Book on Cancer , by Travis Christofferson

R

river

Ordered but not received , yet .

But I have watched an interview on him . Quite fascinating . On Gaia .

His book is about cancer as a metabolic malfunction , the mitochondria malfunction .

His book is called " Tripping over the Truth "

By the way ; I will not respond to any flack because of the Gaia affiliation . Take it or leave it . Don't care ; actually I do care ; hence the thread .

And cancer has nothing to do with genetics .

Anyway now you know . Take it as you will .

river
 
Last edited:
James R said:
Has he found a cure for cancer?
Click to expand...
No, but he has written a book highlighting the possibility of epigenetic influences on cancer development. This leads to some ideas that diet can affect the likelihood of cancer recurrence. I think.

I view it with some scepticism, as it seems rather obviously to pander to (a) the sense of desperation people can fall prey to after cancer treatment and (b) the chance for charlatans to become rich with quack diet-based remedies. But the review I read does not suggest it is rubbish: just a revival of consideration of unfashionable possible factors.

It appears to be founded on studies that show genetic dissimilarities, in a significant minority of cases, between the primary tumour and recurrent disease, leading some to think they may be new primaries rather than secondaries. If they are new primaries, the logic goes, then they are caused by some common carcinogenetic factor in the body, rather than being residue of an already treated primary tumour.

I don't think I'd buy the book myself, but then my wife died of cancer fairly recently and I have had enough of thinking about this disease for the time being. In her case it most certainly was a recurrence of the primary by the way, as it is in over 70% of cases, even according to this author.
 
These days I tend to get a bit cynical over easy or simple cancer 'cures'. :mad: I understand the sense of desperation that comes with the territory, from the inside looking out. I also understand the raging desire to make lots of money off of desperate and/or fearful people.

Yeah, my particular cancer has been associated with epigenetic changes (which in turn are enabled by a genetic predisposition to develop those epigenetic changes) when the person is exposed to environmental toxins. In the case of acinar adenocarcinoma, those toxins include - but are not limited to - lead and arsenic. I have been exposed to both of those elements, among many others, so it is very possible that those were the instigators. It was not my diet, however, it was lots of time spent at the shooting range handling ammunition - lead slugs and arsenic brass casings. Also lapidary and rockhounding, metalworking, metal casting, questionable drinking water, herbicides and pesticides..... You get the point - that is where Occam's Razor points, not towards hamburgers or cheesecake.

We may recall that we have found fossil dinosaur skeletons with fossilized bone cancer tumors. Their diet was 100% natural and humans were not screwing things up. Yet they still got cancer.

As an artistic experiment many years ago, I took a black and white photo and copied it on a Xerox. I then took the copy and copied that on the same machine. I did that for a long time, finally ending up with a picture that, while it had some resemblance to the original, was very much changed and distorted from that process.
That is how I model the formation of a cancer: a normal cell reproduces many times until it reaches a point where the new cell is pretty messed up. Its genetics say it should die...unless that part of its genome is broken. Then it lives on as a mutated cell, a cancer cell. One of the flags used in grading a cancer cell is how few mitochondria it has. The fewer the mitochondria, the higher the grade of the cancer cell. It continues to reproduce so the number of cancer cells increases. That lack of a normal number of mitochondria enables the potential success of therapies that increase the levels of oxidants in those cells, like radiation. Thus the importance of the mitochondria and the pivotal role of genetics in cancer.
 
exchemist said:
No, but he has written a book highlighting the possibility of epigenetic influences on cancer development. This leads to some ideas that diet can affect the likelihood of cancer recurrence. I think.

I view it with some scepticism, as it seems rather obviously to pander to (a) the sense of desperation people can fall prey to after cancer treatment and (b) the chance for charlatans to become rich with quack diet-based remedies. But the review I read does not suggest it is rubbish: just a revival of consideration of unfashionable possible factors.

