Beforehand I thank those who can correct mistakes in grammar!!!
Conference and mathematical model of originating of a
cancer
At
last, for the first time with 2001, 24.06.2005
years in institute of an experimental pathology, an oncology and bioradiology of a name of R.E.Kavetskogo
of Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, the opportunity given to me to introduce
to at conference before scientists - oncologists with an alternative view has
been: with the answer to a question - as arises and develops the cancer?
I
express the deepest gratitude to a manual of institute in person of Vasily Fedorovich Chehun, for the organized conference, and also prepared her
is to Soljanik Galina Ivanovna. Also it would be desirable to thank Tarutinov Valery Ivanovich and Gamaleja Nikolay Fedorovich, that they
repeatedly to attend me attention before conference; also that has allowed me
to be prepared for conference. I express profound gratitude by the scientist
which, despite of the employment, have taken part in discussion; I bow them.
With
respect and gratitude I accept all critical remarks under my report. I express
gratitude for council and a direction given on results of conference; to work
with the Russian institute of a carcinogenesis of a name of N.N.Blohin,
as (in their opinion) the report touched most of all is specificities of
institute.
The
basic result this conferences was nonacceptance of the new report which, in opinion of
scientists, does not correspond to existing views and the standard oncologic tongue. Their this
opinion and it has the right to be.
Many
thanks to opponents that despite of misunderstanding between us, wishes in
independent progression of a new view have been stated, and in a wish of
reception of result expected by me.
To me
it has been stated that conversation should conduct in oncologic
tongue; also advice has been given to study more precisely an oncology that it
was possible to understand each other. It is impossible to apprehend what you
do not know, and never had it met. As a whole, I do not object. Though always
the new view does not find comprehension at orthodoxs,
therefore he and carries "new". To expect other assessment it would
be incorrect. And in "new" allows to establish
true only time or demonstrative experiments.
By
opponents it has been declared, that I have presented some directions, not
connected among themselves. Alas, why they came to
such opinion? - I and have not understood. I had been submitted consecutive
development of oncologic disease, from process of
accumulation carcinogens and, finishing height of a tumour.
During conference has not been stated any constructive and is
demonstrative-denying remarks. It is
easier to tell is not, pressing the authority and the merits, than is based to
discuss.
Let
scientists-oncologists do not take offence at me; but they have no moral right
simply so to reject any new alternative view. In fact any theory should have a
final result; and in this case this result, is a treatment of oncologic diseases. The oncology not only cannot find today
effective methods of treatment, but also does not know, that itself
represents such disease as a cancer. And in fact the cancer while in an
official science remains a secret. Therefore also there is a doubt – and
as can reject (to decide to accept or to not accept) something experts; if they
do not know it something? How they can judge concepts of an oncology if such
disease as the cancer for medicine today remains a riddle? How they can define
correctness of directions in an oncology if yet does not know from what side to
approach to a cancer? In no event thus merits of an official oncology are not
belittled; for the negative take as carries a positive effect; for he is a
starting point on a way to true. These results were a basis for my hypothesis,
and together they compound the uniform theory about a cancer.
On the
report that today a researches are finished which have found the reflectance in
monographies, on a tuberculosis, Diabetum,
AIDS, virology, bases of physiopathology; to me have declared, that it is bosh
and a lie, that it in general is impossible basically. Has been declared, that
it is a product of my imaginations; and it allows to draw
a conclusion that I in general perceive nothing in medicine. The person is not
capable to master such big and various spectrum of knowledge. Let everyone
remains at the opinion. If it opponents cannot; that it does not mean, that
others cannot make it.
With
the submitted hypothesis of a carcinogenesis with me scientists have not
agreed. They have declared that is nonsense. To me it has been declared, that
many true explorers work, and have much made in an oncology; and to "nonspecialist" in an oncology there is nothing do to
you, where you get. As they have told that from research works on a
carcinogenesis institutes in the world today depart; as the oncologic
diseases linked to a carcinogenesis are considerably reduced. Today such oncologic diseases, as virus, etc.,
and also oncologic diseases with unknown etiological
factors, more show.
