Fwd: THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter (08/02/03)

[Guest guest]

Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:28:12 -0400 (EDT)

 

THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter (08/02/03)

 

----------------------

Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Weekly CancerDecisions.com

Newsletter #93 08/02/03

----------------------

 

 

 

Moss Reports " , please call Anne or Diane at

1-800-980-1234 (or, if calling from outside the US,

814-238-3367). We look forward to helping you.

 

 

 

DECLINE AND FALL OF THE " STANDARD DOGMA, " PART TWO

 

 

 

How is it that the " standard dogma " of cancer's

causation has run into a brick wall? One reason is that

conclusions drawn from the study of laboratory rodents,

or from long-term cell cultures, were not confirmed

when the study progressed to real live cells taken

directly from cancer patients.

 

 

I am glad to see this fundamental truth now being

recognized in an important article by Scientific

American's senior writer W. Wayt Gibbs, entitled

" Untangling the Roots of Cancer " (July 2003). However,

I feel tremendous regret (and anger) when I think that

this was exactly the point of Gerald B. Dermer's 1994

book, " The Immortal Cell, " subtitled " Why Cancer

Research Fails " . Dermer wrote: " If we ever hope to win

this war [on cancer, ed.] and make truly significant

inroads against the modern scourge of cancer, the

establishment must be willing to acknowledge its

mistakes. Researchers must turn away from Petri dish

'cancer' to the realities of human cancer. " Dermer's

no-holds-barred book was almost entirely ignored by the

orthodox scientific community.

 

 

The establishment now acts as if it has discovered this

startling truth about cell line research for the first

time! Here's yet another example of William James'

famous dictum, " First, a new theory is attacked as

absurd; then it is admitted to be true, but obvious and

insignificant; finally it is seen to be so important

that its adversaries claim that they themselves

discovered it. "

 

 

Establishment scientists are now casting around for an

alternative explanation for cancer. Gibbs offers a

two-page chart in the Scientific American article (pp.

62-63) that attempts to make sense of their latest

efforts. It is rough going. Among others, there are now

the " Modified Dogma " , the " Early Instability " theory,

and the " All-Aneuploidy " proposal. Limitations of

space prevent me from attempting a full critique here

of all the theories currently in circulation, but what

is now called the All-Aneuploidy theory deserves

attention.

 

 

This theory was originally proposed almost 100 years

ago by the German biologist, Theodor Boveri

(1862-1915). Boveri, a Wuerzberg biologist,

co-discovered the role of chromosomes in inheritance.

Boveri could see clearly that the chromosomes in cancer

were broken, scattered and misshapen. The more

malignant the tumor, the more disrupted the chromosomes

appeared to be. Could this chromosomal disruption

actually be the cause of cancer rather than just an

incidental and inconsequential effect of the disease?

He also postulated that cancer was caused by the

massive instability of the chromosomes inside a tumor.

If true, then both the diagnosis and the search for

effective treatments could be enormously simplified.

 

 

Boveri's idea faded from sight, especially once the

oncogene theory took hold, but it was revived in 1999

by University of California biologist Peter Duesberg

and his colleagues, who are quoted favorably in

Scientific American. This is as it should be: the

theory is very attractive in its simplicity and

deserves both serious attention and funding.

 

 

It is heartening, also, to see a favorable, albeit

brief, discussion of the work of Muhammad Al-Hajj,

Michael Clarke and others at the University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor, on their discovery of malignant

stem cells within tumors. As readers of this newsletter

know, these investigators have shown that less than 1

percent of cells in a tumor can actually cause a

metastatic cancer. I have explained elsewhere the link

between their work on stem cells and the old idea that

cancer is a kind of " aberrant pregnancy " , caused by

cells that behave like trophoblasts (trophoblasts are

the crucial cell line in early pregnancy) appearing at

the wrong time and place. I have a feeling that

although the standard dogma was already tottering, it

was this startling work at the University of Michigan

that really pushed it over the edge.

 

 

Click here or go to the following website for my

earlier article on the Ann Arbor work:

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/042603_page.html

 

 

Scientists are now trying to find their bearings by

identifying the " six diabolical superpowers of cancer. "

These are (1) growth even in the absence of normal " go "

signals; (2) growth despite " stop " commands issued by

neighboring cells; (3) evasion of built-in autodestruct

mechanisms; (4) ability to stimulate new blood vessel

growth; (5) effective immortality; and (6) power to

invade other tissues and spread to other organs.

 

 

The problem here is that of these six superpowers, the

first five are traits that cancer shares with benign

tumors. So in themselves they cannot be cancer's

superpowers at all. What makes a tumor truly malignant

and dangerous is that sixth power, the ability to be

invasive, corrosive and metastatic. The other five

superpowers are less dangerous and can usually be

dealt with by a skillful surgeon. But it is the

metastatic ability of cancer that kills most patients.

 

 

The aforementioned Ann Arbor scientists have shown that

very few cells in a malignant tumor actually possess

this metastatic potential. The tiny minority of truly

malignant cells turns out to be not mutated somatic

cells (as has been claimed for many years) but instead

a kind of stem cell. These unusual cells share surface

markers with trophoblastic cells; in fact, some people

speculate that they are indeed trophoblasts.

 

 

The trophoblastic cell is the only normal,

non-malignant mammalian cell that shares cancer's

capacity to ferociously invade and disrupt normal

tissues. The trophoblast does so in a " good cause, " to

establish a beachhead in the uterus for the budding

embryo and thereby make fetal development possible. It

is here, I believe, that scientists should focus their

attention when seeking a normal corollary to the

supposedly " diabolical " process of cancer. Cancer did

not drop from outer space. It is an intrinsic

perversion of the life force. As the controversial

proponent of this point of view, Ernst Krebs, Jr., used

to say, " cancer is trophoblast in spatial and temporal

anomaly, hybridized with, and vascularized by, hostal

or somatic cells and in irreversible and fiercely

malignant antithesis to such " (Townsend Letter for

Doctors, Feb.-March, 1993, p. 175).

 

 

Click or go here for two earlier articles I wrote on

this topic:

 

http://www.ralphmoss.com/html/troph.shtml

http://www.ralphmoss.com/html/cach377.shtml

 

 

The demise of the standard dogma may usher in a

fruitful period in which new hypotheses, such as the

All-Aneuploidy theory or a revived form of the

trophoblast thesis, may finally have a chance to gain

acceptance.

 

 

People of action often have little patience with

theorizing. But theories provide an important road map

to future treatments. A theory determines where in the

wide world you should begin your search for a cure. The

current generation of anticancer agents is the product

of the now-discredited standard dogma of

carcinogenesis. Many of these drugs were designed to

attack some alleged oncogene or to stimulate some

putative tumor suppressor gene. The failure of the

standard dogma now exposes why so few of these drugs

have a demonstrably beneficial effect on patients'

survival.

 

 

I for one won't mourn the decline and fall of the

standard dogma. One door closes, and another one

opens…sometimes to even greater opportunities.

 

 

 

 

--Ralph W. Moss, PhD

 

=======================

 

Gibbs article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000C24C1-2210-1EDD-8E1C809EC588EF21

 

---------------

 

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

 

 

The news and other items in this newsletter are

intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in

this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for

professional medical advice.

 

--------------

 

 

To SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER: Please go to

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/subscr.html

and follow the instructions to be automatically

added to this list. Thank you.