|
| Thread: Cancer should not exist. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted May 01, 2006 06:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My main interest though is in cancer prevention and sinse treatments by orthadox medicine are not aimed that way but in treating cancer once it has arrisen this is why i dont do a lot of the kind of research you have done.
Well, I certainly do not deny there are problems with modern medicine. Nor do I deny that there are conflicts of interest within the pharmaceutical industry. However, to some extent the scientific community (basic scientific research) and the medical community are separate entities. Unfortunately, the medical field often does adopt a "wait until the symptoms show up, and then treat it" philosophy rather than a "prevent it" philosophy. Though this may be a result of the fact that it's often much easier to correct a problem when you can see it rather than trying to fix it before it happens! Still - a lot of research IS being done into factors which lead to cancer.
Quote:
Maybe i should though. Understanding how cancer works has to be crucial whether you look at cure or prevention.
Exactly. Cure it or prevent it - you need to know what causes it in either place.
Quote:
I wiil value any links you provide from your own research.
BTW. How did you come to do the amount of research you have done on all of this ? I was a bit surprised that you knew about thiocyanate.
To be fair and honest, I do not study cancer. I am not a biologist or a doctor. I'm a chemist/physicist. My knowledge of cancer is limited to what I've picked up along the way, which, compared to someone actually in the field, is probably very little. However, a trained scientist can usually pick out the good, reliable stuff from the crap, pretty easily. (I know about thiocynate because I'm a chemist; not to mention I have many, many textbooks and journals at my disposal, so I can easily check facts.)
Let me just expand on one point here, to convey to you a sense of why websites like the ones you linked to agitate me. As has been pointed out by Binabik, there is something of a stigma against "alternative medicine" within the scientific (and specifically, the medical) community. Many scientists/doctors refuse to recognize any potential benefits of this field. I am not one of these people, as over the years many alternative medicines have been actually found to have a scientific basis for their efficacy.
(A great example is quinine, an antimalarial chemical; it was originally used - although they didn't know it was quinine - by natives who drank it in the form of a tea prepared from the bark of the Cinchona tree. So you see, there is usually an underlying worth of studying herbal medicines: herbs usually contain chemicals that in many cases actually do have medical benefits. Of course, folklore is also chock full of examples of things that had no medical benefit whatsoever, such as reading the future from studying animal entrails... so discerning the useful from the useless is something of a tiresome business. But I digress.)
Anyway, what I am getting at is this: the natural distrust of scientists of many alternative medicines is actually exacerbated by websites like this. When people put up websites full of obviously fraudulent information, they enlarge the gap of distrust between scientists (who can see right through the stuff) and ALL proponents of alternative medicines, both the quacks and the ones that actually may have some merit.
Here's a good example, although one that does not involve alternative medicine. I have used it before, but it's a good one. I'll make it brief. Some time ago, I was driving to work and I hit a traffic jam, which was caused by a protest by a very large group of people. These people were protesting a biotechnology conference they were having here in Philadelphia. Naturally I was quite pissed at the inconvenience. On the news that night, they interviewed some of the protesters, who were, shall we say, quite fanatical. Anyway, one woman they interviewed was screaming about how "They be puttin' fish in our tomatoes! Dey gotta be stopped!!" You see, this is the problem. The whole fish-tomato thing is a complete misconception about genetic engineering, one that is spread around as anti-propaganda by factions that are against genetic engineering and one that is so scientifically silly it is laughable. It is used to scare the ignorant into thinking "ewww... gross, a fish tomato". And so this gets spread around to all these dumb people who then go protest in the streets that the scientists need to stop putting fish into our tomatoes. I won't go into why this is all so silly, but the scientists, who know it's retarded, therefore form a very low opinion of these people, labelling them as crazy, wackos, whatever.
So the result is that there is a breakdown in communication between scientists who create the technology and the people who will ultimately be using the technology. The scientists think the people are wackos and it's not even worth trying to talk to them about it, and the people think the scientists are evil maniacs bent on world domination. All because of misinformation.
The REAL tragedy is that, on the issue of genetic engineering (like all new techs), there are real issues that need to be dealt with and discussed. There are a lot of reasons why genetic engineering should be approached with caution. The fish tomato isn't one of them, and, ironically, the protesters probably don't even know the real reasons - they're just worried about the "ew..gross" things that are never going to happen rather than concerned over loss in biodiversity, which is the real problem with GE. Scientists, people and politicians need to discuss these important issues, but that will never happen while the seeds of distrust are sewn by radicals who spread misinformation.
So you see, the reason I sort of jumped on you is because, unwittingly as you may have done it, you are spreading misinformation that gives ALL of alternative medicine a bad name. Doctors/scientists see stuff like this and they're like, "Yeah, right, why should we even bother talking to kooks like this?" Most of them wouldn't have bothered responding to you. And they can't help seeing ALL of alternative medicine in the same negative light, when a lot of it probably has some real underlying benefits in it.
Does that make any sense? I sort of wrote that all quickly because time is short today. I do apologize if I came off as sarcastic earlier - you seem like a sensible guy who has a true eagerness to learn the truth (which is more than I can say for a lot of people) who just doesn't have the background expertise - yet - to understand the basic issues at hand. It just really bothers me when I see bad information being spread around. Which is why I recommended, if you are truly interested, to start at the beginning and learn some basic information about cancer so that you can truly separate the good information out there from the bad information, and make good, informed decisions about your own life choices. I mean, seriously: would you go out and take a bottle of "Vitamin B17" based on the information you have? A chemical that COULD be very toxic to your health? How much do you realy trust a website "koolpages"? Enough to bet your life on it? This is your life, you are talking about - making decisions about your life based on questionable information is playing with fire.
I will look into some books about nutrition and cancer prevention. Basically, I'm a firm believer in living healthy for healthy living. If you exercise, eat healthy, don't smoke, use sunscreen, you will probably live a long, healthy live. Sometimes, unfortunately, as they say, **** happens. You could get cancer anyway - all it takes is a freak mutation, a single free radical byproduct of the metabolism of any of the gazillions of molecules you ingest during the day (whether you eat meat or not) zapping your DNA in just the right place can cause a cancer cell which ultimately would trigger your untimely death. Then again, you could be crossing the street tomorrow and get flattened by a bus.