Let. And why so it is a lot of having made, till now
experts cannot solve a problem of an oncology? It means that something is made
or done not so. And in fact it is hard to admit to orthodoxs
(especially before "nonspecialist"), that
they do something not so. And in fact if there is no
decision in an oncology – treatment – a final result; that it
allows to tell that experts go in the incorrect way; and to find it a way they
cannot yet. Is impossible, not having though one any link to
find a method of treatment of disease. It confirms life. Not having solved the
mechanism of a carcinogenesis, scientists try to find answers on other
etiology. It is impasse.
Why
scientists forget what the majority from "fundamental" has been open
by "nonspecialists"? - though
they recognize it. Why yesterday "nonspecialists"
could solve something "fundamental", and today suddenly are cannot???
With
opinion of scientists to conferences I disagree, and that is why. First, the
report has been built precisely. After representation of a view on the nature
of a carcinogenesis, the method of treatment also has been offered; also it has
been told about those experiments which carrying out would allow to prove a
hypothesis of a carcinogenesis and to finish a method of treatment. Therefore
and not clear that here is not linked?
What to
not be proofless and that the reader has understood
about what speech, I want to tell about the report briefly.
So, to
participants of conference by me it reported that oncologic process
it is a process of "ignition" of supercritical quantity carcinogens
in this or that tissue; their subsequent burning, with formation in the locus
of pathological temperature and АSO (active singlet Oxygenium) - the
basic damaging agents. Oncologic
process can be shown, in dependence on a state of an organism and sizes of the
locus in which have collected carcinogens, at influence of pathological temperature
and АSO; and can and not be shown by
originating of a cancer cell and a tumour. I.e. the cancer cell is only one of final outcomes of oncologic process.
Carcinogens
are substances of a chemical, physical, biological, mental, biopower
and alimentary parentage. Accumulation
any carcinogens it's one of the basic
features of oncologic disease. In the attitude of this conclusion
opponents have expressed disagreement.
The submitted proofs about the processes having a
place in other physical phenomena and which completely reflect (are identical)
process of burning carcinogens; on various motivations simply have not been
accepted and derided. Let, and unless cannot have reflectance in other
phenomena in the nature a processes which take place in an organism?
By me
it has been especially marked and underlined that the general scheme of
originating of oncologic disease is underlined only.
And she should be adhered in due course in each case of separate oncologic diseases to concrete processes of oncologic disease and is corrected.
By me
it has been underlined, that the basic
feature of oncologic disease consists in process
burning carcinogens which contents has exceeded the certain critical size. If burning carcinogens not takes place,
there also will no be a tumour.
In the
report also it was spoken that burning carcinogens descends only at participation of molecular Oxygenium which
acts in an organism through the mechanism of a dermal respiration, i.e. in an
operative range of a dermal respiration.
The
following about what it reported – and only arisen as a result of burning
carcinogens pathological
temperature and АSO the
amazing influence result to transformation of an able-bodied cell in cancer;
and further – to originating a tumour.
With a
conclusion that oncologic process is only process of
burning a carcinogens, and the tumour it's only
result of oncologic process; opponents have not
agreed and have told, that I am far from comprehension of nature of cancer
process. They have declared, that tumoral
process it's just and is an oncologic process.
Therefore have once again recommended to me to learn an oncology, and the own
reports to not distract vainly and illiterately experts. And there was a same
question – and why "competent" experts cannot reveal a secret
of a cancer? Means, in it they
while are illiterate.
Second
my submitted conclusion - as a result of influence of pathological temperature
and active singlet Oxygenium (the basic damaging
agents); except an catalysts of cellular processes, disbolism
and other changes, at transformation of able-bodied frame in cancer; around of
a cancer cell the frame starts to
form which is named conditional, a protective covering (or environment) of
pathological cell (PCPC). This environment also gives to a cancer
cell the special selective properties with which this cell differs from an
able-bodied cell. With complete formation PCPC
around of a cell during development of oncologic process,
the cancer cell also gets protection against influence of immune system. By the
way, formation of this frame also allows to explain nature of chronic diseases that the modern medicine does not explain.
