20,00 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Driediger Verlag
- Kategorie: Ratgeber
- Sprache: Englisch
Cancer research is at a standstill. Contemporary scientists are taking non-proactive approaches, leaning on chemotherapy and radiation for standard of care. The incurability of this disease seems to have become tacitly accepted dogma, and the quest for a definitive cure is gradually being abandoned. Research appears to be focused solely on finding drugs that will alleviate the symptoms. Russian chemist and author Tamara Lebedewa is offering an alternative theory, one that has been disregarded by Establishment science. But when sorting through the landfill of hastily and ruthlessly dismissed scientific ideas, Ms. Lebedewa's theory is one that actually looks plausible. Doctors presume that cancer cells originate from the body itself and that cancer risk cannot be completely eliminated. But her experiments confirm the opposite: the cancer pathogen is a parasite. More specifically, the aggressive trichomonad, a parasitic, widespread single-celled organism that disguises itself as the body's own cell. Now, if cancer is indeed caused by parasites, then it can be treated preventively! Lebedewa is fighting science with science! The mountains of researched information and empirical evidence part to reveal an insightful work that resurrects the debate, restores credibility to stalled research, and subverts the authority of orthodox medicine. But what Ms. Lebedewa really wants most of all is to help. Based on her findings, she has developed a therapy regime which will reduce the risk of cancer, support healing, and above all, combat the fear of this threatening disease.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 344
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024
Ähnliche
Tamara Lebedewa
The Origins of CancerA Russian Researcher’s Astonishing Discoveries
The primary objective of this book is to suggest a new theory of how cancer develops, and offer evidence for it. The author describes some causes of cancer, supporting her statements with experimental findings. It will be left to the alternative medicine practitioners, doctors and researchers to design integrative therapy. The authors are not prescribing any treatment, nor do they recommend any treatment be undertaken without medical advice. If the information in the book is used for treatment without consulting a doctor, this falls under the rubric of self-treatment, to which everyone has a right. However, the publisher and author shall assume no responsibility.
Tamara Lebedewa (Таmara Yakovlevna Svishcheva)
The Origins of Cancer
[German title:] Krebserreger entdeckt!
Title of the original Russian edition: Вы cможете победить рак [You Can Beat Cancer]. From the Russian by Elvira Driediger© Driediger, 2024Translated into American by Elizabeth GriffinEditing: Heather McCrae
“The publisher reserves all rights, including those of reprinting, reproduction in any form and translation. It is not permitted to reproduce and distribute the book or parts of it without the publisher’s written consent”.
Foreword
Prof. [Dr. of Med.] Charles McWilliams
While in medical school in the 70s, I was taught many falsehoods like: blood is sterile; microorganisms can be (conveniently) categorized into monomorphic genera which in turn dictates their genetics and identification; the mammalian cell is bound by a double lipid layer, and its watery sac suspended by an endoplasmic reticulum; and that cancer is the result of endogenous cells gone genetically awry. In today’s world, however, myths are being dispelled faster than profound discoveries are arising in the field of medicine.
I have been examining blood, both live and stained, in patients for more than twenty years. I purchase microscopes like most people shop for new automobiles. Live blood mounts, dried blood mounts and smears are equally useful, as the interpretation lies in the eyes of the beholder. At the outset, I tell medical students that peering down the tube of the microscope is the same as looking up to the stars in the telescope because the beauty, order, disorder, and prognosis lie in the eyes of the beholder.
I have had the esteemed pleasure of corresponding with Ms. Tamara Lebedewa and, more recently, during a ninety-minute zoom interview. She graciously addressed some questions about her works in which we take an avid interest. Ms. Lebedewa’s books have taught me to look deeper and deeper, and lo and behold, live protozoa and pleomorphic forms appear and cannot be discounted as “artifacts” or, as we called them – UFO’s (unidentified floating objects).
Ms. Lebedewa’s observations, research, and disclosures are equally as profound and thought-provoking as those of Gunther Enderlein, Gaston Naessens, Alfons Weber, and of late, Ana Mihalcea, and others. What is important to understand is the great diversity of parasitic infections, and further understanding that the microparasites of the protista kingdom are the most elusive and difficult to treat. The protozoa, in terms of biologic evolution, are single cell eukaryotes that can exist in full stages, with flagella, or go stealth as cystoids or even amoeboid life forms as Ms. Lebedewa points out. Their parasitic capabilities are extensive, adaptive, stealthy, etc. and is why effective vaccines have never been developed. Malaria has been extensively studied as a devastating, ancient protozoal disease and has required a vast number of compounds both natural and synthetic for its treatment and eradication. However, it is the trichomonad species of anaerobic, excavate parasites of vertebrates that Ms. Lebedewa brings to our drastically needed attention. Trichomonads are found throughout the animal kingdom and, of course, humans. Infected humans are carriers of trichomonads and remain mostly asymptomatic until malignancy strikes.
