Some theories about evolution and microbiology were presented in yesterday's discussion of cancer treatment protocols.

I will report here a few things discussed yesterday by an international group of doctors that are developing protocols to treat cancer. Here is a link to the entire videoconference. My thoughts will wander here.

I believe that we can learn a great deal from evolution and nature. For instance, when I first heard of the "endocannabinoid" system in humans, I wondered why man would have receptors all over the body that matched up perfectly to cannabinoids found in cannabis.

My Take on the Endocannabinoid System

I figured it had something to do with evolution - evolution going back so far as to have a common ancestor between plants and animals that used the same compounds. It turned out that I wasn't the only one who believed that. Animals became predators and began consuming what compounds they needed from plants, fungi and other animals instead of producing them directly (for the most part).

So I really like the evolutionary perspective. I think it's fair to say that cannabis played a major role in the evolution of mankind. I still believe cannabis has tremendous potential to cure cancer and other diseases. Raphael Mecholaum, who first reported THC, says "the endocannabinoid system is involved in essentially all human disease."

Ivermectin is much more obscure, being derived from bacteria found in only one location in Japan. It probably hasn’t played a major role in the evolution of mankind, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t developed properties from evolutionary processes that we can take advantage of.

Also note that cannabis was banned by the Federal government in the United States for all use, including medical use and medical research. The public has not yet come to realize that cannabis was completely banned because it drastically lowered disease in the public, not because it was a deadly drug that had no medical use. The public does not yet understand that the entire pharma/government sponsored medical establishment has the goal to increase disease, not cure it. Now the establishment lies about Ivermectin, and doctors are finally taking notice of that one lie. At least they are more prepared to hear the truth now. That’s a silver lining in the cloud.

Getting back to the videoconference, I was pleased to hear Dr. Shankara Chetty begin his presentation with an evolutionary perspective on cancer. He reminded everyone of the "nature" of cancer as we strive to "cure" it. He said the things most everyone has heard before, but cannot be stressed enough, that the diet we consume plays a major role in developing and destroying cancer cells.

Chetty said that as we evolved, we lost our appetite when we became sick. Cancer cells are already damaged and stressed cells. When cells are deprived of nutrition briefly, the more stressed and diseased cells are the first to go. Today, people eat far too much and "feed" their cancers. We should reverse that process. He said that periods of brief fasting (72 hour fasts, skipping breakfast) greatly increased autophagy.

I had been thinking of the role of "Ivermectin" from an evolutionary perspective for sometime prior to this meeting. A doctor made a comment that made me think of the evolutionary perspective again.

Ivermectin is derived from two compounds excreted by Streptomyces avermitilis, a bacteria that was found in soil by Satoshi Ōmura. We have lost many beneficial natural compounds from our diet. In ages past, our ancestors would tend to forage for more roots and not wash them as much. Our foods today are very sanitized. We have probably stopped consuming many beneficial bacteria that are found in nature.

The comment that spurred my thinking on Ivermectin and cancer was from Dr. Mahin Khatami: "My take on IVM for cancer is what if cancer mass cells is filled with viruses and parasites due to mitochondrial dysfunction and impaired oxidative phosphorylation--cancer cells surviving on cytoplasmic that also promote angiogenesis-- PMCID: PMC3980605 DOI: 10.3390/cancers6010297"

She referenced this article she authored in 2014: Chronic Inflammation: Synergistic Interactions of Recruiting Macrophages (TAMs) and Eosinophils (Eos) with Host Mast Cells (MCs) and Tumorigenesis in CALTs. M-CSF, Suitable Biomarker for Cancer Diagnosis!

Recently on Twitter people began saying that "cancer is a parasite."

That didn't make sense to me. But if you say "cancer is a symbiotic relationship between diseased cancer cells and parasites," which seems to be what Khatami is saying, that statement is plausible.

Let's say that Streptomyces avermitilis is a "good" bacteria. It does beneficial things in our body.

Every living thing today is a survivor of ages of biological warfare between species. Not only do some compounds like cannabinoids activate receptors in our body, some compounds kill parasites. In evolution, every living thing has to carve out a piece of real estate for itself. This is most apparent in the soil, a combination of decaying matter and the organisms that feed on it.