This
report in general has been perceived with irony and has caused complete
disagreement and a mockery, and has been once again underlined about my
misunderstanding an oncology. And so, with my side on this question the
following has been an explained: this protective covering - is something other,
than it seems at first sight. PCPC it's a structural transformation of
substances of a membrane of a cell under influence of pathological temperature
and АSO;
with formation of new compounds at the same structure of substances both alive,
and a cancer cell. In fact in real life we (structurally changing a locating of
elements) can receive various substances on the properties. Then why we count,
what such cannot descend in a cellular membrane? And in fact structural
transformations at the same cellular structure of substances (on another - not
tell) and to result in difference of an able-bodied cell from pathological.
I also told the following: at cancer diseases (as it
is supposed) the basis of this protective frame is represented by the common
formula of complex compound (СаО=С27Н46О), i.e. (oxide of calcium=cholesterol). Into
this frame enter also series of other substances. Basic amounting of an atomy a
membrane – calcium and cholesterol at lesion АSO will be transformed structurally and by him are bound. Decomposing
of this covering at a necrosis of cells also allows to explain the nature of
appearance only in the necrotic locuses of products
of a calcification and Aethers of a cholesterol; that,
by the way, the classical medicine cannot explain yet. Formation of this frame
also allows to understand just; why at a normality of
immune system, at a plenty of able-bodied immune cells in the oncologic locus, they do not react to cancer cells. It too one
of unresolved questions in medicine.
The following
submitted conclusion to conferences: is that as a new method of treatment is offered destruction to
this frame – PCPC; that in the subsequent will allow
immune system itself to liquidate consequences of oncologic
process – cancer cells (tumour). The immune
system of an organism (as against other methods) has ability to liquidate
pathological frames painlessly, recurrencly-free and
with the subsequent neogenesis of the basic cellular
structure. That does not allow to receive any of
existing methods of treatment. In it disagreement also is stated, and again
underlined about medical illiteracy; also it is told about impossibility in a
reality of reception of such effect. Has been declared, that it
is delirium.
Following my report: One of the
main features of oncologic process consists that in
case of originating a cancer cell, her development descends, basically, due to Adepses of an organism.
Infringement of a lipometabolism is initial infringement
in metabolic processes of an organism at oncologic
process. Infringements of a lipometabolism also allow
to explain, why at an oncology other concomitant
diseases show. In conformity with what, one more method of treatment which is
transitive between methods used today, and has been offered by a laser method
which should become the basic method of treatment.
The
following submitted report: - In quality
the instrument of treatment (is more exact, destructions of a protective
covering) application of the laser instrument which becomes in due course the
basic instrument of treatment of many diseases in the future is offered. At
certain conditions applications, the laser instrument has all opportunities of
the most sparing and recurrence-free a method of treatment, in complete sense
of this word. As many spectra of substances of an organism and a protective
covering will have zones of an overlap, that will cause destruction and other
substances at his use; for exception of relapses the supply of a laser beam immediately in the locus of disease is offered. In the attitude of the given
method a disagreement and mistrust in an opportunity of his application also is
stated. Not clearly, why, not knowing about it, scientists do to a hasty
conclusion? In fact the laser is capable
to destroy the given complex compound (PCPC).
By the way one of opponents who directly is engaged in lasers, has told,
that theoretically it can be admitted, and even at thus has proposed a range of
a wave of emanation of the laser.
The
following conclusion - treatment
of oncologic diseases should consist (as it not will
seem strange) in support of oncologic process; to
enable канцерогенам to burn down completely! It
will allow to liquidate in further the possible locus
of originating of new disease. And methods of treatment should consist only in
supporting and enabling immune system to liquidate independently pathological
formations (cancer cells). Today try to liquidate various methods cancer cells;
and it does not allow to tell that oncologic
process is liquidated. Exhibiting of metastasises just also arises, not because
of the staying cancer cells and their diffusion on an organism, and because is
not liquidated an oncologic process, i.e. the locus
in which process of burning carcinogens proceeds. Destruction only cancer cells it’s an erroneous direction in
treatment of oncologic diseases.
