Calling into Question the Definition of the Cause of Cancer.
Has anyone ever questioned the premise that cancer is caused from a fault in the cell’s DNA? I am not aware of any challenges ever being brought forward that have even questioned this. It has always been taken as a ‘given’. This premise seems to be the central point from which all studies into the disease stem from. But what if this is wrong? What if we made a mistake right out of the gate? The last 125 years have been spent looking exclusively at our DNA as the culprit for this unwanted tissue growth, with questionable progress and frustrating statistics. There are two distinct methods from which a living cell can be reproduced. Since the procedures that are capable of creating a living cell are limited to just two methods, a flaw in the generation of unwanted cells must therefore be limited to one of these two methods. That is to say that cancer, which is defined as the growth of unwanted tissues, must either be the result of a defect in our DNA, or a defect in our repair aspect of our immune system, the only other way in which a cell can come into being. A third scenario does not exist that is capable of creating a living cell, therefore a third scenario cannot exist that could be a possible explanation for when something goes wrong. Thus far only one of the two methods has been considered as the culprit for when something goes wrong with the orderly generation of cells. Only the DNA method (the much studied process in which the cell’s DNA instructs the cell to divide as outlined in the internal code of the cell) has been considered as the root cause of cancer. Because the DNA method of cell regeneration has never been called into question, it has never required a label. For the purposes of this dissertation, I will be using the term ‘DNA model’ to refer to a sporadic mutation flaw that is currently believed to be the root cause of cancer. Cancer has only been considered as a defect at the cellular level and as a result a solution to the problem of cancer has only been looked at from the cellular level. Perhaps now it will be possible to turn the page and look at our immune system,… the only remaining viable explanation that could also account for this activity. The second and only other process that exists that is capable of generating a living cell, is this much less studied, and less understood method whereby the body’s own immune system is sent to a region immediately following some form of trauma; initially to stimulate the neighbouring cells into rapidly reproducing themselves in an endeavour to seal over a wound to hinder any blood loss, as well as prohibiting the entrance into the body of foreign contaminants. We refer to this process as the formation of scar tissue, and it is a function of our complex immune system. Scar tissue is principally associated with our skin tissue. However any cell in the body is capable of being stimulated by the immune system into generating scar tissue. Broken bones or torn cartilage are repaired with the controlled formation of scar tissue. Many of the intricacies are not yet known as to how this process is set into motion. However it is intuitively obvious that there must be a start mechanism. When the body experiences a trauma, it springs into action and sends this repair mechanism to the damaged site. It must then follow that there need be a mechanism in place to tell the immune system when the healing process is complete. With the same certainty that we know there is a ‘start mechanism’; obviously there must also be a ’stop mechanism’. Without fully understanding the intricacies of how these mechanisms work, we can know for certain that they do exist. It doesn’t require too much imagination to predict what a defect in one or both of these start and stop mechanisms would result in. A defect in the ’start mechanism’ would set the immune system into motion as if it had experienced some form of trauma, and the body would begin doing repairs to tissues without first being given a need too. Similarly, a defect in the ‘stop mechanism’ would result in the inability for this repair process to know when to shut off this process. Either one of these two scenarios would result in the manufacturing of unwanted tissues. This event then would meet the definition of, and be indistinguishable from, what we presently refer to as ’cancer’. Instead of viewing cancer as a defect in the p53 tumor suppressor gene, we could view it as a defect in our immune system which is carrying out repairs on tissues that do not first need repairing, and/or repairing cells and then not receiving a signal as to when to stop. There must be a stop code. I will be using the term ‘Scare tissue model’ to refer to the premise that the unwanted tissue we call cancer is a result of a defect in the immune system that is carrying out work on tissues that do not require work, or failing to receive the signal telling the body to stop this elevated level of activity. All of what we presently know about cancer can be viewed from and accounted for using this model for cancer. When further examined, all of the anomalies that currently surround the disease can be explained away. All of which has a tendency to add support to this new framework for understanding cancer, and simultaneously call into question the original premise of the DNA model. The cancer cell is distinguishable from the normal cell because it was manufactured by a different process than normal cell replacement. But the DNA method of cell regeneration is not different and not distinguishable from the original. No explanation has been put forward to explain why this underlying characteristic would change just because the controlled order of cell replacement went haywire. If the DNA model were to be true, then tumors would be clusters of cells indistinguishable from the host cells around them. A defect in the P53 gene should result in the formation of a wart, or a small polyp that could only grow to a size that could be supported by the existing blood supply. But we are still faced with the fact that the tumors are distinguishable from the surrounding tissue, and often accompanied by their own modified blood supply. A close examination of tumor tissues reveals that there are similarities between the formation of scar tissue (with its accompanying inflammation that is necessary to support and maintain the existence of this newly generated cell) and cancerous activity. This relationship is most easily observed by comparing skin surface scars with skin cancer. Because scar tissue was manufactured rapidly, and by a different process than that of normal tissue replacement (normal cell division as outlined in the cell DNA), it has different characteristics. Scar tissue made from skin cells has a distinct appearance with a smoother surface, firmer density, (described as a waxy appearance) and a different pigment from that of the surrounding tissue. The following quote can be found at www.google.com final report on Grant GR/K71394 Mathematical Model of Scar Tissue “Scar tissue formation is a ubiquitous feature of adult wound healing, with the resulting repair both functionally and cosmetically inferior to normal skin. At microscopic level, the main difference between scar and normal tissue is in the alignment pattern of the collagen fibers of which they are composed.” ‘Functionally and cosmetically inferior’ are characteristics shared by cells thought to be manufactured by cancer cells, and cells known to be manufactured by our immune system. And yet ‘functionally and cosmetically inferior’ characteristics are not attributed to cells known to be manufactured by the normal DNA method in cases other than cancer. If cancer was a disease of the cell losing the ability to replicate itself in a controlled manor, then we could expect to see uniformity between the cancer tumor and the parent cell that had lost this ability to replicate itself in a controlled manner. However; there would be no reason to expect to see uniformity between the various cancers themselves( if this uniformity did not first exist between the parenting cells). But the Nobel laureate Otto Warburg, while studying the metabolism of tumors, noted that "cancers of various species and tissue origins reveal a high uniformity from tumor to tumor." Warburg, O.: Stoffwechsel d. Tumore, Springer, Berlin, 1926. Engl. edn., The Metabolism of Tumors, tr. F. Dickens, London, 1930. In fact there have been numerous studies all of which point to a number of parallelisms between cancer tumors of all types. There are a series of “common denominators” that are shared between all cancerous tissues that do
Comments
-
Thank you so much for
Thank you so much for re-posting this. I read this a couple years ago on here but could not locate it again. I whole heartedly believe this explanation/description of cancer and find it facinating that it is not more widely accepted. I actually felt this way (after my diagnosis)before I read this post years ago. I based my feeling on the fact that the majority of cancer patients report being very healthy with few illnesses or diseases prior to their diagnosis implying they have a strong immune system not a weak one. I also have noticed that many cancers form where there has been injury inside the body such as smoking injuring lung or throat tissue and severe diet issues resulting in digestive tract cancers. I also thought perhaps that chemo works best when it stuns and slows the immune system not by simply killing cancer cells. Personaly, I have had stage 2 rectal cancer for two years without any progression and I have had a comprimised immune system since diagnosis with all blood counts below normal. Upon diagnosis I had complete lymph node activity with all areas lighting up on PET scan but they soon went back to normal and after two biopsies they were found to have no cancer. No doctor can explain what was going on to cause this.
