Chemotherapy may spread cancer and trigger more aggressive tumours, warn scientists

a reply to: scojak

If what you said is true, then everyone would get cancer randomly.

In fact everyone get those random mutation, so yes eventually everyone "should" get cancer randomly AS WE AGE however. The fact is some have a genetic profile making them more vulnerable to develop cancer, those anti-cancer gene I don't remember the names.

And what do you say about those cancer that are STD?

If you maintain a healthy immune system and living environment, you won't get cancer. If you don't, the cancerous cells will become more abundant to the point they are able to take out the defense system that prevents it. But if you reintroduce that defense system, the body starts fighting the cancer again.

As I said, if it were to be simple as that. By the way, what is a healthy living environment? Eating carrots, using solar power, driving an electric car, meditation, body hygiene??? Everyone has a different opinion on this you know.

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Wonder why it is still a schedule 1 drug?????

originally posted by: Cofactor

In fact everyone get those random mutation, so yes eventually everyone "should" get cancer randomly AS WE AGE however.

Sure, we can call the specific mutations themselves random, but people don't get cancer randomly. It's based on the conditions in a persons life. Age is obviously one of those conditions since the immune system gets weaker as we age, but it in no way means we "should" get cancer as we age.

In fact, recent studies show that 38% of people will get cancer at some point in their life. That means that no matter our age, we actually SHOULD NOT get cancer. Again, a healthy person in a healthy environment will not get cancer. Unfortunately what most people eat and where most people live are becoming less and less healthy, so I would expect cancer rates to continuously increase, HOWEVER, this does not mean cancer is a random occurrence.

The fact is some have a genetic profil making them more vulnerable to develop cancer, those anti-cancer gene I don't remember the names.

Ok, but you're now talking about specific group which is pointless. That's like saying that people aren't fast runners because some of them are overweight.

I'm talking about a healthy person without that genetic profile. There's no point in bringing up a specific condition in this conversation because it doesn't change the base argument that a healthy body can fight cancer.

And what do you say about those cancer that are STD?

I don't really understand the question, but no STD is cancer. STD's weaken the immune system and I've already admitted and used a weakened immune system as a basis for my argument for why people get cancer.

originally posted by: Cofactor
a reply to: rickymouse

You can have a tumor and it has cancer cells in it and you can have it for twenty years and it does not get any bigger.

I've spent a lot of time studying what is known about cancer and taken four classes on it.

Are you familiar with cytotechnology?

Breast cancer early detection and treatments can actually spread cancer.

Do you mean the biopsy method?

Yes, I am familiar with cytotechnology, I took a class in that, with drying and freezing samples and slicing them to look at them. I think that is what the name refers to. The class was a little boring, but it was informative.

Yes, I am talking about biopsy causing problems with spreading of the cancer. Also in breast cancer, sometimes the cancer spreads to the arm lymph nodes after the surgery so even if they are not cancerous, some surgeons do remove the nodes under the arm. So the surgery can release cancer stem cells too.

I have known at least four women friends or relatives who have had breast cancer so I researched these things after they had complications and had to go back into surgery. Curiosity is a bummer, I use medical sites and prestigeous organizations and research when I study. I only go to other more social sites to find ideas to steer more research in real sites. I also do not take someone's interpretation of research without actually looking at the research myself to check the parameters of the research and what kind of figures they are using to judge the rates of success or failure. .

The o

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: rickymouse

Don't forget about cannabinoids --

www.cancer.org...

www.cureyourowncancer.org...

I spent some times researching how the endocanabinoid system works. Pretty impressive. I also got off on a tangent and studied how to stimulate the receptors on the cells to uptake the endocannabinoids by using food chemistry and where else the cannibinoids are found in nature. They are found in smaller amounts in lots of veggies and are bioactive in them. So a person does not always require cannabis to protect yourself from cancer. I have only read about sixty or seventy articles on that, I am far from an expert on the matter. A few cannabis sites actually have a lot about what I studied in their research interpretations and they seem to be pretty accurate. I think one of those sites is named "Leaf" that had good interpretations. A couple of other cannabis sites I looked at seemed to be written by people using a little too much of the product.

a reply to: scojak

Ok, but you're now talking about specific group which is pointless. That's like saying that people aren't fast runners because some of them are overweight.

