Cancer is a prevalent disease among humans and animals, affecting millions of lives across the globe. It can be caused in a variety of ways and can affect virtually every part of our bodies, ranging from skin cancer caused by prolonged exposure to the sun’s harmful UV rays to lung cancer that results from carcinogenic substances smokers inhale. However, plants do not die of cancer despite sometimes being exposed to the sun for over a thousand years – and they do not use any sunscreens!

Humans and animals who live to a certain age are very likely to get cancer one day. We see this situation mostly in our pets which have been specially bred and protected from predators and diseases. Cancer has become part of our lives and remains a top world health priority. The probability of prostate cancer is roughly 80% in 80-year-olds, 90% in 90-year-olds, and 100% in 100-year-olds. However, these statistics yet again do not apply to trees.

What is cancer?

Cancer is a disease caused by the uncontrolled growth of cells that have become abnormal in a part of the body. These abnormal cells are not foreign invaders that have entered our bodies from outside but are instead our own cells. However, in time, various factors such as radiation, viruses, and chemical substances that they are exposed to cause the accumulation of errors, or mutations, in the genetic codes of cells. Some of them then acquire very different characteristics and become alien to their own body.

With old age, errors arise in the genetic code in an increased rate when our cells divide by copying their own DNA. External factors, such as “free radicals” and various radiations that affect our DNA, play a role in these errors. For young people, when there are too many errors in a cell’s genome, a process called “apoptosis” takes place after which faulty cells die before they can multiply in a potentially cancerous manner and forming a tumor. However, sometimes these accumulated errors cause the cell’s growth process to become stuck in the “on” position, and the cell begins to grow and divide continuously. Cells that emerge with out-of-control divisions ignore the commands coming from the healthy cells of the body, continue to grow and reproduce according to the erroneous commands from the cell’s disrupted genome. This situation lasts until death.

What is a tumor?

Cell growths that result from defective genome proliferation will eventually form a mass called a tumor. Some cells grow very slowly and stop at a certain size after a while and do not spread anymore and are called benign tumors. Masses formed by fast-growing, defective (cancerous) cells are known as malignant tumors. Cells that detach from malignant tumors and grow rapidly can attach to another organ where they will begin to grow again when they enter the bloodstream. The process by which cancerous cells start from a tumor and spread all over the body to different organs is known as metastasis.

Why does this process not happen in plants?

One of the most destructive features of cancer when it enters metastasis is the mobility of malignant cells to varying degrees according to their type. Blood vessels, i.e. the transportation pathways of the circulatory system, act like a highway for cancer cells. As the blood vessels surround the entire body, a single cancerous cell can travel to and settle almost anywhere in the body, from the toes to the head.

Plant cells have a vital feature that is different from human and animal cells. In plants, cells do not change their locations because their cells are surrounded by a very rigid, strong, and impenetrable wall outside of normal plasma membranes. Cell walls are made of cellulose, which constitutes the main substance of plants, and form the wooden structures that ensure the plants stand upright and harden while at the same time locking each cell in place and preventing it from migrating within the organism.

Another important difference that is unique to plants is that they do not have blood circulation in which cells are carried; they have a circulatory system in which only water and food are carried. This system is often used to pump water from the roots to the leaves and to transport organic products such as sugar, which is a product of photosynthesis, from the leaves down. Therefore, there are no blood cells or immune system cells in these carrier channels, which are known as wood and roe tubes (xylem and phloem), in plants.

In addition, animal cells are specifically employed in tissues and organs such as muscle, bone, liver, and skin during embryonic development. Thus, when they divide only new cells of the same type are created. Tumors that occur in animal tissues can metastasize into different tissues and disrupt different organs. We can think of animal and human biology as a very complex system in which each cell, tissue, and organ has a task and purpose. In such a system, all elements work in cooperation for the continuation of life. This system is of a kind of irreducible complexity. A human being cannot live without organs like brain, heart, or lungs, while plants, on the other hand, have fewer simpler internal structures which are not as vital. When plant cells divide, they retain their ability to form new cells of any type. This is called totipotency.

In plants, every necessary structure can be recreated from the few tissues they have. For this reason, a gardener can grow new plants from the roots, branches, or leaf parts of a plant.

Plants are equipped with very powerful antioxidants to protect them from the sun’s harmful rays and mutations that may be caused by radiation. Therefore, tumors can develop only due to bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, and insects. For example, in a situation that we can call “information confusion” that occurs when Agrobacterium Tumefaciens bacteria insert some of its DNA into the plant’s DNA, an anomaly occurs in the plant’s genome. Cells that go through a rapid growth process and form tumors are not normally classified as cancer, since they simply remain in that area and cannot be transported elsewhere. Since the tumors cannot spread to the whole plant, they may cause only minor distress at most in a specific area rather than a fatal disease such as cancer. Just as the plant continues to grow around a rock that it encounters, it grows around the tumor as well. The tumor can continue to grow for years, but does not spread to the rest of the plant, meaning there is no metastasis.