While I haven't finished re-reading and processing all this again I had to write and thank you for posting it again but I must ask. Now what??? How can the immune system be kept in check?0 -
A number of years ago ason of hal said:Thank you so much for
Thank you so much for re-posting this. I read this a couple years ago on here but could not locate it again. I whole heartedly believe this explanation/description of cancer and find it facinating that it is not more widely accepted. I actually felt this way (after my diagnosis)before I read this post years ago. I based my feeling on the fact that the majority of cancer patients report being very healthy with few illnesses or diseases prior to their diagnosis implying they have a strong immune system not a weak one. I also have noticed that many cancers form where there has been injury inside the body such as smoking injuring lung or throat tissue and severe diet issues resulting in digestive tract cancers. I also thought perhaps that chemo works best when it stuns and slows the immune system not by simply killing cancer cells. Personaly, I have had stage 2 rectal cancer for two years without any progression and I have had a comprimised immune system since diagnosis with all blood counts below normal. Upon diagnosis I had complete lymph node activity with all areas lighting up on PET scan but they soon went back to normal and after two biopsies they were found to have no cancer. No doctor can explain what was going on to cause this.
While I haven't finished re-reading and processing all this again I had to write and thank you for posting it again but I must ask. Now what??? How can the immune system be kept in check?
A number of years ago a friend of mine was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. She had originally gone to see the doctor complaining of a sore breast that had become injured while play wrestling with her son, and months later was not seeming to get any better. Her doctors assured her that this wrestling accident was purely coincidental, and had nothing to do with the diagnosis of cancer. I have always found this troubling.
If this line of thinking makes any sense, your situation with the cleared up lymph nodes is very promising. You might be one of the lucky ones, and I hope and pray that this is the case.
“Now What???” (I am not a doctor and cannot give health advice. I am a Philosopher and can talk to you about ideas only.)
I still hold that the answer lies in allergies. Everything in nature has a purpose. There still remain a number of things that scientists do not know what the real purpose is, but I feel confident in saying that someday the purpose will be made known. What is the purpose of allergies? This allows us to exercise the immune system without doing any ‘real’ harm to the body. It has been documented that allergy sufferers are represented disproportionately in the cancer statistics. A tormented immune system should react in the same fashion as a chemotherapy patient and it should in theory be possible to put a patient in continuous remission by exercising the immune system.0 -
Just looking at the last paragraph's questions
"The ‘truth’ it appears, does not care if we believe it or not. The earth circled the sun even when everyone on it thought otherwise. In the field of cancer, there remain a number of anomalies with the present DNA model."
The DNA model in cancer is not as old as you believe. It was not until the 1960's that a relationship between damaged chromosome pairs and cancer was identified and the first drug to treat that damage, Tamoxifen, was not developed and put into use until the 1970's.
"Why was it relatively scarce prior to the industrial revolution?"
Cancer is primarily a disease of old age. Prior to the industrial revolution (actually, prior to the 20th century) we lived short lives (you were lucky to get past 30), brought down by simple infections and diseases borne of poor hygiene. Cancer was not getting its chance at being a primary killer.
"Why is it less prevalent in developing (third world) countries?"
See the old age thing again, and add in smoking, which is just getting a real foothold in the third world.
"Why is it not contagious?"
Because it is your own cells working against you. However, consider HPV, a contagious disease that can lead to cancer.
"Why can we not derive a vaccination for it, or ‘shared immunity’ from someone who does not develop cancer, yet has been exposed to all the same antigens as the cancer patient?"
Genetics, and the "it's your own cell thing". Currently there are several vaccines in testing, and may I remind you of the HPV vaccine which will prevent several types of cancer.
"Why do some treatments work well for some patients, and not at all for others?"
See my answer above.
"Why does the list of childhood cancers differ from that of adults, when our DNA does not change?"
Childhood cancers are primarily cancers of the blood (leukemia, lymphoma), while adult cancers are usually solid tumors. Think of cancer as fruit, with each kind of cancer being a different fruit. You cannot get apples from a banana plant, and they won't grow in the same climate.
"And of primary concern; why does our immune system not respond to it?"
The answer here is self. Your immune system reacts to the other, not to self, and the cancer is self, just a self we would rather not have.0 -
Judging from the title ofBuckwirth said:Just looking at the last paragraph's questions
"The ‘truth’ it appears, does not care if we believe it or not. The earth circled the sun even when everyone on it thought otherwise. In the field of cancer, there remain a number of anomalies with the present DNA model."
The DNA model in cancer is not as old as you believe. It was not until the 1960's that a relationship between damaged chromosome pairs and cancer was identified and the first drug to treat that damage, Tamoxifen, was not developed and put into use until the 1970's.
"Why was it relatively scarce prior to the industrial revolution?"
Cancer is primarily a disease of old age. Prior to the industrial revolution (actually, prior to the 20th century) we lived short lives (you were lucky to get past 30), brought down by simple infections and diseases borne of poor hygiene. Cancer was not getting its chance at being a primary killer.
"Why is it less prevalent in developing (third world) countries?"
See the old age thing again, and add in smoking, which is just getting a real foothold in the third world.
"Why is it not contagious?"
Because it is your own cells working against you. However, consider HPV, a contagious disease that can lead to cancer.
"Why can we not derive a vaccination for it, or ‘shared immunity’ from someone who does not develop cancer, yet has been exposed to all the same antigens as the cancer patient?"
Genetics, and the "it's your own cell thing". Currently there are several vaccines in testing, and may I remind you of the HPV vaccine which will prevent several types of cancer.
"Why do some treatments work well for some patients, and not at all for others?"
See my answer above.
"Why does the list of childhood cancers differ from that of adults, when our DNA does not change?"
Childhood cancers are primarily cancers of the blood (leukemia, lymphoma), while adult cancers are usually solid tumors. Think of cancer as fruit, with each kind of cancer being a different fruit. You cannot get apples from a banana plant, and they won't grow in the same climate.
"And of primary concern; why does our immune system not respond to it?"
The answer here is self. Your immune system reacts to the other, not to self, and the cancer is self, just a self we would rather not have.
Judging from the title of your post(and the contents), I gather that you just read the last paragraph of the original post. The last paragraph was a synopsis of the anomalies surrounding cancer that had been addressed from the point of view of this new framework. I wasn’t seeking answers, I was merely reiterating what I had just gone thru.0 -
With regards to the age ofBuckwirth said:Just looking at the last paragraph's questions
"The ‘truth’ it appears, does not care if we believe it or not. The earth circled the sun even when everyone on it thought otherwise. In the field of cancer, there remain a number of anomalies with the present DNA model."
The DNA model in cancer is not as old as you believe. It was not until the 1960's that a relationship between damaged chromosome pairs and cancer was identified and the first drug to treat that damage, Tamoxifen, was not developed and put into use until the 1970's.
"Why was it relatively scarce prior to the industrial revolution?"
Cancer is primarily a disease of old age. Prior to the industrial revolution (actually, prior to the 20th century) we lived short lives (you were lucky to get past 30), brought down by simple infections and diseases borne of poor hygiene. Cancer was not getting its chance at being a primary killer.
"Why is it less prevalent in developing (third world) countries?"
See the old age thing again, and add in smoking, which is just getting a real foothold in the third world.
"Why is it not contagious?"
Because it is your own cells working against you. However, consider HPV, a contagious disease that can lead to cancer.
"Why can we not derive a vaccination for it, or ‘shared immunity’ from someone who does not develop cancer, yet has been exposed to all the same antigens as the cancer patient?"
Genetics, and the "it's your own cell thing". Currently there are several vaccines in testing, and may I remind you of the HPV vaccine which will prevent several types of cancer.
"Why do some treatments work well for some patients, and not at all for others?"
See my answer above.
"Why does the list of childhood cancers differ from that of adults, when our DNA does not change?"
Childhood cancers are primarily cancers of the blood (leukemia, lymphoma), while adult cancers are usually solid tumors. Think of cancer as fruit, with each kind of cancer being a different fruit. You cannot get apples from a banana plant, and they won't grow in the same climate.
"And of primary concern; why does our immune system not respond to it?"
The answer here is self. Your immune system reacts to the other, not to self, and the cancer is self, just a self we would rather not have.
With regards to the age of population argument; many people died at childbirth which has a tendency to really skew the average age downwards. If we consider the age of the signers of the declaration of independence as a representative group of individuals with well documented lives and are a sample of the post industrial revolution population (all of whom survived childbirth obviously) we can remove this bias. It can then be realised that many of the population lived into their 80’s. When one baby dies at childbirth, and one goes on to live to be 80, their average age is documented as 40, on a specimen sample of just 2. A walk thru some old graveyards will convince you that a lot of the population perished at a young age back then. I am not convinced that we can dismiss the cancer statistics as merely a by-product of the fact that we are living longer. It would be possible to focus on cancer statistics that affect a specific age group and still conclude that things are not as they were.0 -
Sounds goodricwally said:With regards to the age of
With regards to the age of population argument; many people died at childbirth which has a tendency to really skew the average age downwards. If we consider the age of the signers of the declaration of independence as a representative group of individuals with well documented lives and are a sample of the post industrial revolution population (all of whom survived childbirth obviously) we can remove this bias. It can then be realised that many of the population lived into their 80’s. When one baby dies at childbirth, and one goes on to live to be 80, their average age is documented as 40, on a specimen sample of just 2. A walk thru some old graveyards will convince you that a lot of the population perished at a young age back then. I am not convinced that we can dismiss the cancer statistics as merely a by-product of the fact that we are living longer. It would be possible to focus on cancer statistics that affect a specific age group and still conclude that things are not as they were.
But the signers of the Declaration were the wealthy minority. Kind of like saying Mubarak represents the average Egyptian.0 -
Why don't squirrels get cancer?
Then get run over by cars before they get old!
Wow, lots of data and information there to absorb. One thing that caught my eye in the beginning is the process of "apoptosis" where the process of cells dying as being part of their normal life-cycle wasn't mentioned in your post. That certainly doesn't negate your post by any means.
