All cancer is not caused by DNA

Trarc suggests the flaw in my argument is that I do not refer to all cancers only to 'clinical cancers', because of this distinction I am not able to fullfil my obligation of explaining away all cancers. Firstly these 'pre-clinical cancer cells' aren't cancer cells simply because they haven't developed the traits yet that define cancer as cancer, as shown in the evidence provided by Trarc [1] '. .. the body's immune system regularly eliminates potentially cancerous immune B cells in the blood before they develop into dangerous B-cell lymphomas. .. ' These cells are 'potential' cancer cells and not actual cancer cells, on that basis they are not relevant to this argument. To clarify; when I discuss cancer I am referring to a malignant tumour cell, a cell that contains all the 8 hallmarks that define it as a cancer. Citations [0] and [2] provided by Trarc contain no concrete evidence that DNA causes cancer. Both of these sources simply imply that DNA is the cause and are both founded on baseless assumption and speculation as is most of the genetic theory. Although the burden is on me to provide evidence against DNA being the cause of cancer, it should be easy for Trarc to end this debate by producing the apparent abundant evidence that proves categorically that DNA is the cause, however as DNA is not the cause I think Trarc will find this almost impossible. The notion that cancer is caused by DNA is based on a theory that hasn't been proven, the genetic theory is still a theory for a very good reason, it is assumed that DNA is the cause via association only and because so many medical scientists subscribe to this theory. Technically on this basis I could win the argument, however this would be a bit of a let down so I will continue. The 'Metabolic theory' is a well established cancer theory that exposes the role of mitochondria in the formation of cancer and makes a very good case against DNA as the cause. It is highly significant that Trarc is unable to and refuses to explain mitochondrial dysfunction using DNA because mitochondria play such a significant role in the cause of cancer. To ignore it exposes a major flaw in the genetic theory. Cancer defies the rules of a genetic disease. DNA genes have specific roles to play so that when one becomes faulty it will always produce the same disease, for example, a certain mutation in the gene for hemoglobin causes the disease sickle cell anemia [0]. The cause of sickle cell anemia can always be traced back to the same DNA gene, cancer defies this rule because it is stated that hundreds of different combinations of DNA damage can result in cancer, this is an attempt to force cancer to fit the genetic theory. If cancer is caused by DNA we would expect to see the same DNA expressions present in most if not all cancers, this discrepency is exposed by the fact that no consistent combination of DNA damage has been found to occur across any cancer; the fact that 80% of studies in to cancer are incorrect according to a major study performed by the National Cancer Institute exposes this failure [4]. Micro-organisms (viruses, bacteria and not forgetting fungi) invade cells, create random DNA damage and control the functions of cells regardless of the DNA expression that is seen in the cell at the time. Professor Thomas Seyfried undertook an experiment where cancerous nuclei were transferred to healthy cells, cancer did not form as expected. Cancerous mitochondria were transfered, tumours subsequently formed highlighting that mitochondria play a key role and that DNA is not the cause [3]. Hallmark discredited - Evading apoptosis (programmed cell death) DNA does indeed control many aspects of the cell, but contrary to Trarcs view it does not control all aspects of the cell, the tunnel vision of the genetic theory which focuses only on nuclear DNA is the major flaw in Trarcs argument and the genetic theory itself, we cannot arrive at a valid conclusion by using only part of the information available. The genetic theory cites a damaged / mutated p53 gene as being solely responsible for initiating apoptosis and thus a reason why cancer forms as a result, this is intentionally misleading. The genetic theory fails to make us aware of two other mechanisms that instigate cell death within a cell that are separate to that of DNA control, possibly because doing so would expose that DNA is not the cause. Cell death can also be initiated by the immune system using the FADD receptors independentally of DNA. The mitochondria within the cell can also initiate cell death independentally of DNA by releasing 'cytochrome c'. Both of these non-DNA cell death mechanisms come in to action when DNA is itself unable to perform 'programmed cell death' via the p53 gene - this means that even with the p53 gene damaged cell death would still occur via these other two mechanisms - if cancer was caused solely by DNA damage then cancer would never form becuase these other mechanisms prevent that from happening. The problem with DNA being the cause is that it cannot explain the immune system and mitochodrial mechanisms of cell death,the choice to ignore them stands to prove its illegitimacy. Furthermore the association with DNA being the cause is even weaker when it is realised that approximately only 60% of cancer cells have been found to contain a p53 gene mutation something we would expect to appear in 100% of cancers [5]. Hallmark discredited - Evading the immune system Hallmark discredited - Angiogenesis (blood vessel growth) Hallmark discredited - Metastasis (spread of cancer) The p53 gene mutation that allegedly causes cancer is the most commonly found gene mutation [5]. But this accounts for only 60% of cancers, this tells us that any other gene mutation is less prevalent. The RAS gene, which deals with cell growth, is the most common oncogene mutation found in human cancers, this is only found in 20 to 25% of all tumours [6]. This provides us with a serious problem when attempting to explain cancer using DNA, why? Well if the above mutations are the most prolific at 60% and 25% respectively then this exposes that the DNA genes that would cause the Evasion of the immune system, Angiongenesis and Metastasis must be lower than 25%, or at the very least no higher than 50%, and yet these three hallmarks are present in 100% of all cancers. With that said there is no known DNA gene that explains the Evasion of the immune system, Angiongenesis or Metastasis, so the the genes that allegedly cause this are mere speculation at best, simply saying that DNA is the likely cause is not evidence enough and, alarmingly this is the angle modern medicine takes and most of us accept this without question. Hallmark discredited - Abnormal metabolic pathways (dysfunctional mitochondria) Note that Trarc refused to use DNA to explain Mitochondrial dysfunction, this is highly significant because mitochondria are dysfunctional in 100% of cancers. Mitochondria deal with many functions including cell growth, cell death and store calcium which is used for building the spindle array of DNA [7], Dysfunctional mitochondria can explain DNA damage [9], Angiogenesis [8] and metastasis [8] as well as 'abnormal metabolic pathways' where DNA can't. It is very difficult to include all the information I would like within 8,000 words. Critically I will later explain methyl-deficiency, free radicals and Nagalase to further prove DNA is not the cause. [0]. http://www.cancer.org...... [3] . http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org... [4] [5] . http://genesdev.cshlp.org... [6] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [7] . http://www.britannica.com... [8] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [9] . http://journal.frontiersin.org...