Concerning the given conclusion scientists also state doubt and is once again
underlined about illiteracy in an oncology
Especially
I have paid attention that in the report conversation is conducted about a
phase of oncologic process, before formation of
cancer cells. About them to speak is not meaningful, so as about cancer cells
is known much enough.
Today
huge efforts what by means of introduction carcinogens in an organism to
cultivate a tumour are spent. It is done for her
further research. In opinion of scientists-conformists (including opponents at
conference) it will allow to reveal a secret of a cancer. This last my report
has already deduced from itself opponents which subsequently all have started
to reject; also have declared that it is necessary to forbid me. By me it has
been told that, acting similarly, a
science never not to solve problems of a cancer; and
it waste of time – it's impossible to search for secret of a cancer in consequences
of oncologic process, i.e. in a cancer cell or in a tumour.
It is the basic error which is an oncologies
make.
Opponents
have not agreed with a conclusion that to find a method of treatment, it is necessary to know
all mechanism of originating and development of oncologic
diseases. They tried to convince me what only research of a tumour (cancer cell) will allow to solve
a problem of these diseases. Against my argument that the tumour
will not give the answer, they categorically object. Them
at all has not convinced, that else anybody in a history of mankind could not
repeat process of receiving of any substances, having in hands only a final
product. Always myself process of building something
was a secret for a society. He it’s the KNOW-HOW. And in fact the tumour, it too a final product of oncologic
process which can and will not be shown at development of process of disease.
It's
the basic essence of the submitted report to participants of conference.
Absolutely not clear, where in these conclusions there are no oncologic concepts where there is no oncologic
a tongue? Well, unless, only concerning (PCPC); as about such frame earlier it
was not led at all speeches in medicine, and not only in an oncology. Something to concretize? – too there is no necessity. In the medical specialized
literature speak terms which were used in the report, and it is easy to prove
it. It would be desirable to note once again that in the report the general
scheme is given only, i.e. an atomy of originating and development of oncologic disease. And in scientific medicine (as well as
in general in a science) it is possible to find enough the general schemes;
which were offered by explorers and which subsequently acquired additional
conclusions and grew in the uniform theory; not changing essence of the general
scheme.
To me
also was offered a carrying out of demonstrative experiments confirming the
stated conclusions: building of an experimental carcinogenesis with the
purpose: to understand, what real action carcinogens and where they disappear
at originating tumours. Such researches today in an oncology are carried out,
but it is not enough of them and they are carried out in the other direction. It is
necessary to search for answers to questions not in the tumour,
as it does today. Not clear, why there are doubts in necessity of these
experiments, and in what, what they can give something? If such experiments are
not necessary, then why they are carried out with an official science? The
following demonstrative experiment is a treatment of resistant patients. Unless
it;s not actual? And at last
a complex of demonstrative experiments on building the instrument of treatment.
All these experiments (as to me it has been told) go in a cut with activity of
institute; also that these experiments are absurd also will give nothing.
Though, by the name, this institute just also should be engaged in these
questions. I have no right about it to judge. In the objections of opponents
(they repeatedly emphasized it) were based on the enough-big personal
experience and the standing in an oncology. Let they do not take offence at me;
but how it is possible to emphasize the experience and standing if for today oncologic diseases are problem and unsolved diseases?
By the
way, one of opponents in personal meeting has asked to present the plan of
carrying out of experiment. After his studying the scientist has told, that at all today there are no devices which it
is possible to trace something at a stage before appearance of a cancer cell. But
in fact these devices sometime and to somebody are necessary for framing! - Really it is not clear?
Also
they have not agreed with my conclusion that «the carcinogens cellular frames not amaze (immediate damaging action
carcinogens is absent); and they only are catalysts for formation of
pathological temperature and ASO – the basic damaging agents».
