Cancer doesn't kill, Cachexia does

[loretta]

According to Health Science Institute (HSI), cancer per se doesn't kill but cachexia does.  At least in 3 out of 4 cases.

http://hsionlineorders.net/video/640SHTOMC_OLP/tomorrows_cures/?pco=E6ETPACQ&efo=640SHTOMC4&a=2&o=56103&s=63936&u=6122970&l=226713&r=MC&g=54

They further say

According to a shocking new study just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, if you're battling cancer, you may have been subjected to 10 TIMES more radiation than you need. Over the past decade, study after study has shown that ONE radiation treatment is all most folks need to ease pain once advanced cancer spreads to their bones. But an exhaustive review of Medicare claims found that half of patients were getting 10 or more treatments!  Radiation is like unleashing an atomic bomb inside your body -- it kills normal, healthy cells right alongside cancer tissue. And while the study was limited to prostate cancer patients, an expert who reviewed it says there's a good chance we're over-radiating ALL cancer patients. Every time that radiologist shoots those toxic rays into your system, he and his mainstream medicine buds are taking home thousands in Medicare reimbursements.

More about Hydrazine Sulfate (HZ) Alternative Cancer Therapy Treatment

http://alternativecancer.us/hydrazinesulfate.htm

[se7en]

Geeeeeew!!! This whole medical practice and everything about it still amazes me. It shouldn't by now, but... wow.

[Deborah-Leigh]

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001xhhgHIOowVnC7iR033fC6pGwTp4aja1LlBY_qLoSo1BbkAFnFigHCD7sCLbidYdsBrnutgZIIudhuhazekc4-7TqClfNNwPJdgWgVba0ipPe3wNn8MG7agDsD7Y_34PBi0OavUO0GE4HO_kDmAsMK_n_CMMVsK5u

[Dennis Vogel]

There are a lot of snake oil salesmen out there praying on sick people with cancer. Ray came across a lot of them. Beware.

But one thing Ray was convinced about was cancer cannot live in an alkaline or neutral body pH. Once and awhile was he able to get his pH above 6. But it was mostly 4 or 5.

[lilitalienboi16]

As a student currently in an upper division course on biology of cancer, I can assure you, cancer kills.

Theres really no point in going into the mechanisms, details, etc... etc... but just know that cancer is the bodies own cells that have lost the ability to control their division.

Cancer cells are considered by some in the biological community to be the ultimate end of evolution as they are essentially immortal cells that have found a way to forever exist so long as they have a nutrient source available to them.

Since cancer cells are very similar to your bodies normal functioning cells, anything you do to kill them, will always kill your normal functioning cells.

Cancer cells kill by draining the body of its nutrients required for other tissues and also by invading other tissues where vital functions necessary for survival are occuring. In spreading to those tissues (metastisis) they displace the regular cells which perform the vital functions for survival and shutdown the organ being affected. Cancer cells divides extremely rapidly compared to normal cells and shows very little adhesion to their surrounding hence why they are able to spread very easily around the body. Once cancer begins spreading, its very very difficult to control it because it can spread to virtually anywhere in the body disrupting a number of vital organs. Not only that, but if the cancer originates in a vital organ, well you can be in trouble right from the start.

So treating cancer is often times a double edged sword due to how similar the cancer cells are to your normal ones (Remember, cancer cells are your own cells that have simply began malfunctioning). Progress has been made in the treatements of cancer, but mostly in the three old modalities that have been around for roughly 40 years now. Surgery, chemo and radiation.

In refining these treatments, we have been able to minimize the damage done to healthy tissues while making our attacks on cancerous tissues more potent.

If you're interested, I can discuss this in greater detail but I figure most don't want the super scientific details and mechanisms on it. Just the basics. There is a very shallow basic view you should have when thinking of cancer.

[Dennis Vogel]

I would be curious to know the number of people who took radiation last year and how many days they lived afterwards.

Ray said taking radiation for his cancer (not sure he even had cancer, his PSA was only 8 in the beginning) many years ago was a big mistake. He believed he would not have had all the problems he developed afterwards if he did not get the treatments.

[cjwood]

i had radiation treatment done on one of my breasts in 2000.  i went in every morning at 7:30am five days a week for 8 weeks.  i did not have chemo.  i did have a lumpectomy.

it is now 2013 and by the grace and mercy of God i am alive today.

claudia

[microlink]

Hi,
Happy for you Claudia. I have personally known of quite a few women who have successfully come through beast cancer.
It appears to be one of more treatable forms of cancer if caught early. But not for everyone who is diagnosed with it, sadly.
Prostrate cancer is some what similar for men. Male friends have been successfully treated for it by either surgery or radiation.
Again, sadly, everyone is different and some succumb.
Dennis, I found the info about Ph levels very interesting. I will listen again to Dr. Jimmy Stegers speach again since I think I heard him mention it.
As well I will google the connection between Ph and cancer.
I have had x-rays many times. Teeth, hips, back, etc. I even remember having x-rays done in the 1950's when I was a youngster for determining shoe sizes. Terrible stuff and ignorance by the "experts".
Cancer- a curse of the age we live in.
Thank God for each day He gives us.

[Rhys 🕊]

Happy for you too Claudia

But what is this beast cancer you speak of Joe........I'm sure we all have that...haha 

Rhys

[microlink]

Good one Rhys 
Typing is not my forte!
beast=breast (sorry)
Not sure what my forte is?

[lilitalienboi16]

Hello Claudia, thank you for sharing your testimony. I'm glad the Lord was merciful in his dealings with you. Cancer is an awful thing.

What I have learned from my class as far as cancer statistics and radiation. These are straight out of my in class notes:

Cancer currently claims 1 million lives each year in America.
Its the #2 killer of Americans behind cardiovascular disease.
Cancer is a disease of old age. People are living longer now and so we are getting the diseases of older age.

