer cell as it could literally prove to be the key to extended life and many age-related diseases. They have managed to reverse the aging process in mice back in 2010, so will it be humans next? (not for us plebs though!

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

    • junican Says:

      Thanks for the link to Henrietta Lacks. It was very informative. I knew about the ‘end caps’ but not in such detail.
      So, put very simply, if a specific cell in your body somewhere has ‘mutated’ so that it produces telomerase, it can divide and divide for ever and never die until the ‘host’ body dies.
      That explains a lot.

  2. nisakiman Says:

    I’ll send you an email about the Greece thing within the next couple of days, Junican.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: