Calling into Question the Definition of the Cause of Cancer.

laurettas said:

Very interesting!
I actually read all of this thread tonight, much to the dismay of my eyes! I printed it out, thinking that would be easier but the type was so small that at first I thought some flies had taken up residence on the paper, if you know what I mean.

Anyhow, I find this topic totally intriguing. The reason I think the basic premise shows some merit is primarily one reason. It makes no sense to me that rogue cells would develop the capacity to develop their own vascular system. That is something that it would seem only the immune system would have the capacity of doing with its ability to repair wounds.

I can see how the body being harmed in some way would elicit an immune response. This could come from carcinogens, irritation, any number of things. If, then, in the process of healing that wound, the immune system malfunctioned and lost its ability to stop the processes it began, then "cancer" has begun.

I am a little confused about one thing, however. It was stated that cancer cells from all different locations have more in common with each other than with the organ from which they originated. I didn't understand then how biopsies could determine whether a cancer originated in the colon or lung or whatever if that were the case.

Another thing that my experience is in conflict with is the assertion that those with allergies have less cancer. My husband has allergies to dust, pollen, etc. that have bothered him for all of his life. He has had cancer twice. He also gets much more ill than I do with colds, etc. and I have no known allergies. I would think that too much constant stimulation of the immune system might tend to cause it to malfunction more readily--allergies could be a sign that the immune system does not know how to shut itself off properly.

I had another thought about the less frequent occurrences of cancer in some cultures. Could part of the issue be the fact that many cultures are living in an environment that their ancestors have been in for many, many centuries, eating the same types of foods, exposed to the same fauna, etc. potentially causing many fewer allergies and food sensitivities than those who move to totally new environments eating foods that their bodies have not been genetically adapted to tolerate?

In studying about my husband's particular type of cancer, signet ring cell, one of the things that promotes its growth is the lack of functioning of a molecule in the cell called E cadherin. This molecule is one thing that causes the cells to stick together and when cells don't stick together, they lose their ability to die when they are supposed to, leading to cancer. This particular molecule is dependent on calcium to function--so could a lack of calcium lead to this malfunction?

I have also read about a protein found in heart muscle that is much less present in colon cancer cells than in normal colon cells. Could deficiencies in certain nutrients such as calcium and certain proteins contribute to cancer forming?

One last thing. The marker commonly watched with colon and some other cancers is CEA--carcinoembryonic antigen. I presume CEA is produced by embryos in their stage of rapidly dividing cells. Do we know what causes the embryo to stop this stage of rapid division? If we did, couldn't we figure out how to restore this capacity in cancer cells?

So many possible causes and cures for this disease--it is mind numbing at times!

A final question. Any particular reason this was posted in the spirituality section?