Just make the most of your time while you're here. 
C.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 01, 2006 07:28 PM |
|
|
Yes everything you are saying makes sense. Actually i will never take vitamin B17 tablets for the same reason that i dont take vitamin tablets period. I believe that vitamins occur naturally in the foods that they are meant to be in and so isolating them will cause them to lose their benefits and i have no idea what the process of isolating them will do to the vitamin itself.
At the moment i am eating Apricot kernals and looking at getting my hands on other foods that contain B17.
I have to confess though that i am on the verge of changing my whole position on this subject.
I read that link you sent me and i have in recent weeks looked at at articles on trophoblastic tumours so i know that medical science has not ruled out the fact that some tumours have trophoblastic malignancy.
In light of this it does not seem phesable to me that if ALL tumours were trophoblastic in nature that this is something that would have been missed by medical science.
The late Dr Harold manner who was one of Laetriles foremost proponants himself revealed in one of his interviews that he did not subscribe completely to the trophoblastic thesis of cancer.
http://www.whale.to/b/manner.html
The more i am reading away from the Laetrile articles and looking at the ones like the link that you gave me the more it seems that cancer is less to do with diet and more to do with environment.
From what i understand DNA cannot be altered by the lack of nutrition and only by the bombardment to our bodies from certain toxins such as radiation and those in cigarettes, polutants in our atmosphere etc...
Maybe the answer to cancer prevention lays not so much in adding something to the diet as much as taking things out that do not belong.
This is definately something that science can do something about.
The advocates of Laetrile say that its during the period that Vitamin B17 has been gradually whittled out of the diet that we have seen the rise of cancer, but those sites that i have been reading fail to mention that its during this same period that western civilization has seen a steady increase in the number of carcenogens that have been introduced to our food, water and environment.
The cultures that i listed are not nearly as impacted by these carcenogens as we are if at all.
A lot of the articles i have read are written by men like G.Edward Griffin and Phillip Day
These are book wrtiers not scientists i have found out since i made that original post. G. Edward Griffin is a book writer and documentary maker kind of like Michael Moor.
Most of what is said came from his documentary and then i find this out after.
Harold Manner and Phillip Binzel are the most reliable i can find because they are doctors who spent many years working with Laetrile so i think that from now on i will confine my research in this area to what those who have hands on experience say about it.
I am truly sorry to anyone who i might have mislead with my original post.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 02, 2006 08:37 PM |
|
|
Hi Corribus. Just to verify some of the things that you called me on i have some links and info from sources other than those that push Laetrile.
For the most part though you are right, there is not enough hard scientific evidence to be able to say that it is a fact that B17 makes it near on impossible to get cancer.
You drew my attention to the statement i made about federal law saying that only drugs can cure a disease.
I was refering to the "Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994."
Which requires that a disclaimer on all nutritional supplements to the effect that "This product is not intended to diagnose,treat, cure,or prevent any disease"
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-oview.html%20
This is a link to the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Here is the snippet
"This statement or "disclaimer" is required by law (DSHEA) when a manufacturer makes a structure/function claim on a dietary supplement label. In general, these claims describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function of the body. The manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and truthfulness of these claims; they are not approved by FDA. For this reason, the law says that if a dietary supplement label includes such a claim, it must state in a "disclaimer" that FDA has not evaluated this claim. The disclaimer must also state that this product is not intended to "diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease," because only a drug can legally make such a claim."
So it would be more accurate to say that the FDA is bound by a law passed in congress in 1994. It is not actually their law.
On the points you made about Pernicious Enemia i am going to have to concede this to you as i have since i have read from a more reputable source that this disease was not even cured by Vitamin B12 but by the discovery that patients that had it were sufering from a deficiency of "Intrinsic Factor" A natural lining of the stomach which enables the absorsion of vitamin B12
This article is written by
Marcel E Conrad, MD, Distinguished Professor of Medicine, University of South Alabama; Director Cancer Center, Clinical Cancer Research Program, The Cancer Center, Mobile Infirmary Medical Center
Who is a member of numerous societies that you will see when you open this link.
http://www.emedicine.com/MED/topic1799.htm
On the question of the money involved in cancer research it appears that those statements are only correct on the basis of info from the period that these articles date back to, for now when i do my own research on todays information i find that the figure is $802 million
And the article that i read say that this figure is double what it was in 1987 at $400 million
This pushes the figure of $250million probably way back into the late seventies.
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd120301b.html
this is from 2001 so the figure could be higher now.
These sites that i formerly visited are not updating their information.
Please let me know if you cannot access any of these links.
On the toxicity of Amygdalin. This is the one area where i was unsure of what you said. The cyanide in B17 is not the same as that found in B12 as i understand it, I actually do not fully understand the difference between HCN and CW the cyanide radical.
Philip Binzel, Jr., M.D. explains it briefly here.
http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/laetrileandcyanide.html
In short he says' "The cyanide radical (CW) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium (Na+) - one of the most toxic substances known to mankind - and sodium chloride (NaCl), which is table salt, are two completely different compounds.
Also you mentioned that thiosulfate is needed for Rhodanese to convert cyanide into thiocyanate. While theoretically this may pose a problem in practice it does not. In Harold Manner's tests on mice he found that no matter how much Laetrile he gave to the mice that the urine always contained sodium thiocyanate and hippuric acid two of the end products of Laetrile.
What is interesting is that now that you have forced me to do a little more digging i find that Amygdalin is broken in 4 components not 2 there is in addition to Cyanide and Benzaldehyde, Prunasin and Mandelonitrile which none of the articles i have read up till now even mention. Did you allready know this ?
For more detail on how they are broken down go here
http://www.navi.net/~rsc/gurchot.htm
QUOTE:
______________________________________________________________________
I've discussed this above, but it doesn't hurt to point it out again. Pharmaceutical companies DO carry out research on new ways to synthesize natural products for commercial use. Because amygdalin is toxic, if indeed it is a cancer therapeutic, pharma companies could research similar chemicals that have the therapeutic properties but are not toxic. Patents also only last a short period of time, and so pharma companies are always trying to develop new versions of their drugs. Your argument does not hold water.
______________________________________________________________________
Well i could be mistaken here but i think this partially proves my point. You say they are always lookiing for new ways to SYNTHESIZE
natural products. Wouldnt this be to make them patentable?