In summary, plants can also be cancerous, but a cancerous tumor is not a deadly threat to a plant, as its cells are immobile and do not have vital and complex organs like humans and animals. Thanks to the cellulose walls gifted to the them, plants continue their role in the ecosystem by continuing to grow with healthy cells around the tumor as if nothing had happened.

References

• Luis Villazon. “Can a plant die of cancer?” www.sciencefocus.com/nature/can-a-plant-die-of-cancer
• Sam Westreich. “Do Plants Get Cancer?” medium.com/@westwise/do-plants-get-cancer-60eb435c6d1a
• Stuart Thompson. “Plants couldn’t run away from Chernobyl—but that’s what saved them. Why plants don’t get cancer.” www.popsci.com/chernobyl-plants-radiation-cancer

One of the signs of anarchy in a region could be the marching of an army to get a particular situation under control and, if it is indispensible, destroy or suppress anarchists. Similarly, the first response of the body to such uncontrolled growth is the destruction of tumor cells by activating inner mechanisms that lead to cellular suicide (apoptosis). Anarchy is by definition not to accept any border and authority, causing disorder or upheaval. According to twentieth century thinker Nursi, anarchy cuts and throws away norms and laws that organize social life, one by one, thus destroying the order and leading to mischief and rebellion. In addition, anarchism does not consider the rights of any. Analogously, one by one, cancer breaks genetic rules that organizes cell proliferation and eliminates pathways that suppress tumor formation. Thus, it eradicates the order and triggers chaos and malignancy. Again, cancer works against the life of the body without considering the rights of other cells.

Another characteristic of anarchism could be the elimination of its leaders. Thus, once you get rid of the key players, anarchy may not resurface. Likewise, you can use a strategy in certain cancer types where you can specifically target cancer stem cells. As a result, cancer growth could be suspended and it may bring an opportunity to shrink tumor through chemotherapeutical approaches. One such example is the targeting of CD24, a putative cancer stem cell antigen expressed by a minority of adenocarcinoma cells. This cell-based cancer immunotherapy method uses genetically engineered cancer killing T cells, which are directed towards cancerous tissues using chimeric antigen receptors. This is similar to the taking over of trained Special Forces when anarchy becomes malicious and unceasing. Both natural and genetically engineered cancer killer T cells in our body resemble trained Special Forces that patients need to fight against cancer.

Cancer treatments

Cancer is nowadays mainly treated with chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery, and to some extent with immunotherapy. The many purposes of chemotherapy include relieving or preventing the suffering of the patient, prolonging the life span, and if possible, completely curing the cancer along with surgery or radiotherapy regimens. Chemotherapy mainly uses cytotoxic drugs that kill cells by attacking one of the main properties of cancer cells—rapid division. Unfortunately, since cancer cells are not the only rapidly dividing cells in the body, chemotherapeutic agents also harm healthy cells. Another fall back of chemotherapy drugs is the lack of specificity that does not provide a therapy against a specific cancer type and their efficacy vary from patient to patient. In these cases, the indispensable path is synergistic use of radiotherapy with chemotherapy.

As its name implies, radiotherapy involves the use of ionizing radiation to kill cancer. It relies on the destruction of dividing cells by introducing DNA damage, which leads to induction of cellular death through apoptosis. Radiotherapy is therapeutically useful in cancers that are localized to one part of the body. It is also useful to prevent tumor relapse after surgical removal such as in breast cancer. However, radiation, which radiotherapy depends on, is itself the potential cause of cancer and leads to various side effects.

Citizens of the body need justice

Chemotherapy or radiotherapy, which harms both healthy and cancerous cells, recalls the practice of absolute justice versus relative justice. Absolute justice requires protection of every individual while punishing the criminals. On the other hand, relative justice is the justice where the rights of one person are ignored for the betterment of the whole. Absolute justice is always the best practice if it can be properly established. However, relative justice may be sought if absolute justice is absolutely out of reach. Current chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments are like the practice of relative justice, which harms both cancerous and healthy cells. Of course, these treatments are considered as the last resort for many cancer patients but this analogy regarding absolute justice toward cells in the body urges us to seek for cancer therapies that follow absolute justice. In other worlds, we need to practice an approach that is more specific toward cancer cells. This could be, as we mentioned above, the use of cancer immunotherapy where cytotoxic T cells are directed towards cancer cells through genetic engineering by introducing chimeric antigen receptors (CARs). CARs should be able to recognize unique or relatively specific antigens located on the surface of cancer cells to execute them.

