Cancer
Cancer, or what is said to be the proliferation of
malignant or invasive ‘cells’, seems likely to be a fictitious disease that was
invented for political reasons. There is
not an adequate account in the medical literature of what causes a cell to
become harmful, nor a clear definition of malignancy, even if it were true that
one could photograph inside the human body or view cells under a microscope, nor
an adequate account of what it means for a cell or tumour to invade surrounding
tissue or travel to distant organs, nor of how one cell would be able to alter
another or otherwise cause harm.
It
is not clear how a cell would alter so that its behaviour became destructive to
other cells or the mechanism by which it would be able to cause harm. If the mechanism Is mutation, whether or not,
or how, this occurs, it seems implausible that a cell would change, either as a
result of loss of its normal control mechanisms or by design, such that it
would proliferate and set out to destroy its host. A knock or other injury, for instance, might
lead to a growth of tissue around the site of injury. But that the proliferation of cells would be
caused or accompanied by an alteration in its genetic material, such that it no
longer supported the body but set out to harm or kill it seems contrary to what
we know about the behaviour of living things.
First,
the medical literature is not consistent as to whether cancer is diagnosed as a
result of cell pathology or invasion of local tissue. In terms of cell pathology, it is not clear
how ‘cells’ can be viewed, since microscopes enlarge rather than see below to any
underlying structure (where the various parts of the cell are said to lie,
whether or not the cell is opaque). Even
if the magnifications claimed were possible to achieve (ie, in terms of
lenses), the images one would see at such magnifications, from observation of
camera lenses, would be too blurred to identify something the size of a
cell. From observation, the size of the image
one sees most clearly under a microscope is the same as that of the object
itself viewed at close range, such that any magnification blurs to some
extent. This is consistent with wht
happens when one magnifies using a camera or with the blurring of larger
letters at the periphery of one’s vision that can occur when one is
reading.
The
image of a cancer cell could not be seen, to use Descartes’ phrase, clearly and
distinctly. From observation, first, of
what one sees when squinting at a light or into sunshine, and, second, from the
fact that if one looks into a window on a sunny day one sees more clearly what
is reflected, what one is most likely to be seeing when viewing a ‘cell’ is an
image, either projected or reflected, of the lens of the eye itself and perhaps
its fluids. The magnification of the
lens of the eye is partly by the eye itself, which tends to magnify both what is
beyond and what is before (ie, its own lenses) the object it is attempting to
focus on (on the slide) as well as to exaggerate the distance (or extension)
between itself and objects other than those it is focusing on. The
lenses may be adjusted to compensate for different focal ranges when using a
microscope, but this is to clarify the image of objects at relatively low actual
magnifications.
From
observation, if one squints from a distance into the eyepiece, one sees the
lenses of one’s eye but what is on the slide is not visible, as can be seen by
there being no alteration in the image whether or not the slide is present. If one holds one’s eye against the eyepiece
and obtains light from a light source shining onto the mirror, a large opaque
object on the slide blocks the light, whereas a relatively translucent
material, such as a small drop of blood, is not visible, presumably because it
is unable to be seen against the more vivid image of the reflected lens of the
eye, in the same way that small marks on a window may not be visible when one
is looking out of the window from a distance away from it on a sunny day. [i] If the microscope is lit internally, given
the construction of the microscope (ie, its shape and the position of lenses)
and the size of the aperture above the slide (relative to that of the lenses of
the eye and of the microscope and of what is on the slide and to those on a
camera), it seems likely that there would not be sufficient light or the
appropriate refraction to illuminate what is on the slide such that it can be
seen clearly, and that if the mirror is also needed what will be seen is again an
image of the lens of the eye.
In
any case, setting aside the fact that one is unlikely to be viewing biopsy
cells under a microscope, if there appear to be regularities in terms of
changes (ie, if some people’s cells, but
not others, appear to change in similar ways), these need not in any case indicate
life-threatening changes to cells or tissue rather than the wear and tear
associated with ageing. Some terms used
to denote pathology, such as ‘necrosis’, ‘stroma’ and ‘cribriform’ and even
‘calcification’, are difficult to pin down in terms of why they are dangerous
or by what mechanism. For example, ‘necrosis’,
associated with malignancy, refers to exaggerated cell death (as opposed to
‘apoptosis’, which is normal cell death) and is an indicator of uncontrolled
proliferation, apparently because in an area where you have more cells, or
tissue, you would be more likely to have increased cell or tissue death. But increased cell death would suggest either
a check on unnatural proliferation or would, in any case, also be associated
with benign tumours or, if not, suggest that benign tumours are more likely to
be invasive, in the sense of growing sufficiently to invade surrounding tissue,
than malignant ones.
