The Instigator
Curious78
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Trarc
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

All cancer is not caused by DNA

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 918 times Debate No: 84418
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Curious78

Pro

This is my first debate so I thought I'd try a simple topic and turn everyones understanding of cancer on its head :) Anyone game for a response to defend the current status quo?

I propose that the 'genetic' theory of cancer is incorrect, that DNA is not the cause of any cancer but is instead a symptom of another cause. As a result the majority of medical science is attempting to cure symptoms and not the root cause focusing on and manipulating DNA with drugs - and this is the reason why no cure has been forthcoming.

SUPPORTING ARGUMENT:

1) The genetic theory fails to explain most of the 'Hanahan and Weinburg Hallmarks of cancer' - these hallmarks are shared between all cancers and is the yard stick by which the validity of any cancer theory is measured. There are 8 hallmarks accepted by science, they are:

- Self-sufficiency in growth signals (stimulation of their own growth)
- Insensitivity to anti-growth signals (resistance to inhibitory signals)
- Evading apoptosis (they resist programmed cell death)
- Limitless replicative potential (they can multiply indefinately)
- Sustained angiogenesis (grow new blood vessels)
- Tissue invasion and metastasis (spread to distant sites)
- Have abnormal metabolic pathways (mitochondrial dysfunction)
- Evade the immune system

The genetic theory fails to adequately explain all of these common traits, some it does dubiously and some it can't explain at all, this suggests that DNA is not the cause, those where an attempt of an explanation is made is only a partial explanation and is based largely on speculation rather than evidence of the DNA gene responsible. Worthy of note the genetic theory specifically fails to explain:

- Evading apoptosis - How the cell is able to evade programmed cell death.
- The resistance to inhibitory growth signals - why cells grow
- Angiogenesis - blood vessel growth and why it occurs
- Metastasis - spread of cancer, why and how it occurs
- Mitochondrial dysfunction
- Evasion from the immune system

2) The genetic theory also fails to explain:

- The unprecedented increase in cancer incidence
- Child cancers and their increase
- Why cancer runs in the family
- Nagalase expression " which occurs in all cancers
- Methyl-deficiency - which occurs in all cancers
- The role of the immune system and why a weakened immune system increases cancer risk.
- Why exercise decreases cancer risk when an increase in free radicals should increase it.

3) The unscientific approach of medical scientists are exposed by the fact they infer that DNA is the cause of cancer but choose to ignore the relevance of the DNA of the mitochondria. Dysfunctional mitochondria occur in all cancers and play a significant role (see Otto Warburg, Professor Thomas Seyfreid and the 'metabolic theory' of cancer). In fact the metabolic theory, which cites dysfunctional mitochondria as the cause of cancer, explains far more 'hallmarks of cancer' than that of the genetic theory.

4) One of the other major stumbling blocks of the genetic theory is that it can't explain why apoptosis (programmed cell death) is able to re-occur when natural plant compounds are shown to selectively kill cancer cells " according to the genetic theory the cell death gene is damaged and it is this damage that leads to cancer in the first place. How can the genetic theory explain this?

The anticancer properties of dietary polyphenols and its relation with apoptosis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

5) The national cancer institute states that 80% of all studies in to cancer are incorrect exposing that DNA is not the cause because these experiments cannot be replicated, here is a lecture that exposes this, presented by Professor Paul Davies (exposed within the first ten minutes):
https://www.youtube.com...

6) In 1950, when science was rudimentary to todays standards, it was discovered by Watson and Crick that there were DNA differences between cancer cells and healthy cells. This simple association is the basis of the assumption that cancer is caused by DNA, since then and for the following 6 decades our scientists have been working to solve cancer based on DNA alone choosing to cite an association and assumption made in the 1950's as evidence enough to prove it to be factual, such is the unscientific approach to solving this complex problem that medical science has taken.

It is clear that DNA is not the cause of cancer.
Trarc

Con

Glad to debate.

Pro will have to prove his claim that "The genetic theory fails to adequately explain all of these common traits, some it does dubiously and some it can't explain at all." For every characteristic Pro has cited, Pro has only claimed, and not proven, that these characteristics disprove the notion that cancer is caused by genetic factors. I request that Pro select a few hallmark traits of cancer and show that DNA expression inadequately explain these traits.

-----

I now give a general case against Pro's claim:

The entirety of human cell, from its physical characteristics to its functions, are determined by its genes. This includes determining when and how a cell replicates. The characteristics of cancer cells also have a genetic origin, and only arise when there are mutations in the DNA[0]. These tenets are widely accepted in biology.

Lastly, I will explain the cause of 7 of the 8 hallmark characteristics of cancer, and show that this explanation does not refute the belief that cancer has a genetic cause. For reference, these characteristics are:

- Self-sufficiency in growth signals (stimulation of their own growth)
- Insensitivity to anti-growth signals (resistance to inhibitory signals)
- Evading apoptosis (they resist programmed cell death)
- Limitless replicative potential (they can multiply indefinately)
- Sustained angiogenesis (grow new blood vessels)
- Tissue invasion and metastasis (spread to distant sites)
- Have abnormal metabolic pathways (mitochondrial dysfunction)
- Evade the immune system

This explanation will not address mitochondrial dysfunction.

