Introduction
Cancer is the most talked-about disease today, and every bit of news concerning a
new research or a possible new medicine raises a lot of attention. Cancer disease by
far raises the most fear – it seems allusive, unpredictable and deadly. the For many
decades now, the investment in research to find the most effective resources for
diagnosis and treatment of cancer have outweighed by far any other medical
investment for any other disease. However, little real progress has been made in its
treatment, and the periodic news titles about this or that new study or medicine do not
result with the hoped breakthrough. 95% of cancer research fails to advance toward
actual trials for a cure, especially when compared to the actual progress made in other
diseases (1). Moreover, the usual announced statistics about survival rate beyond 5-10
years are misleading, because they do not indicate a cure, but rather that more people
are living with cancer are living with debilitating side-effects from the treatment (2).
In fact, death from cancer is on the rise (3).
Until now, the main approach has been “one size fits all” (4) – i.e. working with
"protocols" based on general statistics for all patients with the same type of cancer,
without specific differentiation. The traditional allopathic treatment course does not
take into consideration the unique features of the specific patient's pathology, as well
as his/her inner and outer conditions (5).
Obviously, this kind of approach cannot provide an accurate correlation between the
treatment and the needs and characteristics of the specific patient and his/her
individual constitution and conditions. The results of this traditional outlook by the
allopathic medicine have never been satisfactory for many reasons, one of which are
the rates of the cancer recurrence. Cancer recurrence is also the main fear of every
patient, who was diagnosed and treated for cancer (6). Taking for example breast
cancer (one of the most prevalent cancers) a 2006 study of half a million women in 13
countries revealed that 1 in every 4 women receiving the conventional cancer
treatment would experience a return of the cancer. Not only that, but in many of these
cases the return of the cancer involves metastasis, which means a spread of the cancer
to other body parts, lowering significantly the chances of survival (7).
Recently, a new approach is being widely investigated and offered: Personal
Genomics – i.e. sequencing and analyzing the genome of an individual in order to fit
the patient with the most probable effective personal course of treatment. The
Personal Genomics approach lists a patient’s genes, proteins, and environment as the
primarily factors analyzed to predicted response or risk of disease, diagnose, and treat
the disease through "personalized medicine" (8). In cancer, personalized medicine
uses specific information about a person’s tumor to help diagnose, plan treatment,
find out how well treatment is working, or make a prognosis. Personalized medicine
uses targeted therapies to treat specific types of cancer cells, or uses tumor marker
testing to help diagnose cancer (9).
There is no doubt that the idea of a "tailor-made" treatment for each and every patient
is a very important and positive novelty in conventional medicine. "Personalized
medicine" has become the cutting edge of cancer treatment for the obvious reasons
discussed above.
However, this article examines whether the new "Personalized medicine" (based on
"Personal Genomics") in its current form has the ability to improve significantly the
success of the subsequent treatment course offered to cancer patients. The article also
discusses and offers ways to rectify the problems and faults involved with this new
conventional approach to cancer diagnosis and treatment.
The reasoning behind "Personal medicine"
The most prevalent tools of conventional medicine treatment are chemotherapy and
radiation. They target the common characteristic of all cancers – the ability of the
cancerous cell to replicate itself speedily. However, the treatment does not
differentiate between cancerous and healthy cells and the common results are harsh
side effects and a great deal of damage to the healthy function of the body (10).
Moreover, little attention is directed toward the long-term side effects, which reduce
significantly the quality of life and enhance mortality rates (11). Perhaps this is the
reason a study published in August 2003 to reveal that the use of chemotherapy on
adult cancer patients in the USA and Australia provided a cure in only 2.1% of the
cases in the USA and 2.3% of the cases in Australia (12).
Therefore, today, it is realised that not every kind of cancer reacts the same to the
treatment and not every patient reacts the same in identical treatments. Crucial
factors, such as the way inherited genes process and respond to certain treatments,
environmental conditions, lifestyle habits (such as smoking and alcohol
consumption), medical history, age and gender must all be taken into account in order
to conclude, which is the most effective and less risky treatment (13). The
"Personalized medicine" individual approach is thus supposed to raise the chances of
treatment success, while mitigating the adverse side effects as much as possible. Less
side effects also means less damage to the healthy tissues, and this in turn means
reduced rates of cancer recurrence.
The "Personalized medicine" (at least concerning cancer) signifies a radical change in
the usual conventional outlook of matching the diagnosis to a defined disease title in
the medical literature rather to a diagnosis that matches the individual patient.