The following submitted conclusion – «explorers
in medicine do not find the remainders of
carcinogens in a tumour only because
carcinogens not damage cellular frames; and "burning down", by
the remainders are deduced from an
organism». For this reason the further researches linked to detection of
damaging action carcinogens in cancer cells, and ongoing in an oncology with
this purpose, are senseless.
And
last my report in general has expressed at opponents the uttermost
disagreement, irony and belief in even greater my misunderstanding, both an
oncology, and medicine. This following report: from all carcinogens which to give a cancer (and the
cancer is produced only at accumulation carcinogens), about 80 % constitute biopower carcinogens (negative power),
and less than 20 % are other kinds carcinogens. They were not
convinced by those; that confirming this reason I have given examples of researches
and the received results in the world which are identified with this conclusion.
After
conference one of opponents has rebuked me that if has been submitted the
schemes (pictures), mathematical formulas, etc., that, is possible, that the
report was apprehended differently. I have understood the error and
consequently it is very grateful to him.
But the most surprising began in a week after
completion of conference. Those scientists, who up to it though somehow
communicated with me, began to avoid discussions. And one of them has told
about an interdiction on any joint actions with me though till this moment with
him the arrangement on carrying out of joint treatment of resistant patients
has already been achieved. I do not know from who descend this interdiction; it
is possible to guess it only.
When I have tried to talk already after
conference with one scientist-immunologist, that has
manifestly been rejected. To me it has been told, that to "nonspecialists" in an oncology
there should not be a place, that it's necessary to forbid my monography in general that to not produce bad opinions and
an otherwise-minded conclusions among medical experts. In motivation the
quotation has been resulted from my monography which
this scientist has recognized incorrect and illiterate. Also it has been
categorically declared that he will take all measures that me to forbid.
I have
not got used to such unsubstantiated attacks. On what I have answered: -
«this part of the monography represents views
of the known and recognized scientists. I have expressed only their collective
opinion, instead of my personal». In fact today among
experts enough discordant views and nonacceptance of
opinions each other. I think that for all to oblige is impossible. If
not will be objections on the monography such work is
necessary for nobody.
And a
week later I have brought weighty arguments for this "scientist"; in
which was spoken about identical, as well as at my in the monography.
Has presented a repetition of page from the known textbook,
the edition of 1988 which use in medical institutes, which is in each library,
including and this institute. It «the General
clinical oncology», the author – Anatoly Ivanovich
Gnatyshak known and respected scientist. And I
have told, that before to forbid me, is necessary forbid the textbook of this
author respected by all of the expert.
On what
the known scientist has boiled (has blown up), and has told to me that it is
necessary to cite immunologists, and the doctor
of sciences, professor A.I.Gnatyshak in an immunology
on an oncology does not understand anything (by the way, later, I talked to the known oncologist
who has many works on an immunology, J.A.Grinevich
which has supported my statement). It defeat me most of all. Really
nothing uncomprehending those who reviewed the given textbook? Have
really allowed for learning of experts – physicians the illiterate
textbook?
Such "refutations" in the attitude of my
hypothesis frequently I hear. It would be desirable to tell - and if you such knowing expert why then you cannot
solve a problem of an immunology in an oncology; as the behaviour of immune bodies in a tumour
is in general a riddle? Why teach physicians on this textbook, instead of on
your works? But I restrain oneself.
Thus, in 2
weeks after end of conference have started is underground "to reject"
my hypotheses and began persecution by conformists from medicine.
I shall try to take advantage of the reference of
conference and to work with the Russian oncologic
center of name Blohin. Is very a pity that a
situation has developed thus. But soothes one, that
when "reject" it's the initial stage of a recognition; and it is
necessary for passing. And the second, having given me recommendatory the
letter in the Russian oncologic center, thus
scientists of me have recognized.
As it
was already marked, under the reference of one of opponents I have prepared
article about a cancer with use of mathematical formulas. This article has been
given for the review in this institute in which conference passed. First
completely I shall present article, and then the conclusion of scientists-opponents.