Environmental risk factor: Radiation

Solar radiation (UV)

Creates thiamine dimers
This causes DNA to buckle which results in errors in replication
700,000 non-melanoma skin cancers a year and the number is going up
Approximately 2 million cases world way
Largely curable, mostly basal and squamous cell carcinomas
One can be exposed to various wave-lengths of UV which determines whether its UV A, B or C
A is long wave length and used in tanning salons
B is short wave length, less than 350 nm
The most serious skin cancer is melanoma
35,000 deaths a year
132,000 deaths worldwide
One of the genes rendered nonfunctional by UV exposure is the p53 gene
P53 is involved in more cancer than any other gene

Ionizing radiation

Comes in several forms

X-rays

At the turn of the last century, in the 1900's, workers that worked with x-rays developed a disproportionate amount of leukemia's
3 to 4 times the general population
It has been estimated that one cancer will develop for about every 1-million x-rays
That's 300-400 people a year
Do a risk-benefit analysis in deciding whether to get an x-ray or not

CAT Scans have 30 times more radiation than x-rays
X-rays that are used to treat cancer are used at very high doses and as a consequence of that the chance of causing secondary tumors is much greater

Decay of radioactive compounds
We have seen this in the survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Many of the survivors developed various kinds of cancer

There are two measure when we evaluate the carcinogenic potential of radiation

The ability of radiation to penetrate tissue

RAD (radiation equivalent mean)
This is the amount absorbed by tissue

How much damage is it going to do to the tissue that it just penetrated

REM (radiation equivalent in man)
This is basically RADs corrected for the biological effectiveness of the particular form  of radiation in doing damage

Example: alpha particles which are emitted by radioactive elements are far more damaging than x-rays

About 20 times more damaging
1 RAD of x-ray exposure is equal to 1 REM
1 RAD of alpha particle exposure is equal to 20 REM

The annual dose of UV exposure is between 0.3-0.4 REMS
80% of this comes from just being alive

The other 20% comes from medicinal sources
Last year we had between 300-400 million x-rays given

Risk factor: Viruses

There are viruses that will transform normal cells into a tumor cell
We refer to these viruses as:
Oncogenic viruses, tumor viruses or transforming viruses
Viruses are causative agents from an epidemiologic perspective of certain human cancers
On a world wide bases viruses cause 15-20% of all cancer
Everything we know about cancer we have learned from studying and understanding viruses and their role in cancer

Hepatitis B Virus (HBV)
A major risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma
Responsible for a significant amount of world wide cancers
Virus attacks hepatocytes
This tell us that the hepatocytes have a receptor for the virus
The virus can cause acute liver damage
5-10% of individuals that are infected by this virus will not have the viral infection resolved
From the population, these are the chronic virus carries and will show greater incidence of liver cancer

Epidemiological studies have shown that about 10% of adults in the USA get infected by HBV. Of that, less than 1%will be chronic carries of the virus
In China 100% of adults have been exposed to HBV and 10-15% will be chronic carriers
This shows that the virus is associated with the cancer

Experimentally you can inject HBV into mice and see if they develop cancer
You can also inject HBV into cells in tissue culture and see if they develop cancer
You can also isolate cells from a patient operated on for hepatocellular carcinoma and see if the virus is part of it
There is a several year lag time. Populations in Asia are exposed during childhood and don't develop the cancer until their 30's-40's

About 23 years ago a vaccine was developed for HBV

There are other carcinogens that will exacerbate this chronic infection and that includes:
Alcohol
Contributes to cirrhosis of the liver
Aflatoxin
Potent mutagen for liver cells

Human papillomavirus (HPV)

A risk factor that can cause malignant and benign neoplasms
Cervical and other anogenital carcinomas
Cervical cancer occurs less frequently in nuns
Cervical cancer occurs more frequently in women who have had multiple sex partners
Cervical cancer occurs more frequently in women who are married to men whose first wife had cervical carcinomas

All these events suggest a venereal transmitted disease
Squamous cell skin carcinomas

In 1983 a distinct papillomavirus was isolated from a cervical carcinoma sample
HPV16 was found to be involved in 50% of all cervical cancers
HPV18 was found to be involved in another 20%
HPV33 was found to be involved in another 10%

Today we know that 90-99% of all cervical cancers are virally caused by HPV
There are other strains of HPV that will cause genital infections but they are not transforming viruses
Like HBV there is a long lag period that could be several decade

Today there is a vaccine, Gardasil, that can be used for HBV

Epstein-Barr virus (EPV)

First virus that was implicated in cancer
Associated with Burkitt's and other B-cell lymphomas
Burkitt's lymphoma is a lymphoma of childhood prevalent in parts of Africa
Associated with nasopharyngeal carcinoma in parts of China
Very rare to see Epstein-Barr virus to be implicated in cancer in other places

There is a geographic restriction

90% of people around the world are infected with EPV
They either have no symptoms or they have infectious mononucleosis
Individuals who have mononucleosis, the cell that is infected is the B-lymphocyte
Cell will have limited proliferation but it will not be transformed
Prevalent to the area where Burkitt's lymphoma runs rampant in Africa is also Malaria
Parasites don't want you dead, they want to derive to nutrients from you
It depressed our immune system which may lead EPV to have a far greater affect on them then other people around the world

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
Cancers caused:
Lymphomas
Kaposi's sarcoma
Angogenital carcinomas



Risk factor: Heredity
The vast majority of patients with cancer have no inherited their disease
They will not pass their disease on to children
However, even though cancer is not considered a inherited disease, there are incidences that increases to susceptibility of the disease that can now be passed onto the offspring
That includes some rare forms of cancer as well as genetic diseases 
That includes some rare forms of cancer as well as genetic diseases 