If
cancer is not diagnosed according to particular features of the cell (nor by
cell growth since this is also a feature of benign tumours) but by invasion of
surrounding tissue, this would seem to imply producing changes in surrounding
cells or tissue, since otherwise a benign tumour could also potentially
obstruct surrounding tissue. It is
not clear by what mechanism one cell would invade another or what this would
look like in cell cytology/histology. If
surrounding tissue also changes, other than because of force or obstruction, it
is likely to be as a result of the same factor(s), including any viral agent,
that caused the initial cell to change, rather than that the initial cell
invaded the other, unless the process being described is reproduction, or
replication, involving, as is said to be the case with viral cells, some sort
of interaction between cancerous and non-cancerous cells.
The
presence (or spread) of tumours is usually detected, or confirmed in the case
of those that can be felt by the hand, by x-rays or CT scans. Again, no camera, whether or not it is said
to emit ‘radiation’, can see beneath the surface of the human body, including
in order to see a cell or ‘gland’ that has travelled from another part of the
body. The principle by which an MRI
scan works seems more plausible, ie, that it produces images that reflect the
attractions of different substances within the body to a magnet, but in
practice it would not be sufficiently precise, given that the body has depth as
well as area.
If
invasion is by the tumour itself, rather than by a single cell, setting aside
by what process the tumour itself formed (ie, whether through invasion of one
cell by another, including in order to replicate, in which case it would be
difficult to distinguish between the formation of the tumour itself and invasion
of adjacent tissue, or through a spontaneous proliferation of malignant cells),
again, does it occupy the adjacent tissue or cause it to change? If the tumour only moves, or displaces,
adjacent tissue, this too would also be a feature of benign tumours.
Second,
the mechanism by which a cancer cell alters, harms or kills a host cell and
ultimately its host seems to be asserted rather than explained, which would be
consistent with the ambiguity as to whether cancer is diagnosed by malignancy
or invasion of surrounding tissue. If
the mechanism is force, an obstructive tumour is as likely to be benign as
malignant. If the mechanism is individual cell mutation, it is not clear why
cell division would take place within the body, unless the body grows to
adulthood in a way approximating cell growth, although the splitting of cells
into identical ‘daughter’ cells would not in itself appear to account for
either growth or differentiation within the body. But neither is genetic mutation explained
satisfactorily.
If
environmental factors (or ageing) cause an alteration in RNA/DNA then it is not
clear why these factors are not themselves the cause of ill health in that
there appears to be no satisfactory account or description of the means by which
alteration in information stored in the cells causes an alteration in bodily
tissue. For instance, there is understanding of the link between inputting
information into a calculator or adding computer software and the changes that
appear on the screen. There is a plausible explanation of the changes to the
body when a surgeon follows a particular set of instructions. In each case,
there is an understanding of, first, the agency, in the sense of there being a
person operating the calculator or computer or on the body, second, of the
mechanical link, in the sense of what follows when one presses keys on the
calculator or inserts software or makes an incision, and, third, of the force
needed, either electrical or human. There is not a comparable explanation of
the agency and mechanism of change within RNA/DNA. RNA/DNA, or the genetic
information/instructions it contains, is said to have an independent existence
and be capable of agency in the sense that it is present in the body and
influences it either in the absence of environmental factors or because it
alters the character of environmental consequences (since otherwise it would be
unnecessary in the explanation of changes to the body). But if it does have
agency, there is no adequate account of how a genetic code, an abstract entity,
would have the capacity to produce changes in the body or through what
mechanism (ie, what type of mechanical link). Nor can there be if, first, it is
not possible to view the body clearly at the scale necessary to view changes
and, second, if there is no satisfactory philosophical explanation of the link
between, or ontological compatibility of, genetic information and bodily
tissue.
Third,
metastasis is said to be the process whereby a cancer that starts in one part
of the body kills, by spreading to distant, vital organs. A cell from the primary tumour is said[ii] to break loose when it loses its ability to
stick to the initial tumour and then travels along the blood stream or via the
lymph system. In the distant organ, the cell would regain
its ability to stick and then begin to proliferate. The new mass of cells would be referred to as
a secondary tumour – eg, a thyroid tumour in the lung, composed of thyroid cells
rather than lung cells. That different
parts of the body begin to develop tumours spontaneously, or even that one part
of the body would copy another, would seem more plausible than that there are
secondary tumours consisting of cells that have travelled from the initial
tumour.