Trichomoniasis is associated with an increased risk of cervical or prostate cancer, yet more than 70% of those previously infected have no symptoms. Among the acknowledged parasitic trichomonads, several species inhabit the oral, digestive, and urogenital tracts of invertebrate and vertebrate hosts, including livestock, pets, and humans. What was not generally recognized is what Ms. Lebedewa has brought to light, the grossly underestimated pervasiveness of this both overt (in the infectious stage) and stealth (pleomorphic) stages of this microorganism. It is truly an endogenous infection, causing disease arising from infectious agents and microflora already present in the body but previously unrecognized and asymptomatic in a wide range of chronic illnesses. By addressing protozoal infections, and in particular trichomonads, easily evidenced by a single drop of blood under a standard microscope, a host of difficult illnesses are ameliorated, cured, or put in remission. This book, to a practicing physician, is more than an interesting read, it should be taken to heart and mind, and I urge all thinking doctors to read this book.
The history of these parasites has, until Ms. Lebedewa, been languishing in the background, discounted by the vast majority of medical adherents. The article1 that I published in 2023 covers this history. A brief summary is given here for clarification and in support of Ms. Lebedewa’s discoveries:
In this article, I delved briefly into the history of parasites and how observations were initially misconceived because cell samples were usually examined when dead and stained. Greater accuracy was achieved during the 20th Century beginning with Sir Butlin’s Bradshaw Lecture of November 1905, which took the novel viewpoint that “the carcinoma cell is an independent organism like many a protozoon; that it lives a life which is wholly independent and proper to itself; and that it lives as a parasite…”.
Even though most scientists believed that cancer was caused by DNA degeneration and malignant changes in human cells, Henry Butlin was on the right path; in 1912, he again stated: “Implant the normal cell, and you cannot make it live. Implant the cancer cell, and you cannot kill it…”
The medical establishment also ignored Weber in 1962 when he recorded “that in every tumor tissue there are microparasites” and that these fissioned, grew and burst cells to then multiply wildly, i.e. acted like parasites within the body.
Bert Vogelstein at Johns Hopkins University, who was ranked as the most highly cited scientist in the world during the previous twenty years, helped to shape and then ultimately destroy the image of cancer as a genetic disease. In 2006, as the massive sequencing machines sprang to life, constructing cancer genes bold new atlas, Vogelstein became the voice of the colossal project. Vogelstein wanted to demonstrate that cancer was a step-by-step process driven by a progressive series of endogenous genetic mutations nicely graphed out by Papanikolaou. As the data from TCGA poured in, researchers worldwide expected to see “Vogelstein-like” models for each form of cancer, a tidy sequence of mutations, a distinctive signature defining the transformation of a human cell from a normal cell to a killing cell. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA, 2006), supervised by the National Cancer Institute, was a project initiated to catalogue the genetic mutations responsible for cancer using genome sequencing and bioinformatics, with which Vogelstein hoped to demonstrate that cancer was a step-by-step process driven by a progressive series of endogenous genetic mutations.
In late 2006, Vogelstein’s independent lab published their initial results. As the data from TCGA were analyzed, researchers quickly realized that a tidy series of mutations simply wasn’t there, even though Vogelstein’s model suggested that it should be and hypothesized what they should see. More alarming, the data failed to reveal any sort of consistent genetic pattern at all. It contained a degree of randomness that caught everyone by surprise, causing sixty-plus years of endogenous speculation, tedious research and billions of dollars to go up in speculative smoke. Cancer was always characterized by its complexity, but researchers thought that at the fundamental level of mutations, that the genomic cause of chaos would turn to clarity and understanding would prevail and lead to cures. Decades of work had led to this moment, all of it collapsing on the dogmatic beliefs that cancer was a genetic disease. Just as it appeared that the tide was turning in the researchers’ favor and they would know cancer in its entirety – one year into the largest government project ever to elucidate the nature of the disease—cancer collapsed their microscopic dreams. It took what they thought they knew about the genetics of cancer and scattered it into the ether like a bad dream. Back to day one, time to critique Virchowian cell biology, and maybe what the humoral and alternative doctors had been saying for decades, that some who sacrificed their reputations if not their lives, had had elements of truth and common sense.