Figure: Examples of inherited cancers

As we've seen before FAP is an inherited genetic condition that leads to the formation of lots of benign tumors and a small population of individuals who have that can lead to colon cancer
Wilms' tumor has an inherited susceptibility as well as retinoblastoma
There are also diseases of genetic instability and diseases of immunodeficiency's and individuals with those diseases show an increase in development in certain types of cancers
What you cant see in the illustration is that the gene that was inherited, it was always a defective tumor suppressor gene
If we have these rare susceptibilities it is going to be because of defective tumor suppressor genes

Figure: Mode of inheritance
The mode of inheritance suggest that the susceptibility is determined by single genes and that they are transmitted in a genetically dominate fashion
Large C that dad has the actual cancer gene
In this case, half of the offspring's will inherit the susceptibility gene
The gene functions in a dominate fashion
Even in the presence of another normal gene, these individuals will almost certainly develop the cancer
These inherited cancers represent a group that have a "direct-effect" on the cells that will ultimately become the neoplastic cells
This has to be contrasted with certain other disorders such as those of genetic instability or inherited immunodeficiency where the effect is going to be an indirect one
The effect is not going to be on a cell that is going to be the cancer cell but it will be on a cell  that maybe involved with preventing the onset of disease
   
An example of a "direct-effect":
Retinoblastoma
The inherited gene is ultimately going to manifest its activity in retinal cells
These individuals will have an increased predisposition of developing that disorder

An example of a "indirect-effect":
A consequence of not dominant genes but recessive genes
In order for the disorder ot be manifested, both parents must carry the gene
This is why its far rare

Xeroderma pigmentosum

is a condition of genetic instability.
It doesn't allow DNA to be repaired effectively
Particularly DNA that has been damaged by UV exposure
The defect is in a gene that encodes a DNA repair enzyme called UV-specific endonuclease
Rare condition-occurs in 1 out of 250 million children born

Inherited immunodeficiency known as Ataxia telangiectasia
This is an inherited immunodeficiency
Just like acquired immunodeficiency like AIDs, just like patients that are on immunosuppressive drugs, individuals with ataxia telangiectasia are much more susceptible to the development of cancer
If the immune system is not functioning properly then the chances of developing tumors particularly tumors lymphocytes and other immune cells increases
We see in patients with ataxia telangiectasia an increase in lymphomas and in some cases leukemia's
There maybe a viral connection


Environmental risk factor: Occupation risk factors
Boys who cleaned chimney soot and developed scrotal carcinomas
Asbestos workers got cancer as well as their wife's who washed their laundry
Got a rare form of lung cancer called mesothelioma
Occupation carcinogens account for about 5% of cancers
Our concerns are that today we are using new chemicals and we don't know the affect they will have on us until 20 years

Environmental risk factor: Hormones

Back in the 1940's, a lot of pregnant women were given synthetic estrogen known as DES.
In the 1970's their daughters were found to have been developing vaginal and cervical cancer after the 10-20 year lag period
This was the first evidence that estrogen can be problematic

Women still do take extra estrogen
Important effect in ameliorating the ravages of menopause
Beneficial and preventing the development of osteoporosis

Our evidence is not complete
For a period of time women were told that if they took progesterone along with estrogen it will prevent the adverse effect of estrogen
Large studies then came along and showed it not to be true
Other studies came to show that it may not be so clear
Most evidence suggest that extra estrogen is not a good thing to have because it's a promoting agent for breath and cervical epithelial cells

Environmental risk factor: Diet

There are study's that suggest that dietary components can be responsible for anywhere up to 30% or so of the cancers we see

Figure: Dietary factors and cancer risk
The problem with this illustration is that the studies that have been done are not nearly as incontrovertible as were those that have shown tobacco smoke and radiation to be major carcinogens
A lot of the studies that have shown some of these dietary components have either been controversial or in some cases contradictory

High Fat
Increased risk of colorectal and possibly breast carcinomas

Figure: Breast cancer death rates vs dietary fat intake
As you consume more dietary fat the incidence of breast cancer goes up
The greatest consumers consists of the USA, Canada, Great Britain
The lowest consumers consists of Thailand and some Asian countries
There's a problem with this illustration, its that there can be many other differences within a country besides just their consumption of dietary fat
Studies showed that rats on a high fat diet and high rates of mammary tumor
Its not always like this when you go out into the general population
Even studies that have not been able to show conclusively show the association between dietary fat and breast cancer have shown a correlation between dietary fat and colorectal carcinomas

There is a 2-fold increase in the risk of colorectal carcinoma in individuals that consume around 44% of their daily diet in fat as compared to those who consume under 30%
The risk for endometrial carcinoma is 2-5 times greater for women who weight more than 165 pounds as compared to women who weight less than 125 pounds
The basis for this association is on the fact that fat cells produce estrogen
Now you have multiple sources of estrogen
Estrogen drives the proliferation of endometrial epithelium cells
Increased proliferation beyond the norm will lead to endometrial carcinoma
Estrogen also drives for proliferation of breast epithelial cells.
It appears that there is a relatively small contribution to the increase in breast cancer

Cured, smoked and pickled foods

Increased risk for stomach cancers
Japan has a much higher risk for stomach cancer than here

Nitrites found in preserved foods
Nitrites are converted to nitrosamines in the liver
Nitrosamines are a very potent carcinogen

Vitamin C may prevent the conversion of nitriles to nitrosamines, evidence not conclusive

Aflatoxin

One of the most potent carcinogens known to man
It's a contaminant, a poison produced by molds found on improperly stored peanuts and grains
Causes hepatocellular carcinoma
It causes a mutation in the p53 tumor suppressor gene

Saccharin (artificial sweetener)
Shown to cause bladder cancer in rats
The rats were given a high dosage which is unrealistic to what humans consume
No correlation in human populations so no real evidence

Vitamin C
Is an antioxidant, may decreases risk of stomach cancer (evidence not conclusive)

Vitamin A and beta-carotene
Decreases risk of lung and other epithelial cancers

Vitamin E and selenium
No known cancer fighting properties

Fiber
Decreased risk of colon cancer by forcing the movement of food through the colon faster thereby decreasing the amount of time toxins may be in contact with epithelial tissues of the colon.
Increases peristalsis