"If cancer was a disease of the cell losing the ability to replicate itself in a controlled manor, then we could expect to see uniformity between the cancer tumor and the parent cell that had lost this ability to replicate itself in a controlled manner."
I found this explanation of cancer. It might be minor but it does talk about the cells not dying which is a normal part of the life cycle of cells. "Cancer is ultimately the result of cells that uncontrollably grow and do not die. Normal cells in the body follow an orderly path of growth, division, and death. Programmed cell death is called apoptosis, and when this process breaks down, cancer begins to form. Unlike regular cells, cancer cells do not experience programmatic death and instead continue to grow and divide. This leads to a mass of abnormal cells that grows out of control."
There is a lot of talk about cancer and a weakened immune system. I've been really surprised that in the 7 1/2 years I've been dealing with cancer (stage IV colon cancer) that I've been sick at most 4 times. I've never had any treatments held up for anything much less of a compromised immune system. I don't think that proves anything other than my immune system is still in pretty good shape. I've never been one for getting sick a lot anyway.
I do have trouble absorbing all of the technical information. What I do get from your post is that cancer is a very complicated disease that reacts differently in each of us. We all can not be cured the same way nor does everyone who is exposed to the same things develop cancer. I somehow fail to see "your point" though...
I have found that getting cancer falls into the "**** happens" category. I do believe that it is part environmental in nature and part nature in nature.
Albert Einstein also married his first cousin.
;-)
-phil0 -
Just a different point of viewPhillieG said:Why don't squirrels get cancer?
Then get run over by cars before they get old!
Wow, lots of data and information there to absorb. One thing that caught my eye in the beginning is the process of "apoptosis" where the process of cells dying as being part of their normal life-cycle wasn't mentioned in your post. That certainly doesn't negate your post by any means.
"If cancer was a disease of the cell losing the ability to replicate itself in a controlled manor, then we could expect to see uniformity between the cancer tumor and the parent cell that had lost this ability to replicate itself in a controlled manner."
I found this explanation of cancer. It might be minor but it does talk about the cells not dying which is a normal part of the life cycle of cells. "Cancer is ultimately the result of cells that uncontrollably grow and do not die. Normal cells in the body follow an orderly path of growth, division, and death. Programmed cell death is called apoptosis, and when this process breaks down, cancer begins to form. Unlike regular cells, cancer cells do not experience programmatic death and instead continue to grow and divide. This leads to a mass of abnormal cells that grows out of control."
There is a lot of talk about cancer and a weakened immune system. I've been really surprised that in the 7 1/2 years I've been dealing with cancer (stage IV colon cancer) that I've been sick at most 4 times. I've never had any treatments held up for anything much less of a compromised immune system. I don't think that proves anything other than my immune system is still in pretty good shape. I've never been one for getting sick a lot anyway.
I do have trouble absorbing all of the technical information. What I do get from your post is that cancer is a very complicated disease that reacts differently in each of us. We all can not be cured the same way nor does everyone who is exposed to the same things develop cancer. I somehow fail to see "your point" though...
I have found that getting cancer falls into the "**** happens" category. I do believe that it is part environmental in nature and part nature in nature.
Albert Einstein also married his first cousin.
;-)
-phil
Hello-
May I point out,unlike cancer, at least we know WHY **** happens. Because we eat... Imagine if scientists and doctors just said "well, were not sure what this nasty stuff is or why some people produce soft or firm or liquid but were pretty sure you don't want to step in it".... Personally, I feel it's wrong to believe it "just happens" and there is no ryme or reason. That would seem to go against nature and the natural process of living things. To me, cancer is like a fire. Something was the kindling, something was the spark and something keeps it burning. Every fire is different and no two fires burn exactly the same but those that study it at least know it's patterns and can predict what will likely set it off and what works best to snuff it out. Some single agents will put out most fires but it depends on what is burning (cancer specific chemo). Also, similar to cancer the conditions must be favorable or "just right" to initiate the process of combustion. A piece of paper is not a fire hazard. A match (by itself) is not a fire hazard. Gasoline (in a container) is not a fire hazard. Combine the three and it's dangerous but you still need the spark (or heat). Just like cancer you have environment, natural process and anatomy. Throw in genetics, toxins and poor health and it's like a combination lock waiting for the proper setting. Every cancer is also like a crime. I believe if enough individuals with cancer were studied like a crime scene you would see patterns appear that would point to causes and possible cures.0 -
That's it!son of hal said:Just a different point of view
Hello-
May I point out,unlike cancer, at least we know WHY **** happens. Because we eat... Imagine if scientists and doctors just said "well, were not sure what this nasty stuff is or why some people produce soft or firm or liquid but were pretty sure you don't want to step in it".... Personally, I feel it's wrong to believe it "just happens" and there is no ryme or reason. That would seem to go against nature and the natural process of living things. To me, cancer is like a fire. Something was the kindling, something was the spark and something keeps it burning. Every fire is different and no two fires burn exactly the same but those that study it at least know it's patterns and can predict what will likely set it off and what works best to snuff it out. Some single agents will put out most fires but it depends on what is burning (cancer specific chemo). Also, similar to cancer the conditions must be favorable or "just right" to initiate the process of combustion. A piece of paper is not a fire hazard. A match (by itself) is not a fire hazard. Gasoline (in a container) is not a fire hazard. Combine the three and it's dangerous but you still need the spark (or heat). Just like cancer you have environment, natural process and anatomy. Throw in genetics, toxins and poor health and it's like a combination lock waiting for the proper setting. Every cancer is also like a crime. I believe if enough individuals with cancer were studied like a crime scene you would see patterns appear that would point to causes and possible cures.
From now on, I'm gathering all the acorns for myself before the squirrels get them!0 -
Why is it less prevalent in
Why is it less prevalent in developing (third world) countries?
We don't know that it is less prevalent in third world countries because in many or most:
1.They don't have the resources to detect or treat cancer.