First, a note on terminology. I use cancer cells to refer to cells that display cancerous traits (i.e. cells that don't stop growing or dividing), and I will use the term "clinical cancer" to describe cases where the a patient has been diagnosed with cancer. This is a vital distinction. A patient can have cancerous cells but not clinical cancer, since clinical can only occurs when cancer cells form tumors that are large enough to be noticeable. My argument will show why this is an important distinction.

Pro claims the first list he gives are "hallmarks [that] are shared between all cancers." This is perfectly true, but here 'cancer' refers to the all cases of clinical cancer, not all cancer cells. Cancer cells develop in humans on a regular basis, but they are removed by the immune system, or by cell apoptosis [1]. For instance, the study I cited shows that cancerous B cells are formed in our body every day.

The flaw in Pro's argument is that these hallmarks do not apply to all cancer cells, only to the cancer cells that develop into clinical cancer. Specifically, any cancerous cell that does not possess the hallmark characteristics will not progress to clinical cancer. For example, a cancerous cell that lacks "Self-sufficiency in growth signals," "Insensitivity to anti-growth signals," or "Limitless replicative potential" will not be able to grow itself into clinical cancer, and cancerous cells that cannot "evade the immune system" or "evade apoptosis" will die. Additionally, any growing tumor that was not possess "Sustained angiogenesis" will die. Cancer cells require greater blood supply than normal cells, and, furthermore, as the cancer cells grow, they will require more blood to sustain itself[2]. The last trait was "Tissue invasion and metastasis." Tissue invasion is trivial. Clearly a tumor must invade the tissue as it grows, since it 1) originated in the tissue, and 2) requires the space. I will not address metastasis, since this is an issue of definition. Tumors that have all the characteristics of clinical cancer, but do not metastasize, as simply called benign tumors.

In other words, the hallmarks of cancer are the result of natural selection. Most cancerous cells do not have all of these hallmark characteristics, and generally, it is only the cells that are able to reach clinical cancer that do. I challenge Pro to show how this explanation refutes the notion of genetics causing cancer. After all, this does not change that the cancerous cells originally arose due to genetic mutations, and that genetic mutations are what give clinical cancer cells their hallmark traits.

[0]http://www.cancer.org...
[1]http://guardianlv.com...
[2]http://www.cancerresearchuk.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Curious78

Pro

Hi Trarc, welcome to the debate, thank you for taking up the challenge, good luck.

Trarc suggests the flaw in my argument is that I do not refer to all cancers only to 'clinical cancers', because of this distinction I am not able to fullfil my obligation of explaining away all cancers. Firstly these 'pre-clinical cancer cells' aren't cancer cells simply because they haven't developed the traits yet that define cancer as cancer, as shown in the evidence provided by Trarc [1]

'...the body's immune system regularly eliminates potentially cancerous immune B cells in the blood before they develop into dangerous B-cell lymphomas...'

These cells are 'potential' cancer cells and not actual cancer cells, on that basis they are not relevant to this argument. To clarify; when I discuss cancer I am referring to a malignant tumour cell, a cell that contains all the 8 hallmarks that define it as a cancer.

Citations [0] and [2] provided by Trarc contain no concrete evidence that DNA causes cancer. Both of these sources simply imply that DNA is the cause and are both founded on baseless assumption and speculation as is most of the genetic theory. Although the burden is on me to provide evidence against DNA being the cause of cancer, it should be easy for Trarc to end this debate by producing the apparent abundant evidence that proves categorically that DNA is the cause, however as DNA is not the cause I think Trarc will find this almost impossible.

The notion that cancer is caused by DNA is based on a theory that hasn't been proven, the genetic theory is still a theory for a very good reason, it is assumed that DNA is the cause via association only and because so many medical scientists subscribe to this theory. Technically on this basis I could win the argument, however this would be a bit of a let down so I will continue. The 'Metabolic theory' is a well established cancer theory that exposes the role of mitochondria in the formation of cancer and makes a very good case against DNA as the cause. It is highly significant that Trarc is unable to and refuses to explain mitochondrial dysfunction using DNA because mitochondria play such a significant role in the cause of cancer. To ignore it exposes a major flaw in the genetic theory.

Cancer defies the rules of a genetic disease. DNA genes have specific roles to play so that when one becomes faulty it will always produce the same disease, for example, a certain mutation in the gene for hemoglobin causes the disease sickle cell anemia [0]. The cause of sickle cell anemia can always be traced back to the same DNA gene, cancer defies this rule because it is stated that hundreds of different combinations of DNA damage can result in cancer, this is an attempt to force cancer to fit the genetic theory. If cancer is caused by DNA we would expect to see the same DNA expressions present in most if not all cancers, this discrepency is exposed by the fact that no consistent combination of DNA damage has been found to occur across any cancer; the fact that 80% of studies in to cancer are incorrect according to a major study performed by the National Cancer Institute exposes this failure [4]. Micro-organisms (viruses, bacteria and not forgetting fungi) invade cells, create random DNA damage and control the functions of cells regardless of the DNA expression that is seen in the cell at the time. Professor Thomas Seyfried undertook an experiment where cancerous nuclei were transferred to healthy cells, cancer did not form as expected. Cancerous mitochondria were transfered, tumours subsequently formed highlighting that mitochondria play a key role and that DNA is not the cause [3].

