A GENETIC PREDISPOSITION?: New findings from three independent studies link both lung cancer and nicotine addiction to a single gene.
Image: © ISTOCKPHOTO/KNAPE
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Smoking is the most potent known cause of lung cancer. The question is: Why do some longtime smokers come down with the deadly disease whereas others escape it? New research points to a genetic culprit that also was fingered as upping a person's likelihood of becoming hooked on cigarettes.
Two new studies link a variation in a gene residing on chromosome 15 (of a person's 23 pairs of chromosomes) to a heightened risk of developing lung cancer; a third study suggests that the same mutation affects a person's tendency to become addicted to smokes and, by extension, develop the dreaded disease. Lung cancer is diagnosed in some 200,000 Americans and kills more than 150,000 each year.
The new research—published in both Nature and Nature Genetics—suggests that people with this genetic flaw have a 30 percent greater chance of developing the often-fatal illness. But the studies differ on the potential added risk of addiction. The findings offer insight into how this particular genetic variation and smoking interact to cause lung cancer. They provide "new targets for starting to think about how to treat drug addiction and, also, of course, for the prevention or treatment of lung cancer," says Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) in Bethesda, Md., who was not involved in the study.
The research teams scanned a catalog of 300,000 minute changes in the genome in which a base (unit of genetic material) was either deleted, duplicated or substituted. (Such alterations are known as single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs.) In one study, scientists from Iceland-based biotechnology company deCODE genetics tried to correlate these genetic variants with a person's smoking habits; the other research efforts attempted to tie them to lung cancer.
The deCODE group surveyed 50,000 Icelandic smokers about their habits; using information gleaned from that survey as well as from genomic scans of 40,000 admitted smokers in the bunch, the researchers zeroed in on a variant of the gene CHRNA, which codes for a receptor on nerve cells that can be stimulated by nicotine. The altered version of the gene was more common in the heaviest smokers than it was in the rest of the population. "Nonsmokers have a higher frequency of this variant than smokers that smoke between one to 10 cigs per day," notes neurologist Kári Stefánsson, deCODE's CEO, "because if you smoke and you have this variant, you tend to smoke more than 10 cigs per day."
When Stefánsson's team applied the stats to the incidence of lung cancer, it found that individuals with two copies of the altered gene had a whopping 70 percent greater chance of developing lung cancer; those with one copy had a 30 percent higher risk.
These findings are virtually identical to those of the other studies—one (in Nature) conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France (which was based on examinations of some 11,000 volunteers, 7,500 of whom were smokers) and the other (in Nature Genetics) by a team at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, which examined 9,000 individuals, some 4,000 of whom were smokers.
Paul Brennan, who led the IARC study, says he initially believed that the risk of getting lung cancer was elevated by the genetic predisposition to become addicted. "The genes made you more likely to smoke, made you likely to smoke more, made you less likely to give up, and therefore more likely to develop lung cancer," he says. But his research showed that, in fact, the gene appeared to independently increase a person's risk of developing the disease—with no link to addiction.
NIDA's Volkow suggests that the gene variant may lead certain individuals to smoke more due to its effect on the brain's reward centers (associated with addictive behavior) and may increase the risk of cancer, too, because it also plays a role in lung tissue function. Epidemiologist Christopher Amos, who led the Texas study, notes that the same nicotine receptor implicated in this study was shown in previous research to prompt tumor growth in other areas of the body, most notably the thymus (an organ located near the lungs that produces immune cells). "Nicotine or its derivatives can stimulate cells to proliferate, participate in new blood vessel development, and also not undergo cell death," he says, which are all characteristics of tumor formation and growth. "So that raises the possibility that there's a direct effect through nicotine in activating cells to go on to become cancerous."
Brennan says more research is needed before the findings can be put into play.
"There's not a public health message here that you can find out what version of the gene you have and decide whether to keep on smoking or not," he says. "You have to bear in mind that there are so many other disease[s] that are caused by smoking."