2.Many people are too poor to see out treatment because you pay before you can even see the doctor.
3.Many people live too far from clinics, doctor's or hospitals to even get there in time ie only show up when they are dying or not at all.
4.And even if they had resources/technology to detect cancer and the person had the money, they might not even have adequate cancer treatment.
And I am speaking from the experience of having lived and still having family in one of the fifth poorest countries in the world (Niger). People there know that having cancer is a death sentence and if you can't afford to go to France or Libya(which is now out of the question) you won't get treatment even if you are able to get a diagnosis.
Why is it not contagious?
It is for the Tasmanian devils where the facial cancers are passed on via biting. There is also another type of cancer in dogs that is transmitted by physical contact, a veneral disease.
I don't necessarily buy into the immune system theory. I rarely got sick before I was diagnosed with cancer. I think I prefer the Traditional Chinese Medicine theory that it is to do with chi stagnation. It fits in more with what is going on in my body.
But then maybe I will also just gather acorns in my driveway and hope I won't get run over by a car.0 -
Hi Halson of hal said:Just a different point of view
Hello-
May I point out,unlike cancer, at least we know WHY **** happens. Because we eat... Imagine if scientists and doctors just said "well, were not sure what this nasty stuff is or why some people produce soft or firm or liquid but were pretty sure you don't want to step in it".... Personally, I feel it's wrong to believe it "just happens" and there is no ryme or reason. That would seem to go against nature and the natural process of living things. To me, cancer is like a fire. Something was the kindling, something was the spark and something keeps it burning. Every fire is different and no two fires burn exactly the same but those that study it at least know it's patterns and can predict what will likely set it off and what works best to snuff it out. Some single agents will put out most fires but it depends on what is burning (cancer specific chemo). Also, similar to cancer the conditions must be favorable or "just right" to initiate the process of combustion. A piece of paper is not a fire hazard. A match (by itself) is not a fire hazard. Gasoline (in a container) is not a fire hazard. Combine the three and it's dangerous but you still need the spark (or heat). Just like cancer you have environment, natural process and anatomy. Throw in genetics, toxins and poor health and it's like a combination lock waiting for the proper setting. Every cancer is also like a crime. I believe if enough individuals with cancer were studied like a crime scene you would see patterns appear that would point to causes and possible cures.
I use the "$hit happens" example to show that we may not understand all that goes on to make something happen. It does seem like it has to be the Perfect Storm type scenario in order for one to get cancer. Sometimes genetics are involved, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's lifestyle, sometimes it's not. My point I guess is that it's a very complex series of events that must happen in order for one to "Get cancer". I like your paper and match analogy.
It's not as simple as a broken bone. A bone is broken, you reset it, keep it secure and immobile and it heals 999 out of 1000 times with no problems.
I did read the initial post and really didn't get "the point" if there was one.
It seemed like a bunch of information about how they think cancer is formed in the body. It did neglect to say that they normal life-cycle of a cell is to die in the end and that it doesn't happen with cancer cells. I think that's pretty important but I'm not a scientist.
I like this point you make "Just like cancer you have environment, natural process and anatomy. Throw in genetics, toxins and poor health and it's like a combination lock waiting for the proper setting. Every cancer is also like a crime. I believe if enough individuals with cancer were studied like a crime scene you would see patterns appear that would point to causes and possible cures." except maybe throw in a cockroach since cancer can also become immune to agents that kill it. If it didn't morph, chemo would rid the body of cancer but instead, after a while the chemo isn't effective against the cancer anymore.
-phil0 -
Will there be a test?PhillieG said:Hi Hal
I use the "$hit happens" example to show that we may not understand all that goes on to make something happen. It does seem like it has to be the Perfect Storm type scenario in order for one to get cancer. Sometimes genetics are involved, sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's lifestyle, sometimes it's not. My point I guess is that it's a very complex series of events that must happen in order for one to "Get cancer". I like your paper and match analogy.
It's not as simple as a broken bone. A bone is broken, you reset it, keep it secure and immobile and it heals 999 out of 1000 times with no problems.
I did read the initial post and really didn't get "the point" if there was one.
It seemed like a bunch of information about how they think cancer is formed in the body. It did neglect to say that they normal life-cycle of a cell is to die in the end and that it doesn't happen with cancer cells. I think that's pretty important but I'm not a scientist.
I like this point you make "Just like cancer you have environment, natural process and anatomy. Throw in genetics, toxins and poor health and it's like a combination lock waiting for the proper setting. Every cancer is also like a crime. I believe if enough individuals with cancer were studied like a crime scene you would see patterns appear that would point to causes and possible cures." except maybe throw in a cockroach since cancer can also become immune to agents that kill it. If it didn't morph, chemo would rid the body of cancer but instead, after a while the chemo isn't effective against the cancer anymore.
-phil
I was concerned after reading the original screed that we would be tested at some point. I think there is no question that the immune system enters into the equation and I wonder why the poster seems to think he has discovered some magical elixir for curing cancer.
I consider cancer to be potentially caused by one of three, or any combination of, three factors, which I think others have addressed.
There is genetics, without question. Certain genetic factors in the offspring of some breast cancer survivors, for example, suggest a higher possibility of the same cancer occuring in the offspring. My mom developed breast cancer as did three of her sisters living in disparate parts of the country and, regrettably, the same cancer struck my sister. There is much study of genetics and epigenetics as they relate to cancer and there is much promising in this study.
There is environment. There is little doubt that living in certain areas or performing one's job in a certain sort of environment can elevate one's risk of getting some cancers. Shipyard workers who worked with lead-based paint or asbestos or who went into fuel tanks to inspect and/or paint suffer an increased risk of lung cancer, as do bartenders who worked in (or work in) smoke-filled bars. Living in or around Chernobyl could be a problem and is still is.