Peter Duesberg, Professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California in Berkeley showed cancers in a new light in 2011: he declared that cancers are parasitic organisms which represent a newly evolved parasitic species. This reflected Butlin’s view back in 1912 that “the cancer cell has become an independent creature, a new creation of a living thing.”
And in the meantime, a female Russian chemist, Ms. Tamara Lebedewa, was observing the deaths of family due to cancer and thinking about the causes. Lebedewa became convinced that so-called cancer cells are actually unicellular parasites, of the protozoal family Trichomonas. She stated: “The flagellates have exactly the properties of so-called “cancer cells” and will eventually be identified as such by every oncologist.” Lebedewa, like Weber, found out that certain triggers let the microparasites proliferate. These included poisons, drugs, radiation, and a suppressed (lowered) immune system. Her book “Cancer pathogen unmasked”, first published in German in 1996, discussed the causes, triggers and treatment of these cancer parasites.
We are grateful to Ms. Lebedewa for her research, time and her insights. Following in the footsteps of Sir Butlin, Weber, Duesberg and other like-minded researchers, we will continue to drive the research to uncover parasitic mysteries and save people’s lives.
Prof. [Dr. of Med.] Charles McWilliams
Sacred Medical Order Knights Hospitaller (smoch.org)
PanAmerican University of Natural Medicine
Nevis, West Indies
April, 2024
1 UNICELLULA CANCRI: Sir Butlin’s Parasite of Cancer – A Once Lost Perspective, Regained and Confirmed, by Prof. Charles McWilliams, ©2023
Introduction
Russia is a nation that is truly invested in finding a solution to the cancer scourge. After the Chernobyl incident, the consequences of which were played down within the country, large segments of the population became afflicted by numerous diseases, in which cancer played a leading role. Russians currently have an average life expectancy of 65 years. Against the backdrop of an enduring economic crisis, the quality of medical care in what was once a global powerhouse has plummeted.
All these elements combined have led to an intolerable state of misery in the nation. Research organizations are suffering from lack of funding caused by the current financial crisis, leading to brain drain as hordes of scientists flee the country. Research institutes that once boasted a world-renowned reputation are losing their luster.
However, it is no coincidence that Russia is still where the most rigorous investigation into the mysteries of cancer is being carried out. It’s a law of nature: urgent problems demand urgent solutions.
The prophet has no honor in his own country – Tamara Lebedewa, the author of this book, who has mapped out a possible cause of cancer, can truly identify with this statement. For over ten years, her discovery has fallen on deaf ears in her own homeland. “The funds for cancer research were allocated a long time ago, and no one is willing to give up even a fraction of it to someone else,” she says. “My discovery, after all, could lead to many of these researchers becoming unemployed.” This is also the reason why every attempt to bring the new results to the public’s notice failed. “All correspondence and requests addressed to the Ministry of Health or other health organizations are simply shunted over to the National Oncology Center in Moscow, which never fails to respond dishearteningly that the findings do not merit further investigation.
But Lebedewa is not one to give up. She wrote a book summarizing her discoveries and is hoping that mounting pressure “from below,” that is, from those who are affected, will compel her country’s decision-makers to verify the new findings and then make them available to cancer patients.
In essence, the author is experiencing the same thing as many academics who made groundbreaking discoveries in the past. Advocates of fresh ideas are frequently branded as crazy or even charlatans, removed from their positions, or committed to mental institutions if public opinion is not yet ready for them. It was not too long ago that people were burned at the stake for no other reason than that they did not wish to change their newly-gained insights simply to conform to the dominant orthodoxy.
Anyone who studies the history of medicine will know that many important discoveries were not recognized at the time they were announced, but rather only properly acknowledged and put into practice many years, sometimes decades, and even centuries, after they were initially published. There are plenty of examples of this.
Example No. 1:
As early as the Middle Ages, Girolamo Fracastoro asserted that diseases could be caused by tiny animals that were invisible to humans. The proof of this would have to wait until the 19th century, though. This topic was covered by Erwin H. Ackerknecht in his “History of Medicine”: The idea that epidemic diseases were transmitted through contagion and caused by microorganisms, “seeds” or tiny animals, had actually taken hold by the mid-19th century. This was nothing new for that era. The theory had already been proposed by Fracastoro in the 16th century. It was put forward and championed by Kircher in the 17th century, and by Lancisi and Linnaeus in the 18th century. Despite the theory being at the nadir of its respectability, Jacob Henle advocated for it again in 1840; as a result, his contemporaries considered him not as a trailblazer, but rather a gallant defender of an outmoded idea.