This is exactly what they did with Laetrile because actually there are 2 versions of the stuff. One of which is man made.
here is an ACS link
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Laetrile.asp
What worries me is how do we know which version was used in the trials that yeilded "No scientific evidence" Would it be considered scientific to use an alternative synthesised substitute when following somebody elses protocol in order to duplicate their experiments" ?
If you go here:
http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec12/b65lec12.htm#Natural_Products
You will see a long list of natural products that have been synthesised for use in medicine and in EVERY case the synthesised version goes under a different name, so why is that not also the case for Laetrile.
What also emerges is that drug companies do no synthesise these natural sources unless they are found to have medical benefits, which raises the question; why was Laetrile synthesised.
As you say "Patents also only last a short period of time, and so pharma companies are always trying to develop new versions of their drugs." Again wouldnt this be to KEEP them patentable? Does finding new ways to synthesise a natural product really benefit the patient or is it done soley for holding onto the patent and thus maintain profits?
Here is a clue: "Drug company executives point out that patent-protection laws -- which have come under attack by some critics -- are vital to encouraging and protecting such huge investments".
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd120301b.html
This comment was in response to the souring costs of testing new drugs
in 2001.
So the way i see it the problem is with the people who are at the top in these companies, not the employees whom i am sure are hard working dilligent scientists.
Part of the problem with answering these questions is that nobody in organised medicine is working with Laetrile and so you cant find the kind of detailed info that you find in medical journals.
Still i am eager to find out why in the absence of this medium that the proponants detailed reports of Laetrile have not found their way onto the internet and i am forced to take the words of a non hands on expert that they exist.
About Beta-Glucosidase. I didnt say it does not appear any where other than a cancer cell, i said "to any large degree" or enough to unlock the B17 ingredients
Dr Harold Manner in an interview by Acres USA describes how when he followed Krebs work that in general the enzymes Rhodanese and Beta-Glucosidase were where Krebs said they were with one notable exeption that there was a lot more in healthy liver than any other healthy tissue.
http://www.whale.to/cancer/manner.html
This interview is worth a read i think because he describes how he had to use the same Mice that the Sloan Kettering institute and NCI were using to find out why they were not having the success that his own conlusions led him to believe that they should be having.
here is what he said
"Anyway, these mice came to our lab in perfect condition. Then I ordered a couple of mice with a tumour. I'd take that tumour out of those mice, put them in a little glass jar and break the tumour into free cells---then take a hypodermic needle with about a million of those cells and inject it directly into the animal's body, and they multiply. Within about 18 days they die of the tumour. So I submit to you that a human being does not get cancer that way. You don't go to a doctor and say "doctor I feel terrific", and he says, "I'll take care of that" and gives you a shot of something so you get cancer. No way does that happen. This is a transplanted tumour. This was the type of tumour we used, also Sloane Kettering and NCI."
Interestingly he goes on to show how he himself only had success with Laetrile when used as a combo treatment with other vitamins and enzymes.
So even here i am wandering if a vitamin cant CURE cancer on its own then is it reasonable to assume that it can PREVENT the disease on its own?
At best i can only see it now as a contributary factor.
But at the same time i dont think that there is enough evidence to label it as "outright fraud" as the FDA have done and i dont agree with
FDA Commissioner Jane E. Henney, M.D. comment in 2000 where she says
"We believe that the best means of providing access to useful medical treatments for all Americans is to continue to shorten the review times," Henney says, "and to continue to work with the industry to shorten development times for drugs, biologics and medical devices."
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/100_exp.html
It seems to me not only will this push nutritional and other alternative therapy further away from deserving consideration but also increase the risk of drugs being released before proper testing is completed and lessen the drug companies ability to see what long term effects there are.
Anyway my point is that i think that there has been scientific bias on both sides.
Statements by orthodox medicine that use terms like "No scientific evidence" weighed against "98% success rate with virgin cases" from proponants makes this very clear.
You also have the problem that the test results in Orthodox medicine are verified from other sources from within organised medicine, but test results from alternative medicine can only be verified from a source outside of alternative medicine as though the integrety of and science of the one is better than that of the other. Harold Manner was not allowed to have his experiments duplicated by any other proponant of Laetrile for the porpose of the FDA decision on Laetrile and so was forced to do what any scientist would reguard as ethically wrong in bypassing the peer review when he released his findings. Ask yourself how would the drug companies feel if the FDA said "Sorry but your test results must be verified by the proponents of alternative therapy" yet the reverse of this is what happens all the time with reguard to alternative treatments.
Please feel free to sbstitute the word Laetrile for other alternative cancer therapies for the purpose of this paragraph.
On all the other points you made which were numerous i am conceding to you that i have been getting information from bad sources that either cannot back their claims with hard evidence or do not see the need because of insufficient knowledge on how and what to present.
I would like to thank you also for showing me something about how scientific research is properly documented which i would not have known without you telling me.
Make no mistake, i am going to press some of these sites for information about access to these hundreds of documented reports that they keep telling us about. I will come back here with the responses that i get. i want to get to the bottom of why it is so secret when
i can read detailed medical articles that always seem to be very open about harmful side effects as well as the benefits of their treatments.
As reguards looking at other other alternative treatments we now come to the crux of why i am reviewing my opinions.
There is no question about it. Laetrile has become the most widely known alternative therapy on the planet and the internet has become bombarded with articles about it.
This means that other valid alternative treatments are being overlooked when laetrile may not be the best option for a patients particular type and stage of cancer which puts these other alternates in the same position with respect to Laetrile as Laetrile proponants complain about being in with respect to orthodox medicine.
So to make up for this i am posting this link on other alternative treatments.
http://www.cancertutor.com
An excellent site which grades all the therapies in terms of which therapy is best for the various stages of cancer and which one can be done at home, in a clinic and that have telephone support or a combination of all these things.
Interestingly although Laetrile is on the list it is not recomended
for stage 111 or stage 1V cancers. The reason given that because the metbolic protcol relies so heavily on building the immune system that it is not fast enough for this type opf cancer patients.
It shows that there are alternative therapies that are so potent at killing cancer cells that they must be "paced" meaning that the rate at which you kill those cells must be directly proprtionate to the rate at which they can be disposed of, for the reason that dead cancer cell like any other type of dead cell will become puss and cause infection which is the last thing a dying cancer patient needs.