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentSmoking ; who is kidding who, of all the drugs and there history, smoking should be outlawed. Nuf SAID
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYintway@yahoo.com
My grandfather a heavy smoker(> 70 Cigs/day) lived upto the age of 86 and did not get any form of cancer, yet his two sons both moderate smokers died of lung cancer at relatively young ages.How can this be explained? This article does not throw any light on cases like these.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCuriously, Winston Churchill who smoked cigars & drank brandy lived to a ripe old age. I quit smoking over 40 years ago, and doctors still note it down. After all those years, I guess I'm still at risk. Looking at some very old newspaper clippings some time back from the 1930s, I read some cigarette ads. They said in effect that smoking was good for you and doctors recommended their brand more than any and so on. Cigarettes are still being sold, but at least we're not getting such balderdash from this quarter any more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been noted, anecdotally, that smokers suffering from a variety of mental illnesses require more nicotine than smokers in the 'normal' population. Somehow, I submit that gene 15 in some individuals is mutated early on and in its altered form acts as a precursor to smoking. What has yet to be adequately studied is finding the antecedent and/or cause of the gene's mutation and then determining the body's total daily need for nicotine in that particular population as well as in the population of the mentally ill. I don't think it's the proverbial 'chicken and egg' question. Therefore, studying smokers after they've started smoking and then examining the altered gene is quite literally, at least in my opinion, putting the cart after the horse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmoking bans are not taken seriously in India.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecently, two friends complained about the danger of "chemical" herbicides being sprayed on the side of the highway, while puffing away on nicotine and other dangerous carcinogins. One is a nurse and the other a biology teacher. That's how the addiction of smoking clouds your thinking!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHasn't anyone noticed that, anecdotally, these studies prove smoking DOES NOT cause lung cancer?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose there will always be those that refute the concept of "cause & effect" with smoking. Never underestimate the "denial" mindset!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am 63 and I started smoking at the age of 15. my father and mother were heavy smokers. they did not die of lung cancer. among my brother ans sisters, we have been all of us heavy smokers. Only my older sister died of lung cancer. My hypothesis is : do the heavy smoking parents open specific genes which favor smoking for their offsprings ? In thoses studies, is there any correlation of this kind reported ? Some kind of inherited epigenetic character ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving been a heavy smoker for 38 years and a lung cancer survivor, I have often wondered why some of us seemed to be so much more addicted than others. This may be a partial explanation. But most people still don't know whether or not they will become addicted until they try to quit. It seems to me that the only safe avenue is to never light that first cigarette.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article has false reasoning. Perhaps the genetic shift is responsible for the increased risk and these people are predisposed to get lung cancer not because of the smoking but due to the genetic change. At the same time these people might also be more likely to smoke which may or may not be the underlying cause of lung cancer. In itself many people who contract lung cancer never smoked nor came from families with a history of smoking. While this may not be a popular view its a more plausible scientific approach to the problem. When you work to backup your premise you have already defeated scientific method. Hypothesis-theory-contradiction. They should spend their time finding the contradiction to see if it can be explained not finding evidence to support their view on the matter. It's this reason that so many people become skeptical of research work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes smoking definitely increases the risk of developing lung cancer. In a study @ http://www.themesotheliomalibrary.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Data from the Feb. 10 2007 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology released show that lung cancer among non-smokers is more prevelant than originally thought, with women more at risk than men. The researchers used data sources that compiled over 1
million individuals between the ages of 40 to 79 from the United States and Sweden. What they found was startling. On average, 14.4 to 20.8 cases per 100,000 person-years were from never-smoking women. The data was a bit more promising for men with only 4.8 to 13.7 cases per 100,000 person years. However, this is alot less for current smokers who contract cancer at rates 10 to 30 times these numbers.