And there is behavior. At the time I was diagnosed with head/neck cancer it was suggested that 95% of those diagnosed with this particular cancer were smokers and/or smokers and drinkers. I fell into this category. They have since advised that a virus may also cause this cancer (HPV...a sexually transmitted disease, if I am not mistaken, so perhaps a combination of behavior, genetics AND environment
).
There is much that the original post fails to take into account, in my opinion.
Take care,
Joe0 -
soccerfreakssoccerfreaks said:Will there be a test?
I was concerned after reading the original screed that we would be tested at some point. I think there is no question that the immune system enters into the equation and I wonder why the poster seems to think he has discovered some magical elixir for curing cancer.
I consider cancer to be potentially caused by one of three, or any combination of, three factors, which I think others have addressed.
There is genetics, without question. Certain genetic factors in the offspring of some breast cancer survivors, for example, suggest a higher possibility of the same cancer occuring in the offspring. My mom developed breast cancer as did three of her sisters living in disparate parts of the country and, regrettably, the same cancer struck my sister. There is much study of genetics and epigenetics as they relate to cancer and there is much promising in this study.
There is environment. There is little doubt that living in certain areas or performing one's job in a certain sort of environment can elevate one's risk of getting some cancers. Shipyard workers who worked with lead-based paint or asbestos or who went into fuel tanks to inspect and/or paint suffer an increased risk of lung cancer, as do bartenders who worked in (or work in) smoke-filled bars. Living in or around Chernobyl could be a problem and is still is.
And there is behavior. At the time I was diagnosed with head/neck cancer it was suggested that 95% of those diagnosed with this particular cancer were smokers and/or smokers and drinkers. I fell into this category. They have since advised that a virus may also cause this cancer (HPV...a sexually transmitted disease, if I am not mistaken, so perhaps a combination of behavior, genetics AND environment).
There is much that the original post fails to take into account, in my opinion.
Take care,
Joe
“There is genetics” The genetics connection could fall under the category of ‘nature verse nurture’. If we were raised in a household that relied heavily on pharmaceuticals at the first sign of a cold or flu, or had our scrapes and cuts treated with ant- biotical creams or ointments, then we are likely to do the same to our offspring. This is what we were taught. But other households might treat similar encounters differently. In this way it could be understood how cancers could follow a hereditary linage, but in actuality it is a nurtured response. It would be more difficult to explain away the link between redheaded people and skin cancer. This is more of a concrete hereditary link. We tend to associate redheads with fair skin and freckles. I suspect that it has something to do with the uneven distribution of melanin in the pigment of redheads and this somehow causes this tissue to be the ‘low man on the totem pole’, so this too could be accounted for from outside the DNA model.
“There is environment”. Much study has taken place to find a concrete cause/effect relationship between environmental factors and cancer. I have tried to point out that many of the environmental agents that are being considered as being the cause of our DNA going astray might also be viewed from the point of view of having our immune systems go astray. It would be hard to dismiss the relationship between asbestos or tobacco smoke and lung cancers. There are many examples of links between a given substance and cancer. The difficulty lies in explaining why this carcinogen does not affect everyone. Thus the quote “why don’t squirrels get cancer?” Squirrels live in our environment and are subjected to the same environmental carcinogens as we are. One difference is that squirrels don’t have medicine cabinets.
“And there is behaviour”. There has been a link established between high fibre diets and lower incidences of colon and bowel cancers. Applying sunscreen has been associated with lower rates of skin cancer. But again one could ask why do we not adapt these new behaviours and make cancer go away. Knowing what behaviours to adapt doesn’t seem to be having the desired results on our cancer statistics. The point of my original post was to attempt to connect all these dots and come up with an alternate way of looking at cancer that could account for the anomalies that presently surround the DNA explanation0 -
Apoptosis is hard to refutePhillieG said:Why don't squirrels get cancer?
Then get run over by cars before they get old!
Wow, lots of data and information there to absorb. One thing that caught my eye in the beginning is the process of "apoptosis" where the process of cells dying as being part of their normal life-cycle wasn't mentioned in your post. That certainly doesn't negate your post by any means.
"If cancer was a disease of the cell losing the ability to replicate itself in a controlled manor, then we could expect to see uniformity between the cancer tumor and the parent cell that had lost this ability to replicate itself in a controlled manner."
I found this explanation of cancer. It might be minor but it does talk about the cells not dying which is a normal part of the life cycle of cells. "Cancer is ultimately the result of cells that uncontrollably grow and do not die. Normal cells in the body follow an orderly path of growth, division, and death. Programmed cell death is called apoptosis, and when this process breaks down, cancer begins to form. Unlike regular cells, cancer cells do not experience programmatic death and instead continue to grow and divide. This leads to a mass of abnormal cells that grows out of control."
There is a lot of talk about cancer and a weakened immune system. I've been really surprised that in the 7 1/2 years I've been dealing with cancer (stage IV colon cancer) that I've been sick at most 4 times. I've never had any treatments held up for anything much less of a compromised immune system. I don't think that proves anything other than my immune system is still in pretty good shape. I've never been one for getting sick a lot anyway.
I do have trouble absorbing all of the technical information. What I do get from your post is that cancer is a very complicated disease that reacts differently in each of us. We all can not be cured the same way nor does everyone who is exposed to the same things develop cancer. I somehow fail to see "your point" though...
I have found that getting cancer falls into the "**** happens" category. I do believe that it is part environmental in nature and part nature in nature.
Albert Einstein also married his first cousin.