HOW THERE IS A CANCER FROM THE MATHEMATICAL
POINT OF VIEW?
Alternative view on a
problem
This
question today up to a pain is known. Today medicine consequences of
originating of diseases – a tumour, are perfectly
investigated. But the cancer so and remains a riddle of mankind.
Numerous experiments on a carcinogenesis
have shown that at accumulation carcinogens in an organism during the certain
moment arise a cancer cell and her clone – a tumour. Thus it is revealed, that a mutagen action carcinogens quickly and suddenly. Then carcinogens
somewhere vanish. Where and how? And now this question remains not solved.
About it many explorers write. For example, writes E.Kaudri
in the monography "Cancer cells";
publishing house the Foreign literature, 1958, page
295. About it it is possible to read and in last
reports; in article of professor Valery Kobljakov «us surround carcinogens», the
Medical newspaper № 35 - 1.12.2004, the main scientific employee of
scientific research institute of a carcinogenesis of the Russian oncologic centre of science of a name. N.N.Blohina of
Now the share of chemical carcinogens in
oncologic diseases is reduced. Diseases of an unknown
etiology appear. Therefore, as many explorers consider, the carcinogenesis
loses the actuality and does not allow to reveal a
secret of a cancer. Today the medicine departs from researches in range of a
carcinogenesis; and tries to solve a problem, studying other oncologic diseases. The basic efforts are directed on
detailed studying of a tumour. As the tumour is only a
final outcome of oncologic process, i.e. a final
product; that is possible to tell with confidence, that studying of a tumour will not allow to reveal a
secret of oncologic disease.
Anybody still in world practice could
not reveal a secret of process of building of any substance, including organic;
having at hand only an final product - substance. It
is secret (Know-how) of the producer-owner. And this – for
nobody not a secret. Why, knowing it, we continue to search for secrets
of oncologic process exceptionally in a tumour?
It is possible to tell that at a carcinogenesis the fact of accumulation
carcinogens is fixed that in due course results in originating a tumour. But what process stands up for it? – this question is not solved. Not knowing
something in the general mechanism of originating and development of a cancer,
it is impossible to solve a problem of disease.
In this article
the answer to the given question also is offered. Today in medicine with
success the mathematics which allows to reach much is
applied. Even the quantity of cancer cells is counted up. And so for more
precise concept at an explanation of a new view it is offered to use
mathematics.
Let's designate different etiological
processes which result in originating a tumour,
through symbols: а - (chemical carcinogens),
b - (physical carcinogens),
c - (viruses), d - (plastic
cancer), … - (other
etiological factors). Исход of all processes which lay behind the given etiological factors one
- appearance of a cancer cell and originating of her clone - tumours; we shall
denote this outcome through О.
Starting from the aforesaid,
we can make system of the equations:
Solving this
system of the equations (besides, those dextral parts are peer), it is possible
to write down, that (a = b = c = d = ... = О).
And it allows us to tell precisely; that, in spite of the fact that in a basis of different oncologic diseases various etiological factors lay, all oncologic diseases develop on the same identical process
which results in a uniform outcome – to a cancer cell – to a tumour.
Therefore it is possible to tell with
confidence, that, departing from
researches of a carcinogenesis, the medicine commits a serious error.
And in fact having understood with a
carcinogenesis, it is possible to receive the general scheme of originating and
development of oncologic diseases. The medicine is
able to work with carcinogens. Therefore we shall consider oncologic
process on the basis of a carcinogenesis that will allow to
define the general mechanism for all oncologic
diseases.
Let's present now a carcinogenesis (with
the account known in medicine) the following scheme (equation):
Accumulation of carcinogens → ?????? → Cancer
cell (tumour)
What hides behind these symbols (??????)?
As it has already been marked, today the medicine only assumes about influence
carcinogens, but not having received real confirmation, recognizes that mutagen action carcinogens – is not known.