You may not want to hear this, but I'll share anyway. I'm conducting a bit of biological warfare in my body right now- against toenail fungus. I don't know exactly what kind of fungus it is and I don't intend to find out, but I know that Lactobacillus Acidophilus kills whatever it is. I've killed it before with Lactobacillus Acidophilus and now I'm killing it again. Links say that the bacteria is a beneficial bacteria commonly found in the intestines and vaginas of humans. I don’t happen to have a vagina, but I don’t guess that’s a problem.

I came upon this bacteria once upon a time when I first got toenail fungus. I began researching natural cures for it. I learned a great deal about the eons of evolutionary warfare between species, and why some of these species and the compounds they create can be beneficial for us. The evolutionary war is very intense in soil. Organisms in the soil break down and feed upon other organisms. They attack each other, and defend themselves against attacks. Did you know that kingdom of fungus was once the largest kingdom, until plants evolved compounds to kill them? Right under the bark is where you find most of the "medicinal" compounds in plants, because they are protecting the plant from attacks by other organisms. Allicin, in garlic, a bulb that grows in soil, is one of the most powerful antibiotic, antimicrobial, antifungus and anticancer compound known to mankind. And if you make something from allicin and put the truth about what it does on the label, the FDA will send you a warning letter.

I once researched the anti-cancer potential of D-limonene, a terpene found in citrus. I ordered a small bottle of the stuff. You know where they get D-limonene from? From orange peels which are discarded in the process of making orange juice. I began putting a few drops of the “essential oil” of the orange peel which contained the D-limonene back into a glass of orange juice each day. It helped the flavor, making it more “orangey.” I thought it was kind of ridiculous that I should have to add the helpful compound of an orange back into orange juice, but that’s the way today’s food industry is. Can you imagine the marketing advantage of a carton of orange juice where they squeeze some of the peels with the rest of the orange and put on the carton “with anti-cancer compound D-limonene,” as opposed to the ones without it? That’s the type of information the FDA has successfully eliminated from public knowledge.

Back to the point, the evolutionary theory of Ivermectin and cancer is that, according to evolutionary theory, Streptomyces avermitilis made compounds that killed various other bacteria and fungi in the soil in order to survive. Again, Ivermectin was from “excretions” of these bacteria. Now, if/when we take these same compounds, they may also kill parasites in our body that are feeding our diseased cancer cells?

Who knows yet. This field of research is still very new and unexplored by the honest people of the world.

Last month, I asked the question "What is the relationship between cancer and viruses?" I postulated that viruses were repair proteins generated by the body, as described by Robert Young.

What is the relationship between cancer and viruses?

I try to stay open-minded and update my theories every time I get new information. I don't think that the theories of Robert Young and Mahin Khatami are necessarily mutually exclusive, however.

When people talk about "viruses" today, what they are talking about is size. Organic compounds small enough to pass through a filter became "viruses," and if not, they became a bacteria.

The first isolation of a virus was achieved in 1892 by Russian bacteria hunter Dimitri Iwanowski, who gathered fluid from diseased tobacco plants. He passed this liquid through a filter fine enough to retain bacteria; yet to Iwanowski’s surprise, the bacteria-free filtrate easily made healthy plants sick. In 1898 a Dutch botanist, Martinus Willem Beijerinck, repeating the experiment, also recognized that there was an invisible cause and named the infectious agent “tobacco mosaic virus.” In the same year as Beijerinck’s report, two German scientists purified a liquid containing filterable viruses that caused foot-and-mouth disease in cattle (viruses were at one time called “filterable viruses,” but eventually the term “filterable” came to apply only to viruses, and was dropped).

I cannot assume that all "viruses" have the same function because they are organic compounds in a given size range. Would anyone say that reptiles, mammals, amphibians, and plants are the same in the same size range are in the same?

It's entirely possible that the body makes small RNA/DNA repair proteins that can be called "viruses" that work to repair cells. There also may be some tiny pathogens that have a symbiotic relationship with diseased cells, and we call them “viruses” also. Sometimes the answer is not A or B, it's A and B.

The good news is that the cancer treatment protocols are working and developing. Manuel Gonzalez gave updates on several case studies in the presentation. He told me afterwards that he was contacted by two doctors from the United States who wished to participate after they viewed the videoconference.

Charles Wright