Hallmark discredited - Evading apoptosis (programmed cell death)
DNA does indeed control many aspects of the cell, but contrary to Trarcs view it does not control all aspects of the cell, the tunnel vision of the genetic theory which focuses only on nuclear DNA is the major flaw in Trarcs argument and the genetic theory itself, we cannot arrive at a valid conclusion by using only part of the information available.

The genetic theory cites a damaged / mutated p53 gene as being solely responsible for initiating apoptosis and thus a reason why cancer forms as a result, this is intentionally misleading. The genetic theory fails to make us aware of two other mechanisms that instigate cell death within a cell that are separate to that of DNA control, possibly because doing so would expose that DNA is not the cause. Cell death can also be initiated by the immune system using the FADD receptors independentally of DNA. The mitochondria within the cell can also initiate cell death independentally of DNA by releasing 'cytochrome c'. Both of these non-DNA cell death mechanisms come in to action when DNA is itself unable to perform 'programmed cell death' via the p53 gene - this means that even with the p53 gene damaged cell death would still occur via these other two mechanisms - if cancer was caused solely by DNA damage then cancer would never form becuase these other mechanisms prevent that from happening. The problem with DNA being the cause is that it cannot explain the immune system and mitochodrial mechanisms of cell death,the choice to ignore them stands to prove its illegitimacy.

Furthermore the association with DNA being the cause is even weaker when it is realised that approximately only 60% of cancer cells have been found to contain a p53 gene mutation something we would expect to appear in 100% of cancers [5].

Hallmark discredited - Evading the immune system
Hallmark discredited - Angiogenesis (blood vessel growth)
Hallmark discredited - Metastasis (spread of cancer)
The p53 gene mutation that allegedly causes cancer is the most commonly found gene mutation [5]. But this accounts for only 60% of cancers, this tells us that any other gene mutation is less prevalent.
The RAS gene, which deals with cell growth, is the most common oncogene mutation found in human cancers, this is only found in 20 to 25% of all tumours [6]. This provides us with a serious problem when attempting to explain cancer using DNA, why? Well if the above mutations are the most prolific at 60% and 25% respectively then this exposes that
the DNA genes that would cause the Evasion of the immune system, Angiongenesis and Metastasis must be lower than 25%, or at the very least no higher than 50%, and yet these three hallmarks are present in 100% of all cancers. With that said there is no known DNA gene that explains the Evasion of the immune system, Angiongenesis or Metastasis, so the the genes that allegedly cause this are mere speculation at best, simply saying that DNA is the likely cause is not evidence enough and, alarmingly this is the angle modern medicine takes and most of us accept this without question.

Hallmark discredited - Abnormal metabolic pathways (dysfunctional mitochondria)
Note that Trarc refused to use DNA to explain Mitochondrial dysfunction, this is highly significant because mitochondria are dysfunctional in 100% of cancers. Mitochondria deal with many functions including cell growth, cell death and store calcium which is used for building the spindle array of DNA [7], Dysfunctional mitochondria can explain DNA damage [9], Angiogenesis [8] and metastasis [8] as well as 'abnormal metabolic pathways' where DNA can't.

It is very difficult to include all the information I would like within 8,000 words. Critically I will later explain methyl-deficiency, free radicals and Nagalase to further prove DNA is not the cause.

[0]http://www.cancer.org......
[3] http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org...
[4] https://www.youtube.com...
[5] http://genesdev.cshlp.org...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.britannica.com...
[8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[9] http://journal.frontiersin.org...
Trarc

Con

I had misunderstood Curious87's original argument. It seems much of his argument (but perhaps not all) is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how DNA functions in a cell. I'll note I've only cited one source here because these claims should be common knowledge (for many, this is middle school science.) However, if OP also disputes these claims, I will be happy to provide evidence. Now, Curious87 writes:

"DNA does indeed control many aspects of the cell, but contrary to Trarcs view it does not control all aspects of the cell,

This is simply false. DNA controls every part of the cell. It is basic knowledge that DNA is the blueprint for the cell, and every part of the cell is built according to this blueprint. I need to stress this. Every part of the cell is made from the instructions in DNA. This is why all living things have DNA; without it, the cell has no blueprint. [1] Furthermore, all actions the cell performs is dictated by DNA (specifically, the cell carries out these 'orders' with proteins). This is why the nucleus, where the DNA resides, is called the "command center."

Thus, everything the cell does is controlled by DNA, and this is why DNA is the cause of all 8 hallmarks of cancer, and thus it is the cause of cancer. If the cell evolves a mechanism that can evade the immune system, then, since DNA is the blueprint for all parts of the cell, this mechanism must have been created from the DNA. If the cell starts dividing uncontrollably, then it is doing so because the DNA in the cell is giving these instructions. And yes, all of this is also true for mitochondria, which has its own unique DNA, called mDNA. Of course, although DNA controls the cell, it does not control its environment (and indeed, I believe my opponent will claim its these sort of factors that cause cancer). However, the fact remains that the DNA controls the cell.