Example No. 2:
The use of ether anesthesia in surgical procedures had three promoters: Horace Wells, William Thomas Morton and Charles T. Jackson. But they became embroiled in a nasty battle over priority rights. All three died tragically, Wells by suicide, Jackson as a mental patient, and Morton in poverty.
Example No. 3:
It was not until the 18th century that the West began to adopt a smallpox prevention strategy that the East had already been using for many centuries: vaccination with real live smallpox.
Example No. 4:
Robert Koch identified the pathogen that causes tuberculosis. Experts at the time disagreed with his teachings, among them the renowned Virchow.
The most dramatic example was Ignaz Semmelweis. In 1847, he carried out an empirical investigation discovering that cleansing might prevent traumatic fever. He ordered all medical staff, including students, to wash their hands with chlorinated lime solution before examining or treating any patients. As a consequence, the mortality rate in his department at Vienna General Hospital was drastically reduced in just two years.
But practical success is not always enough to convince the medical establishment. A well-known gynecologist said mockingly at the time, “I prefer to attribute puerperal fever to providence, of which I can form a conception, rather than to a contagion of which I cannot form any clear idea.” Semmelweis, like many other geniuses born before his time, never received rightful recognition, went mad out of despair, and died a painful death in a lunatic asylum. (You can read about this in the book “Cultural History of Medicine”, by René Fülöp-Miller.)
The concept of a parasitic cause for cancer is not new in and of itself. Numerous scientists had already suggested it over a century ago. Unfortunately, however, none of them were able to describe the exact mechanism by which the cancer develops or identify the parasite responsible.
Even though Russia is particularly hard hit, the cancer epidemic affects the entire world. The statistics [in 1996] on this are sobering: around 350,000 people developed malignant tumors or systemic diseases every year in Germany alone. Every year, around 220,000 people died from cancer in Germany. Patients receive far superior medical care there than they would in Russia. But even so, people still consider a “cancer” diagnosis to be a death sentence. Because, as everyone is aware, people still treat their cancer status like a dirty secret. Anyone who is actually cured of cancer is considered to have been “resurrected from death.”
In an effort to aid other cancer patients, these survivors pen books and offer advice. In oncology terms, however, a patient is deemed cured if they are still alive five years after treatment. Speaking with people who are directly affected, though, you’ll frequently hear that people would not see them as complete individuals if they disclosed that they had cancer. Society’s reactions to the diagnosis range from pity to spontaneous distancing to disgust.
After this unsparing description, I have one question: if someone walked in right now and said that they know how cancer develops and how it might one day be cured, aren’t they worthy of our full attention? To put it another way, if someone tells people dying of thirst in the desert that they know where water in the ground is located, shouldn’t everyone start pitching in and dig?
Or are you of the opinion that it is better to remain skeptical and languish of dehydration, since this theorist could also be wrong, and it is better not to raise false hopes and waste our efforts? How much would it cost for humanity to examine Lebedewa’s claims, in a manner that is unbiased, neutral, and without reservations? It will take money, maybe six or seven figures, and a few months’ worth of time. But these inputs seem disproportionately small considering the huge potential benefits. Why not just do it? These are the arguments that motivated me to print Lebedewa’s book in my publishing house.
The book is divided into six chapters. In Chapter 1, the author outlines her theory of how cancer develops. She describes the results of her experiments in great detail, supported by drawings and photos. These descriptions require a lot of patience and concentration for laypeople, so I did consider leaving them out and just giving a brief summary. Ultimately, however, I decided to publish it in whole. This book presented Lebedewa’s theory outside of Russia for the first time in 2001. If the specifics of her experiments were to be omitted, the entire concept would be much more difficult to comprehend and would possibly therefore not be given the respect it deserves.
Chapter 2 contains a Russian journalist’s summary of the concept. This summary is useful for getting an overview of the theory without immediately diving into all the evidence.
Following the public release of her groundbreaking hypothesis, Lebedewa was the object of both praise and condemnation. She faced numerous attacks, leading her to ask herself: why should I be the one to discover this novel theory of cancer development and feel obliged to defend it to the public? In Chapter 3, she explores this question and explains her motivation for unraveling the enigma of cancer. “Cancer has been killing my family members off for generations now. I reasoned that it would soon catch up to my son and myself as well… if nothing ever changes.”