;-)
-phil
Apoptosis; There could be something going on in modern times that is causing our DNA to lose the ability to follow thru with its programmed death. This is the only viable explanation that I can think of that adds any support to the DNA theory for explaining cancer. But the follow up question is what are we doing in modern times to cause our DNA to lose this ability for the cell to follow thru with its programmed death? Why has apoptosis become a modern phenomena? Why does this not affect third world countries to the same extent? Why does this programmed cell death have a profoundly different affect on children and the types of cells they have that ends up losing this ability to die? You point out that “That certainly doesn't negate your post by any means.” Perhaps the explanation for why this is happening could apply to either scenario. I am having difficulty poking a hole in this concept of apoptosis. For the time being, I will need to entertain the possibility that either scenario is plausible.0 -
ricwallyricwally said:soccerfreaks
“There is genetics” The genetics connection could fall under the category of ‘nature verse nurture’. If we were raised in a household that relied heavily on pharmaceuticals at the first sign of a cold or flu, or had our scrapes and cuts treated with ant- biotical creams or ointments, then we are likely to do the same to our offspring. This is what we were taught. But other households might treat similar encounters differently. In this way it could be understood how cancers could follow a hereditary linage, but in actuality it is a nurtured response. It would be more difficult to explain away the link between redheaded people and skin cancer. This is more of a concrete hereditary link. We tend to associate redheads with fair skin and freckles. I suspect that it has something to do with the uneven distribution of melanin in the pigment of redheads and this somehow causes this tissue to be the ‘low man on the totem pole’, so this too could be accounted for from outside the DNA model.
“There is environment”. Much study has taken place to find a concrete cause/effect relationship between environmental factors and cancer. I have tried to point out that many of the environmental agents that are being considered as being the cause of our DNA going astray might also be viewed from the point of view of having our immune systems go astray. It would be hard to dismiss the relationship between asbestos or tobacco smoke and lung cancers. There are many examples of links between a given substance and cancer. The difficulty lies in explaining why this carcinogen does not affect everyone. Thus the quote “why don’t squirrels get cancer?” Squirrels live in our environment and are subjected to the same environmental carcinogens as we are. One difference is that squirrels don’t have medicine cabinets.
“And there is behaviour”. There has been a link established between high fibre diets and lower incidences of colon and bowel cancers. Applying sunscreen has been associated with lower rates of skin cancer. But again one could ask why do we not adapt these new behaviours and make cancer go away. Knowing what behaviours to adapt doesn’t seem to be having the desired results on our cancer statistics. The point of my original post was to attempt to connect all these dots and come up with an alternate way of looking at cancer that could account for the anomalies that presently surround the DNA explanation
In the household using antibiotics, the children heal faster from their infection (and in the odd case, do not die of it). How is this "hereditary"?
As to the redhead, that is all DNA. There is a lack of melanin in the skin of a redhead, and ANY sun exposure causes damage to the skin cells, which raises the incidence of mutation, which leads to a higher rate of skin cancer.
Environment: It increases risk, but in most cases it is not the be all end all. You finish with behavior (which is the same as environment) and use CRC as a first example. You can reduce your risk of CRC with a high fiber diet, but you cannot eliminate it. In real terms, the lifetime risk difference between a high fiber diet and someone who consumes a hot dog a day is only about 3 points or less. Lung cancer exists without tobacco, just in greatly reduced numbers.
As to incidence being higher in first world and modern times, Miriam addresses third world, and earlier in the conversation I addressed age. There remains the issue of cancer apparently being less prevalent among the elderly of previous generations, lets use three examples to show why this would be:
1. Lung Cancer - Previous generations did not smoke
2. CRC - The median age of diagnoses is currently 74. A 74 year old who dies of liver failure, or of an exploding bowel, would have NO outward symptoms to show cancer. Without an autopsy (only rarely performed) the cause of death would likely just list the symptoms (which could be many things) or it would just say died of old age
3. Leukemia - Not even recognized as a cancer until the 19th century, and even then most who died of it would not have been properly diagnosed until the 20th century.0 -
I was attempting to showBuckwirth said:ricwally
In the household using antibiotics, the children heal faster from their infection (and in the odd case, do not die of it). How is this "hereditary"?
As to the redhead, that is all DNA. There is a lack of melanin in the skin of a redhead, and ANY sun exposure causes damage to the skin cells, which raises the incidence of mutation, which leads to a higher rate of skin cancer.
Environment: It increases risk, but in most cases it is not the be all end all. You finish with behavior (which is the same as environment) and use CRC as a first example. You can reduce your risk of CRC with a high fiber diet, but you cannot eliminate it. In real terms, the lifetime risk difference between a high fiber diet and someone who consumes a hot dog a day is only about 3 points or less. Lung cancer exists without tobacco, just in greatly reduced numbers.
As to incidence being higher in first world and modern times, Miriam addresses third world, and earlier in the conversation I addressed age. There remains the issue of cancer apparently being less prevalent among the elderly of previous generations, lets use three examples to show why this would be:
1. Lung Cancer - Previous generations did not smoke
2. CRC - The median age of diagnoses is currently 74. A 74 year old who dies of liver failure, or of an exploding bowel, would have NO outward symptoms to show cancer. Without an autopsy (only rarely performed) the cause of death would likely just list the symptoms (which could be many things) or it would just say died of old age
3. Leukemia - Not even recognized as a cancer until the 19th century, and even then most who died of it would not have been properly diagnosed until the 20th century.
I was attempting to show that some cancers could appear to have a heredity (genetic) link because they run in families, but behaviours also run in families, so incidents that are thought of as a faulty genetic line, may actually be a learned behaviour. If we are weakening our immune systems by employing pharmaceuticals to do the job for it, and a weakened immune system is responsible for this phenomena we call cancer, then this could appear to run in families because we take on the habits of those who raised us.