Moving on, my opponent tried to discredit this claim by writing that genes such as The RAS gene and the p54 gene are not present in all cancer cells. However, he does not mention that human DNA is complex and long, and doctors have only analyzed parts of it. And more importantly, genetic theory states that cancer is caused by mutations in general; it does not state that cancer is caused by any specific set of mutations. According to the genetic theory, cancer is caused by multiple mutations. It is possible that different mutations are able cause a similar effect. In general, we don't know how every part of the gene interacts with the cell, which is why I cannot cite a specific set of mutation for each case of cancer.

But what I can cite is my above argument that DNA is the command center and blueprint for the cell. As a more lighthearted example, I once tried to make a program that would do my math homework for me. Sadly, the program didn't work, and I finished my homework on my own. I didn't know exactly where the problem is, but even though I could note cite the exact place where the code error was, i did know that the error had to be somewhere in the code (DNA).

I hope this would allow me and my opponent to be on the same page. Initially, I thought his argument was that all cancer traits were caused by genetic mutations, but the genetic mutations were all caused by (for example), radiation. In this case DNA is part of the cause chain, but radiation is the "real" cause. Nonetheless, DNA mutations are responsible for 100% of cancers for the same reason non-mutated DNA are responsible for the healthy cells in our body: because they control the cell.

[1]http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Curious78

Pro

To clarify: My argument is that cancer is not a genetic disease as stated by the genetic theory. In other words damage / mutations of nuclear DNA (nDNA) are not responsible for creating the conditions of cancer " cancer being represented by the 8 Hanahan and Weingburg hallmarks that have been accepted as traits that are shared between all cancers.

All Trarc has done in this round is to reiterate the basics of cell biology. The emphasis of Trarc's argument is based on the assumption that I missunderstand the role of DNA and therefore my point must be invalid, thank you Trarc I will explain to my high school biology teacher where she was going wrong. Again no evidence has been provided in support of the genetic theory, instead Trarc simply repeats the narrative provided by the genetic theory itself " that is, nDNA is the blueprint of the cell so it must control all actions of the cell including elements that go wrong, a narrowminded assumption which is wholey incorrect.

I agree that DNA is the blueprint for the cell, this was never in dispute, and that DNA, in general, controls everything, but by this I mean DNA controls micro-organisms, immune cells, cells and mitochondria when they are healthy, but to correct Trarc once again, nDNA does not control all aspects of the cell and is not entirely responsible when disease occurs. Mitochondria has its own DNA (known as 'mtDNA') separate from the control of nDNA (the DNA within the cell nucleus) this is because mitochondria is its own lifeform with a separate genome, for this reason the nDNA of the cell does not control mitochondria " a major influencer of cell functionality. Critically mitochondria control cell death and cell growth [7] among other important features. Futhermore nDNA does not control the actions of immune system cells which can themselves initiate cell death independantly of nDNA.

Trarc implies that any fault or change in a cell is due to nDNA, this is false; toxins or radiation can physically damage functions of the cell even though nDNA has not been damaged, direct physical damage of these functions is not a result of nDNA, so to say the change of functionality of a cell is purely down to nDNA is incorrect. Finally, micro-organisms are able to completely control the cell causing the cell to act abnormally, nDNA does not control the cell in the event of micro-organism invasion. So no, nDNA does not control everything in the cell nor is it solely responsible for everything that goes wrong with a cell. And here enlies the problem with the genetic theory and those who believe in it. The focus of cancer is placed solely on nDNA as if nDNA is the only thing that matters and the cause of everything that can possibly go wrong; this incredibly unscientific approach means that scientists disregard highly relevant factors that are outside of nDNA control, factors such as, physical damage to cell functions, micro-organisms and mitochondrial dysfunction, the latter of which explains cancer far better than the genetic theory. As Payton Rous once said:

"the somatic mutation theory acts like a tranquilizer on those who believe in it"

Trarc states that '...[cancer] is not caused by a specific set of mutations...[just] multiple mutations...'. Incorrect, nDNA is specific, it has specific tasks; multiple mutations may be required but they need to be 'specific' mutations if they are to cause specific conditions such as failure of cell death, angiogenesis, immune systme evasion etc...even if several genes code for cell death, at least one of these would need to be found to be mutated, likewise, if several genes were responsible for angiogenesis, at least on of these would need to be mutated in conjunction with one of several that cause cell death, immune system evasion and so on. To say we don't have the technology is incorrect, we have the ability to map the entire genetic code of a cancer cell, the problem is, when we have, no consistent combination has been found, hence why only 60% of p53 gene mutations were found in cancers tested and 25% of RAS genes. When any particular combination has been re-tested in another lab, cancer never formed, hence why the NCI exposed that 80% of cancer studies are wrong [4]. It is known that the p63 and p73 genes also deal with cell death, this makes the genetic theory even more unlikely because if these genes aren't simultaneously damaged with the p53 gene then they could perform cell death thus preventing cancer. In fact both the p63 and p73 genes are rarely mutated in cancer as exposed in this study [15].