After the author completed her investigations and found proof of a parasitic origin for cancer, she started wondering whether the identified parasite might also be responsible for other diseases. In Chapter 4, she explores how this parasite might cause heart disease.
Following the publications and TV appearances, Lebedewa was contacted by a number of physicians who work closely with cancer patients. Some of these supported their patients in their desire to experiment, while others reported on their experiences or developed new treatment methods based on the theory. This is what we discuss in Chapter 5, where we also examine reactions by the Russian press and oncologists to Tamara Lebedewa’s discovery.
Finally, in Chapter 6, the author offers fresh approaches to treating the “disease of the century”. These were developed by Lebedewa in cooperation with practicing physicians. She hopes that the publication of her book in the West will make further research possible, because her discovery is just the beginning, and the sooner we start developing new methods of treating and preventing cancer, the sooner those affected can be helped.
Elvira Driediger, August 2021
Chapter 1: Demons of the microworld
A growth from the Mesozoic era
At the threshold of life
Nature was very sensible in creating the inhabitants of our Earth. The theory of the origin of life and its evolution are based on well-known tenets, the most important of which are:
There were multiple stages in the emergence of life on Earth. Microorganisms are classified into two groups, just like macroorganisms:
Plants, which comprise bacteria, algae, and fungi;
Animals, which are further divided into four classes:
Rhizopoda (root-footed animals), Ciliata (those with cilia), Sporozoa (spore animals, exclusively parasites, a group that includes the brain parasite Toxoplasma), and Flagellata (flagella, a locomotive organ of many unicellular organisms that combine traits of both plants and animals, examples of this group being Euglena and Trichomonad). Let’s not forget this last-mentioned representative of the Protozoans, because we have it to thank for the publication of this book.
But one thing at a time. Life is the mode of existence of protein bodies, this mode being essentially a perpetual self-renewal of their chemical components. When life first began, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere. Back then, our planet was enveloped in carbon dioxide and water vapor, and oxygen existed only in small amounts as part of chemical compounds. This picture of lifelessness was not in any way improved by the presence of strong radiation and dust from volcanic eruptions. “Organic” compounds formed inorganically (abiogenically) because there was no oxygen and no ozone layer to block the sun’s intense ultraviolet rays.
As far as we know, there have been three stages in the development of living things: the formation of abiogenic compounds, polymerization, that is, the formation of large molecules from smaller ones and biogenesis. Toupance pointed out that, in the absence of oxygen, the energy needed for the inorganic synthesis of small “organic” molecules is several orders of magnitude less than when oxygen is present. The inorganic synthesis of “organic” molecules took place under the influence of the sun’s UV rays, but the complex molecules thus created needed protection from the radiation. So, the sun’s rays, despite having created the “building blocks” for the molecules of life, were paradoxically hostile to life.
Microbes are pioneer organisms. They were the first to establish themselves in the environment and generate the conditions necessary for the existence of other life forms. Even today, they make up three-quarters of the biomass of all living things. Another noteworthy characteristic of microbes is how enormously diverse their metabolic processes are in contrast with the startling monotony of these processes in humans and animals. More advanced organisms have discarded many potential metabolic processes and adopted a comparatively narrow range of reactions, to their maximum benefit. However, microorganisms use a variety of ways to transfer energy, so it is more difficult to distinguish between their aerobic and anaerobic exchange, autotrophic (characteristic of plants) and heterotrophic (characteristic of animals) nutrition modes, than it is for more highly developed organisms.
Microorganisms are divided into two groups, depending on the energy and nutrients they utilize for metabolism: phototrophs (those using radiant energy for photosynthesis), and chemotrophs (those using energy from oxidation reactions). Both groups are further subdivided by the sources they put into service to get that energy: lithotrophs use inorganic electron sources, while organotrophs use organic energy sources. Prehistoric life was apparently chemoorganotrophic and chemolithotrophic – “organic” molecules formed from inorganic photosynthesis were used as electron donors. And because life sought refuge from direct sunlight under those primal oxygen-free atmospheric conditions, at the dawn of its development it had very limited options in terms of its environment. Life could preserve itself under the shield of a deep layer of water, in the capillaries between soil particles, or in natural caves. But even in these havens, it was aerobic – because air was everywhere.