Cancer killing T-cells: Equipped with chimeric antigen receptors

There are three main approaches in cancer immunotherapy including immunization, use of antibodies and cellular immunotherapy. Immunization by administering a cancer vaccine prepares the patient’s own immune cells to recognize tumor cells as targets to be destroyed. The use of therapeutic antibodies specific to cancer cells recruits immune cells in the patient to abolish tumors. Cellular immunotherapy, on the other hand, uses patients’ own immune cells like the natural killer cells, cytotoxic T cells and so on. Basically, those cells could be stimulated in patients with the administration of interleukins or they could be isolated from the patients’ blood and cultured in the laboratory and following expansion and in vitro training, then transfused back to the patient to fight against cancer.

Cytotoxic T cells are unique immune cells that recognize target cells via T cell receptors. Over the past decade, scientist engineered T cell receptors and developed chimeric antigen receptors that specifically recognize target antigens. This recognition lead to signaling pathways that resulted in apoptosis of tumor cell through the production of granzymes, perforins and cytokines such as IFN-γ, and TNF-α (Figure 1). There are a number of success stories using CAR+ T cells for cancer immunotherapy used in patients. Encouraging results were obtained with CARs targeting lymphoma (by targeting CD19 antigen), coleractal Cancer (by targeting CEA antigen), and melanoma (by targeting melanocyte-specific markers MART1, MELOE-1 and gp100).

Universal chimeric antigen receptors

Two recent studies published by two different groups increased the hopes in the battle with cancer. They developed novel and universal CAR technologies that combines cell based immunotherapy and use of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. This new approach relies on the recognition of specific molecules such as FITC and Biotin by corresponding Anti-FITC and Anti-Biotin (Avidin) CARs. The decent thing about these specific molecules is that you can attach them to any antibody, ligand, or aptamer known to target specific tumor antigens (Figure 2). One of the universal chimeric antigen receptor, for instance, uses FITC, a fluorescent molecule widely used in flow cytometric assays. Since it is easy to label antibodies, this provides wide range of antibodies to target cancer cells. In addition, scientists using this approach could target more than one tumor antigen or could use another antibody that targets different antigen even if cancer relapses. Moreover, since antibodies used to activate CAR+ T cells will degrade and their bioavailability will decrease in the body by time, there will be no need to kill injected T cells with suicide mechanisms. Once FITC labeled antibodies are stopped from being given to patients, CAR+ T cells will stop attacking cells and cease-fire since their guns (CARs) cannot recognize tumors or anything nonspecific. This approach is highly encouraging and has brought with it great hopes in the treatment of cancer.

Anarchy, spirituality, and prayer therapy

Hunger, poverty, social inequality and economical issues could be asserted as the basis of anarchy within a society. However, according to Nursi, the real basis of anarchy is spiritual weakness and poverty. Similarly, the basis for cancer could possibly be the lack of appropriate spiritual diet that may eventually make a person fall spiritually and physically weak. For example, fasting is a physical and spiritual fast prescribed in monotheistic religions which increases spirituality and has been shown to be synergistically effective in chemotherapy with cancer treatments. It has been observed and scientifically recorded that patients with strong beliefs and continuous prayers and spiritual support overcome diseases much faster than those without. This raises certain questions regarding our spiritual makeup and many other dynamics involved in being sick and getting well. So, are we getting ill because some evil spirits are manipulating our biological condition by settling in the tumors and propagating cellular anarchy? Is radiation, which leads to cellular mutations, a result of spirits that are created of “scorching fire” (The Qur’an 15:27)? Is cancer a result of such manipulations and should we seek cure for it not only through biological medicine but also through spiritual healing?

Various scientifically proven causes are known to increase the likelihood of cancer, which includes, but is not limited to, smoking, viral infections, radiation, and pollutants that lead to internal genetic faults within cells. Considering the fact that there are many cases in which patients have been reported to have recovered from their illnesses by reciting prayers, then such cases are worth examining to find out whether and to what degree non-material factors are involved as causes for our illnesses. Studying these cases may offer science new opportunities to be able to remove the present obstructions and make greater advances in the medical field by perhaps developing cancer therapies that combine prayer therapy and cancer immunotherapy using genetically engineered T cells during the treatment of patients.

Ali Fethi Toprak is a PhD candidate at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

References

Döğen, Şaban. 2005. “Bediüzzaman and Anarchy.” Köprü Dergisi, No 89.