And only the principle of similarity in
the nature allows to open that stands up for the
specified symbols. What allows to assume, what under (??????)
it is necessary to read - ignition of supercritical quantity of carcinogens
with the further process of their burning. … It is necessary to note,
that under burning - is necessary to understand incomplete or noneffective oxidation. In the nature it is enough similar examples.
Now we shall try to formulate completely
the mechanism of originating and development of oncologic
process which can be divided into some stages:
1-st stage – Accumulation of carcinogens
in any tissue of an organism up to the certain critical mass.
2-nd
stage - Ignition of
supercritical mass carcinogens and their further incomplete burning due to molecular Oxygenium which acts in an organism due to the mechanism of
a dermal respiration. Burning of carcinogens results in originating in the pathological
locus of the increased pathological temperature and active singlet Oxygenium (АSO) which
are the basic instruments of a defeat. Carcinogens directly not amaze of
cellular frames of an organism.
3-rd stage - the Outcome of oncologic
process which shares on two types, but always takes place only one of them:
а)
– Not-originating of a cancer cell and her clone –
tumours;
b)
– Originating of a cancer cell and her clone – tumours under influence of pathological temperature and АSO.
Today in medicine the situation well
enough is described since originating the third phase a subtype b), i.e. from the moment of originating
a tumour, therefore there is no sense on him to be
intercepted.
Thus, oncologic process
it's a process of carcinogens burning which results in their disappearance from
an organism; and which results in originating pathological temperature and АSO - the basic damaging factors.
Only it is not necessary to confuse
"burning" carcinogens with lipid peroxidation
because it is completely different processes on an etiology and on action.
Stages of oncologic
process can be expressed also the general chemical formula:
The formula of 2-nd
stage has the following
kind:
C + О2 → CО + Тpat + Оsing (ASO),
it also is the formula of oncologic process. Где C
– carcinogens, О2 –
molecular Oxygenium, Тpat
– pathological temperature. CО – compound of carcinogens with Oxygenium, i.e. burned down carcinogens which disappear
from the locus (are deduced from an organism). Therefore till now the residual
of carcinogens in a cancer cell cannot find.
And the formula of 3-it stage of an outcome (b):
HCF + Тpat + Оsing → PCF (a cancer cell) → a clone of PCF (a tumour),
where HCF
– healthy cellular frames, PCF
– pathological cellular frames. It is
supposed, that at the third stage in
an outcome (b) around of a cancer cell under amazing action АSO on substances of a cellular environment (membrane) is begin
formed PCPC (a protective covering of a pathological cell). After complete formation which, the cancer cell gets new
properties. These properties are distinct from properties of a membrane
of able-bodied frame; including an exit of a cancer cell from under the control
of an organism at which practically this cell becomes inaccessible for a host
defense. That allows to be shown tumour. PCPC takes place at many diseases that translates them
in the category of chronic.
Just destruction PCPC by the laser
instrument – it and will be the basic method of treatment of the future. It
is not necessary to confuse with a photodynamic laser method as the specified
method blasts cancer cells. The offered method will blast only some substances
of a membrane, abandoning cells the whole; thus to open access to a cancer cell
for immune system.
Thus, oncologic process,
in general is a process of burning of carcinogens various kinds which has
arisen as a result of ignition of their supercritical quantity cumulative in
any tissue; and which formation of pathological temperature and ASO gives. The
decision of the above-stated equation also has allowed to
draw the given conclusion for all kinds of oncologic
diseases, about that that a burning of carcinogens (and = b = c = d =...) it's in point of fact – is a basis
of cancer process. Сarcinogens
according to a carried out role it is offered to name further - active carcinogens-catalysts
(АC-C) which role in an organism consists only in formation
of pathological temperature and ASO.
That itself
represents oncologic process. Now many will object
and will tell that it is incorrect; as the basic stage – a tumour,
is omitted. No, it not an error! Oncologic process can arise in an organism and educe,
and tumours can and to not be. The tumour it's only a consequence (final result) having a
place in an organism of oncologic process.