Organic photosynthesis does not require oxygen. Only atmospheric CO2 – plus molecules of chlorophyll or other substances that can release oxygen from CO2 – are needed for it to take place. So, at that point, primal microorganisms started to build up oxygen in the atmosphere. These were single-celled organisms that lived without oxygen but were capable of glycolysis. It was not until free oxygen was present in the atmosphere – which occurred around 800 million years ago – that life started to develop, and plant and animal kingdoms emerged. The primordial flagellates (Phytoflagellata) are the single-celled ancestors of multicellular life.
But not all flagellates became metazoans. Some of them remained single-celled organisms and, in the process of evolution, optimized the cell’s capabilities to such an extent that they were able to survive for hundreds of millions of years and are in fact doing just fine in our present era. Among these are Volvox, which usually lives in colonies. But sometimes a particularly self-sufficient “individual” splits off from its collective and “wanders”, traveling long distances to found a new colony. Then there’s the monoflagellate green Euglena, which forms a verdant mat on ponds and water bodies in the second half of summer. In daylight, like single-celled plants, it obtains food through photosynthesis. But an experiment was carried out where it was placed in the dark, and under that condition it was seen to become a predator and feed on bacteria. Not only that, but this free-living flagellate can shed its flagella, switching to an amoeboid state.
Some of the other flagellates, looking for more space to live in, turned to parasitism in multicellular organisms. Scientists have not always recognized this fact, though. Before the 17th century, it was thought that parasites spontaneously developed within their hosts’ bodies. As science evolved, the similarity between parasites (as living organisms) and free-living animals became increasingly more evident. Leuckart pointed out that parasites are only parasites when interacting with larger and stronger organisms, whereas in relation to their own kind or organisms weaker than themselves, they actually behave like predators.
Russian academician Pavlovskiy defined parasitism in 1935 as follows: “Parasites use the host’s organism not only as a source of food, but also as their permanent or temporary residence.” Eleven years later, he expanded on his concept: “Parasites feed on the bodily fluids, tissues, or digested food of their host; this lifestyle is characteristic of the specific parasitic species, as it will feed on its host multiple times (unlike a predator).”
The development of parasitology as a discipline was greatly facilitated by the contributions of Dogel, a well-known Russian biology professor. He was of the opinion that research into parasitism as a phenomenon requires a historical perspective: “There is a common base underlying all paths that lead to parasitism: the tendency to make the best, most complete and economic use of the environment’s space and food resources on the part of the numerous creatures living in it, the fight for space, and the fight for food.” Regarding the spatial relationship between the parasites and the host, the scientist said: “Just as every biotope on the mainland or in the sea is populated with living things, every living tissue and every organ of an animal can also serve as a place of residence for parasites. Parasites can actively move and change location in the host’s body, and even enter the bloodstream. This would explain why some intestinal flagellates can pass right through the intestinal wall into the host’s bloodstream.”
One common trait of internal parasites is their lack of pigmentation, the whitish or pale yellowish body color. The lack of pigmentation is caused by the fact that the parasites dwell in the dark. Many cave dwellers or animals that live in the ground look the same way. Regardless of what color parasites are, however, this is not determined by the pigmentation of their shell – as is generally the case for diurnal lifeforms – but rather by hemoglobin from phagocytosed erythrocytes or by melanin pigments.
All of a parasite’s life functions are actually subordinated to reproduction, a phenomenon which is not found nearly as often in free-living organisms. This extreme boost in fertility is mainly due to two factors: first, the fact that the parasites have a perpetual supply of nutrients with no disturbances or interruptions, and second, the fact of natural selection always favoring the individuals with the greatest reproductive success.
Those internal parasites that have adapted to live inside human and animal hosts never progressed beyond the stage of protozoa and helminths (worms). On the other hand, the free-living ones have made much further progress in their evolutionary development. In the beginning, there were numerous microorganisms which were only capable of reflex reactions. Then came multicellular organisms, which possessed instincts, and finally humans, whom Nature endowed with intellect. In this mighty struggle for survival, many plant and animal species became extinct, and others replaced them. The protozoans that did not evolve – descendants of primordial flagellates, including those that evolved into parasites – played a significant role in this struggle. Of the latter, the flagellate Trichomonad is of greatest interest to us.
Flagellates in the modern era
There are multitudinous species of flagellates. Scientists currently believe they number around 8,500 species. Some are marine inhabitants, while others live in fresh water or in the upper layers of the soil. This puts human beings at risk because parasitism is an easy strategy for many protozoans.