Environmental risk factor: Alcohol

Its related to an increase risk of the following cancers:
Oral cavity
Pharynx
Larynx
Esophagus

Prolonged drinking can lead to cirrhosis of the liver
This is an inflammatory response

Individuals with cirrhosis of the liver will have an increased susceptibility to liver cancer or hepatocellular carcinoma
Many individuals who drink also smoke
Now we have two carcinogens

Moderate alcohol consumption is 1 drink for women and 2 for men a day
Moderate cig smoking is 1-2 packs a day
Mod smoking and Mod drinking each on their own cause an increase of oral and pharyngeal cancer that is 2 times greater than if you don't drink or smoke.
If you do both together you have a 4 fold increase

Heavy drinking is more than 4 drinks a day
Heavy smoking is more than 2 packs a day
Heavy smoking and Heavy drinking each on their own cause an increase of oral and pharyngeal carcinomas about 7 fold
If you do both, 40 times the increased
This is called a synergistic effect
The effects of each is greater than the additive effects of each separately

Environmental risk factor: Tobacco smoke

Accounts for nearly 1/3 of all cancer deaths in the United States
It is responsible for 80% of all lung cancers
This contributes about 30% to the death rate
A very significant amount of cancer mortality can be eliminated by eliminating tobacco

Smoking has also been implicated in the following
Cancers of the oral cavity
Cancers of the pharynx
Cancers of the larynx
Cancers of the esophagus
Cancers of the bladder
Canners of the kidney
Cancers of the pancreas

Figure: per capital cigarette consumption vs year vs lung cancer death rate
Lung cancer starts to go up around 1930 as does smoking.
Smoking began in 1910 and 20 years later lung cancer rates go up
That period is known as a Lag Period
This lag period , 20 years, is known to be relatively characteristic of many carcinogens
Many agents take that long, 20 years, for that multistep process of various mutations occurring giving cells increased potential for division/proliferation followed by more aggressive types of tumors appearing

Figure: Annual lung cancer death rates for males and females in the US
Men start smoking in 1910 and lung cancer rates went up in 1930
Women began smoking in the 1940
World War II occurred in 1940 so women filled in the standard typical jobs that men had at home
Not only did they take on mens jobs, they took on their habits to which smoking was probably the worst of all
So 1940 women began smoking and 1960 lung cancer rates go up in women
This is pretty dramatic evidence
The evidence suggests a very strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer
It doesn't show that it causes it but it shows a strong association between the two

Some facts:

There exists a close dose relationship between cigarette consumption and the development of lung cancer
The more you smoke, the greater your chancers are of getting this disease
The risk for smokers ranged between 5 and 25 times more of that than a non-smoker
Those that are light smokers will have an intermediate risk
Mortality due to cig smoking is enhanced in the presence of other carcinogens
If you stop smoking your rate stops at that point
You have a lower risk of mortality that stops at the point you stop smoking
Over the period of 20 years your chance will go down to almost that of a non-smoker

Chronic installation of tobacco products intraarticularly into experimental animals or exposure of experimental animals to cig smoke will cause them to develop lung cancer
If you expose lung cells in culture to cig smoke they will become transformed
They will under go neoplastic transformation
Now we have both sides, the epidemiologic and the experimental
We can no longer say that cig smoke is associated with lung cancer but we can now say that cig smoke can cause cancer 

There are between 2,000-3,000 chemical components and derivative es of those components in a single puff of cig cmoke
Benzopyrine, Nickle carbonyls and dimethyltriosemines are known chemical carcinogens
Benzopyrine has been observed to bind to p53
The risk for pipe smokers, cigar smokers and those who chew tobacco is much greater than a nonsmoker but not as high as a cig smoker

Every time a person puffs a cig it is diluting that stream with 7 volumes of air
If you are standing next to that individual you are getting considerably less
It depends on environment, outdoors vs indoors

Figure: Geographic variation in cancer incidence

Colon cancer
Highest Incidence: USA
34 cases per 100,000 people
20 times more than india
Lowest Incidence: India
1.8 cases per 1000,000

Prostate cancer
Highest Incidence: USA
91 cases per 100,000 people
70 times more than china
Lowest-Incidence: China
1.3 cases per 100,000

Melanoma
Highest Incidence: Australia
31 cases per 100,000 people
155 times more than japan
Lowest Incidence: Japan
0.2 cases per 100,000 people

Why is this?  There are two possibilities
Populations have exposure to different environmental factors
Populations have genetic variability (they're genetically different than we are)

We can find out by studying migrant populations

We see that after 1 to 2 generations the patterns become identical indicating that the cancer is based on exposure to environmental factors
The number next to the country with lowest-incidence is referred to as the Minimum Intrinsic Level

The minimum intrinsic level is the lowest level of cancer in a population that cannot be decreased any further. Everything above that is environmentally caused
It is believed that the cancer rate cannot drop below that
Anything above this is environmentally caused
Over 90% of all colorectal carcinomas, on a world wide bases, is environmentally caused.


I have an exam on all this material on monday and much more. Its alot to memorize.. heh. Well, back to my studies, I have another 3 pages of notes to cram into my head. I hope someone finds this educational. I'm enjoying studying it, its just alot to take in!