I was using a specific example. FYI there is no such thing as "normal" or 'healthy" person. Everybody is different and everybody have genetic defect to various extent.

I don't really understand the question, but no STD is cancer. STD's weaken the immune system and I've already admitted and used a weakened immune system as a basis for my argument for why people get cancer.

Cervix cancer is a STD.

If you are willing to reevaluete your belief and interested, I can try to find one very interesting paper on the probability of cancer occurence. But to be clear, I don't say immune system have no role at all, juste saying it is not as simple as that.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, I am familiar with cytotechnology, I took a class in that, with drying and freezing samples and slicing them to look at them.

Very interesting, but sure labs work can be boring.

Yes, I am talking about biopsy causing problems with spreading of the cancer.

As I said before, some time ago, there was the belief among practitionner that biopsy may spread the cancer. Wonder if this is (one of) the reason they now do (some) biopsy using a machine that aspirate everything, like a vacuum cleaner.

Ever done some staining?

originally posted by: Cofactor
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes, I am familiar with cytotechnology, I took a class in that, with drying and freezing samples and slicing them to look at them.

Very interesting, but sure labs work can be boring.

Yes, I am talking about biopsy causing problems with spreading of the cancer.

As I said before, some time ago, there was the belief among practitionner that biopsy may spread the cancer. Wonder if this is (one of) the reason they now do (some) biopsy using a machine that aspirate everything, like a vacuum cleaner.

Ever done some staining?

Nope, other than staining lumber I have never done any staining. It was a free online class through Futurelearn. It had a lot of videos on all the steps and all the machines they use. It was pretty impressive. But I said boring because I would not last six months on that job. I like to learn new things, after you were there six months it would be more like a nothing new today job. I could see the conversations......Wow, you should have seen the huge cancer cells I saw today, come on, I have to show you the pictures. I'd rather be cutting out metal signs with the plasma cutter in the garage.

I shouldn't say I have never stained anything, I had an impressive microscope when I was a kid and used to stain cells to look at them. My microscope was better than they had in the school for biology and advanced biology back then. I have always been OCD about buying good equipment. But the technology now puts that microscope to shame.

I have worked many jobs in my life, I get bored after learning one and move on to something completely different. I got my builders license and would hire electricians and plumbers and work with them and learn their trade to keep from getting bored. I learned to lay tile and brick and block with one of the best around these parts, I also learned to pour cement from him and his brother. I worked hard and appreciated what employers were willing to teach me. I learned fast and they made money on my work quickly. Almost every one would have hired me back if I went back, but I never did, I would go visit them from time to time though, I appreciated the education they gave me.

The day I quit learning is the day I die.

originally posted by: Cofactor
I was using a specific example. FYI there is no such thing as "normal" or 'healthy" person. Everybody is different and everybody have genetic defect to various extent.

I know, but specific examples are not relevant. The average person is what matters when trying to analyze a situation. There are always extenuating circumstances, you have to look at the big picture.

And while you can argue semantics on what it means to be a "healthy person," you can't argue that health can be measured. It's not like health is subjective. You can compare two people and show that one is healthier, so yes, there is a measure for healthiness which means you can define a healthy person.

Cervix cancer is a STD.

Cervical cancer is caused by HPV, but having HPV doesn't guarantee you'll get cervical cancer.

If you are willing to reevaluete your belief and interested, I can try to find one very interesting paper on the probability of cancer occurence. But to be clear, I don't say immune system have no role at all, juste saying it is not as simple as that.

I'm always willing to reevaluate my beliefs if convincing facts are presented. But a study on cancer probability would have to account for way too many variables for it to hold any water in my opinion. If you find it, though, I will read it.

a reply to: rickymouse
You have a profile for R&D, only there I think you would be happy.

Don't underestimate the quality of older microscope, I only trust old one. I own 3x Nikon microscope (old black serie) and a tons of old parts for them.