At the beginning of the 20th century, analyses conducted of city water from the Neva and Moskva rivers showed that, in terms of its physical properties and composition, it was more like a sewage infusion than drinking water. It contained a lot of nitrogen compounds, and the dissolved oxygen concentration was only 4-5 milligrams per liter. It also contained typhus bacilli, eagerly devoured by flagellates. At the same time, a study of Munich tap water revealed up to 130 flagellates per liter. The well-known scientist Schattenfroh claimed that the presence of protozoa meant the water sources were contaminated, because pure water collected in well-arranged storage tanks is mostly free of protozoa. In the tropics, Künstler observed trichomonas in water reservoirs containing stale water. Soviet scientists discovered flagellates in naphthenic oil, in reservoirs for drinking water and wastewater from spas, where the mineral water contains up to 3% chlorides and a maximum of 0.4% sulfates.
Protozoa can also serve as a test for herbicides. They live in sewage, in fresh and salt water, in mud, in the soil, and in decayed plant and animal remains. They regulate microbiological processes such as nitrogen, ammonium, and nitrite fixation. In the soil, flagellates and amoebae live in the upper layer, which is between 16-20 cm deep. Quite a few flagellates have been discovered in sewage treatment plants. Their number here is 3000-4000 copies/ml, 3-10 times more than their population in sewer drains. When smaller bodies of water dry out, flagellates transform into solid, rounded shapes, called cysts, which allows them to maintain their viability. The wind blows them into the air, up to two cysts per m³ of air, where they can be inhaled or swallowed by humans. But most cysts at the time were found on carpets laid on tent floors and contaminated by soil brought in on shoes. To become active, single-celled organisms require a liquid or humid environment. They find these in the intestinal tract, in the blood or in the tissue of people and animals. People become infected not just by swallowing cystoid trichomonads, but also through carriers such as blood-sucking insects, as well as through direct or indirect contact with other people and animals.
The gastrointestinal tract is the continuation of the external environment within the organism. These cavities and canals are much like bodies of water, with their abundance of bacteria, plant residue, anaerobic conditions like some types of mud, acidity fluctuations in different parts of the intestine, and the perpetual one-way transit of food masses as a result of intestinal peristalsis. The bloodstream contains cholesterol-rich serum, the substance required for the reproduction of microorganisms, and this also attracts the parasites.
The biologist Polyansky stated that parasitism in single-celled organisms drives their evolutionary progression. This is evident in characteristics like colony formation that are evocative of multicellularity. Flagellate colonies can have intricate structures and are thought to be transitional forms from unicellular to multicellular animals. Colonies arise as a result of incomplete division when cells remain attached to one another. Freshwater flagellate Volvox colonies can contain up to 20,000 individuals and exhibits a certain level of differentiation, like the cells in our tissues. In essence, a colony is a higher-order multicellular organism. Colonies of Radiolaria marine spores form a common gelatinous mass containing dozens of cells. The flagellates that switch to parasitism, for example trichomonads, retain all the described characteristics of their free-living relatives. The colonies they form in the human body – resembling those of Volvox and Radiolaria – have been referred to as malignant and ascitic tumors by oncologists, without for all that being able to identify their source.
But there is a key difference between them. Colonies of free-living flagellates are not large – at most, a few tens of thousands of individuals in the flagellate stage. Tumor colonies of trichomonads, however, due to their endless ability to multiply, can consist of several billion microorganisms, which mostly remain in unflagellated stages – namely, cystoid or amoeboid forms.
Flagellate colonies have three known methods of reproduction: an entire colony will divide into two new ones, individuals will leave their colonies to establish new ones, and small colonies form under the cell envelope of a single-celled organism. Parasites also employ these strategies. Trichomonads form colonies wherever they find conditions favorable for their reproduction: in tissue, organs, or blood vessels.
In parasitic diseases, immune defense is the primary lens through which human-parasite interaction is viewed. However, ideas about the complexity of the various interactions between single-celled parasites and humans concern not only immunity, but also the evolutionary development of unicellular organisms and their hosts. Over the course of evolution, free-living microorganisms adapted to parasitism, but still retained characteristics unique to them. For example, studies of flagellates living freely in the water undertaken for the purpose of combating biocorrosion revealed that the single-celled organisms have a seasonal growth dynamic: in May-June, their growth on the ship’s hull was reduced, and it was also slower in the winter months. Maximum reproductive activity was observed in July and August. Could a similar phenomenon be at work in oncological and cardiological patients, whose condition has been observed to worsen seasonally, in spring and early autumn?
