All cancer is not caused by DNA

To clarify: My argument is that cancer is not a genetic disease as stated by the genetic theory. In other words damage / mutations of nuclear DNA (nDNA) are not responsible for creating the conditions of cancer " cancer being represented by the 8 Hanahan and Weingburg hallmarks that have been accepted as traits that are shared between all cancers. All Trarc has done in this round is to reiterate the basics of cell biology. The emphasis of Trarc's argument is based on the assumption that I missunderstand the role of DNA and therefore my point must be invalid, thank you Trarc I will explain to my high school biology teacher where she was going wrong. Again no evidence has been provided in support of the genetic theory, instead Trarc simply repeats the narrative provided by the genetic theory itself " that is, nDNA is the blueprint of the cell so it must control all actions of the cell including elements that go wrong, a narrowminded assumption which is wholey incorrect. I agree that DNA is the blueprint for the cell, this was never in dispute, and that DNA, in general, controls everything, but by this I mean DNA controls micro-organisms, immune cells, cells and mitochondria when they are healthy, but to correct Trarc once again, nDNA does not control all aspects of the cell and is not entirely responsible when disease occurs. Mitochondria has its own DNA (known as 'mtDNA') separate from the control of nDNA (the DNA within the cell nucleus) this is because mitochondria is its own lifeform with a separate genome, for this reason the nDNA of the cell does not control mitochondria " a major influencer of cell functionality. Critically mitochondria control cell death and cell growth [7] among other important features. Futhermore nDNA does not control the actions of immune system cells which can themselves initiate cell death independantly of nDNA. Trarc implies that any fault or change in a cell is due to nDNA, this is false; toxins or radiation can physically damage functions of the cell even though nDNA has not been damaged, direct physical damage of these functions is not a result of nDNA, so to say the change of functionality of a cell is purely down to nDNA is incorrect. Finally, micro-organisms are able to completely control the cell causing the cell to act abnormally, nDNA does not control the cell in the event of micro-organism invasion. So no, nDNA does not control everything in the cell nor is it solely responsible for everything that goes wrong with a cell. And here enlies the problem with the genetic theory and those who believe in it. The focus of cancer is placed solely on nDNA as if nDNA is the only thing that matters and the cause of everything that can possibly go wrong; this incredibly unscientific approach means that scientists disregard highly relevant factors that are outside of nDNA control, factors such as, physical damage to cell functions, micro-organisms and mitochondrial dysfunction, the latter of which explains cancer far better than the genetic theory. As Payton Rous once said: "the somatic mutation theory acts like a tranquilizer on those who believe in it" Trarc states that '...[cancer] is not caused by a specific set of mutations...[just] multiple mutations...'. Incorrect, nDNA is specific, it has specific tasks; multiple mutations may be required but they need to be 'specific' mutations if they are to cause specific conditions such as failure of cell death, angiogenesis, immune systme evasion etc...even if several genes code for cell death, at least one of these would need to be found to be mutated, likewise, if several genes were responsible for angiogenesis, at least on of these would need to be mutated in conjunction with one of several that cause cell death, immune system evasion and so on. To say we don't have the technology is incorrect, we have the ability to map the entire genetic code of a cancer cell, the problem is, when we have, no consistent combination has been found, hence why only 60% of p53 gene mutations were found in cancers tested and 25% of RAS genes. When any particular combination has been re-tested in another lab, cancer never formed, hence why the NCI exposed that 80% of cancer studies are wrong [4]. It is known that the p63 and p73 genes also deal with cell death, this makes the genetic theory even more unlikely because if these genes aren't simultaneously damaged with the p53 gene then they could perform cell death thus preventing cancer. In fact both the p63 and p73 genes are rarely mutated in cancer as exposed in this study [15]. To prove my point, I refer back to the nucleus transfer experiment performed by Professor Thomas Seyfried [9] which showed categorically that no cancers formed in healthy cells when cancerous nDNA was transferred, but cancer did form when cancerous cytoplasm containing cancerous mitochondria was transferred. This succinclty shows that nDNA is not the cause of cancer, rather that mitochondria play a key role. Mitochondria are far more susceptible to damage than nDNA because nDNA has far superior repair mechanisms. This means that any carcinogen is more likely to cause mitochondrial dysfunction long before causing relevant mutations to nDNA [10] especially as at least 8 separate nDNA mutations are required for cancer to form. Dysfunctional mitochondria are found in all cancers, they control cell death, cell growth, cell metabolism [7]; this dysfunction leads directly to an over production of lactic acid, this directly causes angiogenesis and metastasis [11], angiongenesis occurs naturally when lactic acid is produced in the body especially when we exercise vigorously or when damage occurs and the oxygen supply is lost to the cell. Anearobic glycolysis takes over - a secondary energy system that kicks in when mitochondria are dysfunctional, this process produces lactic acid. Blood vessels naturally grow in the presence of lactic acid as this is the signal to re-supply cells with oxygen, this is why our fitness improves when we exercise. It is very telling then, that mitochondrial dysfunction, which is found in 100% of cancers, can easily explain at least 4 hallmarks of cancer that the genetic theory can't and is struggling to, yet the mitochondria is ignored on the arrogant and ignorant assumption that nDNA is the cause and only element of the cell that matters. It is far more likely that mitochondrial dysfunction leads to the conditions of cancer, not the DNA in the nucleus that 'doesn't' control it. NAGALASE " exposing that nDNA is not the cause: The enzyme nagalase is a universal marker of cancer, the amount of nagalase discovered correlates with the type and progression of cancer [12], it leads to a suppression of the immune system [13], specifically GcMAF (Macrophage activation factor). A mutation in the NAGA gene, which codes for nagalase, is extremely rare and only affects brain cells, furthermore it causes Schindler disease [14]. This exposes that an nDNA mutation in the NAGA gene of the cell is not responsible for the production of nagalase which is found in all cancers and produced in abundance, proving that nDNA is not responsible for everything that occurs in the cell. Critically the only other source of nagalase is from micro-organisms who produce it to suppress the immune system during cell invasion and infection. Clearly nDNA cannot explain Mitochondrial dysfunction and Nagalase two major factors involved in cancer. [4] [7] http://www.britannica.com... [9] http://journal.frontiersin.org... [10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [11] http://link.springer.com... [12] http://www.hdri-usa.com... [13] http://www.sciencedirect.com... [14] https://en.wikipedia.org... [15] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...