"Let's segue with cancer, which is still pushed as some genetic disease since the push for genetics in the 70s. 50 years later and they still don't have a clue..."
Of course that cancer is a genetic disease. And lately we are progressing in leaps and bounds in the analysis of which exact mutations of the somatic genome end up causing each…
"Let's segue with cancer, which is still pushed as some genetic disease since the push for genetics in the 70s. 50 years later and they still don't have a clue..."
Of course that cancer is a genetic disease. And lately we are progressing in leaps and bounds in the analysis of which exact mutations of the somatic genome end up causing each of the myriad types of cancer.
Getting a very precise picture of all those types of cancer, is still a far cry from being able to *cure* them once that they do occur to some unfortunate soul.
There's a reason why you have all those intra-pharma nuclear wars about mRNA transfection technology patents. mRNA transfection is one of the most promising contenders for a cancer cure, down the line. Whereas "patent on cancer cure" is spelled with a figure that's easily north of a trillion dollars.
(the hepatitis cure - patented and trivial to manufacture - is sold at $50.000 a pop. Now wait till you see the price tag on "cancer cure")
They went as far as to change the definition of the word "vaccine" in 2020, so that word may include "mRNA transfection". Although vaccine and mRNA transfection have about as much to do with each other as antibiotics and bacteriophages. (both antibiotics and bacteriophages "kill bacteria", but they are entirely, *entirely* different pairs of shoes). So that they could get government subsidies for running a medical experiment on *over a billion people*, with guaranteed immunity from any consequences should anything go wrong, and privately-owned trillion-dollars patents if it proves to be good. (or at least less bad than cancer)
Changes of established vocabulary have become commonplace in this new era (post-2012), therefore anyone opposing the mass experimentation with mRNA transfection had automatically and relentlessly been dubbed an "anti-vaxxer".
Actually, they're still not sure if it's really genetic or not. The genetic push for a cure for cancer started in the 70s and still has not given us a clear connection.
The original idea was that it was a metabolic disease, which fits better with the idea that TOXINS cause cancer, and the genes indicate issues with certain metabolic pathways that limit detox pathways.
As for mRNA, I've yet to see that it does anything at all besides the toxicity of the lipids and chemicals in the shots.
You would think that if this theory of treatment worked, it wouldn't have needed shell scam companies like moderna and bioNtech to promote it. Both of those companies are intertwined with defense department funding.
Moderna had huge issues with their pre COVID cancer research, where the lipids built up with multiple doses. They went into vaccines, expecting to get away with that issue because originally vaccines were a one or two shot deal.
OK, perhaps to unmuddle what "genetic" means. Cancer cells have particular key mutations compared to the somatic genome. Those mutations are being analyzed in high detail. Someone affected with a particular type of cancer (from the myriad types) will, in ALL their cancer cells, possess the critical mutations that are not possessed by all other regular body cells.
In that sense, cancer is "genetic in the first order".
Cancer is "genetic in the second order" inasmuch as the cell possesses remarkable mechanisms to protect against cancer. A major example is the two BRCA genes involved in DNA repair. Should such DNA-repair genes themselves be crippled - by mutations that someone can INHERIT from parents - then the corresponding proteins will be crippled, or not even created, and that someone will be at much higher statistical risk of having a cancerous mutation slip by unrepaired.
It is "genetic in the second order" in the sense that you can genetically inherit a significantly higher risk of developing the ("first-order genetical") cancer, due to a fault in the built-in mechanisms that were supposed to stop that.
And third, there are indeed carcinogenous molecules that can mess up DNA replication, more than the DNA-repair is able to fix. Asbestos is a famous example, but anyhow, there's many -- and I suppose you can file them under "toxins", though "toxins" is a quite wide umbrella. And yes, how good your body is at getting rid of those, will obviously alter your probabilities of developing cancer. The mechanisms for "getting rid of those" are varied and complex in their own right, and technically also genetically inherited (for better or worse).
None of that is a reason to dispute that cancer is a genetic disease, both in terms of being caused by changes to a cell's genome, and in terms of anyone's resistance to that being genetically inherited. Of course no-one disputes the cancerogenousness of asbestos, cigarette smoke etc, but that doesn't make it "not a genetic disease".
I've read the article you linked. It doesn't even dispute that cancer is not a genetic disease. It just states that - among the myriad genetic mutations that happen in cancer cells - the ones that always happen include mutations that lead to crazily increased cell metabolism.
I mean -- yes? Of course? The crazily-increased-metabolism angle had been known since 1927, way before the DNA double helix model was confirmed by W&C. Any "cancer" cell whose mutations do not ALSO increase the metabolism, is unlikely to kill you before your 120th birthday. (and the article claims no different)
The article is rather about shifting the focus of cancer detection, on "traces" that prove some crazy metabolism increases have been going on...