To prove my point, I refer back to the nucleus transfer experiment performed by Professor Thomas Seyfried [9] which showed categorically that no cancers formed in healthy cells when cancerous nDNA was transferred, but cancer did form when cancerous cytoplasm containing cancerous mitochondria was transferred. This succinclty shows that nDNA is not the cause of cancer, rather that mitochondria play a key role.

Mitochondria are far more susceptible to damage than nDNA because nDNA has far superior repair mechanisms. This means that any carcinogen is more likely to cause mitochondrial dysfunction long before causing relevant mutations to nDNA [10] especially as at least 8 separate nDNA mutations are required for cancer to form. Dysfunctional mitochondria are found in all cancers, they control cell death, cell growth, cell metabolism [7]; this dysfunction leads directly to an over production of lactic acid, this directly causes angiogenesis and metastasis [11], angiongenesis occurs naturally when lactic acid is produced in the body especially when we exercise vigorously or when damage occurs and the oxygen supply is lost to the cell. Anearobic glycolysis takes over - a secondary energy system that kicks in when mitochondria are dysfunctional, this process produces lactic acid. Blood vessels naturally grow in the presence of lactic acid as this is the signal to re-supply cells with oxygen, this is why our fitness improves when we exercise.

It is very telling then, that mitochondrial dysfunction, which is found in 100% of cancers, can easily explain at least 4 hallmarks of cancer that the genetic theory can't and is struggling to, yet the mitochondria is ignored on the arrogant and ignorant assumption that nDNA is the cause and only element of the cell that matters. It is far more likely that mitochondrial dysfunction leads to the conditions of cancer, not the DNA in the nucleus that 'doesn't' control it.

NAGALASE " exposing that nDNA is not the cause:
The enzyme nagalase is a universal marker of cancer, the amount of nagalase discovered correlates with the type and progression of cancer [12], it leads to a suppression of the immune system [13], specifically GcMAF (Macrophage activation factor). A mutation in the NAGA gene, which codes for nagalase, is extremely rare and only affects brain cells, furthermore it causes Schindler disease [14]. This exposes that an nDNA mutation in the NAGA gene of the cell is not responsible for the production of nagalase which is found in all cancers and produced in abundance, proving that nDNA is not responsible for everything that occurs in the cell. Critically the only other source of nagalase is from micro-organisms who produce it to suppress the immune system during cell invasion and infection.

Clearly nDNA cannot explain Mitochondrial dysfunction and Nagalase two major factors involved in cancer.

[4] https://www.youtube.com...
[7] http://www.britannica.com...
[9] http://journal.frontiersin.org...
[10] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[11] http://link.springer.com...
[12] http://www.hdri-usa.com...
[13] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[15] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Trarc

Con

First, Curious78 seems to imply that only nDNA is relevant in this debate. The prompt clearly states that the question is whether DNA causes cancer. Both mDNA (AKA mtDNA) and nDNA are DNA, and thus both are relevant.

Curious78 erroneously says, "Note that Trarc refused to use DNA to explain Mitochondrial dysfunction." There is no "refusal." I already explained that all eight hallmarks of cancer are caused by DNA. To be even more explicit, quoting the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation, "Mitochondrial diseases are the result of either inherited or spontaneous mutations in mtDNA or nDNA which lead to altered functions of the proteins or RNA molecules that normally reside in mitochondria." [1] For this reason, genetic theory does explain all of the 8 hallmarks.

This is a major blow to Curious78's argument, which hinges on mitochondrial dysfunction. It also disproves another one of his claims. Genetic theory explains mitochondrial dysfunction using genetic mutations. It seems contradictory that Curious78, even knowing this, writes that "genetic theory doesn't explain mitochondrial dysfunction."

Curious78 also claims: "To say we don't have the technology is incorrect, we have the ability to map the entire genetic code of a cancer cell, the problem is, when we have, no consistent combination has been found, hence why only 60% of p53 gene mutations were found in cancers tested and 25% of RAS genes."

Curious78 is correct that we can map human DNA, but as I said before, doctors have only successfully analyzed parts of our DNA. The difference between mapping and successfully analyzing DNA is the difference between being able to copy Latin and understanding it. DNA is varied and complex, and we simply do not understand DNA well enough to know what how each and every segment of DNA affects cell function.

For this reason, the claim "even if several genes code for cell death, at least one of these would need to be found to be mutated..." seems reasonable, except we do not know what those genes are. The cell's inner workings are intricate, and in general, the more complex a structure is, the more ways there are for things to go wrong. For example, there are many ways for a cell to evade apoptosis. Perhaps the command protein was defective, the cell was unable to recognize that it needed to die, or the apoptosis process was interrupted. This translates to there being many possible genetic mutations that would result in a cell evading apoptosis. And again, we simply do not know what all of those genes are.

Curious78 also, in the above quote, cites that many cancer genes appear at a low rate in cancer. What if a cell only needed any 100 of a pool of 100,000 mutations to turn into cancer? This would explain ever lower percentages than what Curious78 provided, and it means there could be a truly great variety of cancers with different mutations. Unless Curious78 can prove that this is not the case, this thwarts his attempt to disprove genetic theory. Unfortunately for him, the answer is simply that we don't know, since, again, this goes back to our lack of understanding of DNA sequences.