Let’s not answer this right now, as we will revisit the issue later in the book.
Why are trichomonads so successful?
The flagellate trichomonad is a parasite in the truest sense of the word. It exists in three different states: Flagellate, amoeboid and cystoid stages, as well as a variety of transitional forms. This is because the trichomonad is an asexually reproducing parasite, and with each division, a new organism and cell, individual and species, is created. This is why they are so hard to identify, and why new colony formations show such great diversity: up to 200 differentiated and thousands of undifferentiated tumor colonies can be counted. The trichomonad is considered a parasite of the oral cavity, the gastrointestinal tract, and the urogenital tract. But with the aid of an enzyme called hyaluronidase that loosens tissue, trichomonads can access organs and permeate vessel walls to enter blood and lymph. Because they are present in various stages of existence at the same time, the parasites also have different antigenic properties. They can also peel off the disorienting antigens and secrete antigens on their surface that are identical to human tissue antigens. All of this irritates the immune system and weakens its ability to fight off the parasites, making the trichomonas almost invincible.
The parasite can only thrive if a specific set of circumstances allowing it to invade, develop and reproduce is present in the organism. Humans possess these conditions, so they are the ideal host for the trichomonad. Infection with trichomonads usually occurs through the mouth, the rectum, and sexual organs because those places contain all the substances necessary for its development and reproduction. The parasites’ most important source of energy is glycolysis, i.e. the decomposition of carbohydrates without oxygen, which is also the distinguishing feature of tumor cells, in contrast to normal cells. The trichomonad finds its nutrients in the host mouth in the form of sugar and vegetable starches, and in the vagina in the form of glycogen – animal starch. It requires cholesterol, steroids and hormones for self-fertilization and growth, and these are plentiful in fatty foods as well as in the blood serum and sex glands of human beings. The trichomonad cleverly bypasses the body’s defenses to deeply infiltrate it, utilizing its host by incorporating the substances that are important to it, all the while poisoning it with toxic metabolic end products and decomposing enzymes.
The various development cycles, mass reproduction, and localization and activation of the parasites in certain parts of the body are circadian, in perfect harmony with the host’s own day-night rhythms. In addition, trichomonads that inhabit humans can have varying levels of virulence and pathogenicity. Virulence is the ability to infect by overcoming the organism’s defenses to multiply and colonize the host. Pathogenicity is the ability to cause a disease, that is, to produce an effect that damages the health of the human organism and remodel it in such a way as to facilitate the parasite’s existence and reproduction.
Trichomonads have the inherent capacity for entering a dormant cystoid stage, which facilitates its survival under stressful conditions and boosts its chances of infecting another person. Moreover, the rapid pace at which protozoa multiply further guarantees their survivability, as parasites need higher reproductive output to maintain their species. Asexual reproduction is their primary means of achieving this.
As we know, life is not only the mode of existence for protein bodies, but also a struggle for existence. In nature, this conflict is between predators and their victims, between parasites and their hosts. And although in the former case the predator usually wins, in the latter case it is often the parasites. The most blatant example of this is the antagonistic relationship between humans and trichomonads. Statistics of recent years show overwhelmingly that humans are losing this battle: the mortality rate is higher than the birth rate (in Russia). The way single-celled organisms manage to defeat humans – the apex of creation – will be discussed further on. At this point, I would just like to mention one thing: with the acquisition of intellect, humans lost the instinct for self-preservation, and the tiny trichomonad took advantage of this. Yes, the trichomonad is truly tiny, only 3 to 30 micrometers. But they are large in number, experienced in survival, and have already enjoyed numerous victories over multicellular organisms.
The trichomonad, despite being at least as old as the dinosaurs, never went extinct and still flourishes here on Earth. In this context, we should ponder the fate of modern humans, who have only been around for less than four million years. The human race is dying out. A third of those who have died show neoplastic changes in their bones and soft tissue, and an even larger number have heart and vascular diseases. The deterioration process intensifies as our extinction grows closer. Many men suffer from premature impotence, prostatitis, and infertility. Countless women are unable to become pregnant or are admitted to clinics to save their embryos. Premature births and miscarriages are on the rise. Many children are born with congenital defects, heart defects, tumors, or vascular pathology. It is time to put our brains to effective use and finally flush out these colonies of parasites in the tumors and stop this invasion by our biggest enemy – the trichomonad.
An overview of cancer theories
“No man, even under torture, could say what a cancer cell actually is.”
Virchow