Nursi, Bediüzzaman Said. Işarâtü’l-I’caz. Şahdamar Yayınları.

Chmielewski et al. 2012. “CAR’s made it to the pancreas.” OncoImmunology 1:8, 1387–1389.

Tamada et al. 2012. “Redirecting Gene-Modified T Cells toward Various Cancer Types Using Tagged Antibodies.” Clin Cancer Res.

Urbanska et al. 2012. “A universal strategy for adoptive immunotherapy of cancer through use of a novel T cell antigen receptor.” Cancer Res.

Gülen. M. Fethullah. “Cinler, Hastalıklara Sebep Olabilir mi?” Retrieved from http://tr.fgulen.com/content/view/708/3/ on 12/24/12.

Bukhari, i’tikâf 8, 11, 12; Muslim, Salam, 24; Ibn Maja, Siyam 65; Abu Dawud, Sawm 79; Adab 81; Muslim and related hadith narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Bukhari 7.582.

¹ See Yücel, Salih. 2010. Prayer and Healing in Islam, NJ: Tughra Books.

In recent years, people have been divided by conflicting studies about the risk of cancer posed by cell phone radiation. Does the current conflicting research eradicate or support the cell phone-cancer controversy?

Cell phone use has shown a dramatic increase in the world during the 1990s. The heated controversy today is about whether there is a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of developing malignant and benign brain tumors. This controversy did not exist—at least in the eyes of the public—until accumulating anecdotal evidence began suggesting a link between cell phone use and cancer. Since the first pieces of anecdotal evidence, numerous studies have investigated the cell phone-brain cancer link and a general summary of the findings is, at best, confusing. The substantial room for improvement in the experimental designs of these studies, the appearance of brain cancer after a long period of exposure, and some conflicts of interest among researchers prevented the results from being conclusive. More recent studies provide growing evidence for the link, suggesting there is reason to be suspicious about the studies that refute the relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer.

Possible health issues regarding exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy were described in a previous Fountain article (Tombak, 2002). This article also stated that proving or disproving the existence of RF exposure’s biological hazards remains an issue for epidemiology due to relatively low exposure levels, relatively small populations, and a lack of reliable dose estimates. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is now maintaining an up-to-date web page to inform the public on key points that can be drawn from epidemiological studies investigating the cell phone-brain cancer link. It would be advisable that individuals concerned about this potential link become familiar with this web page and visit frequently to check the updates. A regular visitor will notice that the language on this page is evolving in every update in a way that the most recent version is less likely than the previous one to discredit the link as “out of the question”. This is because we are starting to see—albeit still opposed as weak—stronger signs of the alleged link as there is an increase in both the sheer number and the experimental design quality of relevant studies.

The first two key points that NCI draws on concern the type of electromagnetic energy emitted by cell phones, and the factors that determine a users energy exposure level. It would not be surprising if this train of thought followed with a third key point that stated that the cancer risk depended on the amount of energy that each individual was exposed to. However, the third key point quickly draws the conclusion that “studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head and the neck.” It further states “more research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly”.

Regardless of what type of general message one gets from these three key points, I want to emphasize that there is benefit in avoiding a lump-sum conclusion, and in making oneself aware of the results of individual studies. Before I move on to individual studies, however, I will point out how scientifically sound interpretations of statistical power and significance may lead to categorizations as ‘non-existent’ or ‘weak’, but how this scientific reasoning can potentially be misleading for the population at large. In this manner, one would better be able to make sense of why cell phone companies are, on one hand, highlighting the studies that have failed to find a causal link between cell phone use and brain cancer, but on the other hand, are taking all legal precautions necessary to prevent a future litigation by inserting a warning slip in fine print that cautions users not to hold the phone closer than a certain distance against one’s head or body.

The null vs. the alternative

A statistical hypothesis test involves two hypotheses: the null and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis represents the status quo; it assumes that there is no real difference between the two groups under study and the observed difference can be attributed to random chance. Drawing a parallel with legal systems, the presumption that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty can be interpreted as saying that his or her innocence is the null hypothesis. There has to be sufficient evidence on the contrary, i.e showing the guilt, in order to be able to convict the defendant. In a similar fashion, an epidemiological study investigating the presence of a link between cell phone use and brain cancer would have a null hypothesis that states the absence of such a link. The cell phone technology is assumed to be innocent unless the data prove otherwise.

The alternative hypothesis, the latter of the two, represents the claim that there actually is a statistically significant link between cell phone use and brain cancer, and the observed link cannot be attributed to random chance. In our legal analogy, the alternative hypothesis is laying the charges against cell phone technology, thus as the Latin maxim “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” states, the burden of proof lies with the alternative hypothesis.