This study gives an indication that if we take the whole population of the United States roughly 8 percent of lung cancer cases in males and 20 percent of cases in females are from people who never smoked. "
It is a testimony to the power and influence of the industrial chemical industries over our scientific community that, in virtually (or actually) every study of "smoking" and cancer, the researchers fail to describe or analyze what exactly is being smoked. We are not told if it is plain tobacco, if it is tobacco at all (fake tobacco is legal in "tobacco" products), or if it is tobacco that is contaminated with residues of any of 450 U.S.-registered tobacco pesticides, with dioxin-creating chlorine substances (pesticides and bleached paper), with any of about 1400 untested, sometimes carcinogenic, sometimes co-carcinogenic non-tobacco additives, or with cancer-causing levels of PO-210 radiation from the insanely still-legal use of certain phosphate fertilizers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearchers, astonishingly, do not even check the subjects body-burdens of pesticides, dioxins, or any other carcinogens.
Such researchers, if they were in the employ of the Medicis hundreds of years ago, might have found that it was wine , or drinking , not Poisoned Wine, that killed the Medici enemies.
To conduct cancer studies on smokers without addressing some of the worst carcinogens in the industrial world...be they in typical cigarettes (perhaps the worst place for such things) or elsewhere in the subject's environment...is to conduct no real study at all.
It is a testimony to the power and influence of the industrial chemical industries over our scientific community that, in virtually (or actually) every study of "smoking" and cancer, the researchers fail to describe or analyze what exactly is being smoked. We are not told if it is plain tobacco, if it is tobacco at all (fake tobacco is legal in "tobacco" products), or if it is tobacco that is contaminated with residues of any of 450 U.S.-registered tobacco pesticides, with dioxin-creating chlorine substances (pesticides and bleached paper), with any of about 1400 untested, sometimes carcinogenic, sometimes co-carcinogenic non-tobacco additives, or with cancer-causing levels of PO-210 radiation from the insanely still-legal use of certain phosphate fertilizers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearchers, astonishingly, do not even check the subjects’ body-burdens of pesticides, dioxins, or any other carcinogens.
Such researchers, if they were in the employ of the Medicis hundreds of years ago, might have found that it was “wine”, or “drinking”, not Poisoned Wine, that killed the Medici enemies.
To conduct cancer studies on smokers without addressing some of the worst carcinogens in the industrial world...be they in typical cigarettes (perhaps the worst place for such things) or elsewhere in the subject's environment...is to conduct no real study at all.
Apologies for duplicate entry but, somehow, one got posted without my clicking "submit".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmoking also can cause acute and/or chronic bronchitis. . Smokers often refer to their constant hacking as "smoker's cough" . Bronchitis unless carefully managed can lead to emphysema.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow there is one brutal disease. Just listen to their gasps as they try to exhale !!!
As long as everyone ignores the presence of residues of some 450 pesticides in typical cigarettes, and the dioxins in the smoke from the Chlorine Pesticides and the Chlorine bleached paper, AND the cancer-causing radiation from still-legal phosphate fertilizers, and many other non-tobacco toxins, carcinogens, and other dangers...we will continue pursuing pure falsehoods ...that "tobacco" is the cause of all the illnesses, that the behavior of victims (smokers), is the other cause, that cigarettes are automatically tobacco (they are not), and that the Smoke Ban Crusaders care about anyone's health (except as nice packaging for this enormous Liability dodging campaign.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSearch the term "Fauxbacco" for ample references.