I am sure it will be of interest to anyone wishing to look at alternative cancer therapies. This site does not make slagging off orthadox medicine its primary concern although it does have some scathing things to say, but just gets on with the business of giving out positive and detailed info about how to choose the right plan.
Anyway thats my long post. Sorry it does not have much to offer and it mostly confirms what you have been saying but i hope it opens the thread up for a more open discussion.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 03, 2006 04:31 AM |
|
|
In Two Weeks:
I see a general physician to start the process of having my skin cancer removed again.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 03, 2006 05:06 AM |
|
|
All the best Consis. How long is it sinse the 1st occurance btw ?
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 03, 2006 04:10 PM |
|
|
Dodd -
Thank you for the post. I have read it in its entirety, although somewhat quickly. I am replying to you here now to let you know that you are not being ignored - today is simply busy for me, so I may not be able to give this the attention it deserves for a little while. I still owe you some book suggestions, too.
C.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 03, 2006 05:30 PM |
|
|
OSure thing. Just a quick not to say that i have edited my post to include more comments with links with reguard to patents.
I know: Its more drug company bashing but it does raise some serious questions.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 03, 2006 05:40 PM |
|
|
First Sign:
I have been living with cancer for aproximately 11 years.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 03, 2006 08:02 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 20:46, 03 May 2006.
|
Alright, I came upon a little free time (actually I'm willfully ignoring the work I have to do). I won't go through your post point by point, although many of your new sources look more reputable. And due to that, not surprisingly, your original outrageous claims are somewhat tempered. I usually subscribe to the notion that "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!"
But I will start by saying that I am glad you took the time to look for some of the sources for the statistics you quoted. I always find it is very enlightening to do this, because even if you find they are correct, it puts them in context. Statistics without context don't really mean anything. And then you find ones that are completely misrepresented. I think you'll find that a lot of the stuff you read online (even the "good" stuff) is completely misrepresented. People quote statistics and don't tell you where they come from, but we see them and they are convincing. But when you check on them, you often find they don't really support the person's claim as well as you had originally believed. It's a good practice to get into, especially when reading about science from questionable sources like the internet.
Quote:
On the question of the money involved in cancer research it appears that those statements are only correct on the basis of info from the period that these articles date back to
This is very illustrative of the point that statistics are often taken out of context. They tell you "9 in 10 people died of cancer!" But what they don't tell you is that this statistic referred to coal miners in 1954. Yes, be very wary of statistics. 
Quote:
On the toxicity of Amygdalin. This is the one area where i was unsure of what you said. The cyanide in B17 is not the same as that found in B12 as i understand it, I actually do not fully understand the difference between HCN and CW the cyanide radical.
Philip Binzel, Jr., M.D. explains it briefly here.
http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/laetrileandcyanide.html
In short he says' "The cyanide radical (CW) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium (Na+) - one of the most toxic substances known to mankind - and sodium chloride (NaCl), which is table salt, are two completely different compounds.
From the looks of it, Dr. Binzel doesn't really understand it either. Here's a little general truth: medical doctors aren't scientists, just as scientists aren't medical doctors. I always am wary when an MD starts telling you about chemistry or physics. Most (and I say most, not all) don't know what they're talking about, mostly because most of them haven't had a natural science class since college. Thus when a doctor starts talking about chemistry, they are correct to the extent that what you learn in general chemistry is correct: i.e., not very. (As a flip example: I don't think you'd want me performing an appendectomy!)
The difference between HCN and cyanide radical is actually pretty large, chemically, but how they act in the body probably isn't. The toxic part of any cyanide species is the cyanide ion, CN- (that's a carbon triple-bonded to a nitrogen, with an overall negative charge). Charged species (ions) usually combine with other charged species of opposite charge in nature because the opposite charges attract each other and form very stable "ionic bonds". We call these substances salts: that is, table salt is a combination of positively charged sodium (Na+) ions and negatively charged chloride (Cl-) ions. (When you put a salt in water, the ions separate because water can stabilize lone charged species.) Cyanide ion is negatively charged (CN-) so it likes to find and combine with positively charged ions. Thus you often find salts like NaCN, KCN (sodium cyanide, potassium cyanide, etc....rat poison!) which are toxic salts because when they are dissolved in the water in the body, the CN- becomes separated and can do its damage (more on that below); it can also be acidified by your stomach acids to form HCN. Hydrogen ion (H+) is also a positively charged ion and can combine with CN- to form prussic acid (HCN). This is extremely toxic, but only because it is a gas and is easily absorbed into the blood stream through the lungs, where it quickly separates into a high concentration of CN-. Just a fun fact: HCN gas (Zyklon B) was the gas used by the Nazis to exterminate Jews in concentration camps; it's also used in execution chambers in the US. It's a very efficient killer.
Technically speaking, cyanide ion (CN-) and cyanide radical (CN-dot) are not the same thing. The former has an extra electron which imparts a negative charge. The latter lacks the extra electron and is chemically neutral, but we call them radicals because they have lone electrons. Because of reasons which are beyond the scope of this discussion, most radicals are very unstable and want to either get an extra electron to form a negative ion (anion) or give up their lone electron to form a positive ion (cation). Radicals are typically produced as side products of cellular metabolism; since radicals are reactive and unstable, they cause cellular damage basically by stealing electrons from or forcing their electron onto important cellular molecules, which damages those molecules. This cumulative damage leads to, among other things, natural aging as well as cancer if the damage is in the right place.
Just as an aside, you have probably heard the term "antioxidant" thrown around a lot. When a radical reacts with something in the body, it often does so by oxidizing it (that's a fancy term for stealing an electron from it). Cumulative oxidative damage is, as I said, responsible for natural aging and acute oxidative damage is often responsible for cancer. Anyway, antioxidants are chemicals which "soak up" those radicals; more exactly, they allow the radicals to oxidize them instead of important cellular components. You may have noticed that antioxidants are usually found in colored vegetables and fruits; this is because antioxidants (carotenes, anthocyanines, etc.) are usually highly colored molecules. There's a physical reason for this; but let's just say that colored molecules are usually much happier accepting free electrons than noncolored molecules. There are a number of vitamins (vitamin E is one example, I believe) which act as radical scavengers which soak up those damaging chemicals.