As a consequence of this construction, a hypothesis test can have only one of two conclusions. If the data shows results that are beyond some predetermined significance level, the null hypothesis is rejected and the researchers believe that there is sufficient evidence to say that the alternative is true. Such a conclusion would establish a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. On the other hand, if the results do not reach the desired significance level, the conclusion is not the confirmation of the null hypothesis, but a failure to conclude that the alternative is true. In other words, when the desired significance level is not reached, the only outcome is a lack of conclusion; the test would not falsify the null hypothesis but would not declare it to be true either. The accused would be vindicated on the basis of insufficient evidence.

News on the innocence of cell phone technology, or any technology for that matter, should be read primarily with this perspective in mind. The conclusions of research studies are reported on the basis of whether the results “reach or fail to reach significance”. However, a more meaningful statistic to report from the study would be the deviation of the results from significance, if they were not significant. Results that are close to statistical significance can still be “meaningful”. After all, the significance level chosen for most studies relies more on traditional scientific habits than anything else. In this perspective, it can even be called arbitrary. In reality, we may not have expertise in today’s world to determine whether a 5% significance level is more meaningful than a 10% when it comes to studying the link between cell phone use and brain cancer. So when the NCI officials mention “lack of a consistent link,” all of what they mean is that the desired significance level has not been reached in most credible and up-to-date studies. Yet, the public is not informed about how significant the results were. Furthermore, as we see in the much-acclaimed Interphone study, failure to reach significance in the entire study may be overshadowing the fact that significance was attained for a subgroup of people, for instance, the top 10% of the population with highest cell phone use (The Interphone study group, 2010).

Perspectives on brain cancer risk

News regarding cell phone tumor risks is plainly confusing because a battle continues among different international panels and interest groups over how to analyze and interpret cell phone tumor data. An article (July 6, 2011) on Microwave News explains why there is no overlap in the conclusions made by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the two panels that are supposed to work together, but fell into deep disagreement as the data started showing some link between cell phone use and brain cancer. This piece is a highly suggested read for anyone who would like to be able to make more sense of the past and potentially future news on cell phone tumor risks.

The Interphone study

Much of the current debate on cell phone tumor risks actually revolve around the Interphone study, which was conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries, and is the largest health related case control study of the use of cell phones and head and neck tumors. According to NCI’s summary, “most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One recent analysis showed a statistically significant, albeit modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a reduced risk of brain cancer.”¹

The general message that comes across in NCI’s summary of Interphone results is that we do not have enough reason to believe that cell phones are dangerous. However, it is very important to remember that one can never accept the null hypothesis that “cell phones are safe.” The only conclusion that can be drawn is on the basis of insufficient evidence, which is to say that cell phones are dangerous since the desired significance level has not been reached.

As the Interphone study is the largest of its kind, it has drawn substantial attention from concerned parties, and a significant part of this attention has been in the form of harsh criticisms for the experimental design, data analysis, and stated conclusions. For instance, one of Interphone’s biggest critics, the International Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Collaborative, published a paper in May 2010 detailing the flaws of the study. Among other things, these flaws included using data from 2004 and before when cell phone use was much less common, categorizing subjects who used cordless phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones,) as ‘unexposed’; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults who are more vulnerable.

In August 2009, more than forty leading independent scientists, physicians and other experts from fourteen countries endorsed the white paper “Cell-phones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone” by US researcher Lloyd Morgan. Investigating the research on cell phone tumor risks including the Interphone study, this paper concluded that “there is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use; telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors; and children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors”. Unlike the Interphone study, some industry funded research also accepts the risks associated with cell phone use. In 1999, Dr. George Carlo, head of a $25m research body funded by the mobile phone industry in the US, said his study showed an increased risk of getting a type of rare brain tumor from using mobile phones. This early in the debate, he was probably one of the first researchers with links to industry who stopped ruling out the tumor risks of cell phones.

A review of other main studies

Hardell et al.

Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, is one of the most adamant leaders in cautioning the world about cell phone tumor risks. In 2007, he and his team reported that cell phone users were at an increased risk of malignant glioma, and that a daily one-hour exposure significantly increased the risk for developing a brain tumor after 10 years (Hardell et al., 2007). In a more recent study also cited by NCI, they found statistically significant trends of increasing brain cancer risk for the total amount of cell phone use and the years of use among people who began using cell phones before the age of 20 (Hardell et al., 2011). They also published a number of other papers in epidemiological journals pointing to the risks associated with cell phone and cordless phone usage.

