The Perth and Andrew Maniotis: an exchange on cancer

September 2012

Perth Group:

Andrew

You are fully aware of our cancer theory and you always implied that you don’t agree with it, but you never told us why. So can you please read again our papers and tell us what you find unsatisfactory with it.

http://theperthgroup.com/EPE/EPESpecSciTech1981.pdf http://theperthgroup.com/EPE/AMJLetterNov07.pdf
http://theperthgroup.com/EPE/MitoticTheory.pdf

Eleni, Val and John

Maniotis:

When I shepherded your letters through to the American Journal of Pathology...they gave me a heads up before publishing your letter....my only “criticism” of REDOX was that it seems also to be controlled by the extracellular matrix...but you were focused on disulfide bonds and their intracellular effects...which makes sense, but doesn’t explain how the information can be controlled from the outside of cells.

In all truth, states of oxidation/reduction are truly worthy objectives to understand, as vasculogenic mimicry supplies plasma rather than RBC’s to malignant tumors because they can thrive on NO oxygen through glycolytic pathways....(since Warburg)...

Don’t dismiss Mr. Neoplastins (or urea) so quickly....Folkman, and others have found stable molecules (or abundant ones) in urine (of mice and humans) that are capable of reversing some neoplasms of a malignant nature. Who knows why? I don’t.

But those are the data....Burzynski claims approximately a 25% reversal of brain cancer rate in children, which is why the FDA and Federal Government indicted him 5 times, to only find him innocent each of the times.

As a final thought, Eleni, more and more I’ve been promoting hyperbaric O2 for all those “outside of the Standards of Care” patients that find me....with some very encouraging results (for mesothelioma and hepatocellular carcinoma), along with the mechanical stimulation of a Soviet device called “power plate” that enabled the Soviets to stay in space twice as long as the Americans who didn’t pre-train on power plate.

Power plate takes advantage of F=MA, and old familiar equation.  Most athletes maximize M but power plate maximizes A or acceleration.  I’ve had Tommy Morrison on it since they sentenced him to death, and his blood cells have normalized, he’s gaining weight, he spoke yesterday, and the soviets were able to pre-load their bone marrow pregenitor cells and stem cells of the immune system (perhaps in their gut as well?) in their space station cosmonauts (who suffer as do all astronauts in zero gravity, long-term zero gravity negative effects on the human body) so that when up in zero gravity where power plate is worthless because it requires the weight of the patient to effect the upward and downward motion at 60 cycles/second, and also load or gravity is required to regulate their calcium resorption/’production as well as muscle atrophy or tone, vascular tone, and nervous system contributions to “muscle trophic” needs, the Soviets were able to stay in the space station twice as long as non-power-plate pre-trained astronauts. I figured if it is good enough to double the human body’s ability to withstand zero gravity, then it is good enough for Tommy. The effect on T-cell and platelet (megakaryocyte) production in bone marrow, is particularly intriguing....

Immune suppression is less enigmatic than cancers I think?

Cheers,
Andreas

 

Brink:

Dear Andrew

Do you think you could possibly, just for once, answer the question?

And what do Soviet cosmonauts have to do with it?

And whether you prefer Uriah Heep to Vivaldi.

AB

Maniotis:

I believe I answered the question adequately. […] read up on The Extracellular Matrix Control of Breast Cancer Morphogenesis and DNA exposure and sequestration, and also melanoma reversion my friend(s).

The biomechanical benefits of power plate could reverse AIDS Anthony...check out the last sentence of the submitted letter at the end of “author’s rebuttal.” I tried to give Perth a platform to enter the dialogue in the mainstream literature...with that last sentence....because their hypothesis doesn’t explain such things as dormancy in cancer....get it man.

[…]
Cheers,
andy
 

[Maniotis’s email attachments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

The second document is the Perth Group's letter to the American Journal of Physiology, also hyperlinked in the Perth Group's email above.]

Perth Group:

Andrew

You wrote

1. “When I shepherded your letters through to the American Journal of Pathology...”

Thank you Andrew and sorry for putting you through so much trouble, although we still do not know how this happened. The letter was sent directly to the journal and was accepted for publication without any difficulty. Since;

a) you are fully aware of our work and its many claims and predictions;

b) in your experimental work you have proven some of our claims and predictions;

don’t you think it would have been easier for you “to give Perth a platform to enter the dialogue in the mainstream literature” by referring to our work in your publications?

