The Biggest Problem With Most Cancer Fundraisers!

Scott: What is your thought on, as we shoot this right now, we're about a month away, I believe, from breast cancer awareness month, which, so many people are aware of now.  What are your thoughts on that and all the money that goes into fundraisers like that, to find the cure.  We've been doing that for almost 50 years now and we don't seem to be a whole lot closer.

Dr. Charles Majors: Yeah, and it kind of reminds me of a story of a guy who was driving, was driving from Florida to California.  And he was driving and he was you know, there looking at it.  But instead of going to California, he was actually heading the wrong way.  And as he was driving, he realized I'm going the wrong way.  So he got a faster car, and he started going faster and faster and faster.  And then that wasn't working, got in a plane but he kept... but he was still going the wrong way.  California's over here, he's headed in the wrong direction.  And so, it doesn't matter how much money we put toward something when you're going in the wrong direction.  They're going in the wrong direction.  They're trying to treat the symptom.  They're looking at genetics.  And we have the somatic theory that genes created this.  Do you know how many genes are inside a woman's breast?  Have you actually watched and looked at it?  There are thousands of genes with thousands of different markers on them, that you couldn't possibly get to every single one of those genes.

That the genes always responds to the environment.  The nucleus responds to its environment.  They've done studies where they take the nucleus out of the cancer cell.  The nucleus, so the nucleus, the DNA is what's supposed to be creating the mutation in the cell, creating the cancer cell.  They take that nucleus, put it into a normal, healthy cell.  Right?  Take that nucleus out of there, put the cancer nucleus there.  They leave the same cytoplasm, same environment and guess what?  That cancer cell, right?  That nucleus, should turn that normal cell into a cancer cell, and what does it do?  It doesn't.  And there's so many studies out there proving it.  It's not the nucleus, it's not the DNA.  It's actually the environment around it that allows it.  

They did the same study where they took a normal, healthy nucleus and they put it inside a cancer cell.  So they put a normal nucleus inside a cancer cell.  Well, if it's genetic, this should turn into a normal cell, but the cytoplasm, the environment was the same.  And what do you know, a normal, healthy nucleus still turns into cancer.  

So the whole theory behind the pink campaign is awareness.  What that means is they want you to donate money toward chemotherapy, radiation, surgeries and genetics.  And giving people genetic drugs and finding the causes of it and they think it's all genetic.  The genes respond to their environment.  They're still going after the wrong thing.  So they're going the wrong way.

Scott:  Does that still apply with the BRCA gene that we hear a lot about, is that the same instance or...?

Majors: There's no question.  The BRCA gene for one reason, really isn't considered, it's not really a cancer gene.  What it does is make a woman more susceptible.  Its susceptibility.  So we all have bad genes.  The more bad genes we have the more susceptible we would be.  That means our environment it more likely to turn mine on than yours.  So we know if a woman has BRCA genes, conventional-wise, they're saying you need more mammograms.  But we know that someone with BRCA genes, doing more radiation, their body doesn't allow them to be able to slow down and they end up with cancers more often.  So they're getting the opposite of what they want.  So if you have BRCA, you need to figure out... again, you change the environment.

You know, we look at Angelina Jolie, and I get it, in fear, she's got the BRCA genes, so she says I'm going to cut my breasts off.  You don't get cancer because you have breasts.  And I remember writing an article saying, well what's next, she's going to have to cut out her uterus and her ovaries because, what's the next organs, what's the next?  Right?  And now she's cutting that out.  Why wouldn't we instead, if we know that she has an increase of, she has a chance of a hormone positive cancer, why wouldn't we balance out our hormones?  Why didn't she measure out her hormones every three to six months.  The best testing she could've done is balance her hormones out and then make sure her liver is able to methylate, balance her hormones out and monitor that the rest of her life instead of cutting her breasts off.  Because you can cut the breasts off, cut out the uterus and ovaries, but if your estrogen levels are still high, or your progesterones are off, you still end up with cancer.