Now, the offered hypothesis allows to find a real method of treatment about which it has
shortly been told; but in given article about him is more detailed while we
shall not speak.
In summary it is
necessary to note that to prove a reality of a new hypothesis are thought over
and worked series of experiments which do not occupy the big term on time. So,
for example, to prepare and offer a method of treatment it is necessary
somewhere 1-2 years.
Essence of the basic experiments:
1. Modelling of an experimental carcinogenesis on the
basis of the suggested hypothesis.
2. Treatment
of resistant patients.
3. Creation
of the instrument of treatment.
But much to our regret, while this
report at anybody does not produce adequate actions.
Really nobody trusts in an opportunity of the decision of an oncologic problem?
Given article (as already communicated)
has been handed for the review to above named institute. To me have answered
the following (remarks are given literally):
1. «In article
is given of unsuccessful attempt to give the simplified answer to a question –
«As arise a cancer?»».
- Let: it is impossible to agree that it's the simplified answer; he is
much more complex, than opponents think. But why they are not capable to give
even simplified answer to this question?
2. «Incorrect use of existing
scientific terminology and unreasonable introduction of some concepts
(supercritical quantity carcinogens, the active carcinogens-catalysts, the
increased pathological temperature, ASO, PCPC, etc.) it's peculiar to the
author of article».
- Let,
but I very much and am very grateful that is marked about introduction of new
concepts by me. It just confirms that my hypothesis is essentially new. Also
what incorrect use of scientific terminology means? And the judge who? Those
who cannot understand; what is the cancer disease, and to find effective
methods of treatment? Let opponents do not take offence at me, but there is a
proverb and they work on her: «Itself not … (I am not able) also to
another I shall not give». And in fact just existing stereotypes also
prevent appearance "new".
3. «The mechanical approach to analysis of the carcinogenesis caused by
various etiological factors, results the author in an erroneous conclusion that
all oncologic diseases develop on the same process.
From article follows, that the author is not familiar with modern results in
the given range».
- And again let to
answer. Opponents so tried to forbid given article that is possible even her
did not read, and worked on results of conference, and it is possible they are
blind. In fact last achievements of scientific research institute of a
carcinogenesis of the Russian oncologic centre of
science of a name of N.N.Blohin (December, 2004) are
clearly marked in article. And at conference the information on last researches
and achievements in an oncology it was given. And in general as it is possible
to speak about achievements in an oncology if they not are in reality - a
cancer remains a secret, and effective treatment of
this disease are not found. There is an impression, that opponents not only do
not own the information on last world researches, but also anything essential
during long time while cannot receive. Concerning the
mechanical approach. Not clear, on the establishment of that this
conclusion is made? Probably opponents at all do not perceive sense of this
expression. At least, my approach to researches has allowed to
make that today that it is not possible to make to official medicine.
And about what literacy, opponents can speak if they not only do not realize,
but also do not perceive that if an outcome (final product) in all cases same,
that and processes of his
originating are identical. Any product in a similar case is farmed on the same
process, thus it is possible to change only conditions, but not the scheme of
the process.
4. «The scientific
inanity and the certain disinformation about achievements in an oncology does not allow to recommend submitted article to the
publication».
- The last, in
general has struck me. Look at article, about what disinformation there is a
speech? Lift those sources which are specified in article. It allows to tell not about my illiteracy and disinformation, and on
the contrary, opponents. And in fact the given review was coordinated with one
of principals of institute who has handed over me of her.
As opponents
do not perceive, that today will be more correct to tell that in spite of the
fact that today there are many official hypotheses in an oncology, the secret
of a cancer and continues to remain the unknown; a real method of treatment to
find is not possible; the official oncologic science
is powerless. Today the oncologic science while
remains empty as does not solve problems of oncologic
diseases.
And where freedom
of idea, a freedom of speech? In fact it was planned to publish
article in oncologic press for discussion.
The impression
that the medical science does not need the decision of such problem disease as
a cancer is really framed. But it is not clear, why? I want to be mistaken in
it.
2005