Cytotechnology is mostly a profession for women due to superior image analysis skill. From your description it seemed more like general sample prep. work than microscope works. Cytologist I'm speaking about do exclusively microscope work. It is still interesting as there is constant research and learning, each case is unique.

a reply to: scojak
This one is a good general intro on cancer:
How cancer arises

Here the one I was referencing:
TOMASETTI, C. (2015). Var. in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of SC divisions

We then plotted the total number of stem cell divisions during the average lifetime of a human on the x axis and the lifetime risk for cancer of that tissue type on the y axis (Fig. 1) ...

One of the most impressive features of this correlation was that it extended across five orders of magnitude, thereby applying to cancers with enormous differences in incidence. No other environmental or inherited factors are known to be correlated in this way across tumor types. Moreover, these correlations were extremely robust; when the parameters used to construct Fig. 1 were varied over a broad range of plausible values, the tight correlation remained intact (see the supplementary materials).

a reply to: Cofactor

It's great study, but all it really shows is that tissues with higher cell division rates are more likely to have more mutations which, of course, means higher probabilities for cancer.

That makes perfect sense and I completely agree with this. In fact it's painfully obvious that that would be that case.

But, it does not show that the mutations alone are enough to cause cancer. If that were the case, then everyone would have cancer, because everyone has these mutations.

On top of that, the majority of Americans live pretty unhealthy lives yet 62% will never get cancer. That should be plenty to realize that the average body can handle the standard rates of mutation.

What we can take from this is that cell mutation may be the main reason cancer develops, but under normal circumstances the body can keep up and prevent the accumulation of these mutated cells. But, when the immune system is weakened or overloaded with carcinogens, the mutations become more than what the body can handle and the result is cancer.

a reply to: scojak

But, it does not show that the mutations alone are enough to cause cancer. If that were the case, then everyone would have cancer, because everyone has these mutations.

It show there is a very strong correlation however, and the numbers are the numbers. As for why everyone are not having cancer, the answer is that this is probability and statistic.

Also of interest is that the study extract the others causative factors and segregate two type of cancer: the Deterministics and the Replicatives. Each corresponding to excursion above or below the line of correlation. CORRECTION: Probably better to say farther above and near but still above the line of correlation.

a reply to: scojak

What we can take from this is that cell mutation may be the main reason cancer develops, but under normal circumstances the body can keep up and prevent the accumulation of these mutated cells.

The cells in your body in fact gradually accumulate mutation and defect of all sort and your immune system do very little, it is called aging!

originally posted by: scojak
GcMAF...

Perhaps it's snake oil, perhaps it doesn't work, perhaps it's a miracle cure. I just want to know why something with such potential has never been given a chance.

The Wiki page for GcMAF is troubling with the singular focus on 'false claims' and nothing of substance on why the claims were made in the first place....or how research is proceeding from here on out.

Thank you for sharing that. I filed it away in case I ever need to refer to it.

I didn't look beyond the Wiki page, yet, but that was disturbing enough to get my attention to carefully and seriously research it...eventually.




***
ETA:

The Wiki page closes with this:


And that is rich coming from a Wiki page that didn't provide any evidence that GcMAF belongs on such a list and ironic given the entire page is devoted to talking about how the research had not been validated. Never said a thing about the research (conclusions) having been proven WRONG.

It mentions ethical breaches and possible methodology errors. That's not enough for me to conclude it is 'ineffective.'

Very interesting stuff.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It does have a lot of controversy. My issue, though, is that while there are many claims that the research was not done properly, nobody has every thought to say, "hey, let's do it properly and see if it works." You'd think if the medical industry actually wanted a cure, they would at least rule it out through testing before dismissing it.

a reply to: scojak

Status Quo is very very profitable. Don't rock the boat.

originally posted by: scojak
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It does have a lot of controversy. My issue, though, is that while there are many claims that the research was not done properly, nobody has every thought to say, "hey, let's do it properly and see if it works." You'd think if the medical industry actually wanted a cure, they would at least rule it out through testing before dismissing it.

That was my issue, too, after reading that Wiki page.

There wasn't anything there to justify calling it ineffective and there was no information on how further research will be conducted.

Most interesting subject I've come across, this week.

a reply to: MotherMayEye
In case you don't have it, here the retracted paper:
Immunotherapy of metastatic breast cancer patients with vitamin D-binding protein-derived macrophage activating factor (GcMAF)

a reply to: Cofactor

Thanks!