Wow, do I get off on tangents. Anyway, cyanide radicals, like any other radicals, really want those extra electrons to become stable cyanide anions, CN-, so they'll steal them from somewhere. The long and short of it is, in the body, you're almost always dealing with CN-, not cyanide radicals, although it's possible that the metabolism of amygdalin results in cyanide radical production, but those cyanide radicals become cyanide ions. Which are toxic.
But before discussing why, it is worth pointing out that there are lots of chemicals that contain CN that are NOT toxic themselves. When part of a larger molecule, CN is called a nitrile group. These molecules are only toxic (due to cyanide) if metabolism results in liberation of CN- (or CN dot). Such species are often called "cyanogenic"; i.e., they create cyanide. Amygdalin is a cyanogenic species. It contains a nitrile group that can be "chopped off" during metabolism to form toxic cyanides. Just FYI, a structure of amygdalin can be found here (note the CN group):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin
To top off this discussion, it's worth understanding why CN- is toxic. CN- binds to the iron center of a cellular enzyme called cytochrome c oxidase. If you had to list 5 enzymes which are probably the most important for your survival, this one would probably be on that list. The enzyme is located in the mitochronria in your cells and is a vital component of cellular respiration. Essentially, when you breathe, the oxygen that you take in is transported to the mitochondria in your cells, where it is used to make a substance called ATP, which is sort of like cellular gasoline. This molecule drives most processes that are necessary for cellular survival. Anyway, cytochrome c oxidase is one of the enzymes used in the multistep process which utilizes oxygen to make ATP. Cyanide binds irreversibly to this enzyme and essentially renders it useless. The end result: your cells can¡¦t use the oxygen you breathe in, and you die, a sort of chemical suffocation. Usually victims of cyanide poisoning turn blue because they effectively can't breathe (well, they can breathe, but breathing is useless for them), a condition called "cyanosis" (cyan = blue). Hence, cyanide.
Now, here's my take on amygdalin from a chemist's point of view. Let's assume you are correct in that the enzyme beta glucosidase, which breaks amygdalin down, is present in large quantities in cancer cells but only in small quantities elsewhere. This may actually be true (I can't find anything to say it is; but cancer cells are known to have all kinds of strange enzymes in large quantities because their machinery is all screwed up). And therefore, yes, amygdalin COULD be a cancer therapeutic because cyanide ions would be released in cancer cells by the metabolism of this substance.
(Side note: many of these sites, you included earlier, have claimed that this is a cancer preventative. Even if it is true that this hypothesis is true, that it kills cancer cells by producing cyanide, then it's not really a preventative. It's a medicine. You're not PREVENTING cancer cells from forming; you're killing them once they form but before they can form life-threatening tumors. Semantics, I know, but beware. First you're taking liberties with words; soon you're taking liberties with everything. Note that propaganda wouldn't be as effective if they called this a means to kill cancer that you already had! People are more likely to start gobbling it up if it's sold as a preventative measure...)
The problem with this idea is specificity. Drug companies spend a LOT of time tailoring their drugs to specifically target tumors. Many of these cancer drugs are highly toxic; you can't just have them circling the body, killing cells indiscriminately. An ideal drug goes right to the problem area and zaps it, and it alone. Targeting drugs takes a lot of money, research and time. There is no reason to believe (and indeed, nobody claims as much) that Amygdalin localizes only in cancer cells. The claim is that it only kills cancer cells - but it localizes everywhere. So you see, the problem is that even if amygdalin is a cancer killer, which it might be, it can't possibly be a very efficient one. Let's say you eat a apricot seed, of which X amount of it is amygdalin. Probably a very small quantity. What X is left after the usual processes of excretion is therefore spread uniformly throughout the entire body. Thus only a small amount would make it to any putative tumors ¡V maybe enough to kill the tumor, maybe not. That's not very good drug design. Now, you could just totally go hog wild and take a whole crapload of it every day, but then you run the risk of poisoning yourself, because you DO have this enzyme in some quantity in your normal cells. Your brain and heart dies first.
Also, while YOU may not have this enzyme in large quantities except in tumor cells, I have seen it reported (reference to follow) that many of the bacteria in your digestive system as well as plants part of the normal human diet DO have this enzyme in large quantities. So you could very well be ingesting cyanide as a result of taking amygdalin supplements. This is probably why there are lots of reports of people getting sick who are undergoing amygdalin therapy, and it's probably why the FDA hasn't approved this medication for the use of cancer. Toxic reactions plus poor specificity = not approved.
Incidentally, here is a summary of the NCI¡¦s take on amygdalin, with references: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/HealthProfessional/page2/print
Now, before moving onwards, let me just comment on this, from Dr. Benzil:
Quote:
In short he says' "The cyanide radical (CW) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are two completely different compounds, just as pure sodium (Na+) - one of the most toxic substances known to mankind - and sodium chloride (NaCl), which is table salt, are two completely different compounds.
We,ve already covered CNdot and HCN. As for Na+, well, first his analogy is just terrible. Na+ and NaCl _are_ different substances, but not in the same way that CNdot and HCN are. Second: I'm not sure I¡¦d classify Na+ as one of the most toxic substances known to mankind, considering you ingest it in gram quantities every day in the form of...Third: NaCl, table salt, is, as mentioned way above, a combination of Na+ and Cl-. In water (such as - in your stomach and body), NaCl automatically and completely dissociates into Na+ and Cl-. In fact, Na+ is a necessary part of nerve signal transduction (along with potassium K+); and I'm not sure how great a doctor he is if he doesn't know this. Now, TOO much Na+ certainly can be quite toxic, just like anything else - and it's bad for your blood pressure. What this guy is probably referring to (really poorly) is batrachotoxins, excreted by poison dart frogs, which ARE some of the most potent neurotoxins known to man. You can read more about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batrachotoxin (ah, isn't wiki wonderful). They are related to Na+, but only in the manner in which Na+ concentrations are regulated in your nerve cells.