It appears to be founded on studies that show genetic dissimilarities, in a significant minority of cases, between the primary tumour and recurrent disease, leading some to think they may be new primaries rather than secondaries. If they are new primaries, the logic goes, then they are caused by some common carcinogenetic factor in the body, rather than being residue of an already treated primary tumour.

I don't think I'd buy the book myself, but then my wife died of cancer fairly recently and I have had enough of thinking about this disease for the time being. In her case it most certainly was a recurrence of the primary by the way, as it is in over 70% of cases, even according to this author.
Click to expand...

More than epigenetic influences

You don't think you'd buy the book , such a stupid attitude .

Oh by the by , my mother died of cancer 3yrs ago .

Hence my putting it out there of this book .
 
...some pretty extraordinary claims, and we all know what those require. ;)
 
Better plan - get cancer, consult with a bunch of specialists, read everything you can about it for 4+ years, go through surgery, chemo and radiation, then have 2 friends die from the same cancer you have. That should give you sufficient motivation, perspective and a solid knowledge base so you don't bite on idle speculation or 'camarillo brillo' like that.

Sorry, but the statement "cancer has nothing to do with genetics" flies in the face of many decades of research. The discovery that the oncogene (those are genes that have been identified as contributing to the development of cancer) HER2 ( linkie - poo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HER2/neu ) is close to a death-by-cancer sentence provides sufficient counterexample to "cancer has nothing to do with genetics" to falsify that hypothesis. Also, we will recall that epigenes are like switches that turn genes on and off. Thus, the affected genes are deeply involved from the get-go. It is then logically inconsistent to state otherwise. -_O

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" None are provided. :(

I will go ahead and finish my book on coloured pencils instead, as I can see that as being of some profit to me as a cancer patient.
 
Stoniphi said:
Better plan - get cancer, consult with a bunch of specialists, read everything you can about it for 4+ years, go through surgery, chemo and radiation, then have 2 friends die from the same cancer you have. That should give you sufficient motivation, perspective and a solid knowledge base so you don't bite on idle speculation or 'camarillo brillo' like that.

Sorry, but the statement "cancer has nothing to do with genetics" flies in the face of many decades of research. The discovery that the oncogene (those are genes that have been identified as contributing to the development of cancer) HER2 ( linkie - poo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HER2/neu ) is close to a death-by-cancer sentence provides sufficient counterexample to "cancer has nothing to do with genetics" to falsify that hypothesis. Also, we will recall that epigenes are like switches that turn genes on and off. Thus, the affected genes are deeply involved from the get-go. It is then logically inconsistent to state otherwise. -_O

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" None are provided. :(

I will go ahead and finish my book on coloured pencils instead, as I can see that as being of some profit to me as a cancer patient.
Click to expand...
I rather agree. But I don't think this author makes such a silly claim as that cancer has nothing to do with genetics. Silly claims like that must emanate from elsewhere, I suspect.
 
Stoniphi said:
Better plan - get cancer, consult with a bunch of specialists, read everything you can about it for 4+ years, go through surgery, chemo and radiation, then have 2 friends die from the same cancer you have. That should give you sufficient motivation, perspective and a solid knowledge base so you don't bite on idle speculation or 'camarillo brillo' like that.

Sorry, but the statement "cancer has nothing to do with genetics" flies in the face of many decades of research. The discovery that the oncogene (those are genes that have been identified as contributing to the development of cancer) HER2 ( linkie - poo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HER2/neu ) is close to a death-by-cancer sentence provides sufficient counterexample to "cancer has nothing to do with genetics" to falsify that hypothesis. Also, we will recall that epigenes are like switches that turn genes on and off. Thus, the affected genes are deeply involved from the get-go. It is then logically inconsistent to state otherwise. -_O

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs" None are provided. :(

I will go ahead and finish my book on coloured pencils instead, as I can see that as being of some profit to me as a cancer patient.
Click to expand...

When you finish your colouring book , read his book .
 
Its a technical book on various type and techniques of coloured pencil rather than a colouring book. I create my own drawings to colour. :)
 
Thanks! Since that is my job and my career for the last 49 years, I shall indeed continue...with your support. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top