P.S. If you're interested in more information, mechanisms, more facts etc... I'll be glad to share more of my notes

[lilitalienboi16]

Ah what the heck, since im studying this right now, ill share more. Currently memorizing the differences between normal cells and cancer cells:

The history of a cell as it divides involves

Cell growth
Duplication of the genetic material
Division of a parent cell into two daughter cells
This is the cycle

Figure: The cell cycle

The cell cycle includes the following phases

G1 phase is gap 1 where the cell is metabolically active but not involved in replication 
S phase is the synthesis phase where the cell will duplicate its genetic material (DNA)
G2 phase is gap 2 where the cell is preparing for cell division
M phase is the actual division of a parent cell into two daughter cells
Progression through this cycle is controlled and regulated precisely

There is a cell cycle control system
It is a cyclin-dependent kinase system
It is responsible for activating all the proteins and enzymes needed at every stage to complete that stage and at the end of that to deactivate those protein once the process is completed
It also has to make sure that every stage is complete before the next stage begins
So DNA replication has to be finished before mitosis can begin

There are checkpoints in this cycle
Checkpoint at G1
Checkpoint at G2

It takes a cell between 20-24 hours to divide (20 hrs for real fast cells)

We can divide this out as follows:
One hour for Mitosis
Eight hours for G1
Eight hours for S
Three hours for G2

3 Different categories of cells

Cells that are always dividing and divide rapidly
Example: cells of the epithelial cells or Immune cells

Cells that occasional divide
Example: Fibroblast

Cells that never divide
Nervous tissue cells, cardiac cells and skeletal muscle cells

Cells are going to vary with the length of time that it takes them to undergo a cell division
All of that variation is going to occur in the G1 phase
G1 can vary from a couple hours to several weeks

Cells that never divide are permanently arrested in G1

For virtually all other cells passage through G1 is not continuous except for some of the very rapidly dividing cells
There is a very slow progression through G1

We can divide G1 into component parts
For most cells they will spend most of G1 in a quiescent state
We have termed this G0
Cells stay in G0 until they get some kind of message that pushes them through the cycle

Fibroblasts for example will stay in G0 until there is a physiologic need for the cell to divide
For example if there is a wound to which it will leave G0 and move from G1 and into the S phase

G1 is a decision point for cells
Do they become arrested or continue on with the cycle?

How the p53 gene arrests the cell cycle in G1

DNA gets damaged

Somehow the p53 gene is aware of the DNA damage

p53 encodes more p53 protein which is going to bind to a regulatory region of the p21 gene and stimulate the p21 gene to produce a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor protein
p53 activates p21 which produces an inhibitor protein which stops the cycle
Division has stopped so DNA can get repaired
Once DNA is repaired the inhibitor protein will become deactivated again and the cycle will continue

Now you have mutated p53 by either smoking (benzopyrene and its derivatives target p53) or say by eating contaminated peanuts that contained aflatoxin (aflatoxin binds to p53 and mutates it)
Now you can't stop the cell cycle
What you are going to do is continue the cycle with damaged DNA
Damaged DNA will lead to more mutations and ultimately transformation of the cell from a normal to neoplastic cell. Cancer on the horizon.

What keeps the cell in G0?
The Rb protein
It is found in high concentrations in the nucleus
It is the product of the Rb tumor suppressor gene
Tumor suppressor genes retard cell growth.
In retinoblastoma, the RB GENE is mutated or deleted.

A basic defect that occurs in cancer cells is that they are going to proliferate unregulated and uncontrolled so how do we study this?
One of the major advances to cancer research occurred with the development of tissue culture techniques
When we learned to maintain cells alive outside the body of an organism by controlling the temperature, atmospheric pressure, pH, the environment, the nutrients, the growth factors, if we give all of these kinds of entities to cells we can keep them alive for a long period of time
This leads to an ability to effectively study them
The basic unregulated growth of cancer cells we see in an organism is very closely correlated to their behavior in tissue culture.

Figure: Properties of normal cells and cancer cells

Density-dependent inhibition of growth
Present in normal cells and absent in cancer cells

Tumor cells can have expression of growth factor gene which results in synthesis of their own growth factors resulting in autocrine signaling
Tumor cells may also have a mutation on their growth factor receptor resulting in a continually activated receptor as well as an activated kinase

Adhesiveness
High in normal cells and low in cancer cells
If a normal cell is forming an association with another cell or an association with the ECM (Extra cellular matrix) it is making contact with it and sticking to it
Tumor cells are less adhesive
This property correlates with metastasis

Normal cells need that adhesiveness for a number of a reasons
It tells the cells when to divide
Keeps cells in place

Contact inhibition
Present in normal cells and absent in tumor cells

If we took normal cells and put them into a petri dish that we covered in ECM we would discover that normal cells will move around the petri dish until they make contact with another cell and the ECM and then they will stop
They will do this until they form a single monolayer of cells across the dish
This property is referred to as contact inhibition

On the other hand if we put tumor cells into the dish they will not demonstrate contact inhibition
They will make contact with each other and continue to move and divide
They will not form a single organized monolayer
They will form a multilayer complex
They do not demonstrate contact inhibition

Anchorage dependence
Present in normal cells and absent in tumor cells
Normal cells in culture, if they are to divide, they have to attach to a surface
They can't divide in suspension
They need to hold onto something even if it's the plastic of the petri dish
Tumor cells are anchorage independent

Protease secretion
Low in normal cells but high in tumor cells
Tumor cells produce large amounts of proteases and secrete those proteases

These digestive enzymes assist in:
Breaking through a basement membrane
Dissolving the material that constitutes the spaces within the capillaries or lymphatic
Dissolve collagen and elastin that is found in the ECM
Tumor cells have a large amount of metallocollagenases

Angiogenesis
Tumor cells demonstrate this property
Angiogenesis is the development of blood vessels
If a tumor is to grow beyond a million cell it needs its own blood supply
Up to a million cells it does ok
What the tumor cell does is it secretes growth factors that affect endothelial cells and causes out growths of those cells to grow directly into the tumor
Endothelial cells line capillaries in neighboring tissues
These capillaries are much more permeable to the tumor cells
They are a little bit defective
The tumor is creating its own blood supply

Judah Folkman outlined all of the pathways involved in angiogenesis
Worked out the signaling pathways with many of the factors involved in angiogenesis
The most critical is called VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor)
At one point he began to think that if these vessels play such an important role in metastasis why not try and block the process by blocking the formation of blood vessels
He started his experiment on mice and use inhibitors of VEGF and other components within the angiogenesis pathway and indeed he showed that he can block metastasis