By the way, here's another cue I have learned about how to spot shoddy science, especially on the web. Naturally, all of this stuff is authored by SoAndSo, MD or SoAndSo, PhD. That makes you more willing to believe it. In my experience, though, if they don¡¦t tell you where their appointment is, chance are they probably don¡¦t have one that is reputable. For example, Dr. Philip Benzel. And just where is Dr. Philip Benzel employed? Is he at a research institution? Does he do research? What gives him the authority to tell you what medicines you should be taking? If he HAD a real position, he would tell you. Note that in the reputable source above that you gave, you cited:
Marcel E Conrad, MD, Distinguished Professor of Medicine, University of South Alabama; Director Cancer Center, Clinical Cancer Research Program, The Cancer Center, Mobile Infirmary Medical Center
These doctors and scientists LOVE their titles and appointments ¡V they have to use extra large envelopes to fit all that crap on their outgoing mail. If they don't tell you where they are from, chances are they are from nowhere. They may not even be real doctors - it could be written by anybody! Note that on the site worldwithoutcancer, there is NOWHERE listed the contact information of anyone who contributed to the articles on their site (but there's a whole page on how to buy the products they are selling!). There's a general "contact us" email address, but how do I write Dr. Philip Benzel? I did a google search: nothing. Even *I* have hits on google! Skeptical yet?
Ok, moving onwards:
Quote:
What is interesting is that now that you have forced me to do a little more digging i find that Amygdalin is broken in 4 components not 2 there is in addition to Cyanide and Benzaldehyde, Prunasin and Mandelonitrile which none of the articles i have read up till now even mention. Did you allready know this?
From what I understand, this is due to the difference between natural amygdalin and Laetrile, which is a synthetic version that is structurally different. I believe on the NCI link I gave you above, there is an explanation of the construction of Laetrile versus amygdalin.
Quote:
Well i could be mistaken here but i think this partially proves my point. You say they are always lookiing for new ways to SYNTHESIZE natural products. Wouldnt this be to make them patentable?
This is exactly what they did with Laetrile because actually there are 2 versions of the stuff. One of which is man made.
Right! But what I'm saying is that the pharma companies are not against finding new natural products which are potential therapeutic agents. Thus if amygdalin was this great new wonder drug, pharma companies would find some way to exploit it for profit. Thus I don¡¦t think the whole conspiracy theory to suppress amygdalin research really holds much water.
Quote:
What worries me is how do we know which version was used in the trials that yeilded "No scientific evidence" Would it be considered scientific to use an alternative synthesised substitute when following somebody elses protocol in order to duplicate their experiments" ?
I'm not sure, but both versions suffer probably from the problems I mentioned above, most notably specificity. The additional problem is that it's hard to do controlled scientific tests with natural substances. By this I mean the following: let's say you wanted to know if apricot pits prevent cancer (due to amygdalin in them). If you were to design an experiment, you'd probably do something like take 1000 people, give half of them a diet of apricot pits and half of them (your control) a placebo of some sort, then come back and five years and see which group had more incidences of cancer. Right? Aside from the usual problems of individual people different, now you've introduced a new variable: how do you ensure that the apricot pits are all the same? Trees in different locations may produce seeds which have different chemical consistencies, etc. When possible, it's best to standardize your study as much as possible. I'm not sure about the actual tests of amygdalin/Laetrile, to be honest. But these are good questions you are asking - and the fact that you're asking them means you're thinking critically about the problem: which is what I wanted you to do in the first place.
Quote:
Dr Harold Manner in an interview by Acres USA describes how when he followed Krebs work that in general the enzymes Rhodanese and Beta-Glucosidase were where Krebs said they were with one notable exeption that there was a lot more in healthy liver than any other healthy tissue.
Not surprising: the liver is nature¡¦s compost heap. That's where many of the chemicals that you ingest are broken down - and where the chemicals go, the enzymes are.
Quote:
Interestingly he goes on to show how he himself only had success with Laetrile when used as a combo treatment with other vitamins and enzymes.
So even here i am wandering if a vitamin cant CURE cancer on its own then is it reasonable to assume that it can PREVENT the disease on its own?
At best i can only see it now as a contributary factor.
Look, here's the thing: lots of chemicals can help reduce your risk factors for cancer. Eating blueberries is good because blueberries have anthocyanines that soak up free radicals. Vitamin C is an antioxidant, too - so eating oranges is probably a good way to reduce your risk. Is amygdalin going to prevent you from getting cancer? I don't think eating apricots pits is going to make you any more immune to cancer than eating carrots is. But there might be some underlying logic to this whole mess, so it may not hurt. I just think the conclusions that are being made by a lot of these amygdalin proponents are not justified by that underlying logic. I'd be just as skeptical if it was blueberries we were talking about instead of apricot pits; but when I eat blueberries I'm thinking in the back of my mind "Maybe this will help prevent cancer." Key word: help.
Quote:
But at the same time i dont think that there is enough evidence to label it as "outright fraud" as the FDA have done and i dont agree with
FDA Commissioner Jane E. Henney, M.D. comment in 2000 where she says
Given the claims that are being made by Laetrile proponents, and they way they are using misinformation to fool unwary people, I think the fraud label is ok. Especially because people have died from the treatment - although they probably went nuts and totally overdosed on it. You can die from overdosing on aspirin, too. I think if amygdalin was approached in the same manner that ginko balboa or fish oil supplements were approached, you probably wouldn¡' see the hammer coming down. The FDA starts getting nervous when scientists of shady reputation start selling "miracle drugs" in mexico - and rightly so.
Quote:
It seems to me not only will this push nutritional and other alternative therapy further away from deserving consideration but also increase the risk of drugs being released before proper testing is completed and lessen the drug companies ability to see what long term effects there are.
There are definitely problems in the pharma industry and this is one of them. It seems we've been having more and more recalls in the last few years. Hopefully the Merck fiasco will serve as a lesson to other pharma companies. It is only to be expected as the drug industry becomes more and more cut-throat.
Quote:
Anyway my point is that i think that there has been scientific bias on both sides.
Statements by orthodox medicine that use terms like "No scientific evidence" weighed against "98% success rate with virgin cases" from proponants makes this very clear.
This is a perfect example of what I said earlier in my "fish tomato" post. Distrust only leads to larger and larger gaps. It¡¦s hard to reverse that damage once it's been done.