The Danish cohort study

A 2011 cohort study in Denmark linked billing information from more than 420,000 cell phone subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer Registry (Frei et al., 2011). This study was an update on the 2006-update of a 2001 cohort study (Schüz et al., 2006; Johansen et al., 2001) that has been dogged by controversy and political suspicions since the first results were published ten years ago. NCI cites the study and states that the analyses found no association between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 10 or more years. However, there is no mention of the published or vocal criticisms of the study.

The main criticism for the study is that more than 200,000 corporate mobile subscribers were excluded from the cohort as cell phone bills were not in users’ names. Microwave News states, “In the time period covered in the Danish project—from 1987 through 1995—cell phones were expensive and it’s no stretch to assume that those who did not have to pay their own bills racked up the most talk time.”² Thus, the study designers effectively removed one-third of the population with the heaviest cell phone use. Dr. Lennart Hardell had also criticized the original 2001 paper by publishing on the shortcomings that make the conclusions premature (Hardell and Mild, 2001). Concerning the 2011 update, the Microwave News bluntly suggests, “Don’t believe a word of it”.

It is also interesting to note that the results came just five months after a panel of experts from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) deemed cell phones a possible cause of cancer—a statement that sparked fear in many of the world’s 5 billion cell phone users.

Conclusion

While there is still no established causal link between cell phone use and cancer, we know as a fact that different research groups have found an increased risk of a rare type of brain cancer among heavy users. Even though children are known to be at a greater risk because of being in earlier stages of neural development, it is unfortunate that data from children were not included in studies until very recently. Concerned citizens of the world need to raise awareness about the behind-the-scenes battle taking place between different international panels and interest groups. This will make a reliable interpretation of conflicting news more possible. Further corroboration for both statistical and anecdotal evidence on the relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer may be necessary to “prove” a link, but this should, by no means, be interpreted as a vindication of cell phones. In the meantime, it is only safe to take precautions oneself, and encourage loved ones to reduce exposure to electromagnetic energy from cell phones by using a hands-free device and by reserving the use of cell phones for shorter conversations.

Notes

1 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

2 http://www.microwavenews.com/DanishCohort.html#Continued

References

• Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al. 2011. “Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study.” British Medical Journal; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d6387.
• Hardell, L., Walker, M. J., Walhjalt, B., Friedman, L. S. and Richter, E. D. 2007. “Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine,; 50: 227–233. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20357.
• Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Hansson-Mild K, Morgan LL. 2007. “Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: Increased risk associated with use for > or = 10 years.” Occup Environ Med. 64:626–632.
• Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2011. “Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects.” International Journal of Oncology; 38(5):1465–1474.
• Hardell L, Mild KH. 2001. “Re: Cellular Telephones and Cancer—a Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark”; JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 93(12): 952.
• Johansen C, Boice Jr. JD, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. 2001. “Cellular telephones and cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute; 93(3):203–207.
• Schüz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al. 2006. “Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute; 98(23):1707–1713.
• Tombak, Ali. 2002. “Biological Effects of Cellular Phones.” The Fountain, 37 (1).
• The Interphone Study Group. 2010. “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the Interphone international case-control study.” International Journal of Epidemiology; 39(3):675–694.

What are complex systems?

If there are multiple elements (variables/factors) interacting with each other in the creation of an event or a being, this structure is called a “Complex System.” For example, in the air system, air and water molecules are a factor. Plants and animals in an ecosystem can also be considered as a factor. These are interconnected to one another in a way hard to imagine and have impacts on each other. Systems with these specifications display complex situations throughout time. For example in the medical field, a disease is described multi-factorial if many factors (causes) take part in its development. However in the past, these laws, specifications, and progress-dependent patterns of the multifactor diseases had to be overlooked due to the lack of a suitable paradigm to study with. But today, with the complex system paradigm, we have a greater access to the inner dynamics of these multi-factor diseases.

Multi-factor systems in terms of structure and function exhibit complex features during the process. Thus, complicated features of a complex system have been found to be dependent on the “Force Law” when investigated with the complex system paradigm. They also establish the basis for principles and laws that are occurring coincidentally. According to the Force Law, in all complex systems, small scale changes occur in greater numbers, and larger scale changes happen less often. This state corresponds to the same direct line, when plotted on the x-y plane logarithmically with scale of changes versus chances of events being created. This indeed results in the stability of the system in the macroscale and yet reveals the variability and instability of the microscale. In other words, the state of the macrosystem is put forth momentarily by selection among many micro incidents, which, for believers, is an indication of an ultimate Divine will in possession of infinite power. The information level, energy and interaction strength of such events or beings plays a great role in the possible selection of micro incidents in the grand scheme of causes.