Curios78's section on nagalase proves little, and is based on a misunderstanding. The section of DNA that codes for nagalase gives the blueprint for that protein. Because of this, if there were a mutation in that gene, the result would be a defective protein. In other words, Curious78 is very correct that cancerous cells with high nagalse production would not have this mutation, because if there were such a mutation, it would result in defective or less nagalase, not more.

Curious78 had a section where he attempted to refute my claim that "DNA controls everything in the cell." However, his refutation is based soley on a pedentic technicality: I think it was obvious I did not mean external factors. Of course DNA can't control toxins, viruses, or radiation. However, Curiosity78 does not give any internal examples, which is fatal. It is like arguing "If you are trapped in a room, you can't move your body. This means you don't have full control over your body," which is false. So my question to Curious78 is this: what internal factors doesn't DNA control? Proteins, which are controlled by DNA, command cell functions. Curious78 would have to explain a new mechanism for cell function.

[1] http://www.umdf.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Curious78

Pro

There seems to be some confusion as to what this debate is about. My argument is that DNA is not the cause of cancer as expressed by the genetic theory - I explained this in round 1 before Trarc accepted the challenge, so it was clear I was referring to the genetic theory and nDNA from the outset. The genetic theory specifically states that it is the DNA contained within the cell nucleus (nDNA) which is solely responsible for causing cancer. The debate is and has always been about refuting nDNA as a cause of cancer and the genetic theory as the correct theory to use. The genetic theory does not recognise the DNA of the mitochondria as this opposes the genetic / somatic theory.

Having accepted the debate I can only conclude that Trarc understood that the genetic theory specifically refers to nDNA. I have since exposed that Trarc has been unable to prove that cancer is caused by nDNA mutation - for Trarc or any scientist to do this they would have to show that cancer can be replicated in another lab using the same genetic mutations that appeared in a previous cancer. Needless to say Trarc has not found one example of a replication of cancer via nDNA. Again I must draw your attention to the evidence of the nuclear transfer experiment performed by professor Thomas Seyfried that showed how DNA within the nucleus did not cause cancer to form in healthy cells when it was transferred to them [9] - thus exposing direct evidence that nDNA is not the cause and that the genetic theory is incorrect. In fact I seem to be the only participant who is providing a wealth of evidence, evidence that Trarc is failing to refute with evidence of his/her own, instead Trarc's defence is based purely on subjective opinion that upholds the narrative of the genetic theory.

Trarcs argument is based on an assumption and an excuse. The assumption is that nDNA is responsible for all aspects of the cell, including anything that goes wrong with the cell, clearly micro-organisms, mitocondria and direct physical damage to cell functions (not nDNA) refute this. There is no evidence that any cancer has been replicated with the nDNA expressions found in previous cancers,Trarc is subsequently unable to provide this evidence. Instead, in defence Trarc states that the reason for this failure is because nDNA is far too complex for us to understand at the moment, and has therefore based his justification of supporting the genetic theory purely on faith, that in time, these mutated genes will become apparent, hopefully. This exposes that the genetic theory is based purely on assumption and is very far from being proven.

The genetic theory does not include or refer to the DNA contained within the mitochondria because it unscientifically views nDNA as the sole cause of cancer - this unscientific approach is something I pointed out in round one along with mentioning that mitochondrial dysfunction could be used to disprove the genetic theory. This distinction was even acknowledged by Trarc when he/she admitted to being unable to explain mitochondrial dysfunction using nDNA in round one. This clear distinction is also exposed by the fact that there is a separate theory that deals specifically with the dysfunction of mitochondria and the major role it plays in causing cancer; this theory is called the 'metabolic theory'.

To confirm that the genetic theory was incorrect I exposed that the opposing metabolic theory could explain cancer to a far better degree. I showed that, all by itself, mitochondrial dysfunction explains at least four of the hallmarks of cancer in round three, hallmarks that nDNA cannot explain - thus proving my point that nDNA is not responsible for causing cancer. As Trarc is losing the debate at this point and cannot refute the undeniable evidence I have provided, Trarc has adopted and chosen to shift stance and use the mtDNA found within the mitochondria, as the basis for his/her argument that DNA is the cause of cancer, thereby acknowledging that nDNA and the genetic theory are incorrect as both the metabolic and genetic theory oppose each other in their explanation of cancer. Trarcs argument now rests on the ability of mtDNA to prove that DNA (any DNA) is responsible.