Differentiation
Present in normal cells but blocked in tumor cells 
Many cancers and in particular leukemia's fail to differentiate appropriately 

There is a rare form of leukemia called an erythroleukimia
Most leukemia's are of white blood cells, this one is of red
Differentiation stops at the erythroblast stage but division goes on
You get a large number of cells but they are all erythroblasts and not erythrocytes

Apoptosis
Present in normal cells but least likely to happen in cancer cells
BCL prevents apoptosis

Unstable genetic material
Aneuploidy (abnormal # of chromosomes) as well as translocations contribute to unstable genetic material in tumor cells

Gene amplification
Too many copies of a gene
Occurs 1000x more frequently in tumor cells than normal cells

Gene amplification can cause problems
Too much proteases
Too much growth factors
Not only critical for the development of the disease but also correlated with the treatment of the disease
Most tumors are response to chemotherapeutic drugs and then a drug resistant clone inevitably grows out
That drug resistant clone then becomes the major population of that clone
It is believed that the development of drug resistant clones is a consequence of gene amplification
One way is that whatever the target enzyme is of a particular drug, the gene for that enzyme gets amplified
The amount of drug that is used can't deal effectively with the growth of the cell
It is closely correlated with the severity and prognosis of the disease
The more gene copies you have of something, the worst the prognosis will be

In summary the properties of tumor cells that correlate to invasiveness and metastatic properties are:

The loss of adhesiveness, contact inhibition and anchorage dependence

Why are they missing these properties?
Tumor cells are missing integrin's and other CAM's

Excessive protease secretion and angiogenesis 

[microlink]

WOW. A lot of info to digest. Thanks.

[lilitalienboi16]

WOW. A lot of info to digest. Thanks.

My pleasure, I got lots and lots of more information

Love sharing this stuff, biology is one of my great passions along with medicine!

[loretta]

Effective Solutions to Cancer Thwarted by Big Pharma (posted earlier by Arcturus)

This documentary is absolutely shocking, how the organized medical fraternity backed by the pharmaceutical industry has lobbied to stall alternative treatments for cancer. Yet hardly surprising,  the deceit and cover-up is akin to what is happening in Christendom and is of God.  Whether we live (thanks to alternative therapies) or die (from conventional cancer treatments) is also of God. All is of God

The question is, should we take out health insurance?!

How Dr. Lorraine Day M.D., reversed her severe, advanced cancer by rebuilding her immune system by natural therapies, so her body could heal itself.
http://www.drday.com/

[Dennis Vogel]

Last time I was at the dentist I complained about yet another x-ray. The technician told me it only amounts to the same thing as a few minutes of radiation from the sun. I told her "yes, but at a much higher frequency" which shut her up. All radiation is not the same.

[lilitalienboi16]

Last time I was at the dentist I complained about yet another x-ray. The technician told me it only amounts to the same thing as a few minutes of radiation from the sun. I told her "yes, but at a much higher frequency" which shut her up. All radiation is not the same.

Yes, youre absolutely right dennis. You must evaluate the necesssity of hte x-ray.

For example, if you break your arm, you may want to get it x-rayed so they can figure out how to treat the problem.

If you break your big toe, you might want to pass on the x-ray seeing as the treatment for it, whether its broken or not, will be the same regardless.

People just need to think, X-rays serve a very good purpose but you don't want to be getting x-rays for every little thing. You want to be smart about it.

Oncologists have to TREAT the DISEASE the patient CURRENTLY has and NOT WORRY about what MAY DEVELOP as a result of treatment hence why high frequency radiation is used to bombard cancer. Our techniques have gotten better, we are more accurate and less damaging to surrounding tissues than we were 40 years ago. The point remains though, a physician can't not treat the patient who is dying of cancer for fear of MAYBE giving the patient cancer through treatment because the patient WILL DIE if you don't treat them.

Its like someone who is laying on the ground, DYING because they are no longer breathing, and your doctor won't perform CPR because he's afraid of breaking the patient's ribs!

As for all these alternative treatments.. its really silly. I'll explain this as simple as I can:

Each time a carcinogen such as benzopyrene which is an active chemical carcinogen in cigerette smoke is exposed to, say, a lung cell, it alters the cell leading to changes in the cells intracellular workings and extracellular appearance. The extracellular alterations are absolutely crucial because it is how the immune system recognizes what is SELF and what is FOREIGN.

This is ALSO how medicines such as antibiotics descriminate between eurkaryotic cells (such as yourself) and prokaryotic cells (bacteria). They recognize certain structural motifs present on extracellular surface of cells. This is why they can kill bacteria without harming our bodies, they are very specific!

Now the problem with carcinogens (not viruses but chemical and other environmental carcinogens) is that each time they mutate the cells DNA it produces an alteration in the cell surface that is DIFFERENT. That means that each time benzopyrene is exposed to a lung cell, it will alter the cells surface DIFFERENTLY DESPITE THE FACT THAT ITS THE SAME COMPOUND, BENZOYPYRENE, EACH TIME! A chemical carcinogen NEVER alters a cell's extracellular proteins (known as tumor antigens) the same way twice, despite the fact that its the exact same chemical each time.

This makes it almost IMPOSSIBLE to treat cancer in a SPECIFIC method (such as with a pill like an antibiotic or food source that will target only the cancer cell) as oppossed to the broad approaches of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Imagine trying to hit a target with a drug, but each time your target changes and you miss it!

This is the problem with carcinogen caused cancers (viruses are different due to how they act but i wont go into details of that). So an "ALTERNATIVE THERAPY" that "CURES" cancer is really misleading and honestly, a flat out lie.

Each patient with lung cancer, if you were to use a specific drug to treat it, may work at first for one patient (while not working at all for the others) but won't eliminate the cancer entirely as each cancerous lung cell is altered slightly different at its cell surface and so the drug will only recognize the cancer lung cells it was designed for while completely missing all the others that may exist in the patient at the time. Not to mention this drug probably won't work for any other patient. However, all cancer cells, regardless of their alterations to their appearances, divide rapidly! If we can't target cancer cells specifically, then we can still use their strengths against them in hopes of eliminating them.