How
would they travel? An apparently infinitesimally small ‘cell’ would be unlikely
to be able to travel within the relatively thick blood or ‘lymph’, especially
from a lower part of the body to a higher, or even if it were able to travel in
any spaces between blood or lymph cells and upwards, be able then to enter
distant organs, ie, penetrate, for example, the membranes of the brain or
lungs. (And why never the heart?) From observation, larger, not smaller,
animals have less difficulty surviving for any length of time in water, while
smaller fish will have more difficulty with relatively viscous fluids, such as
blood.
CT
scans apparently show single cells that have travelled to another organ but it
seems unlikely according to common sense (which is an abstraction from
observation of comparable sensory perceptions) that a scan would really be able
to distinguish a single cell even if it were possible to photograph what is
inside the body. If, instead, a large number of cells broke
away, what, setting aside their motive, would propel them to a distant
organ? The hypothetical force exerted
by any number of cells that remain invisible to the eye would still seem likely
to be insufficient even if each contained a motor of some sort, which they are
not said to do. Whatever the stated
facts of the blood stream, it also seems unlikely that this alone would be able
to carry cells, particularly from a lower part of the body to a higher.
Fourth,
what is usually said to kill in the case of cancer is a recurrence, because a
recurring cancer is said to be more aggressive, which one assumes means it
would either grow more quickly or show greater pathology and propensity to
metastasise, although in either case it seems uncertain by what mechanism a
cancer cell harms and ultimately kills. If the cells, or tissue, are malignant, and
become more malignant as they ‘mutate’, it is not clear in what sense this
could be true - other than that they consisted of parts of cells that were said
to indicate malignancy - if they do not themselves contain agents of harm or
are not able to otherwise cause alteration to cells or tissue.
If
recurrence and mutation mean they are able to proliferate more quickly, aside from
the fact that this need not indicate malignancy it is not clear, why and how
this could be true. If one assumes
agency of some sort, then why, after surviving an attempt to eradicate it,
would it seek to destroy its host (and therefore itself) or otherwise draw
attention to itself? And if recurring
cancers are more dangerous than the initial cancer, and often fatally so, then
why do oncologists treat the less aggressive, indolent, cancers instead of
monitoring them, when surgery and anaesthesia, and, apparently, ‘radiation’,
are themselves dangerous. It also seems
unlikely that drugs would be able to target parts of the body as precisely as
we are told they can, or that they would not all have some impact on both the
stomach and the head.
Fifth,
the benign growths, or lumps of altered, tissue, caused by such things as
knocks, burns, and sun exposure, might cause obstruction if they become too
large, but in most cases they do not seem to grow, so that more damage is
likely to be done by attempting to remove them surgically than by leaving
them. They may even have grown, after
an injury, to protect a part of the body from further damage. The most likely causes of the growth are the
hardening of tissue and the accumulation of fluids after injury. However, it seems unlikely that tumours
would grow and expand to a considerable size within the body, especially as we
age and weaken, unless, again, their purpose is protective. In any case, those growths we cannot see or
feel, we have no certain means of knowing whether or not they exist. Therefore symptoms such as a persistent cough
are likely to indicate weakness or irritation rather than disease. (In
the same way, a cold is a sign that one is weak. You do not catch a cold, which is the body’s
way of warming up or expelling liquid). Similarly, a shadow on an x ray
is only likely to be a lighter area on a photographic negative (unless a stock
image is produced).
What kills
in the case of apparently fatal illnesses such as those associated with cancer
(and other diseases) is a cumulative weakening that may be partially caused by
medication (prescription or otherwise), especially when there are initial
unpleasant side effects, but is more likely to be caused by other factors,
physical and psychological, in the environment of someone diagnosed with a
viral infection (or other disease).
These include such things as alcohol, tobacco, and non-prescription medications
and well as narcotics. Other factors
include surgery, which weakens, at least temporarily, so increasing the risk
from other depressants, because of anaesthesia or blood loss; poor diet (bad or
insufficient food); environmental factors, particularly inadequate heating,
extreme heat, fluctuations in temperature, utility emissions; excessive
physical exercise or overwork, or too little exercise; insomnia (eg, caused by
stress or insufficient food), or too much sleep (which may cause headaches). Perhaps decisive, for example, with respect
to appetite, is the psychological stress and fatalism caused by the belief that
one has a potentially fatal illness.
It
would strike most people as inconceivable that diseases such as cancer could be
invented fictions, and so we have not thought about whether they are plausible
according to observation, common sense or logic. However,
the term, the Final Solution (associated with the Wannsee Conference, which
historians now say may have taken place in 1942, the year of the ‘Beveridge’
Report, which envisaged a health service that would deal with the five giants
of disease, poverty, ignorance, squalor and idleness), might have implied
the use of intravenous fluids and alcohol in order to reduce and control
populations.
No comments:
Post a Comment