After shifting stance, again Trarc provides no evidence for the reason why mitochondria are dysfunctional, just an opinion based on assumption about the role DNA plays within disease. All Trarc has done again in the last round is to provide us with a biology lesson highlighting that mitochondria have DNA of their own, something that I already exposed in round one. Trarc is now stating that mtDNA is relevant to cancer even though the genetic theory, which Trarc was originally defending, does not see the DNA of the mitochondria as relevant thus providing a conflicting argument. Not one to be happy with winning a debate on a technicality, I will now even expose that the DNA of the mitochondria, that Trarc is clinging to, is not the cause of mitochondrial dysfunction either, thus highlighting with an unplanned example, that DNA does not cause cancer. There is no doubt that dysfunctional mitochondria better explains the hallmarks of cancer but even Professor Thomas Seyfried himself exposes severe contradictions in the metabolic theory, he points out that no consistent mtDNA mutations could be found to cause mitochondrial dysfunction, incredibly he states:

"However, the role of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the origin and progression of cancer is controversial. We were unable to find any pathogenic mtDNA mutations in a broad range of chemically induced and naturally arising mouse brain tumors (Kiebish and Seyfried, 2005). Our studies were comprehensive in that we sequenced the entire mitochondrial genome after first isolating and purifying the mitochondria from the tumor tissue." [9]

It is now clear that mitochondrial dysfunction plays a key role in cancer development, stands to disprove that nDNA within the cell (genetic theory) is the driver of cancer, and it is also clear that mtDNA is not responsible for causing mitochondrial dysfunction; thus exposing that DNA, in general, is not responsible in either the nucleus or the mitochondria for causing the conditions that lead to cancer. Again I refer to Payton Rous's quote from round three: "the somatic mutation theory acts like a tranquilizer on those who believe in it"

Regarding nagalase, Trarc oddly confirms that the NAGA gene is not mutated, supporting my point about it. But his / her argument is misguided, I'm not sure of the point Trarc is attempting to make here. Trarc fails to see that nagalase is still abnormally expressed in cancer cells, hence why it is a recognised marker of cancer [12]. If this abnormal expression is not caused by gene mutation (as it should be for nDNA to be the cause of cancer) then it must be caused by something else other than nDNA, this exposes once again that nDNA is not responsible for another condition directly linked to cancer. The major hint I gave was that micro-organisms create nagalase to suppress the immune system, suggesting that micro-organisms are directly implicated as a cause of cancer because micro-organisms can control cell functions including the suppression of mitochondria. It is very telling that the risk of cancer increases in patients with suppressed immune systems and that cancer in the lab cannot be created without first suppressing the immune system of the subject by using a carcinogen. Micro-organisms are the only factor that benefit from a suppressed immune system. Micro-organisms as a cause of cancer are the elephant in the room that medical science is missing simply because it is married to and focused on nDNA as the cause, and does so to the detriment of other possible causes. Micro-organisms explain the random DNA damage witnessed because the toxins they secrete damage DNA.

[9] http://journal.frontiersin.org...
[12] http://www.hdri-usa.com...
Trarc

Con

Trarc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Curious78

Pro

As Trarc has not responded in the last round I will keep this short and include two final and compelling points that further support my claim. I invite Trarc to conclude and attempt to refute my evidence in the last round, but won't accept new evidence that defends his/her claim as I won't be able to cross examine it. The prior rounds were for presenting such evidence.
Methyl-deficiency causes nDNA damage and mutation, it is a key feature found to be present in all cancers, so too is chromosomal damage, as both of these conditions are found in all cancers and lead to or signify DNA damage, we would expect to see cancer form in people who show both conditions, unfortuantely for Trarc, this is not the case, as the below study shows:
'...children with ICF syndrome, a very rare DNA methylation-deficiency and chromosome breakage syndrome, have not been reported to have cancer.' [16]
Clearly methyl-deficiency and chromosomal damage by themselves do not lead to cancer as we would expect them to, highlighting that DNA damage in the nucleus alone, does not lead to cancer.

Furthermore 'cardiolipin' abnormalities within mitochondria are a consistency in almost all cancers [017]. However, in spite of this same mitochondrial dysfunction being present in children with 'Barth' syndrome, cancer is very rare. In this instance the same dysfunction that is present in cancer does not cause cancer to form in kids with Barth syndrome, suggesting also that mitochondrial dysfunction alone and by itself, and therefore mtDNA, is not the root cause of cancer.

Both these final examples expose that something other than DNA in both the nucleus and mitochondria must be responsible for creating the hallmark conditions of cancer, and thus cancer itself.

Within this debate I have shown categorically that the metabolic theory, which highlights the role of mitochondrial dysfunction in cancer, is a more accurate explanation of cancer than that of the genetic theory which unscientifically views nDNA, the DNA within the nuclues of the cell, as the only cause and relevant aspect of cancer. I have shown that the metabolic theory explains at least four hallmarks of cancer to a far better degree than the genetic theory which tells us that mitochondrial dysfunction plays a key role in the formation of these hallmark conditions.

As a result of the evidence provided regarding the metabolic theory I have been able to show that the nDNA found in the nucleus is not responsible for causing cancer. In fact I have exposed that no evidence currently exists to support the notion that nDNA within the cell nucleus is the cause of cancer, born out by the fact that no cancer has been replicated in another laboratory setting using the same nDNA mutations alone. The genetic theory is therefore a theory based on an incorrect assumption that DNA controls everything within the cell and is the cause of all disease including cancer. Damage to cell functions (not nDNA) via toxins and radiation, nutrient deficiencies, immune system cell death initiation, mitochondrial control of the cell, and micro-organisms expose that nDNA within the cell nucleus is not the only element that controls how a cell acts or interacts with and as a result of its envinment, and is therefore not the only determing cause of disease / cancer, as is incorrectly assumed by mainstream medicine.

