- What Cancer Is and What Causes It
by Nicholas Gonzalez M.D.
My approach to cancer; what it is, what causes it, and how to treat it is like that of the early 1900’s English scientist John Beard, D.Sc., who developed a ground-breaking theory on cancer over 100 years ago. Conventional medicine believes that cancer develops from mature, healthy cells that go “berserk,” mutate and turn cancerous. Dr. Beard believed that cancer didn’t come from mature cells, but from residual trophoblast cells that remain in all of us, and which are scattered throughout our tissues and organs. Embryonic trophoblast cells are the earliest precursors to the placenta; the scattered trophoblast cells in the mature organism serve as stem cells, regenerating new tissues as replacements are needed. They sit quietly most of the time, but can, at some point, start growing just like the placenta, as the result of a stimulus, such as an infection or inflammation, but unlike the placenta, they grow in the wrong place and at the wrong time. And just as the placenta grows and invades into the uterus, cancer cells grow fast and invade local tissues and organs.
When Dr. Beard’s view that cancer was caused by misplaced trophoblasts (which are the type of cells produced by the placenta) growing in the wrong place at the wrong time was published in a book nearly 100 years ago, in 1911, people thought that he was crazy, even though he was an eminent university professor who was nominated for a Nobel Prize in 1906 for his work in embryology. Indeed, he was a prominent embryologist, but people thought he had gone off the deep end when it came to cancer.
His theory, however, is similar to what molecular biologists are saying today; that cancer cells resemble misplaced trophoblasts (or placental cells) in many ways. They grow fast like placental cells, produce their blood supply in the same manner as placental cells and are invasive like placental cells. Much of their molecular biology is identical to placental cells, and they use the same invasive techniques in the body that placental cells use when they invade the uterus. Additionally, their transcription and other factors are similar, so biologists are now beginning to study Beard’s early tumor model. (Note: Transcription factors are molecules that are involved in controlling gene expression). So Beard may not have been that far off in his thinking, but it’s sad that 100 years of research have been lost in the meantime. If researchers had listened to Beard back in 1911, knowledge of cancer biology today would be more extensive. At my office, we look at cancer as Beard did.
The second component of Beard’s hypothesis was that while the placenta initially grows, develops, proliferates rapidly, invades tissue and develops a blood supply like a cancer, at some point, it changes completely and stops doing all of these things. The mature placenta is a very benign tissue and is a necessary link between the embryo and the mother’s blood supply in mammals. Cancer is different from placental cells in that it never stops growing and invading—and ultimately kills us, whereas placental cells, at a predetermined point, suddenly change completely and stop behaving like a cancer. Beard spent years trying to figure out what the signal was that caused the placental cells to stop acting like invasive cancer cell tissue, and one day realized that that it was when the embryonic pancreas became active. This led him to formulate his thesis that pancreatic enzymes control trophoblastic destiny, and since trophoblasts are like cancer cells, and enzymes control trophoblast activity, pancreatic enzymes are useful for controlling cancer and can therefore be used in cancer therapy. So, these enzymes became the essence of his therapy.
Interestingly, a lot of molecular biologists, such as Max S. Wicha, MD, at the University of Michigan, also believe that cancer doesn’t develop from mature cells gone “berserk” but from stem cells. Stem cells are used to replace cells that are lost through normal turnover, aging, disease and injury, and their role in cancer development is a hot topic in modern research. I think that these cells are what Beard really identified, because he described the misplaced trophoblasts that he found as being microscopic, primitive, undifferentiated cells that are scattered throughout our tissues, which basically also describes stem cells. So, I believe that stem cells were discovered by Dr. Beard in 1902, even though they weren’t officially recognized as such until 1960. So, in summary, Dr. Beard’s misplaced trophoblasts are what we today call stem cells—and these are the source of cancer.
The incidence of cancer has increased dramatically in recent years. I have been in practice for twenty-three years and I have seen things change a lot. When I was in medical school in the early 1980’s, I was taught that cancer was an old person’s disease. When I started out in practice, I didn’t see twenty-year-olds with cancer; now I see them almost routinely. Back then, if I saw young adults with cancer, it was usually because they had twenty years of smoking under their belts. But today, I see young adults with breast, metastatic lung and other types of cancer, and these cancers are far more aggressive than they were ten, twenty or thirty years ago, and I think the reasons are environmental. Just recently, I consulted on a twenty-four-year-old patient with metastatic breast cancer, and a twelve year-old with pancreatic cancer. This is happening because the world is more polluted than it used to be, and each year, it gets worse.
Assuming that Dr. Beard’s theory about cancer is correct, why would these toxins affect the development of cancer in a person? He wrote in his book 100 years ago that any type of inflammation, irritation or toxic exposure could cause these immature trophoblast cells to start dividing. So, whether you believe that cancer is caused by mutations of mature cells or by trophoblasts, there is no question that environmental toxins stimulate cancer growth. And it’s for this reason that younger people are now getting cancer.
There are all kinds of toxins in the environment, both appreciated and unappreciated. Recently, I read that over 75,000 chemicals have been approved for industrial use in the United States. One of my European doctor friends told me that artillery shells are now coated in inactivated uranium. Uranium is among the heaviest of metals and can penetrate walls, tanks, and artillery. It’s also 98% radioactive, so no matter what anyone’s politics are, every time the military utilizes one of these artillery shells, in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever the place may be, they are increasing environmental radiation. Over the past ten years, tens of thousands of artillery shells have been discharged in war, which has added a significant load of unappreciated radiation toxicity into our environment.
So, there are a lot of toxins in the environment that weren’t even there ten years ago. Many of these toxins are mutagenic and carcinogenic, so whether people believe in Beard’s theory or in a more traditional origin of cancer, there’s no question that chemical toxins in the environment are stimulating cancer development in humans. - Nicholas Gonzalez M.D.
MC says
Another aspect to significant environmental changes that has occurred since the 80’s is an increase in vaccines in the vaccine schedule for young people.
M Ferrari says
Agreed!!
Jawad Tawakali says
Thank you for making Dr Gonzalez’s knowledge available to the public. He was a brilliant Doctor/scientist with immense passion for spreading the truth about cancer.