Posts by HMinney

Cancer - we're looking at the wrong mechanism

I think we're looking in the wrong direction here.

I'm with a charity that focuses on Vitamin B12, so I'll talk about cancer from the B12 point of view, although there are other causes. The mechanism will be much the same.

Vitamin B12 is the primary methylation agent for DNA. Methylated DNA can switch genes off, if DNA is short of methylation then it can't switch genes off. The metaphor I use is that the cell is like a kitchen, and the DNA like a cook book - if the pages blow freely, then every time the cook comes up to the cookbook to check what to make next, it reads a different recipe and makes a different protein. And 99% of genes in the DNA are supposed to be switched off at any one time, because they are all for building new cells. Result, lots of energy used up making random components (the weight loss of cancer sufferers), and lots of growth of new cells (because the materials are there) leading to tumours, active ones.

Add lots of Vitamin B12, and it sticks the pages of the cookbook down so the cookbook functions correctly. Cell stops making random components. Cancer stops. So much so, that cells naturally disappear and the tumour goes too.

So on to the model for the spread of cancer. Well it isn't due to cells migrating from the site of the surgery or from the site of the original tumour - it's simply that the next batch of cells have too low Vitamin B12 to be able to methylate their DNA. Just like draining the swamp (as the water level goes down, you find all the stumps and tangles).

Any evidence? when you give mice with cancer high doses of B12, they stop getting worse and in many cases the tumour actually disappears eventually. Any risk? none (obviously you need to keep an eye out for co-morbidities that need treating, but high B12 has no risk).

So what about the connection with surgery and chemotherapy? The first thing that B12 does (DNA methylation is probably the longest term) is to get rid of toxins from the body, and it does this by escorting them out. Blood full of tobacco? You've probably used up all of your B12 taking the tobacco out. Lead, arsenic, cyanide, organic poisons, etc - all take B12 out. Radicals from surgery? Yup. Chemotherapy? Yup. Less B12 = more cancer.

I know this is a very biassed view, and I expect lots of flames to follow, but have a look at it. It explains the mechanism and it has been shown in experiments, however it is low cost and there's no profit to be made so it's generally opposed.

Alternatives to HS2

HS2 serves London. Unfortunately the politicians all live in, and care for, London. What we really need is the incentive to bring jobs to the North, in which case the housing will follow, and all the vast infrastructure costs of overcrowding in the South East won't be needed. But bringing jobs out of London means changing the habits of a hundred years.

North South rail lines can work. But they can only work if they enjoy a new paradigm - high speed long distance links which are non-stop, and which don't go near major centres of population. You might ask "what's the point?", so here goes. What about linking the major airports? A high speed link Heathrow->Leeds/Bradford->Newcastle->Edinburgh. Every airport has high speed links to its corresponding city centre already. A train with few stops could rival the speed of an internal flight, without the waits at start and finish. Frees up airspace at our airports from domestic flights and internal connecting flights, makes UK into one enormous airspace, instead of all the activity being concentrated around London.

But there are alternatives, and motorways are one of them. With the advent of driverless cars (expect driverless cars to be widespread well before HS2 to Birmingham is finished), getting into your pod and travelling long distance is viable - not only do you start from your own office and end up right at your destination, but you can work, conference, eat, do all the things that you can do on train or plane. Cars are getting much more efficient by the week, and pretty soon it looks as though car commutes will be lower cost per passenger mile than train commutes - that's saying something.

So if you need door to door or short distance, use a car. If you need to travel around UK, including changing flights (airports) on your way through, use a train. If you need to go abroad, use a plane. An integrated transport policy - oh, but too many people want their name on the blue plaque that says "HS2 was built here"

Gaia and great mother earth

Let's look at this completely selfishly

On one hand, I take - I get rich quick but I destroy a few species

On the other hand, I wonder what the chain of causality would be - what will come back and bite me on my backside because of something I did today?

Kill off a few thousand species? Australia is an excellent example. When Europeans first introduced cattle, the outback gradually began to fill up with sh*t. All those cowpats weren't being cleared away, they just plopped around for years on end covering the ground. We had to send 6 species of dung beetle to find which one survived and cleared up the mess. Without the dung beetle, we would literally be in deep Sh*t! This didn't take a generation, it took about 15 years! So I'm not just messing things up for my grandkids, I'm messing things up for me!

So which species' can I afford to lose? Can I tell that I'm not affecting any of the species I can't afford to lose? How would I know?

And the selfish answer should be: hmm, better think about the damage I'm causing. Or the next species to be wiped out might just be humans (the Gaia theory holds that Earth will survive, will adjust to new circumstances. But we might not survive with the Earth, especially if we are the problem)