It is thought that at least seven distinct classes of molecules participate in the transmission of the mutagenic signal:
- receptors coupled to G proteins
- ionic channels
- receptors with intrinsic activity guanil cyclase
- receptors for many lymphofokines, cytokines and growth factors (interleukine, eritropoietine, etc.)
- receptors for the phosphothyrosine phosphorilase activity
- nuclear receptors belonging to the supergenic family of the receptor for steroidal estrogenic and thyroidal hormones
- Finally, increasing numbers of tests suggest that the adhesion molecules expressed on the surface of the cells communicate with the microenvironment in ways that produce very important consequences for cellular growth and differentiation.
From a very superficial analysis of this presumed oncological picture, however, it seems to be clear how the assertion of all this unstoppable genetic hyperactivity, generated by elements that almost seem to lurk in the realms of the sinister and the monstrous, and that therefore suggest the existence of God-knows-what abysmal mechanisms that can only be deciphered with equally abysmal conceptual mechanisms — all this can do nothing more that unveil the abysmal stupidity that is at the basis of this way of conceiving things.
What is even more serious is the fact that nobody in the present health establishment seems to question the above-mentioned stupidities. All those who work in the field do nothing but repeat the stale litany of reproductive cellular anomalies on a genetic basis.
Since in this state of affairs the present medical theory shows an impoverishment and a superficiality that are indeed abysmal, it is better to look for new horizons and conceptual instruments that are capable of unearthing a real and unique neoplastic aetiology.
After so many years of failure and suffering it is time to rejuvenate minds with new and productive juices. Arguments for mysterious and complex genetic factors, a monstrous reproductive capacity by a pathologic entity capable of tearing apart any tissue, the idea that there is an implicit and ancestral tendency of the human organism to deviate in an auto-destructive sense — these and other similar arguments, spiced with exponentially multiplying numbers of “ifs” and “maybes” — it all has the flavour more of raving free-association than of a healthy scientific discourse.
Once the present oncological perspectives have been refuted, however, it is legitimate to ask how the successes achieved by official medicine and by alternative medicine have to be classified.
To this end, it is useful to remember that contemporary epistemology has demonstrated how the contributions to causality of contextual and co-textual elements of a theory, if they cannot be defined, are therefore chancy, especially in ultra-dimensional space, that is, in the microscopic dimension.
In practical terms, this means that data or positive facts that are considered proof when concerning a basic principle (for example, the above-mentioned cellular reproductive anomalies), and therefore obtained by utilising a limited number of variables next to the complexity of human disease, cannot be trusted, since they work only from the initial hypothetical functions.
Where, in fact, we admit the possibility of improvements or cures, it is not admissible from the logical point of view attribute them to this or that method of cure that is more of less official, since it is not possible to specify and include all or the majority of the components that are at play in the object man, in whom conditions of certainty cannot exist.
Paradoxically, the possible positive effect of each therapeutic system could derive from elements that are not foreseen and are unknown to all. Those elements, however, could be influenced by or determined to some extent by one another.
We may find ourselves in a position in which everybody rightfully has the right to promote his point of view, without knowing the real reasons for his successes.
In this case, then, even the most rigorous experimentation takes on a fictional character rather than the function of a true correspondence with reality, and the end result is a continuous sterile petitio principii.