2. “my only “criticism” of REDOX was that it seems also to be controlled by the extracellular matrix...”

a) What controls the ECM?

b) If this is your only criticism why do you not accept and support our cancer theory?

3. “but you were focused on disulfide bonds and their intracellular effects...”

In not one of our papers are we focused on disulfide bonds. The reason is simple. Many decades ago, Szent-Gyorgi taught us that the SS bonds are too strong and because of this it is unlikely that they play a fundamental role in biological function. The terms used by us are redox, oxidation, reduction, charge transfer, hydrogen bonds, chromatin contraction/relaxation (condensation/decondensation). It is you who for some unknown reason avoided all these terms and used terms such as chromantin organisation, DTT, b-mercaptoethanol and disulfide bonds.

4. Our theory “doesn’t explain how the information can be controlled from the outside of cells.”

Why not by the redox? You are aware of Richard Gordon, the Canadian physicist/ engineer’s work. (Is not he the originator of what you call your “Mechanogenomic”? Are we wrong to think that you were collaborating with him? What happened to it?) He writes “There is actually evidence that the membranes in Drosophila are not an absolute impediment to protein transport, so a mechanism of patterning based on diffusion may be operating”. If the membranes are not an absolute impediment to protein transport, what makes you think there would be to charge (electrons)? Gordon also wrote “Zonulae adherens (ZAs)… form a continuous band encircling the apical ends of cells. ZAs are typically closely associated with an apical ring of filamentous actin. In vertebrates, the actin filaments are linked, via vinculin and a-actinin, to transmembrane adhesion proteins (cadherins) located in the functional membrane (Geiger et al., 1981). This connection between the cytoskeletons of one cell and the next provides a mechanism for transmitting forces generated by the contraction of the apical ring of actin filaments across the epithelium (Odell et al., 1981); Owaribe, Kodama & Eguchi, 1981) and is an important mechanism for changing cell and tissue shape during epithelial morphogenesis (for review, see Fristrom, 1988; Schoenwolf & Smith, 1990a). In addition to a mechanical role in morphogenesis, the ZAs and associated cytoskeletal complex may also function in signal transduction between the extracellular matrix and the cytoskeleton… (Tucker et al., 1986; Milner & Muir, 1987)… Crawford (1979) related ‘focal contractions’ caused by apical microfilaments, in cultured pigmented epithelial cells from chick retina, to their redifferentiation and cell shaping. Woods & Bryant (1992, 1993) have formulated a general model for ‘cell signalling in epithelia’, which nicely complements our mechanochemical model for the cell state splitter:”

Please read our papers (both theoretical and experimental) and you will find out what controls the actin filaments as well as “focal contraction”.

5. “In all truth, states of oxidation/reduction are truly worthy objectives to understand, as vasculogenic mimicry supplies plasma rather that RBCs to malignant tumors because they can thrive on NO oxygen through glycolytic pathways….(since Warburg).” What are you talking about Andrew?

6. “I believe I answered the question adequately.” You did not do such a thing.

7. “....because their hypothesis doesn’t explain such things as dormancy in cancer....get it man?” If you have another look at A Mitotic Theory on page 754, you will read “This hypothesis, however, also predicts that relaxing agents, when given in small doses, for a short duration, could activate the dormant cancer cells (cells stuck in G1 due to lack of reducing power) present in advanced cases and especially in the interior of solid tumours.” In table 2 dormant cells are mentioned more than once. In the same paper, evidence is presented that cancer cells are more oxidised than their normal counterparts along all the cell cycle. Nonetheless, to divide they have to pass through all the cell cycle phases including S which cannot happen unless they are reduced. If there is not enough reduction, the cell will not be able to divide ie they would be dormant and would remain in G1=dormant.

8. “more and more I’ve been promoting hyperbaric O2 for all those “outside of the Standards of Care” patients that find me...” We find it difficult to believe that somebody who knows how to revert melanoma will advocate hyperbaric O2 cancer treatment. If you ask somebody like Marko Ruggiero familiar with radiobiology/radiotherapy you will find out that not long ago hyperbaric O2 was used for radiosensitization. Because O2 and radiation act by the same mechanism, oxidation. So what is the difference between radiotherapy and hyperbaric O2 treatment apart from the fact that the former; a) effects directly only a relatively small number of normal cells; b) is given by radiation oncologist and physicist using well established clinical procedures which is not the case for hyperbaric O2 given by those “outside…..the Standard of care?

Eleni, Val and John