Interesting study. I have been interested in the absolute risk of getting lung cancer from smoking. This study helps. In the non smoking population they found the rate of lung cancer as high as 20 per 100,000(lower for men). The increased risk in the smoking population was 20 to 30 times greater. So worst case scenario would be statistically that (20x30)=600. So according to this study worst case scenario is that 600 per 100,000 smokers die from lung cancer. 600/100,000=.006 or about a half percent. 600 is obviously much higher than 20 per 100,000 for non smokers but I expected it to be higher. According to this study about 99.5 percent of smokers do not die from lung cancer. I find that interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLung Cancer, Smokers, Genetic Mutations and Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory. Lung cancer is a malignant tumor in the tissue of one or both of the lungs. Some people have primary cancer that started in the lungs. Others have cancer that started somewhere else in the body and spread to the lungs (secondary cancer). Lung cancer is the deadliest type of cancer for both men and women. Each year, more people die of lung cancer than of breast, colon, and prostate cancers combined. Lung cancer treatments (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, biological therapy, radiofrequency ablation, photodynamic therapy and palliative therapies) can't successfully beat lung cancer. According to the Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory (Theory from The Old Testament; Iron Conception), lung cancer is a subtle iron disease. Similar to many other cancers, lung cancer is initiated by accumulation of superparamagnetic, ferrimagnetic and ferromagnetic nanoparticles in tumor cells. These nanoparticles chaotically distort DNA and shift chromosomes by local magnetic fields. Lung cancer should be interpreted as intracellular superpara-ferri-ferromagnetic 'infection'. Scientists agree that lung cancer occurs when cells of the lung accumulate genetic mutations. Scientists have completed a comprehensive map of genetic mutations linked to small cell lung cancers. Among the errors found in small cell lung cancers, scientists found an alteration in a gene called SOX2 associated with early embryonic development. Scientists from Germany completed another genome wide scan of small cell lung cancers and focused on changes in several genes, including FGFR1. Although Tobacco Smoking is the Primary Etiological Factor, scientists agree that many lung cancers have no single cause, but are instead the result of a combination of several causes. According to the Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory, non-complicated accurate anti-iron methods of The Old Testament can successfully beat lung cancer. Anti-iron intratumoral injections [sulfur (2%) + olive oil (98%); 36.6C - 39.0C] (by ceramic needles) can suppress any tumors and large metastases; can give harmless infiltrations (deposits of cells that die; harmless necroses; benign capsules). Anti-iron slow blood loss (even 75%) [hemoglobin control], anti-iron goat’s milk diet and anti-iron drinking water containing hydrogen sulfide can neutralize any micrometastases or isolated tumor cells. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/102131/ ; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-some-smokers-get-lung ; Scientific American & Shapoval
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLung Cancer, DKFZ and Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory. The German Cancer Research Center (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, DKFZ) is the largest biomedical research institute in Germany. At DKFZ, scientists investigate how lung cancer develops, identify lung cancer risk factors and endeavor to find new strategies to prevent people from getting lung cancer. According to DKFZ, lung cancer arises from normal lung cells through the stepwise accumulation of genetic errors. The main environmental risk factor clearly is tobacco smoke exposure, however, individual susceptibility to lung carcinogenesis varies. Lung cancer is a common disease with bad treatment outcome. DKFZ recommends lung cancer treatments: surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and targeted therapies (molekularbiologische Therapien, moderne Krebstherapien). According to the Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory (Theory from The Old Testament; Iron Conception), lung cancer arises from normal lung cells through the stepwise accumulation of intracellular superparamagnetic, ferrimagnetic and ferromagnetic nanoparticles. These nanoparticles create chaotic genomic alterations and chromosomal aberrations (by local magnetic fields) in cancer cells. The Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory recommends lung cancer treatments: intratumoral injections [sulfur (2%) + olive oil (98%); 36.6C - 39.0C] (by ceramic needles) for tumors and large metastases; slow blood loss (even 75%) [hemoglobin control], goat’s milk diet and drinking water containing hydrogen sulfide (neutralization of micrometastases). DKFZ and Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory must beat lung cancer (Lungenkrebs). http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/102131/ ; http://www.krebsinformationsdienst.de/tumorarten/lungenkrebs/ueberblick.php ; http://www.krebsinformation.de/tumorarten/lungenkrebs/behandlung-uebersicht.php#targeted ; https://www.dkfz.de/en/tox/Lung_Cancer_Genomics_Epigenomics.html ; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-some-smokers-get-lung ; Scientific American & Vadim Shapoval