Trarc attempted to cling to the idea that DNA is the cause of cancer when it became apparent that I had successfully used the metabolic theory to disprove the genetic theory, by suggesting that mitochondrial dysfunction is caused by the DNA within (mtDNA). I subsequently provided irrefutable evidence that mtDNA too was not the cause of mitochondrial dysfunction in cancer cells, showing that something else must be involved, something, like micro-organisms that can suppress mitochondria and control other elements of the cell whilst damaging DNA with the toxins they produce.

Finally I produced the evidence that Nagalase was a marker of cancer but was not produced by nDNA, and that children with ICF syndrome (methyl-deficiency) and chromosome breakage syndrome (aneuploidy), which is present in all cancers and direclty linked to DNA damage, do not get cancer as a result of this nDNA damage, sealing the fate of this debate in favour of Pro.

Finally I also exposed that children with barth syndrome, who have the same mitochondrial dysfunction found in all cancers, do not themselves develop cancer as a result. Thus showing that mitochondrial dysfunction alone does not lead to cancer.

CONCLUSION:
It is clear that DNA damage in both the nucleus and mitochondria is not responsible for causing the conditions of cancer. Cancer is therefore not hundreds of diseases caused by hundreds of different DNA mutations. Rather, it is a single consistent disease caused possibly by a micro-organism that controls certain aspects of the cell, spedifically the suppression of mitochondria which brings about the majority of the hallmark conditions of cancer, hence why it shows the same consistent hallmarks conditions in every cell cancer is found in. The Random DNA damage witnessed in cancer cells is merely a symptom of micro-organism toxin exposure which perfectly explains its randomness, the unknown time it takes for cancer to spread and the final 'progressor' stage of carcinogenesis that scientists fail to explain. Worryingly most of modern science is attempting to cure the symptoms of cancer and not the root cause, hence why no cure has been forthcoming in 60 years of nDNA manipulation with drugs, and hence why doctors are stating that cancer should be a disease we manage and not cure. I hope that both I and Trarc have provided an informative and thought provoking debate.

Thank you for taking part.

[16] http://www.nature.com...
[17] http://journal.frontiersin.org...
Trarc

Con

Trarc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Curious78 1 year ago
Curious78
No problem Trarc, it can be difficult to have the time to formulate a response on such a complex subject given how busy we are these days. I will carry on with a final post to wrap things up. Was good to debate with you.
Posted by Trarc 1 year ago
Trarc
Hi curious. Just letting you know that I hope to submit my argument in time, but it's possible I won't make it. In that case, please feel free to post further arguments or just "extend," if you choose not to.

Happy debate!
Posted by Curious78 1 year ago
Curious78
Potentially then, just with the below comment, I've shown that DNA is unable to explain four of the eight hallmarks of cancer:
- Evading Apoptosis
- Abnormal Metabolic pathways
- Angiogenesis
- Metastasis

Unless of course Trarc can expose the consistent DNA mutations that would explain these traits.
Posted by Curious78 1 year ago
Curious78
That said, Trarc would need to prove that all eight hallmarks of cancer are caused by genetics in any one particular cancer, as Trarc refuses to comment on mitochondrial dysfunction - a critical factor involved in every cancer, I believe this will be impossible, especially as mitochondria deal with cell death, without explaining this Trarc cannot explain the failure of cell death with DNA.

If DNA mutation is required for genes to become cancerous, as the genetic theory states, Trarc will find it also impossible to explain Angiogenesis and Metastasis using DNA because these are both present in all cancers, a gene for both would need to be found mutated in 100% of cancers, as the p53 gene is the most common mutated gene found in cancer at only 60%, and the RAS gene the most mutated oncogene found in only 25% of cancers - this too is an impossible task.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Ah... well, good luck with that.
Posted by Curious78 1 year ago
Curious78
As I suggest that no cancer is caused by DNA (cancer is not genetic - would have been a better title) Trarc would only have to prove that one cancer is caused by DNA. I don't require him/her to prove them all.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
Based solely on the wording of the resolution, I could see it either way. Based on the context of that change being responsive to my comment, I'd assume that he meant that you have to show that all cancers are caused by DNA. Based on my normal understanding of how burdens work and who they're assigned to, I'd say that he should shoulder the burden... So yeah, I thought I was clearer on it than I actually was.
Posted by Trarc 1 year ago
Trarc
Yes, I will attempt to do that.

Although, I think Pro claims that DNA was not the cause of any cancer, so wouldn't Con just need to show that one type of cancer is caused by genetics?
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
I'll be interested to see what you post, Tarc. I agree that all of the cancers I can think of are the result of DNA changes, but I think Pro has the ability to pick out a single example of something different and win with it. That requires you to shoot down them all, which isn't easy.
Posted by Trarc 1 year ago
Trarc
That's intriguing, whiteflame. AFAIK, there is no doubt within the scientific community that genetic mutations cause cancer. At most there are studies that show environmental influences can increase or decrease mutations, but nonetheless mutations are the determining factor.

I suppose I'll find out when Pro responds.
No votes have been placed for this debate.