Dr Pierre Kory Explains Why He Believes The Scientific Basis For The Somatic Mutation Theory Of Cancer Is Invalid
Mon 3:13 pm +01:00, 26 Aug 2024 In this post, I plan to, as succinctly and simply as possible, introduce the two competing theories regarding the origin of cancer and then go through the evidence for the current “consensus” theory which is called the Somatic Mutation Theory or SMT. The competing theory, called the Metabolic Theory of Cancer (MTOC) will be further detailed and explained in my next post in this series. First, let’s define cancer. From the seminal paper “Hallmarks of Cancer” by Weinberg and Hanahan, a cell is defined as “cancerous” when they exhibit these 8 characteristics;
In layman’s speak – cancer is the uncontrolled growth of a cell – ever dividing and not dying off naturally nor allowing itself to be cleared by the immune system. Plus, it allows itself to spread and then multiply in areas of the body distant from its origin (a characteristic for which no mutation has ever been found to explain this property but forgive me for I am getting ahead of myself). Now, one of the main points of this post is that characteristic #8, that of having undergone a “reprogramming of energy metabolism” (the central pillar supporting the MTOC) was only added to the list above after one of the top SMT cancer researchers in the world was “admonished” to do so by one of the top researchers of the MTOC. Although it was added only 10 years ago, Warburg discovered this unique property of a cancer cell back in 1927. Now, to understand the core difference between the two theories you will need a simple understanding of cell biology, i.e. the basic structure and function of a cell. So, as simply as possible, know these two things about cells: THE NUCLEUS (Central to the Somatic Mutation Theory) What you need to know about the nucleus is:
THE MITOCHONDRIA (Central to the Metabolic Theory) All you need to know about the mitochondria is:
THE HISTORY OF THE SOMATIC MUTATION THEORY (SMT) These were the pivotal discoveries which led to the creation of the SMT as the prevailing theory of cancer over the last 70 years:
As Christofferson wrote in his book Tripping Over The Truth: How The Metabloic Theory Of Cancer Is Overturning One Of Medicine’s Most Entrenched Paradigms
The SMT was further developed by the work of Bert Vogelstein in 1989 when he found that one gene, the p53 gene, was not an oncogene but rather that it was a “tumor suppressor” gene which was very commonly mutated in cancer – a p53 mutation is found in over 50% of cancers. Vogelstein was the first to propose that cancers “progress” via successive mutations, and that each stage was marked by the development of a specific mutation. He argued that cancer was an “orderly disease” with discreet stages in developing all the characteristics above of a cancer cell. His work deepened the belief from the 90’s to today that cancer is a genetic disease, with the last few decades marked by an obsessive search for “mutations” in DNA that cause cancer. This consensus belief still continues to guide research in therapeutics by trying to find drugs that counteract the consequences of each mutation. The SMT Starts To Run Into Trouble
Technology for sequencing DNA was developed in the 1970’s and 80’s, and in 1990, the HGP was launched. It attempted to sequence the entire human genome of 3 billion base pairs. The project succeeded in doing so over the next 15 years, initially described as “the “biggest, costliest, most provocative biomedical research project in history.” It cost $3 Billion. Not so fun fact – James Watson, one of the discoverers of DNA, was originally the director of the project but he disagreed with the plan to make human genes patentable. So he was forced out and replaced by.. oh boy.. Francis Collins (head of NIH during Covid, i.e. Fauci’s supposed boss). From Tripping Over The Truth (TOTT) by Travis Christofferson:
In 2005, the TGCA project began, headed by Bert Vogelstein, the famous researcher above who discovered the p53 mutation and who proposed that cancer progressed through an orderly series of successive mutations. His theory ran into problems within one year of the project. Initially, they did a systematic screening of eleven patients with breast cancer and eleven with colon cancer. More than 18,000 genes were sequenced. What the TGCA found was (again from TOTT:
The import of the above is that it essentially contradicts the theoretical “pillars” of the SMT, in particular the supposition that cancer cells are “clonal”, i.e. that each daughter cell is a copy of its parent. That is clearly not always the case, nor even close. In response to all these data, Vogelstein, who was essentially the top cancer researcher and chief proponent of the SMT, tried to “tweak” the SMT to fit these data by arguing that cancer was instead simply cellular dysfunction caused by different mutations and then he came up with 12 distinct biological systems to explain the ways in which cancer cells are dysfunctional. This is not a good look in science when your theory needs to be patched up in such a complex way for it to still seem logical. Recall Occam’s Truth which largely translates to “the simplest answer is the most true” (and wait for my next post on the MTOC). He then tried to ascribe the known mutations to one of the 12 systems (with difficulty as some of the mutations caused things that were not directly related). As Christofferson argues, “some thought it an ad hoc modification necessary to make a failed theory fit the data.” But more sequencing would follow, for instance when they focused on Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM):
From TOTT:
In response, Vogelstein then invented the concept of “dark matter” to explain the holes in SMT – finding that cancer was just too complex, like the galaxies and stars. Dark matter? After this, he apparently gave up on studying the causes of cancer and instead switched his career research focus from genetics to diagnostic methods. The SMT ran into even more trouble (if that is possible) in 2010, when a researcher named Larry Loeb at the University of Washington attempted to summarize what had been learned about cancer at the time in a review paper. As Christofferson described it, “he addressed the elephant in the room.” Loeb basically argued that in our cell’s nucleus there are so many DNA repair mechanisms that spontaneous mutations are actually quite rare but cancer is not! He said “if cancer requires as many as 12 different mutations, and spontaneous mutation rates are really low – cancer should be very rare.” Ultimately, the SMT is invalid based on the lack of “founding mutations” that would need to be present in every cancer cell. However, there is still a way to “save” the SMT, i.e. make it make sense. But to do that, it would have to be married or “fit in” to another theory that makes more foundational sense. That is where the MTOC comes in. Check out Part 3 (coming soon) where I will explain how the two theories fit together in a way that elegantly explains how cancer arises and progresses. I just want to say thanks to all my subscribers, especially the paid ones! Your support is greatly appreciated as it allows me to devote what is often large amount of time I spend researching and writing my posts, so again, thanks. – Pierre P.S. For anyone in need of treatment for cancer (note we one of the treatment sites for the repurposed drug trial described here) or for Long Covid, Long Vax, Hormone Rebalancing, Weight Loss or General Medical Care, feel free to visit the Leading Edge Tele-Health Clinic. Looking at the photo below, I just realized our staff is a lot bigger now – we just added our 20th employee! P.P.S – Proud to report that my book has gained Best Seller status on Amazon in several countries and is still up there on U.S Amazon rankings. *If any of you have read it, I would love if you could post an honest review!
I just want to say that writing this Substack is only one of my jobs, and I put a lot of work into it (at the cost of sleep and personal time). I believe in an ethos of paying people for their work but I do not require payment as I almost never place any content behind a paywall. If you love this Substack, get value out of it, and believe in paying people for their work, consider a paid subscription. Thanks, Pierre |