However, there are still flaws and contradictions in this conventional new outlook that
seriously undermine its benefits. The article will point out those flaws and suggests
ways to rectify them.
The "Personalized medicine" preserves the allopathic medical base
of fragmentation, considering bodily parts separate from each other
It stands to reason that a medical outlook of trying to adapt a treatment to the specific
patient would take into account and check all aspects of inner and outer individual
conditions. However, this is not the case with the new conventional "Personalized
medicine".
The central concept of "Personalized medicine" is based primarily on testing and
analyzing the human genomes and their differences, both common and rare (14). The
genome testing is restricted to the tumour itself, wherever it is situated – e.g. whether
the lung cancer is EGFR or ALK positive, whether the colon tumor is KRAS positive,
whether the melanoma is BRAF positive, etc. (15). What is being tested are each
tumor unique characteristics, tendencies and vulnerabilities (16). There is no research
as to the overall pathological processes in the body, the initial causes and the effects
of other bodily systems and organs on the creation of the specific tumour and on its
characteristics.
This approach does not take into account that the body is a whole organism, where
every metabolic action in one end affects all the other organs and systems without an
exception. There could never be a situation where a metabolic action in the liver will
not have an effect on the spleen. There is no way a metabolic action in the digestive
system will not effect the liver and the blood supply to each and every cell and organ;
and a metabolic action in the kidneys must have an effect on the function of the lungs,
and so on and so forth.
Therefore, performing only a genome analysis for a tumour discovered, for example,
in the lungs is being almost completely off target. This is so, because it is very
probable in many cases of lung cancer, the crucial factor, which initiated the creation
of the tumour, might not have been in the lungs. It could have been initiated, for
example, in the kidneys, but manifested in the lungs because of a weakness in the
lung tissue. In this case, identifying solely the genes of the lung tumour will not
provide a complete picture, and without that – the physicians are running a high risk
of incomplete, partial and even risky treatment. All of this could lead to a future
cancer reoccurrence, as in this reported case of lung cancer personalized medicine,
which ended with a brain tumour (17).
The "Personalized medicine" is yet more statistics for the future
rather than personalized diagnosis certainty in the present
The Personalized medicine is very much based on the contention that “Cancer is a
genetic disease” (18). However, genes cannot be a basis for a well established, certain
and founded diagnosis. Genes at the end of the day are not destiny and the data
derived from analyzing the genes is nothing more than predispositions (19). In other
words, we are back to square one, as we again deal with statistics rather then what is
actually at hand with the specific patient in front of us, here and now.
At the end of the day, genes are just a potential and it is not possible to ascertain a
decisive analysis and treatment plan solely on them. It is all still mostly an unknown,
how would the patient react to the treatment, as the human body is not comprised only
of genes. Genes are not a mechanical switchboard operating independently, so that
one can predict 100% the way the keys will work.
Basing it all on the genes is very risky – are there unknown factors that can totally
change the gene potential? What was not taken into consideration? Do we absolutely
know all there is to know about genes individually and the interactions between them
and the cell physiology? Is it at all possible to predict those interactions 100%? Is it
reasonable to expect no other inner or outer unforeseen factors influencing and
altering those delicate gene processes and mutations? Is it reasonable and even
scientifically logical to isolate that one gene and put "all the blame" and focus on it?
Where is the scientific proof that the "Personal Genomics" model (which goes against
the holistic way the body actually functions) is at all established, founded, and can
become a safe base for a beneficial treatment plan?
In the end, "Personalized medicine" returns to the statistics, in spite of the fact that
realising the flaws of establishing medicine on statistics was the reason for the
initiation of "Personalized medicine" to start with. There are a number of associated
triggers to a DNA mutation, but those triggers do not automatically cause the same
reaction in everyone.
There are patients with a relatively robust and sturdy constitution to begin with. They
seem to have the statistics in their favour, and "on paper" have a statistically good
chance to survive even a harsher treatment if needed. But well into the treatment it
becomes obvious that their mental constitution does not allow them to withstand the
harsh side effects of the treatment, and the treatment fails. This factor is totally
ignored in the "Personalized medicine" model, even if this alone can in many cases
become the deciding factor between success and failure.