Quote:
You also have the problem that the test results in Orthodox medicine are verified from other sources from within organized medicine, but test results from alternative medicine can only be verified from a source outside of alternative medicine as though the integrity of and science of the one is better than that of the other. Harold Manner was not allowed to have his experiments duplicated by any other proponent of Laetrile for the purpose of the FDA decision on Laetrile and so was forced to do what any scientist would regard as ethically wrong in bypassing the peer review when he released his findings. Ask yourself how would the drug companies feel if the FDA said "Sorry but your test results must be verified by the proponents of alternative therapy" yet the reverse of this is what happens all the time with regard to alternative treatments.
A valid point - and the truth is that I'm sure a lot of potential gold mines lurk in the world of alternative medicines. I think a lot of the pharma companies are reluctant to chase shadows, though, in the hopes of finding the next big thing, especially because, in order to stake claims to such a discovery, they'd have to find a way to then make it unique. Private research is the way to go for alternative medicines, but unfortunately there's not as much available money.
Quote:
http://www.cancertutor.com
An excellent site which grades all the therapies in terms of which therapy is best for the various stages of cancer and which one can be done at home, in a clinic and that have telephone support or a combination of all these things.
Well, I guess if you¡¦ve got stage 4 cancer, what have you got to lose? The only thing I'd say about this is that, if it was someone I loved, I would probably try to encourage them to live their remaining days as best that they could rather than chasing the pie-in-the-sky cure that probably doesn't exist.
As for books - well it's hard to judge from amazon, but this guy looks like he's pretty reputable, and wrote a book called: "Cancer and Nutrition, A Ten Point Plan for Prevention and Cancer Life Extension" by Charles B. Simone.
I will keep my eyes open for other ones, particularly with alternative medicines.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 03, 2006 09:37 PM |
|
|
Wow thats a lot of science on the toxicity of cyanide. It sounds like a doctor trying to understand it would be like a somebody working as a web page designer trying to write a programme for the next version in the Doom series.
Yes i definately take your point about Amygdalin only addressing the symptoms rather than the underlying cause.
In fact any treatment that is aimed at killing cancer cells is doing exactly what chemotherapy is attempting to do. to kill cells that divide.
The underlying cause has to be those factors which cause those cells to go crazy in the first place.
I think it might be worth my while to look at some material written by oncologists to understand more about cancer cells.
It just occured to me that with the kind of knowledge you have you must have some understanding of carcenogens in general.
So their must be scietists who purely study carcenogens in cancer research ?
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted May 04, 2006 04:01 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 04:04, 04 May 2006.
|
Cancer Science Is A Joke
It really is a joke. You know what the doctors tell me? They tell me the same sort of technical medicalization of what they think the problem is. And then I did my own research . . .
I've come to understand it as a victim and a student. Here's what I've learned:
1. Cancer is not a virus or bacteria, a protozoan, or even it's own class of lifeform such as fungus.
2. Cancer is a word used to describe an uncontrolled reproduction/growth of a group of normal cells.
3. Normal cells of any kind anywhere in the body might decide to start multiplying for no reason at all.
4. All cells =means= All cells Ranging from brain cells to heart cells to muscle to skin etcetra. Any cell of any kind can decide at any moment to divide by mitosis.
5. Cancer - The unregulated "reproduction" or "growth" of a cell is not a thing which can be described as a living entity. It is a "behavior" of already living cells.
6. This cancer can occur in any lifeform; to include plants, animals, viruses, bacteria, and/or fungus.
7. The cancer itself does not directly harm its victim. It causes harm through acute blockage of important and significant vital bodily communicative pathways.
8. Cancer is not a communicable disease. It does not spread via air, fluid, or proximity.
9. The only proven fact of cancer is that cellular exposure to unknown amounts of different forms of radiation increases the likelihood of a person contracting the cancerous-condition. For example: inhaling radiated smoke particals shortly after the smoking-substance has been combusted is a likely cause of "lung" cancer. That's how cancer is classified. It named by the location in which it occurs.
~END~
The moral of the story is that I understand the truth. The truth is that there is no cure for this "disease". The truth is also that no one knows why cells suddenly decide that it's time to grow. I've been asked if I was a lifeguard on the California beaches for my childhood by doctors. Of course I wasn't, but the doctors think prolonged exposure might have been the cause of my cancer. The truth is no one knows why I have skin cancer. I don't smoke and neither did my parents. I don't drink and I don't do drugs. But I have cancer. And now that I have it, every doctor reminds me that I am now a "high-risk" candidate for other types of cancers. They are mostly worried that my skin cancer will "migrate" (move) from my skin to another more vital part of my body.
And so I live in wait of the day that it takes me. The doctors tell me it could migrate to my vital organs tomorrow or it may never move. They tell me that it may become "dormant" and never again resurface or that (for unknown reasons) it may return with deadly speed. I have come to live with this knowledge. At first I was afraid but now I don't care anymore. Life is life and I refuse to let this unknown and incurable disease take control of my own persuit for personal happiness and peace.
It is what it is . . .
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 04, 2006 04:22 AM |
|
|
|
I'm not sure I understand what the point of your post was, Consis. And I don't mean that in the jerky sort of way that it could be taken. It seems like you're trying to make a profound point, but I don't know what it is.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 04, 2006 06:28 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 06:29, 04 May 2006.
|
The Point Is:
There is no cure and no one truly knows what to do about it except go into a person with a damned prehistoric cutting tool to remove the affected tissue. It's positively barbaric. And you might not think it, but they sometimes use lasers and radiation to remove the affected tissues as well.
There is no cure. The only thing you can do is cut it out . . . literally. Then you must live on your own hope while the doctors tell you they don't know how long you'll live.
That's my point. Cancer is cancer.
When you hear people talk about a virus or some sort of infectious bacteria, you might hear them demonize the illness with phrases such as "insidious disease", "voracious appetite", "spiteful little bug", "tough little bastard", and the list goes on. But cancer isn't another lifeform attacking you. There is no microscopic entity planning and plotting against you battling for its own survival. The truth is your own cells simply become chaotic and stop following the blueprint that was laid out for them in your chromosomes. That's the thing you see . . . you aren't really fighting against an opponent to survive. What kills you in the end is your cells' own inability to conform to its purpose and do what its told. You are literally dying from yourself. Chaos consumes the order of your being.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 04, 2006 04:21 PM |
|
|
|
That may be true, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say that cancer science is a joke. It is a "disease" unlike any other, certainly, and thus it cannot be approached like any other. I think the strides that have been made in the last two decades have been quite impressive - if not in therapy then at least in cancer detection.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 04, 2006 05:47 PM |
|
|
Hey consis don't give up yet. Sure there is no cure for cancer in terms of erasing it entirely from the human experience but there are people who have lived after cancer without a reoccurence for the remainder of their lives.