This is why our chemo therapy drugs have the same affect as radiation (losing hair, throwing up, immunity supression etc..) because they all target very broad factors (such as the ability to rapidly divide) that are promoted in cancer cells instead of altered (like structural surfaces used by drugs to target specific cells) but because of this method of approach, you also kill the normal healthy cells of your body that also rapidly divide (stomach cells, hair cells, immune cells...)

Also, about chemotherapy, we often times see in cancer patients that the drug works initially but afterwards it stops working. A drug resistant clone develops and becomes the majority population of cancer cells. This is mostly due to gene amplification and less because of how the drug is targeting the cancer cells but nonetheless, worth mentioning.

The idea that physicians and scientists are hiding the cure or not interested in "alternative" methods besides what we currently use is absolutely hog wash. People are just ignorant to how complicated the human body is, the cells that make them up and the diseases that plague this magnificent piece of machinery.

[cjwood]

it is up to the individual experiencing the cancer, to decide whether they feel the risk of exposure to radiation outweighs the benefit.  we have to use wisdom and go to God to help us make the decisions right for us.

my cancer was discovered by mammogram.  each year i have a digital mammogram.  technology has changed dramatically even in the 13 years since i had my 8 wks radiation treatment.  many strides have been made to protect the patient, as well as the technician.

it is ALL of God.

claudia

[lilitalienboi16]

Thanks so much for sharing all of this Alex. Must have taken a good chunk of your time.

It doesn't appear in my experience that radiation or chemo cure that many, likely due to the factor you presented; the constant cellular alterations. Do you have any ballpark statistics on what the success rate with these treatments are? Seems from my experience that cancer almost always returns  . Gratefully Claudia you've done well.

Still I have to wonder if I would ever put my body through what my loved ones have had to just to succumb after so much suffering.

Thanks again dear brother.

God bless

Yes, for reasons you've just explained, cancer cells are often times considered by scientists to be the ultimate form of evolution. They essentially have maximized their capabilities to divide and never die. They don't die because they turn off genes that are involved in their regulation such as genes responsible for growth factors, cell division and apoptosis (essentially cell suicide when a cell realizes it is no longer functioning properly).

I can provide to you some information that correlates with your question from my notes. Hopefully that should give you an idea on statistics, if they are not presented here.

We know more about this disease than we did 40 years ago.

What we know now is still not a enough. There is much to be learned

Reasons for optimism
Much progress made in past 40 years

Example: 2/3 of all children with cancer will live now. That did not occur 40 years ago.
Example: Individuals with testicular cancer stand a much better chance at recovery than they did 40 years ago.

All over the country, at major cancer centers there are celebrations of 5 and 10 year survivals.
We still use as a yard stick for success, 5 years of survival
40 years ago we would not have these celebrations. Cancer was a death sentence.

What ever optimism we have, it's guarded optimism

There are still many cancers that are refractory to our best efforts at treating them
These are some of the big cancers
Lung cancer
Colon cancer
Breast cancer

We've made a lot of progress in particular cancers. Unfortunately much of that progress has been in cancers that are somewhat rarer than others.

A lot of the benefits and advances we've seen can be attributed to Richard Nixon.

In the 1970's, Richard Nixon ramrodded thru congress a bill called The National Cancer Act
This bill declared war on cancer which no one thought of doing before and in order to win a war you need money and resources.
Nixon proposed to tunnel as much money into understanding and treating the disease

Biological secrets are very difficult to uncover

The thinking was that cancer was a relatively simple disease. There was a mechanism that stopped working properly. So all we had to do was come up with a single treatment that fixed the mechanism.

One problem, One treatment
This was given the name as the Magic Bullet Approach.

Within 10 years of the National Cancer Act it was declared a failure.
We didn't have the answer but we began to realize that cancer is a much more complex problem than we ever thought before.
Even though the war on cancer was declared lost, if we look back from our vantage point, looking back 40 years ago, a different picture emerges.

That early infusion of money into research has begun to finally bear fruit.
Yes, we've dispelled the early theories of how simple the problem was going to be. Today we know that cancer is a multifactor complex disease entity. It's not a single step event
We know that that very complexity offers us opportunities to intervene with therapies at different stages of the disease.

A list of basic facts of the disease: 

Cancer is the number 2 cause of death in the united states
Cancer takes ~1 life every minute
~525,000 people every year die because of this dease
Somewhat less than half the people who get this disease will die from this disease
That's only a 4 % increase in survival over 40 years ago

Most improvements in treatment of this disease have not come from new and innovative therapies rather by refinement of the standard therapies that have been with us for a long time
Surgery, radiation, chemotherapy

Since there is not universal health care, most of the new and innovative strategies are not available to everybody on equal bases.
We are around 18th on the list of how old our people get to live. There are 3rd world countries where people live longer than people in the united states.