The entire "Personalized medicine" is based on one internal factor (genes mutations),
which is only a potential that has yet to happen, or not. This factor is combined with
external conditions, which are also statistical in nature and do not provide a high
enough certainty in diagnosis and prognosis. There is little doubt that smoking is a
factor that has a significant potential to diminish the success of the treatment, but it is
also known that smoking does not affect everyone to the same level and in the same
way. Why would smoking affect different patients in different ways? This is so
because each and every one has different constitution and an assembly of inner and
outer conditions. One has strong lungs, while the other does not. One has a strong
liver, and the other does not. One has a better blood system in both quality and
quantity, and the other does not. Some people smoke all their lives and do not get sick
with cancer, while other never smoke, but still get lung cancer. Even if all these
different causes and conditions can be gathered into statistics, it is still only statistics.
Therefore, the external conditions that the conventional "Personalized medicine"
relies on, do not contribute any foreseen certainty to the success and outcome of the
treatment plan for the individual patient.
The new model of "Personalized medicine" is, therefore, still in the realm of
prediction rather than diagnosis of the here and now. It makes an assumption for the
future rather than ascertains the present.
Therefore, the existing model does not constitutes pure "personalized medicine", in
which we can ascertain an individual diagnosis and an individual treatment plan with
a high probability of 90% or more as to the outcome.
Adapting to "personalized medicine" based on cancer being in its
root a metabolic syndrome rather than genetic
As mentioned above, the prevailing view today is that cancer is a genetic disease
involving nuclear mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. The somatic
mutation theory reigns as the most widely accepted view of the origin of cancer and is
the justification for developing personalized genetic therapies for managing the
various forms of the disease. Despite numerous inconsistencies associated with the
somatic mutation theory. the theory is presented as if it were dogma in most current
college textbooks of genetics, biochemistry, and cell biology, and is the mainstay of
the National Cancer Institute in stating that, “Cancer is a genetic disease—that is, it is
caused by changes to genes that control the way our cells function, especially how
they grow and divide” (20).
However, the experiments on which the "genetic" theory are based on show that the
gene mutations are actually the result and not the cause of cancer proliferation. Those
experiments suggests that cancer is primarily a mitochondrial metabolic disease and
that respiratory insufficiency due to mitochondrial dysfunction is the origin of cancer
(21). This mitochondrial pathology is the cause of gene somatic changes and
therefore, the source of cancer lies in the cytoplasm rather than the nuclei of the cell
(22).
The paradigm, in which cancer is a metabolic disease, rather than a genetic one, leads
to the root of the disease. Following the rationale of the "metabolic" paradigm, if we
search deeply for the root of things and differentiate between cause and result, than
the mitochondrial dysfunction is also a result in the chain of pathology and not the
root cause. The quality of the mitochondrial function is determined by the quality and
quantity of the nutrients and other metabolic substances by which the mitochondria is
being nourished. This, in turn, is a product of the various internal organs metabolic
function, as well as the quality and quantity of the blood. Therefore, if there would be
a dysfunction in the metabolic activity of organs and systems, the mitochondria would
be directly affected. It is, therefore, imperative to check and diagnose the internal
organs and systems to track the pathological chain leading to the cell dysfunction and
the creation of the cancer. If we fully understand the pathological process, the chance
to offer a successful treatment course is greatly enhanced. Furthermore, the treatment
plan is actually based on the specific and individual pathological process that
happened in the patient's body, rather than predispositions and suppositions based on
statistics.
The best diagnostic tool to measure metabolism is a blood test
We have shown in this article that tracking the metabolic deficiencies and
dysfunctions is the root key for understanding the formation of the cancer. Identifying
the pathological process that has taken place in the specific case at hand enables the
doctor to come up with the most precise and highly probable successful treatment
course. The treatment course does not rely on statistics, but on actual pathological
findings. This enhances the chances of eradicating the base causes for the cancer
formation, thus cutting off the pathology from its root and preventing the cancer from
further flourishing. When the causes and conditions of the cancer formation are no
longer there, the characteristics of a cancerous growth and activity lose their base to
continue and thrive. Moreover, cutting the pathological process from the root by
rehabilitating the healthy function of the organs and systems also prevents cancer
reoccurrence, which is the biggest scare and most dangerous feature of cancer disease.
The best and most revealing test for the metabolic function in the body is the blood
test (23). The blood test, when deeply and properly understood and deciphered, is an
invaluable key to all the key metabolic processes. This is so especially when the test
results are not taken only by its face value, but the various results are crossed checked
and analyzed to reveal the state of various metabolic processes. Take for example,
Iron. Iron deficiency is not a mere indication of anemia. With correct cross checking
with other test results, an iron deficiency can indicate many important metabolic
pathologies – e.g., a dysfunction of the digestive system to digest and absorb (and
possible chronic digestive conditions such as Crohn's, Colitis, Celiac, etc.), nutrient
deficiency (which prevents iron from being absorbed in the gut), a chronic protein
deficiency (thereby indicating a dysfunction of the liver in various metabolic
processes including Hepcidin production), a possibility of blood loss from the
digestive tract, a deficiency in stomach HCL, kidney dysfunction, spleen dysfunction
(as most of the iron used for Heme production is derived from dismantling aged RBC
in the spleen) and many more.
