All cancer is not caused by DNA

As Trarc has not responded in the last round I will keep this short and include two final and compelling points that further support my claim. I invite Trarc to conclude and attempt to refute my evidence in the last round, but won't accept new evidence that defends his/her claim as I won't be able to cross examine it. The prior rounds were for presenting such evidence. Methyl-deficiency causes nDNA damage and mutation, it is a key feature found to be present in all cancers, so too is chromosomal damage, as both of these conditions are found in all cancers and lead to or signify DNA damage, we would expect to see cancer form in people who show both conditions, unfortuantely for Trarc, this is not the case, as the below study shows: '...children with ICF syndrome, a very rare DNA methylation-deficiency and chromosome breakage syndrome, have not been reported to have cancer.' [16] Clearly methyl-deficiency and chromosomal damage by themselves do not lead to cancer as we would expect them to, highlighting that DNA damage in the nucleus alone, does not lead to cancer. Furthermore 'cardiolipin' abnormalities within mitochondria are a consistency in almost all cancers [017]. However, in spite of this same mitochondrial dysfunction being present in children with 'Barth' syndrome, cancer is very rare. In this instance the same dysfunction that is present in cancer does not cause cancer to form in kids with Barth syndrome, suggesting also that mitochondrial dysfunction alone and by itself, and therefore mtDNA, is not the root cause of cancer. Both these final examples expose that something other than DNA in both the nucleus and mitochondria must be responsible for creating the hallmark conditions of cancer, and thus cancer itself. Within this debate I have shown categorically that the metabolic theory, which highlights the role of mitochondrial dysfunction in cancer, is a more accurate explanation of cancer than that of the genetic theory which unscientifically views nDNA, the DNA within the nuclues of the cell, as the only cause and relevant aspect of cancer. I have shown that the metabolic theory explains at least four hallmarks of cancer to a far better degree than the genetic theory which tells us that mitochondrial dysfunction plays a key role in the formation of these hallmark conditions. As a result of the evidence provided regarding the metabolic theory I have been able to show that the nDNA found in the nucleus is not responsible for causing cancer. In fact I have exposed that no evidence currently exists to support the notion that nDNA within the cell nucleus is the cause of cancer, born out by the fact that no cancer has been replicated in another laboratory setting using the same nDNA mutations alone. The genetic theory is therefore a theory based on an incorrect assumption that DNA controls everything within the cell and is the cause of all disease including cancer. Damage to cell functions (not nDNA) via toxins and radiation, nutrient deficiencies, immune system cell death initiation, mitochondrial control of the cell, and micro-organisms expose that nDNA within the cell nucleus is not the only element that controls how a cell acts or interacts with and as a result of its envinment, and is therefore not the only determing cause of disease / cancer, as is incorrectly assumed by mainstream medicine. Trarc attempted to cling to the idea that DNA is the cause of cancer when it became apparent that I had successfully used the metabolic theory to disprove the genetic theory, by suggesting that mitochondrial dysfunction is caused by the DNA within (mtDNA). I subsequently provided irrefutable evidence that mtDNA too was not the cause of mitochondrial dysfunction in cancer cells, showing that something else must be involved, something, like micro-organisms that can suppress mitochondria and control other elements of the cell whilst damaging DNA with the toxins they produce. Finally I produced the evidence that Nagalase was a marker of cancer but was not produced by nDNA, and that children with ICF syndrome (methyl-deficiency) and chromosome breakage syndrome (aneuploidy), which is present in all cancers and direclty linked to DNA damage, do not get cancer as a result of this nDNA damage, sealing the fate of this debate in favour of Pro. Finally I also exposed that children with barth syndrome, who have the same mitochondrial dysfunction found in all cancers, do not themselves develop cancer as a result. Thus showing that mitochondrial dysfunction alone does not lead to cancer. CONCLUSION: It is clear that DNA damage in both the nucleus and mitochondria is not responsible for causing the conditions of cancer. Cancer is therefore not hundreds of diseases caused by hundreds of different DNA mutations. Rather, it is a single consistent disease caused possibly by a micro-organism that controls certain aspects of the cell, spedifically the suppression of mitochondria which brings about the majority of the hallmark conditions of cancer, hence why it shows the same consistent hallmarks conditions in every cell cancer is found in. The Random DNA damage witnessed in cancer cells is merely a symptom of micro-organism toxin exposure which perfectly explains its randomness, the unknown time it takes for cancer to spread and the final 'progressor' stage of carcinogenesis that scientists fail to explain. Worryingly most of modern science is attempting to cure the symptoms of cancer and not the root cause, hence why no cure has been forthcoming in 60 years of nDNA manipulation with drugs, and hence why doctors are stating that cancer should be a disease we manage and not cure. I hope that both I and Trarc have provided an informative and thought provoking debate. Thank you for taking part. [16] http://www.nature.com... [17] http://journal.frontiersin.org...