Complex systems that become visible via space-time river also enters a dynamic cycle which is composed of sub-critical, critical, and super critical states. In this way, events and existence become subjected to newer manifestations or degrees of glory, as for believers, life and existence are artworks of God and His Divine attributes in the visible universe, which resembles a drawing board. Living things display an adaptive and dynamic character along with being a complex system. Healthy processes in the human body display adaptive dynamic complex system properties yet exhibit complex behaviors that bring system down like cancer as well. The medical world in recent years have been referring to cancer more so than before because of undetermined factors in its development, hardships encountered during diagnosis and treatment; as cancer is a multi-factored disease, it is necessary to look at cancer with the complexity lens.

The science of complex systems which studies multidimensional and multifactor relations states that in each complex system there are common features, and that these features can also be observed in cancer just like in all other scientific fields and in all scales. The following will focus on the subject since cancer makes a good metaphor in understanding complex systems of behavior.

In complex systems, a whole system means more than the total value of its factors. This principle emphasizes that properties of events and beings that are the sum of many separate factors do not exist in separate units or tend to disappearas each part is handled more individually. The deduction-reduction examples of a peacock coming out of an egg, a tree growing from a seed, and water that consists of various elements are used as metaphors to explain matters that pertain to belief and bear complex system properties. There are many genetic, epigenetic, metabolic, internal and external factors in ontogeny of cancer, however it only develops with the interaction of these elements and differentiates from regular cells. According to widely accepted views, in order for a cell to become cancerous, it is not enough for it to undergo many genetic mutations on its own. The few mutations that take place in a specific order alongside other epigenetic factors could lead to a tumor and cause a “system death” which means much more than the total value of components. That is why death occurs systematically in humans-cell death, tissue death, organ death, system death (excretion and transport) and death of organism.

All complex systems not only have a specific perimeter but they also remain a part of this boundary. This feature brings attention to the fact that there is even a relation between the Sun and and eye of a mosquito. Cancer starts out with a single cell made up of specific inner parameters, in a particular placement within a tissue. It is not possible for a cancerous cell to proliferate for a long time and cause the death of an individual all by itself. It can cause death as a result of communication with surrounding cells, conversion of these into cancerous types, and dispersion through blood vessels into other organs.

Inhibition or the delay of these stages makes up the most significant strategic approaches of the therapy. Because of this, while a cancerous cell is programmed to change its surrounding it also begins utilizing the nutrient sources of surrounding live cells for itself, as if trying to resolve an optimization problem, and causes disruption in the system by displacing other cells with an uncontrolled proliferation potential. This incident points out that there is no such thing as a “minor” in complex systems.

In complex systems, the more diversity exists within a system, the more powerful the system becomes. This principle brings attention to maintenance contingency and sustainability of the system and the conditions that pertain to it, for the lifespan of complex systems correlates directly with the abundance and diversity encompassed in it. This viewpoint could be observed in the case of a normal cell turning malignant. A mature tumor is a group of differentiated cell types that can provide interaction with neighboring cells through intra- and inter-cellular structures (matrix). That is why one of the characteristics of cancer is progress-dependent heterogenity at a cellular level. Because of this reason, although there is only one cancerous cell at the beginning, it can divide into different populations in time. Each population can be considered as an independent (sub-population) population since each has a specific genetic composition. This diversity is one of the major sources of problems in cancer treatment.

A continued relationship of factors with each other in a complex system has critical importance regarding system survival. Metastasis of a tumor not only depends on relations with surrounding cells but at the same time relies on the stimulation of blood vessel synthesis factors (angiogenesis). Two events are required for the dispersal of cancer cells freely; the first is the reduced interaction with other cancer cells. This can be possible with regulation of cell-to-cell connection molecules (adhesion). Second is the formation of new blood vessels via stimulation to connect with the bloodstream from the vicinity of the tumor. Finally, cancer cells that have reached their target of joining the blood stream should be able to leave the circulation, penetrate the new tissue, and manage to grow again. Metastasis is a situation for cancer cells to regulate limiting factors according to their new conditions to survive.

Behaviors in complex systems which display more features (emergent situation) that are not present in the units or even in the total value of constituents are plentiful and complicated, yet principles as causes behind these rich motifs are simple and determine the function of the system. Cancer disease arises from the execution of three simple basic principles of interaction, proliferation, and dispersion in cancerous cells. Interaction, proliferation, and dispersion do result in a healthy cell if it happens properly in the correct place, time, and dosage; otherwise it results in a cancerous cell. These three principles can cause cancer as a complex system disease or a healthy life which also displays characters of a complex system. Critical factors that control the management of these principles are location, position, timing, and dosage.

