This first chapter will take up synthetically the various notions already exposed in the first part. It is justified by two closely linked reasons: the very concept of cancer derived from a linguistic misuse and purely intellectual speculations; it spreads a falsely funded anxiety making it one of the big "demons" of medical mythology. The biological laws permit to set order into the diagnostic jumble in use and revive hope where only panic and blindness reign.

Let us first reconsider the big themes of official cancerology. The ultimate distinction criterion between so-called non-malignant tumours and those said to be malignant (cancer) does not rest on a simple observation of the organs, be it visible to the naked eye or by means of imaging examinations or by palpation. This observation will serve, if need be, to talk about metastases when we will see the abnormal images on the bone scintigraphy, on X-ray photographs, on the scanners, etc… The criterion resides in the anatomopathologic study, i.e. in the microscopic observation of cellular abnormalities of the biopsy tissue sample and, what is more, of the removed operative piece. This examination now is centred on the internal cellular reproduction organoids; the famous verdict between non-malignant and malignant is dependent on the degree of activity of this reproduction system and claims to be binary: it is white or black, without any shades of grey! To take a metaphor, it is as if one completely changed identity when walking or when running because only the muscular activity, sweat, heart rhythm and arterial pressure parameters are taken into account in both extreme cases; and this without considering any possible variation in the motion speed … nor the motivation for this speed. This list is fixed according to statistical choices and the inevitable cases that can not be classified in one of both camps will be taken up into concepts such as "dysplasia", "pre-cancerous" lesions, etc…

But the facts deny the predictive discourse according to which these cells, merely in a higher reproduction activity, can only "contribute" to the continuous development of the tumour … except then for a therapeutic exorcism by means of surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy. So the tumours ceasing to grow and becoming stable; those regressing and hardening while increasingly marking off; and even those disappearing, often through infection. The route within this labyrinth of experimental cancerology also keeps some surprises in store, such as transplantation of microscopely cancerous cells becoming normal again after having been injected to an animal in the embryonic stage; experience as crucial as unknown, showing the influence of environment on cells considered to be uncheckable and anarchistic.

The concept of metastases is also merely literary than really scientific (i.e. based on the complete and repetitive observation of the facts): how can one single cancerous cell play salmon in the circulation (this has never been discovered); escape from the antibody , interferon, macrophage and other killer cell armies (dixit the immunology discourse) to end up imposing its laws within an healthy organ and creating a family? A birth that will, however, only tragically be celebrated five or ten years later. But what is even more magical: how can it change its nature according to the organ it is invading when one knows that each tissue always proceeds to its own metamorphosis? This is where the anatomopathologic criterion is contradicting itself: when one pretends that the cells of a breast adenocarcinoma has spread out in a vertebra, one does not find any adenocarcinoma within the bone, one only finds a destruction (bone lysis). Even so, the round stains on the lungs always have the nature of an adenocarcinoma; how can they be the metastases of a tumour having the nature of an epithelioma?

The preceding comments may appear as being harsh to more than one reader, but every patient, potential or having been taken in charge, should be enabled to keep his mind alert before dogmatic affirmations, stuffed with exceptions and incoherences. In the absence of being able to hunt out the contradictions and the inefficacy of certain "professional" discourses, one may at least see much more evident realities. So, the diagnosis of bone metastasis after a breast cancer essentially rests on the finding that lots of women, after breast removal, develop bone lesions; hence the conclusion that this cancer preferentially metastases into the bone. But beyond this premature and gratuitous assertion, taking into account the whole of the facts is much more conclusive: all women – and far from it – do not have a bone affection, then why one and not the other? Why the same bone affections without breast or any other form of cancer? Why sometimes metastases in other organs than the bones?

These questions bring us back to the biological laws and, at first, to the iron law of cance". What does a woman, whose breast has been removed or mutilated, feel? Or who has been dramatically disturbed to learn about her cancer at that particular place on her body , with all it implies for her? Which kind of conflict is always found at the origin of bone affections? Those answers do not rest on "statistics with exceptions" but on constant relations between diseases and conflicts.

The tissue description of tumours is very complex but the proliferation phenomenon is very simple: it corresponds to one of the two concrete cases described in the third biological law. Let us remind, once again, that a tumour is a proliferation of a tissue derived from the endoderm or from part of the mesoderm in the first (conflictual) phase, or a proliferation of a tissue derived from the ectoderm or from the other part of the mesoderm, meant to be repairing in the second phase. Let us also add that what is called a cyst is a second phase proliferation within the organs without an own capsule. The fundamental difference between the tumours is consequently not of a microscopic order and does not refer to the binary classification between non-malignant and malignant (and all the subclasses of each of the categories such as non-malignant cyst and malignant cyst). The differences to consider lie otherwise: the difference in nature and in significance lies in the presence of the tumour in one of both phases (simultaneous with its embryological belonging and its link to a part of the brain). The difference from the point of view of importance and severity is of a QUANTITATIVE AND NOT OF A QUALITATIVE ORDER. THE ONLY THING TO UNDERSTAND WELL IS THE SENSE OF THE PROLIFERATION AND ITS EXTENT AS TO THE INTENSITY / DURATION OF THE CONFLICT.

Let us take two examples to illustrate the universality of this reality. An unimportant conflict touching our integrity will give a small subcutaneous proliferation that will be cleared up by microbial work in the second phase: non-malignant and even innocuous diagnosis, of furuncle. The same but infinitely more dramatic conflict will give the same though much faster and more important proliferation process: malignant diagnosis of melanoma that may effectively reach a size as large as an orange or a human head! In between both: all gradations are possible, such as acne where small conflicts repeat themselves, often during years, until the adolescent will have found the necessary resources to put an end to his painful experiences.

A small devalorisation conflict but touching deeper cords will enhance a small bone decalcification that will be repaired by a proliferation called exostosis, osteophyte, or more generally parrot bill: non-malignant diagnosis of arthrosis, with a whole lot of variations from one person to another. The same conflict, though more intense, and the reparation tumour will be diagnosed as an osteosarcoma: and severe and metastasing bone cancer.

Life of an organism and the multitude of its movements (intracellular, cellular, organic, etc…) can not be reduced to simplistic categories meant to fill up the gaps in the comprehension of their diversity and to statistically create non existing continuity solutions. The only existing hiatus is the skid of psychism during DHS starting the cellular modification programme, becoming reversible when the problem is solved. And the enormous variation scale one observes in these pathologies – tumoral in this case since cancers are concerned, but valid for all affections – which may be explained and verified always keeping in mind the continuous interrelation of the triad psychism – brain – organs.