Your explanation for the lung cancer statistics getting worse because “Previous generations did not smoke” seems counterintuitive. Movies from the 40’s 50’s and 60’s seem to show that it was quite fashionable to smoke back then. As I wrote in the original post, it would be expected that as our knowledge increases as to which carcinogens we need to avoid, and which behaviors we need to adopt or promote, the resulting number of cancer cases should be on the decline. Yet the percentage of people who can expect to have to deal with some form of cancer in their lifetime, is still on the rise. It could be argued that this is an unavoidable by-product of our longer life expectancy. But we can factor out this retort by focusing on cancer statistics that are only inflicting those in one specific age group. It can be observed that these figures too, are still on the rise. One might conclude that this is an overtly pessimistic interpretation of the statistics. If it does appear pessimistic, it is only to contrast optimism, and only after 130 years of holding on to optimistic views has led nowhere. Cancer has increased over this period from 1 in 8,000 to 1 in 2 persons. And yet we are being told that progress is being made. A quick look back into old encyclopedia articles confirms that there has been little or no progress over the years. The scientific and medical communities are focusing exclusively on our DNA as being the culprit. It would be expected that after more than a century of pursuing this one angle, we could expect more progress then is presently seen. A considerable amount of money has been spent in the pursuit of finding a cure. Many new carcinogens or potential causes have been brought to light. Many strides have been made towards extending the lives of those afflicted with this misfortune. But much of this ‘deemed’ success could be attributed to the ‘early detection’ alone. Consider two hypothetical cases of an identical cancer that has a duration of twelve years. The first case goes undetected until the tenth year of the ailment before it is discovered. We then have a documented case that will be deemed as an aggressive cancer, which took its toll within two short years. In the second case, the patient is detected early; let’s say in the second year. This patient will be logged as having had a ten year survival rate, before finally succumbing to the disease, which again took twelve years to run its course. This scenario illustrates how the move towards detecting the cancer early, in itself has led to the appearance of great medical strides being achieved, even if this second hypothetical patient received no medical attention after his or her early diagnosis. It is not my intent to ridicule or demean the medical profession. Rather, it is just one more example of one set of data having more than one conclusion. Early detection has been attributed to being of paramount importance in the survival rates of cancer. It could be that ‘early detection’ is merely giving a head start to the timepiece that measures success.
Another critique that I have is the tendency to dilute the figures for cancer into an ever increasing number of categories. This tendency gives the appearance that the numbers of patients that are afflicted with a certain cancer type is on the decline. For example, in past years, there was but one type of breast cancer. All cases of the ailment fell into this one category. Presently there is a tendency to siphon off some of the occurrences of breast cancer into their own categories. Inflammatory Breast Cancer, and Male Breast Cancer are often removed from the big picture to be viewed as separate issues. The remaining cases are divided into ductile versus lobular categories; or invasive versus in-situ. Since it is not possible for a patient to simultaneously come down with both types, they must therefore fall under the category of one or the other. By virtue of the numbers now being divided, they are now being used to represent the appearance of a decline in cases of cancer for any one category. This gives a misleading impression that the medical community is making great strides in their efforts to combat this ‘disease’. However, it can be observed that the overall picture is getting uglier. If we sum these categories back together so that we can compare them with the earlier statistics of breast cancer, then we are forced into the grim realization that there is no progress being made. This trend can also be observed in the categorization of colon cancer patients. In earlier years, there were no individual categories of anal cancer, prostate cancer, rectal cancer, bowel cancer, and colon cancer. These were all under one category. As science became more knowledgeable, it could be detected that there were differences in these types of cancer, and as a result, new categories were required, and warranted. Since it is not possible to go back in time and properly re-categorize the earlier statistics into the new categories, we would need to sum these current categories together for comparison purposes, in order to see if any progress was being made in this sector of cancer research. These figures too are discouraging.
I agree with your criticism of the methods of gathering earlier statistics, but I suspect that the statistics gathered today will have some shortcomings when studied in the future. But we must avoid the tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater.0 -
My takemariam_11_09 said:Why is it less prevalent in
Why is it less prevalent in developing (third world) countries?
We don't know that it is less prevalent in third world countries because in many or most:
1.They don't have the resources to detect or treat cancer.
2.Many people are too poor to see out treatment because you pay before you can even see the doctor.
3.Many people live too far from clinics, doctor's or hospitals to even get there in time ie only show up when they are dying or not at all.
4.And even if they had resources/technology to detect cancer and the person had the money, they might not even have adequate cancer treatment.
And I am speaking from the experience of having lived and still having family in one of the fifth poorest countries in the world (Niger). People there know that having cancer is a death sentence and if you can't afford to go to France or Libya(which is now out of the question) you won't get treatment even if you are able to get a diagnosis.
Why is it not contagious?
It is for the Tasmanian devils where the facial cancers are passed on via biting. There is also another type of cancer in dogs that is transmitted by physical contact, a veneral disease.
I don't necessarily buy into the immune system theory. I rarely got sick before I was diagnosed with cancer. I think I prefer the Traditional Chinese Medicine theory that it is to do with chi stagnation. It fits in more with what is going on in my body.
But then maybe I will also just gather acorns in my driveway and hope I won't get run over by a car.
I have to admit I was unable to read the entire posting on this subject, too many things going on for me medically right now and can't focus but I wanted to just throw in my beliefs in case it should help anyone.
I think that cancer has 2 possible sources at least. One is genetic (a predesposition to it but not a certainty) and if conditions are right in the body mainly due to some sort of extreme stressor such as emotional stressors(traumas etc) then the genetic predispotion can be triggered. That is one way. The other way is still through stressors but they are chemical stressors - environmental things like pollution or being in coal mines for years but the basis is the same - too much stress on the body. Look at it this way. If a car (symbol of our body) has too much stress on one of it's parts it breaks down. Same deal.
Meditation is, as far as I am concerned, one of the best ways to stave off stress of many kinds and eating well, keeping a balance in our foods and the way we live could go a long way in eliminating cancer. I totally think that it happens due to the two factors I described. No way, right now, to tell though of course unless they do the proper studies.
Blessings,
Bluerose0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 121.6K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 308 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 395 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.3K Kidney Cancer
- 671 Leukemia
- 791 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 234 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.1K Ovarian Cancer
- 56 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.4K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 534 Sarcoma
- 719 Skin Cancer
- 646 Stomach Cancer
- 190 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards