Heterogeneity
In our 1992 paper we stated as a central thesis that, �Almost all cancers and other immune problems have associated with them either a heterogeneous substance or a heterogeneous group of cells.�
Consider cigarette smoke. When the tobacco burns, new molecules are created, many of which are apt to be unorthodox. Some may be familiar to organic chemists--but are toxic and not part of the "language" of biochemistry. Some of those known to be toxic may be known to be carcinogenic. But beyond these considerations is another glaringly obvious fact--namely that there's a myriad of DIFFERENT molecular compounds in cigarette smoke.
The fact that there are many different compounds in a heterogeneous mixture, such as smoke, adds to the potential for damage.
That's because the immune system is faced with the need to supply a separate individual response for each of those different compounds. That is, since each compound is different, the demand on the immune system�s ability to analyze antigens and produce appropriate antibodies is increased. The presence of many different rogue molecules--which all have to be dealt with at once--is what I�ve referred to as �heterotoxicity.�
Heterotixicity causes immune system overload. We are confident of this generalization because of numerous examples.
In addition to cigarette smoke, heterotoxic substances include smoke used as a food preservative, other forms of smoke, coal, oil, many products of coal or oil, asbestos, milorganite (a heat-treated sewage product), silicone, sperm, pollen, and substances or cells that have been exposed to radiation. Two other instances of "heterotoxicity" include heterocyclic amines and HIV. (HIV appears to be the most heterogeneous virus ever studied.) The list could be expanded with discussion of individual items just listed but we want to keep this article reasonably brief.
Once again we note the posibility that part of a given unorthodox molecule could possess a configuration similar to an orthodox molecule. That could happen by the hybridization process described above. With substances such as asbestos and silicone, however, the question of orthodoxy versus unorthodoxy, as we have framed it, doesn't apply. Those substances aren't created by biochemical processes. So if asbestos interacts with cells of the lungs it must be because of chance matching of biochemical with nonbiochemical conformations. And in a heterogeneous mixture, the more heterogeneous the mixture, the greater the number of randomly-formed configurations--and thus the greater the chances for a match of randomly-formed and orthodox shapes.
Now, perhaps the normal function of the orthodox configuration is to cause a cell to start dividing--when, let's say, the orthodox molecule attaches to an orthodox complimentary cell receptor molecule. An unorthodox or randomly-formed molecule, one that happened to mimic orthodoxy, might then cause a cell to start dividing under inappropriate circumstances--and thereby cause cancer.
Why does cigarette smoking cause cancer. We suggest that it's because molecules that are randomly-formed by the burning process happen to send inappropriate signals to cells.
Since 1992 we�ve written a good bit on this subject and feel that we�ve developed it fairly well as a concept. We�d like to do experimental work, but that would require either independent funding for us or cooperation with institutions that have suitable laboratory equipment--and so far we haven�t been able to get either.
One reason for doing experimental work would be to try to quantify--to measure the degree of the hazard that might be involved in different situations.
But just on the basis of theory, we�ve been able to make a number of predictions that have proved accurate. In our 1992 paper we stated that there might be a connection between the use of birth control pills and cervical cancer. (Sperm is highly heterogeneous because of meiosis.)
We thought then that we were alone in taking that position at that time, but we now note that the American Cancer Society has taken the same position.
You may click this line to view their page.
For several years we�ve been opposed to irradiation of food: we thought the irradiation would produce unorthodox heterogeneous compounds. Then it was reported that people handling irradiated mail were complaining of health problems. So we weren�t surprised.
Click for conclusion of article, including a suggestion as to how the government might solve the irradiated mail problem.