Back 40 years ago, our thinking of this disease and its causes was simplistic in nature.
We thought there were two causes for this disease
Viruses
Anything else
Today we know that cancer is a disease of the genes, not all genes, but a handful

Some treatments 40 years ago would seem crude by todays standards

Women with breast cancer today will very often keep their breasts
Men with prostate or testicular cancer will retain sexual function
Laryngeal cancer today can be treated with pinpoint radiation and very often the individual will retain the ability to speak where as 40 years ago the larynx would be removed.
People with bone cancer will very often retain their limbs which was not the case 40 years ago
40 years ago, cancer was a death sentence. There was a fatalistic attitude. Oncologist were physicians that dealt with dying people
Oncologist today are physicians that are developing therapies that are geared towards survival      

Early 1970's there were roughly 100 board certified oncologist in the entire country
Today there are around 7,500 board certified oncologists

Back in the 1970's there were 3 cancer treatment centers in the united states
Today there are will over 100 across the country

Mortality rates for childhood cancers have dropped over 40 percent since the 1970's
Consequence of some potent chemo therapy that was developed and particular drugs

Back in the 1970s, testicular cancer had a mortality rate of about 25%
Today about 92% will survive
Due to new forms of chemo therapy and category of drugs called cisplatin drugs

Increase in the number of adults that have survived with both leukemia's and lymphomas

Much success with cancers that have been diagnosed early on because of better methods of diagnosis

One such example is prostate cancer
There has been a 75% increase in the detection of prostate cancer now compared to 40 years ago.
Varous types of imaging devices have come into common use like CAT scans and MRI's
Allows us to detect tumors earlier and in some cases can be tied into treatment because with precise imaging devices for certain types of tumors you can pinpoint such therapies such as radiation therapy.
This allows you not to damage normal tissue

One major problem with radiation and chemo therapy is the fact that a lot of normal tissue gets destroyed. SO much so that it creates all the various side effects and in some cases is life threatening.

Despite these kinds of advances, still there are those cancers that continue to be problematic and they are amongst those that are most frequent:
Colorectal cancer
Lung cancer
Liver cancer
Breast cancer
Prostate cancer

25-45 percent of all cancer deaths can be eliminated by avoiding tobacco products

Some Statistics:

25% of patients that have a particular form of lung cancer called Small cell lung cancer, 60% of patients that have colorectal cancers, and 40% of women who have premenopausal breast cancer do not get the best possible treatments

Half of all breast cancer patients who should get whats called ajumen therapy which is a combination of different kinds of therapies do not get such

5 year survival rate for African American women who get breast cancer is about 38%

Comparable 5 year survival rate for Caucasian women is 55%

Finding the best treatment and paying for it are miles apart

There are means of cancer prevention that are available to everybody on equal bases.

Cigarette smoking and tobacco use account for 25-40% of all cancer deaths in this country
Of the 120,000 people who will have lung cancer this year, 80% of them are smokers
This associates a risk factor, cigarette and tobacco smoke with the onset of the disease.
Theres also a causal relationship between uv exposure and skin cancer.
3 kinds of skin cancer
Melanoma is life threatening
Squamous, carable 99% of the time

There also seems to be an association with dietary fat and several kinds of cancer particularly colorectal and stomach cancers

This association is not yet as strong as for cig smoke and UV exposure

How frequently does cancer occur?
1 out of 3 Americans will develop cancer at some point during their lives
Cancer will claim the life of 1 out of 4 Americans
~510,000 Americans died of cancer in 1990
in 1989 that was 500,000
in 1988 that was 490,000
in 1987 that was 480,000
in 1986 that was 470,000
More recently, apart from the fact that death rates continued to increase thru 1991 then they began leveling off thru 1994 and then they started dropping around 1.1% every year thru 1998.

What are the common kinds of cancer?

There are over 100 different kinds of cancer
Important for treatment, prevention and prognosis
One of the worst cancers from the point of way of survival time is pancreatic cancer. The 5 year survival time for patients is under 4%. That means about 400 people will survive in this country.

Most frequent cancers in the united states handout

All 11 constitute 80% of all cancers in the US
The top 4 are 50% of all cancers in US

The first 3 (long, colorectal and breast) constitute 50% of all cancer deaths

Non-melanoma skin cancer is the most common cancer in the united states

There are well over 700,000 cases of non-melanoma skin cancer
The vast majority of these are readily curable

Melanoma on the other hand is very lethal and has a mortality rate of 30%
Basal and squamous cancers rarely cause problems

Death of cancer handout

Observation 1: death from stomach cancer has decreased

Why? Because of dietary changes. Prior to refrigeration, meats had to be pickled. Refrigeration allowed the ability to have fresh fruit and vegetables.
The incident of stomach cancer is 8 times higher in japan than here because they heavily consumed pickled and conserved meats

Observation 2: lung cancer has increased considerably from the 1930's

Why? Because of cigarette smoking which increased from the 1930's

Observation 3: breast cancer stayed the same

Observation 4: death from uterine cancer has gone down

Why? Because of pap smears. 1920's George Papanikolas developed the Pap smear which is the simplest test ever developed for a disease.
What happens is during a routine exam, a scarping of cells is taken from the cervix and examined microscopically

There are just as many cases of uterine cancer today compared to 50/60 years ago. It's just that now we find them early and cure people of it.
We discover about 50,000 cases of uterine cancer and cure it.

On the other hand there are far fewer cases of stomach cancer because of refrigeration and dietary expertise we have now

What does the data suggest regarding the difference between stomach cancer rates in the united states and japan?
It tells us that because of the difference in diet and those heavily processed and preserved foods that are so much more in use there than here suggests that there are environmental factors that separate cancer rates between populations

Despite all the progress that we have made with respect to colorectal disease, by the time it is discovered very often, 50% of these patients have had metastasis develop and will die of their disease
The 5 year survival rate of breast cancer is 80%, lung cancer is 15% and pancreatic cancer is 3-4%

The low percentage of pancreatic cancer still means that several thousand people will survive



These are some of the statistics I have. I hope its beneficial to you and help gives you an idea of the battle against cancer as it currently stands in the US and a little of its history.

Its been a pleasure to share some of my school work with you all. Like I said, I'm very passionate about medicine and biology!

Blessings to you as well sister.
Alex

[loretta]

my cancer was discovered by mammogram.  each year i have a digital mammogram.  technology has changed dramatically even in the 13 years since i had my 8 wks radiation treatment.  many strides have been made to protect the patient, as well as the technician.[/quote

I hope that's true.  Just recently I was zapped twice for a dental OPJ as the technician didn't get it right the first time

Happy for you Claudia, that you're keeping well.

For lay people, medicine is really hard to understand and often we rely solely upon the advice of our personal physician, whom we trust next to God.