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLung Cancer, Acupuncture and Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory. There are many causes of lung cancer in addition to smoking. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women in the United States. Lung cancer is an aggressive cancer, and it quickly spreads over the surface of the lungs, abdominal organs or heart. Modern surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy can't beat cancerous tumors, metastases and micrometastases. Alternative medical systems are systems of medicine that have developed outside conventional medical practice, or may have traditional origins. Acupuncture is an alternative non-aggressive medicine methodology originating in Ancient China that treats patients by manipulating thin, solid needles that have been inserted into acupuncture points in the skin. According to the Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory (Theory from The Old Testament; Iron Conception), ceramic thin, solid needles can aggressively suppress any lung tumors and large metastases. Ceramic needles can quickly create harmless infiltrations (harmless necroses, deposits of cells that die; benign capsules). Ceramic needles can enter ancient solution [sulfur (2%) + olive oil (98%); 36.6C - 39.0C] to tumors and large metastases (acupuncture points). Slow blood loss (even 75%) [hemoglobin control], goat’s milk diet and drinking water containing hydrogen sulfide can neutralize any micrometastases or isolated tumor cells. Aggressive ancient anti-iron medical methods of The Old Testament can successfully beat lung cancer. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/69048/ ; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-some-smokers-get-lung ; Scientific American & Vadim I. Shapoval
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy some smokers get lung cancer? Because smoking violates the iron metabolism. Lung cancer is a subtle iron disease. Religious Beliefs of Cancer Patients and Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory. Chromothripsis is the phenomenon by which tens to hundreds of chromosomal rearrangements occur in a one-off cellular crisis (during a single cellular catastrophe). The stamp of chromothripsis can be seen in at least 2-3% of all cancers, across many subtypes, and is present in 25% of bone cancers. According to the Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory (Theory from The OLD TESTAMENT; Iron Conception), intracellular molecules FeO;Fe2O3;Fe3O4 are the main 'creators' of intracellular superparamagnetic, ferrimagnetic and ferromagnetic nanoparticles. These nanoparticles can cause point genetic changes, chromosomal aberrations (abnormalities in the structure or number of chromosomes) and chromothripsis in tumor cells. These nanoparticles 'work' by invisible local magnetic fields. Every magnetic nanoparticle produces an invisible area of influence around itself. When DNA or chromosomes come close to this region of space, they feel a pull or a push from the magnetic nanoparticle. Thus, DNA and chromosomes get defects and disruptions. Invisible local magnetic fields deceive scientists and kill religious and non-religious cancer patients. Magnetism (a force that can attract or repel objects and nanoobjects) causes cancer. The Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory will beat cancer (carcinoma, sarcoma, lymphoma and leukemia) by ancient anti-iron Biblical methods of The Old Testament. Ceramic needles can suppress any tumors and large metastases. Ceramic needles can create harmless infiltrations (harmless necroses, deposits of cells that die; benign capsules). Ceramic needles can enter solution [sulfur (2%) + olive oil (98%); 36.6C - 39.0C] to tumors and large metastases. Slow blood loss (even 75%) [hemoglobin control], goat’s milk diet [Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk; Deuteronomy 14:21] and drinking water containing hydrogen sulfide can neutralize any micrometastases or isolated tumor cells. Deceived scientists must study clinical and molecular biological aspects of the Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory. Any cancer is a subtle iron disease; intracellular superpara-ferri-ferromagnetic 'infection'; the first-born of death (The Old Testament; Job 18:13-15). http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/103745/ ; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-some-smokers-get-lung ; Scientific American & Vadim Shapoval