In complex systems, minor scale changes in initial conditions can lead to major effects after a certain amount of time, like a small snowball getting bigger as it rolls. Metaphorically, this situation is called the “butterfly effect” which assumes the possibility of a hurricane in one part of the world resulting from a complex chain of events starting with the strokes of a butterfly in another far corner of the world. Most of the adaptive complex systems are called “self-organized systems” in the scientific jargon, however these may exhibit such behaviors that are hard to overlook and believers would attribute to Divine guidance rather than to their so-called self-organization capacity. These systems organized with Divine guidance reach a “critical state” at the end. One of the models that were developed to explain this critical state is called the “sand pile model.” The system is named sub-critical when sand particles start to pile up on a surface, since at this stage the system is not affected from the fall of the next sand particle. As sand particles pile up, they reach a critical state in which every new particle added to the pile can lead to one of the following: 1. Nothing will happen; this is called the super-critical state. Particle can stay on top or roll down to the bottom of the pile. 2. Particles that hit the top of the pile affect other particles and can cause a small avalanche. 3. Sand pieces hit the top and cause some displacement of other particles. These displaced particles successively can cause a bigger avalanche.

This bigger avalanche again restores the system back into a sub-critical level. All complex systems arrive at these stations of sub-critical, critical, super-critical and again sub-critical successively in the flow of time. At each station they are dressed with a form of existence corresponding to a different macroscopic situation. So the outcome of the next situation is contingent on the mean average of microstates and thus points to a manipulator, who wills it to be that way. As a result, a minor event can lead to a “point of no return,” a stage called catastrophe, a super-critical state. These stages result in the continuum of the universe as it transforms and renews itself. A cancer cell also stops by the above mentioned stations and step by step, like a snowball turning into an avalanche, it can impact the whole body after reaching the super-critical stage, and lead to death. That is why early diagnosis (made during sub-critical or critical level) increases the chances of treatment, yet late diagnosis (at super-critical level) decreases therapy outcomes.

There is no hierarchical chain of command or control of causes on each other in complex systems. In other words, not only is there not a single factor in control of the system, but also a great number of factors function in a nonlinear mode of interaction. The development and progression of cancer as a complex system is controlled through interaction of internal and external factors, genetic, epigenetic, physical and metaphysical, tangible and intangible elements. Initial conditions that prepare the basis for cancer progress does exist in human genome, for genes that play a role whether in development, suppression, or regulation of cancer are built in the human genomic library from the beginning. Embryonic development is maintained with proper activation of these regulatory genes in the correct time and place during pregnancy. However, same genes may initiate cancer if not properly expressed in the right time, place, and level after birth. Moreover, all the factors that the zygote is left exposed to during its interaction with the surroundings leave a mark (memory) on the system. This is called “system exposition.”

Exposition forms microstates that will lead to positive/negative development of the organism through interaction with genetic and epigenetic memory of the system. That is why programmed cell death is put in place to eliminate damaged and dysfunctional cells that form in the system.

Cancer, as a consequence of progress-dependent corresponding interaction of genome and system exposition, is a system that can display chaotic behavior. Because of this, spiritual factors as well as physical ones may cause a “butterfly effect” in development of cancer and there is no single center of command that is designed to control each of these in the causation chain. This being the case, one cannot help but wonder how causes can comply with the force law of all complex systems and that they share common features without a hierarchical command on each other.

Each complex system is composed of holographic sub-systems. The human body is an ecosystem of various systems placed within each other. The well-being of the ecosystem depends on proper interaction and health of these sub-systems. A tumor can be considered as a local ecosystem (sub-system) where various species and clones exist in a human ecosystem. While each tumor grows, there are living and dead clone populations in it. One billion elements exist in a tumor as small as 1 cm3 (1 gr). If we omit cell death, this corresponds to the 35th generation of an abnormal cell. Ten more generations later this reaches one trillion cells. This way, a population that started out with a single cell exceeds the total number of humans ever lived throughout history. So, human death with cancer starts with the disruption of one single cell. Once reached a super critical stage, system death occurs when the cancer branches out via blood circulation and disperses into various organs, leading to disconnection between them.

Cancerous cell reminds us that there are no minor events in the universe and points out that the health of our social and spiritual world takes shape according to the rules of complex systems. As a side thought, we may easily infer from cancer that underestimating any seemingly minor misbehavior or a sin and failure of immediate action to make up for it may lead to undesired consequences in our social and spiritual lives. It is also significant to be aware that we do not have an absolute control over our future and we cannot determine whether we will attain healing or not; however we can and we should try with science to elucidate some of the tangible causes of the disease and can point out some possible ways of treatment.