All cancer is not caused by DNA

There seems to be some confusion as to what this debate is about. My argument is that DNA is not the cause of cancer as expressed by the genetic theory - I explained this in round 1 before Trarc accepted the challenge, so it was clear I was referring to the genetic theory and nDNA from the outset. The genetic theory specifically states that it is the DNA contained within the cell nucleus (nDNA) which is solely responsible for causing cancer. The debate is and has always been about refuting nDNA as a cause of cancer and the genetic theory as the correct theory to use. The genetic theory does not recognise the DNA of the mitochondria as this opposes the genetic / somatic theory. Having accepted the debate I can only conclude that Trarc understood that the genetic theory specifically refers to nDNA. I have since exposed that Trarc has been unable to prove that cancer is caused by nDNA mutation - for Trarc or any scientist to do this they would have to show that cancer can be replicated in another lab using the same genetic mutations that appeared in a previous cancer. Needless to say Trarc has not found one example of a replication of cancer via nDNA. Again I must draw your attention to the evidence of the nuclear transfer experiment performed by professor Thomas Seyfried that showed how DNA within the nucleus did not cause cancer to form in healthy cells when it was transferred to them [9] - thus exposing direct evidence that nDNA is not the cause and that the genetic theory is incorrect. In fact I seem to be the only participant who is providing a wealth of evidence, evidence that Trarc is failing to refute with evidence of his/her own, instead Trarc's defence is based purely on subjective opinion that upholds the narrative of the genetic theory. Trarcs argument is based on an assumption and an excuse. The assumption is that nDNA is responsible for all aspects of the cell, including anything that goes wrong with the cell, clearly micro-organisms, mitocondria and direct physical damage to cell functions (not nDNA) refute this. There is no evidence that any cancer has been replicated with the nDNA expressions found in previous cancers,Trarc is subsequently unable to provide this evidence. Instead, in defence Trarc states that the reason for this failure is because nDNA is far too complex for us to understand at the moment, and has therefore based his justification of supporting the genetic theory purely on faith, that in time, these mutated genes will become apparent, hopefully. This exposes that the genetic theory is based purely on assumption and is very far from being proven. The genetic theory does not include or refer to the DNA contained within the mitochondria because it unscientifically views nDNA as the sole cause of cancer - this unscientific approach is something I pointed out in round one along with mentioning that mitochondrial dysfunction could be used to disprove the genetic theory. This distinction was even acknowledged by Trarc when he/she admitted to being unable to explain mitochondrial dysfunction using nDNA in round one. This clear distinction is also exposed by the fact that there is a separate theory that deals specifically with the dysfunction of mitochondria and the major role it plays in causing cancer; this theory is called the 'metabolic theory'. To confirm that the genetic theory was incorrect I exposed that the opposing metabolic theory could explain cancer to a far better degree. I showed that, all by itself, mitochondrial dysfunction explains at least four of the hallmarks of cancer in round three, hallmarks that nDNA cannot explain - thus proving my point that nDNA is not responsible for causing cancer. As Trarc is losing the debate at this point and cannot refute the undeniable evidence I have provided, Trarc has adopted and chosen to shift stance and use the mtDNA found within the mitochondria, as the basis for his/her argument that DNA is the cause of cancer, thereby acknowledging that nDNA and the genetic theory are incorrect as both the metabolic and genetic theory oppose each other in their explanation of cancer. Trarcs argument now rests on the ability of mtDNA to prove that DNA (any DNA) is responsible. After shifting stance, again Trarc provides no evidence for the reason why mitochondria are dysfunctional, just an opinion based on assumption about the role DNA plays within disease. All Trarc has done again in the last round is to provide us with a biology lesson highlighting that mitochondria have DNA of their own, something that I already exposed in round one. Trarc is now stating that mtDNA is relevant to cancer even though the genetic theory, which Trarc was originally defending, does not see the DNA of the mitochondria as relevant thus providing a conflicting argument. Not one to be happy with winning a debate on a technicality, I will now even expose that the DNA of the mitochondria, that Trarc is clinging to, is not the cause of mitochondrial dysfunction either, thus highlighting with an unplanned example, that DNA does not cause cancer. There is no doubt that dysfunctional mitochondria better explains the hallmarks of cancer but even Professor Thomas Seyfried himself exposes severe contradictions in the metabolic theory, he points out that no consistent mtDNA mutations could be found to cause mitochondrial dysfunction, incredibly he states: "However, the role of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the origin and progression of cancer is controversial. We were unable to find any pathogenic mtDNA mutations in a broad range of chemically induced and naturally arising mouse brain tumors (Kiebish and Seyfried, 2005). Our studies were comprehensive in that we sequenced the entire mitochondrial genome after first isolating and purifying the mitochondria from the tumor tissue." [9] It is now clear that mitochondrial dysfunction plays a key role in cancer development, stands to disprove that nDNA within the cell (genetic theory) is the driver of cancer, and it is also clear that mtDNA is not responsible for causing mitochondrial dysfunction; thus exposing that DNA, in general, is not responsible in either the nucleus or the mitochondria for causing the conditions that lead to cancer. Again I refer to Payton Rous's quote from round three: "the somatic mutation theory acts like a tranquilizer on those who believe in it" Regarding nagalase, Trarc oddly confirms that the NAGA gene is not mutated, supporting my point about it. But his / her argument is misguided, I'm not sure of the point Trarc is attempting to make here. Trarc fails to see that nagalase is still abnormally expressed in cancer cells, hence why it is a recognised marker of cancer [12]. If this abnormal expression is not caused by gene mutation (as it should be for nDNA to be the cause of cancer) then it must be caused by something else other than nDNA, this exposes once again that nDNA is not responsible for another condition directly linked to cancer. The major hint I gave was that micro-organisms create nagalase to suppress the immune system, suggesting that micro-organisms are directly implicated as a cause of cancer because micro-organisms can control cell functions including the suppression of mitochondria. It is very telling that the risk of cancer increases in patients with suppressed immune systems and that cancer in the lab cannot be created without first suppressing the immune system of the subject by using a carcinogen. Micro-organisms are the only factor that benefit from a suppressed immune system. Micro-organisms as a cause of cancer are the elephant in the room that medical science is missing simply because it is married to and focused on nDNA as the cause, and does so to the detriment of other possible causes. Micro-organisms explain the random DNA damage witnessed because the toxins they secrete damage DNA. [9] http://journal.frontiersin.org... [12] http://www.hdri-usa.com...