I personally don't like the term remission because it suggests that an individual is never free from cancer but merely lucky in the event of no reoccurence.
If you have little faith in orthodox treatments then it might be worth you while to look at all the different alternative types via this link here:
http://www.cancertutor.com
not your usual (Only laetrile will save you info) But listing all types of alternatives for all stages and types of cancer. They almost all include some kind of diet change for life which is good because it means that a patient is being given something which tackles prevention after the cancer has gone.
Although Chemo has helped a lot of people obviously because of its toxicity it cannot be administered after therapy is complete as part of a prevention programme.
Clearly cancer must be preventable otherwise it would be a disease that has always been part of the human experience and it hasn't.
Part of the problem when it comes to looking at alternatve natural therapies is that most poeple over the years have been taught to believe that for a treatment to be potent that it must be a man made drug and that anything which is natural should only be reguarded as a cheap remedy whose effect can only be mild.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Medical science relies more heavily on nature than people realise.
http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec12/b65lec12.htm#Natural_Products
Just my opinion here but i am convinced that when something is synthesised that it cannot possibly hope to have the same benefits as it would in its natural form.
Put it this way. where would you rather get your vitamins and minerals from? A bottle with a label or from the food in which it naturally occurs ?
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted May 05, 2006 03:24 PM |
|
|
Corribus/DoddTheSlayer,
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. It only confirms my suspicions of unseen heroes who lay in wait for the day they take the stage. I know you fellas have your hearts in the right place. Thankyou for the comfort. God bless you both.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted May 05, 2006 03:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
5. Cancer - The unregulated "reproduction" or "growth" of a cell is not a thing which can be described as a living entity. It is a "behavior" of already living cells.
6. This cancer can occur in any lifeform; to include plants, animals, viruses, bacteria, and/or fungus.
Eh? Okay, I didn't read the entire thread and I hardly know anything on the subject, but if cancer is a flaw in the behaviour of cells, then how can it affect something of non-cellular structure, like a virus? I remember too little about bacteria to say anything specific, but the idea of cancer in any of these two groups seems rather odd to me.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 05, 2006 05:50 PM |
|
|
As i understand it. Cancer cells are something that we all have that our immune system routinely kill off on a regular basis.
At least this is what alternative medicine believes. That is why a lot of alternative therapies once they are complete will draw up a diet plan for life to maintain a healthy immune system so that it may continue to fight cancer as it does in a healthy person
Orthodox medicine see the cancer cells as fundamentaly rougue cells which are destined to go out of control at some point because they simply dont belong.
This is the fundamental difference between the two types of therapy and the reason for the two different approaches.
I am after this thread undecided on which of these two theories is correct.
I am not an oncologist and i suspect that expertise in this field alone will not provide the answer.
The questions for me that i still want to find the answer to is whether or not these self dividing cells serve any other purpose than just causing this horrible disease?
Is it really just as simple as the general healing process going out of control or is it something more?
Can those enzymes Tripsin and Chemotripsin secreated by the pancreas that enable the immune system to kill off trophoblast cells that are not needed do the same with ALL malignant cells ? because its clear to me now that not all cancer cells are trophoblasts, though they may well be trophoblasts that have had their DNA altered.
If the pancreas really does play such a vital role then that would explain why Pancreatic cancer is among the deadliest on the planet and why it has such a short period between diagnosis and death often less than one year.
http://www.cancersupportivecare.com/pancreas.html
Corribus. does medical science believe that ANY healthy cell can become a cancer cell or is it only cells that rapidly divide that are mutated ?
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 05, 2006 06:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Corribus. does medical science believe that ANY healthy cell can become a cancer cell or is it only cells that rapidly divide that are mutated ?
As I've stated, I am not a doctor/oncologist, so I won't be a hypocrite and pretend like I know the answer to this question.
But here I will speculate: if you loosely define cancer as arising due to localized DNA mutations which screw up the normal "clock" of "normal" cells (i.e., the clock which determines normal cell processes like division and apoptosis - programmed cell death), which basically causes the cells to divide uncontrollably and go totally haywire beyond their normal lifespan, then any cell should be able to become "cancerous" because any cell, as far as I know, or at least, any cell which has DNA, is susceptible to mutations. I don't know if viruses can become cancerous (although some can GIVE you cancer) because viruses are not really cells - although they do have DNA or RNA... but they don't reproduce like cells do, so...
Obviously some types of cells are more susceptible to damage than others, so I think some types of cells are more likely to become cancerous than others. Skin cells are good candidates because they are always bombarded by light. All it takes, technically, is a single misplaced photon to cause skin cancer. You don't need to be a lifeguard to get it - sometimes you are just unlucky. There are probably genetic factors that predispose you to it also. There are mechanisms for DNA repair in your cells. They may not work with unit efficiency in everybody.
As for bacteria - can they become cancerous? I don't know. I suspect they can have DNA mutations just like any other cell. Though, as I said, I'm not a biologist by training so it's just my own speculation.
If you're interested in cancer genesis, you may want to look into the connections between apoptosis and cancer. You also may want to check out this site:
http://mednews.stanford.edu/stanmed/2002winter/immune.html
It was somewhat interesting.
C.
|
|
DoddTheSlayer
Promising
Famous Hero
Banned from opening threads
|
|
posted May 05, 2006 09:48 PM |
|
|
It certainly was interesting. I did not know that Matestatic cancer was found by identifying cancer cells from one organ multiplying in another organ.
I am confused now and have nothing more to offer to this thread until i have done more research.
Has there ever been a disease for which the cause has so much controversy?
It makes me wonder if whatever theories anyone comes up with can ever be reguarded as anything more than speculation.
I might just as well be trying to figure out who shot Kennedy or who Jack the Ripper was.
I am very disheartened at the moment.
____________
Retaliation is for the foolish. Silence is wisdom
|
| |
|
|