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrimary lung sarcomas represent 0.6% of lung cancers. Primary synovial sarcoma of the lung seems to be strongly related to Cigarette Smoking. If you have a sarcoma that spreads to the lung, you have a secondary sarcoma in the lung. Sarcomas and Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory. There are numerous types of sarcomas that can affect different parts of the body; however, they have similar characteristics and symptoms, and medical treatments are similar. Sarcoma is an uncommon and often malignant tumor. Benign tumors rarely recur, but sarcomas can reappear after treatment. The percentage of people diagnosed with sarcoma who survived 5 years later is only 50%. This includes all patients suffering from all types of sarcomas. There is an acute need to develop entirely new treatment strategies for the treatment of sarcomas. For most types of sarcomas, the major cause of death is metastatic disease. There are certain types of sarcomas in which metastases rarely occur but uncontrolled local growth represents the major therapeutic problem. Surgery is the most common treatment for sarcoma. If the tumor cannot be removed surgically, it may be permanently controlled with radiation therapy. Chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy: 1) may be given before or after surgery to reduce the risk of recurrence; 2) may also be used to reduce the size of the sarcoma or relieve pain and other symptoms. If the sarcoma is found to have a specific chromosomal abnormality, the targeted therapy may be used in some patients. Oncologists use interferon for patients with osteosarcomas and imatinib for patients with gastrointestinal sarcomas. Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory (Theory from The Old Testament; Iron Conception) offers to treat all types of sarcomas by intratumoral injections of solution [sulfur (2%) + olive oil (98%); 36.6C - 39.0C]. These intratumoral injections by ceramic needles: 1) can create harmless infiltrations (harmless necroses; deposits of cells that die; benign capsules); 2) can suppress secondary bacterial infection (oncopatients have a significant risk for infection due to their treatment). The intratumoral anti-iron treatment can chemically eliminate any sarcomatous tumors and large metastases. Slow blood loss (even 75%) [hemoglobin control], goat’s milk diet and drinking water containing hydrogen sulfide can neutralize any micrometastases and isolated tumor cells. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/opinions/114087/ ; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-some-smokers-get-lung ; Scientific American & Vadim Shapoval
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmokers must read 'Old Testament, Cancer Patients and Ferromagnetic Cancer Theory'. What Causes Cancer? What Causes Lung Cancer? 1) American Cancer Society: cancer is a complex group of diseases with many possible causes. 2) Cancer Research UK: there is no single cause for any one type of cancer. 3) Wikipedia: it is nearly impossible to prove what caused a cancer in any individual, because most cancers have multiple possible causes. 4) News-Medical.Net: cancers are a broad group of diseases and accordingly have a wide range of causes; each cancer is different according to its biology and pathophysiology; all animals and even plants are susceptible to cancers. 5) World Health Organization and its cancer research agency (IARC): cancer arises from one single cell (the interaction between a person's genetic factors and three categories of external agents, including physical, chemical and biological carcinogens). 6) Patient.co.uk: cancer is a disease of the cells in the body; many cancers seem to develop for no apparent reason. 7) DKFZ: Knowledge about the structure and functioning of DNA is necessary in order to decipher the causes of cancer. 8) NCI: cancer is often perceived as a disease that strikes for no apparent reason; one way of identifying the various causes of cancer is by studying populations and behaviors. 9) NetDoctor.co.uk: cancer is the development of abnormal cells that the body cannot control; cancer affects nearly one in every three people in the population. 10) PubMed Health: there are many causes of cancer; however, the cause of many cancers remains unknown. OLD TESTAMENT (the first division of the Christian Bible): 1) magnetism (one of the phenomena by which objects exert attractive and repulsive forces on other objects) causes cancer; 2) depending on the configurations of electrons in their atoms, different substances exhibit differing types of magnetic behavior (diamagnetism, paramagnetism, ferrimagnetism and ferromagnetism); 3) intracellular molecules FeO;Fe2O3;Fe3O4 are the main 'creators' of intracellular superparamagnetic, ferrimagnetic and ferromagnetic nanoparticles; 4) cancer works (kills religious and non-religious cancer patients) by these nanoparticles; 5) ancient anti-iron methods of The Old Testament can quickly beat any cancer (a subtle iron disease; intracellular superpara-ferri-ferromagnetic 'infection'; the first-born of death) and religious beliefs of cancer patients-non-Christians. Together We (Scientific American, TIME, Medical News Today and Vadim Shapoval) Will Beat CANCER.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this