Therefore, the blood test is the best indicator for the pathologies of the main
metabolic processes, as it can provide the answer for what went wrong in the
nourishing and the maintenance of the cells in the various organs and systems. This is
a the most direct indicator of what should be treated and how, to reverse the
pathological process leading eventually to cell failure and the creation of a tumour. It
is not dependent on statistics, which need to be changed and altered from time to time
according to the changes in conditions, characteristics and incomplete research. The
blood test is available here and now, the results are immediate and it is the most
specific and personalized data provider for each and every individual.
Conclusion- The Future of Medicine
Even when the entire human genome research concerning somatic mutations is
completed, it will not provide the crucial information as to why and how the cancer
manifested in general, and in the specific tissue in particular. The "Personalized
medicine", which relies totally in the theory that cancer is a genetic disease puts aside
the most valuable and important factors in the equation – the factors which are crucial
for a personalized treatment plan suited for the specific patient.
The condition and function of the internal organs and systems is the only factor, for
which a simple blood test can provide the most scientific and proven present data,
without the need to rely on statistics and various unknowns, as well as external
conditions that may change and their affects are not decisive.
The manifestation of the cancer in a certain tissue is not an indication that the source
of the pathology is in that tissue. The cancer, like any symptom or end result of a
pathological process, manifests in a weakened tissue, but the basic cause for its
manifestation is not necessarily in that tissue. Therefore, focusing all the research in
the genome of the cells of that tissue or the cancer manifesting there discards the
possible root cause, which might be somewhere else other than that tissue.
Furthermore, the most direct system that fights cancer on a moment to moment basis
is the body's own immune system. Discarding the metabolic processes that led to the
immune system failure is a dangerous omission for the success of the treatment and
the prevention of cancer reoccurrence.
The conclusion is, therefore, that without a complete, thorough and comprehensive
examination of the internal organs and systems and their function, it is not possible to
ascertain the efficiency and suitability of the offered treatment to the individual
patient. The best scientific evidence for that lies within a correct, deep and precise
analyzing of the blood test.
Resources
(1)
https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/Clinical%20Development%20Success%20Rate
s%202006-2015%20-%20BIO,%20Biomedtracker,%20Amplion%202016.pdf
(2) http://dyingforacure.org/blogs/misled-cancer-progress
(3) Ibid.
(4) http://genomemag.com/what-is-personalized-medicine/#.WFV4Znnathg
(5) http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/2006464-overview – as an example,
attached is the generalized protocol for breast cancer according to the progress of
the mass solely.
http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/002014-pdf.pdf (6)
(7) Mellemkjær L, Friis S, Olsen JH, Scelo G, Hemminki K, Tracey E, Andersen A,
Brewster DH, Pukkala E, McBride ML, Kliewer EV, Tonita JM, Kee-Seng C,
Pompe-Kirn V, Martos C, Jonasson JG, Boffetta P, Brennan P. Risk of second
cancer among women with breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2006; 118: 2285–2292
(8) https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms?cdrid=561717 ;
http://genomemag.com/what-is-personalized-medicine/#.WFV4Znnathg
(9) https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms?cdrid=561717
(10) http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/how-cancer-
treated/chemotherapy/side-effects-chemotherapy
(11)
http://www.macmillan.org.uk/documents/aboutus/newsroom/consequences_of_treatm
ent_june2013.pdf
(12) http://www.bestzapper.com/pdf/3.percent.chemo.cure.rate.pdf
(13) http://www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/how-cancer-treated/personalized-
and-targeted-therapies/understanding-pharmacogenomics
(14) http://genomemag.com/what-is-personalized-medicine/#.WFV4Znnathg
(15) Ibid.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Ibid.
(18) https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics ;
http://genomemag.com/what-is-personalized-medicine/#.WFV4Znnathg ;
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21809/
(19) http://genomemag.com/what-is-personalized-medicine/#.WFV4Znnathg
(20) https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/what-is-cancer
(21) http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fcell.2015.00043/full
(22) Ibid.
23) http://www.healthline.com/health/basic-metabolic-panel#Overview1 )