"Let's segue with cancer, which is still pushed as some genetic disease since the push for genetics in the 70s. 50 years later and they still don't have a clue..."
Of course that cancer is a genetic disease. And lately we are progressing in leaps and bounds in the analysis of which exact mutations of the somatic genome end up causing each of the myriad types of cancer.
Getting a very precise picture of all those types of cancer, is still a far cry from being able to *cure* them once that they do occur to some unfortunate soul.
There's a reason why you have all those intra-pharma nuclear wars about mRNA transfection technology patents. mRNA transfection is one of the most promising contenders for a cancer cure, down the line. Whereas "patent on cancer cure" is spelled with a figure that's easily north of a trillion dollars.
(the hepatitis cure - patented and trivial to manufacture - is sold at $50.000 a pop. Now wait till you see the price tag on "cancer cure")
They went as far as to change the definition of the word "vaccine" in 2020, so that word may include "mRNA transfection". Although vaccine and mRNA transfection have about as much to do with each other as antibiotics and bacteriophages. (both antibiotics and bacteriophages "kill bacteria", but they are entirely, *entirely* different pairs of shoes). So that they could get government subsidies for running a medical experiment on *over a billion people*, with guaranteed immunity from any consequences should anything go wrong, and privately-owned trillion-dollars patents if it proves to be good. (or at least less bad than cancer)
Changes of established vocabulary have become commonplace in this new era (post-2012), therefore anyone opposing the mass experimentation with mRNA transfection had automatically and relentlessly been dubbed an "anti-vaxxer".
Actually, they're still not sure if it's really genetic or not. The genetic push for a cure for cancer started in the 70s and still has not given us a clear connection.
The original idea was that it was a metabolic disease, which fits better with the idea that TOXINS cause cancer, and the genes indicate issues with certain metabolic pathways that limit detox pathways.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964%2815%2900116-4/fulltext
As for mRNA, I've yet to see that it does anything at all besides the toxicity of the lipids and chemicals in the shots.
You would think that if this theory of treatment worked, it wouldn't have needed shell scam companies like moderna and bioNtech to promote it. Both of those companies are intertwined with defense department funding.
Moderna had huge issues with their pre COVID cancer research, where the lipids built up with multiple doses. They went into vaccines, expecting to get away with that issue because originally vaccines were a one or two shot deal.
OK, perhaps to unmuddle what "genetic" means. Cancer cells have particular key mutations compared to the somatic genome. Those mutations are being analyzed in high detail. Someone affected with a particular type of cancer (from the myriad types) will, in ALL their cancer cells, possess the critical mutations that are not possessed by all other regular body cells.
In that sense, cancer is "genetic in the first order".
Cancer is "genetic in the second order" inasmuch as the cell possesses remarkable mechanisms to protect against cancer. A major example is the two BRCA genes involved in DNA repair. Should such DNA-repair genes themselves be crippled - by mutations that someone can INHERIT from parents - then the corresponding proteins will be crippled, or not even created, and that someone will be at much higher statistical risk of having a cancerous mutation slip by unrepaired.
It is "genetic in the second order" in the sense that you can genetically inherit a significantly higher risk of developing the ("first-order genetical") cancer, due to a fault in the built-in mechanisms that were supposed to stop that.
And third, there are indeed carcinogenous molecules that can mess up DNA replication, more than the DNA-repair is able to fix. Asbestos is a famous example, but anyhow, there's many -- and I suppose you can file them under "toxins", though "toxins" is a quite wide umbrella. And yes, how good your body is at getting rid of those, will obviously alter your probabilities of developing cancer. The mechanisms for "getting rid of those" are varied and complex in their own right, and technically also genetically inherited (for better or worse).
None of that is a reason to dispute that cancer is a genetic disease, both in terms of being caused by changes to a cell's genome, and in terms of anyone's resistance to that being genetically inherited. Of course no-one disputes the cancerogenousness of asbestos, cigarette smoke etc, but that doesn't make it "not a genetic disease".
I've read the article you linked. It doesn't even dispute that cancer is not a genetic disease. It just states that - among the myriad genetic mutations that happen in cancer cells - the ones that always happen include mutations that lead to crazily increased cell metabolism.
I mean -- yes? Of course? The crazily-increased-metabolism angle had been known since 1927, way before the DNA double helix model was confirmed by W&C. Any "cancer" cell whose mutations do not ALSO increase the metabolism, is unlikely to kill you before your 120th birthday. (and the article claims no different)
The article is rather about shifting the focus of cancer detection, on "traces" that prove some crazy metabolism increases have been going on...