Beforehand I thank those who can correct mistakes in grammar!!!
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.