It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

100 Gene Mutations Found that Cause Cancer

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   

100 Gene Mutations Found that Cause Cancer


www.cbc.ca

Hundreds of mutated genes are involved in cancer and could provide potential targets for drug researchers, scientists participating in the Cancer Genome Project say.

The team looked at genes taken from 200 samples of breast, stomach, colorectal and other cancers for the study in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

The researchers focused on a small part of the cancer genome, a set of genes called kinases that regulate key functions in cells such as growth and cell division.

When a kinase mutates, healthy cells start dividing out of control without dying like normal — the hallmarks of cancer.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 08:18 AM
link   
One of my pet peeves is headlines that blame "genes" for causing cancer - when in fact, it is genetic mutations that cause cancer.

Blaming "genetics" supports old science and eugenics theories and policies. NG.

Hopefully, telling the truth - that it's genetic mutations that cause cancer and other diseases - will lead to the important questions:

1. What the heck is causing all these mutations? ...And we know it's not just smoking.

2. How do we clean up all the mutation-causing contaminations on our planet?


www.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:24 AM
link   
My (un)qualified guess would be carcinogens are among be found of the millions of synthetic man-made chemical compounds that are part of our every day environment.

I don't remember the number that so-called innovations through the last 50 years have added, but it is literally millions ...and only a few thousands of those have been fully tested throughout.

[edit on 9-3-2007 by khunmoon]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Actually it has been proven that the tar in cigarettes does cause cancer and that smoking does cause cancer. It turns off certain genes that stop growth in cells. That is what cancer is, uncontrolled growth in cells. This is a known fact. We always have growth in our bodies and cells multiple out of control, but then our bodies get ahold of this and put them in check. With cancer our bodies can't control the cell multiplication and we eventually die due to destruction of cells of our organs. Also, when we die, cancer cells still survive and keep growing for a short time after death. This was recently (in the past 10 yrs) discovered and now cancerous cells are being researched in depth as far as human aging is concerned.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
AlphaAnuOmega -

My points are:

1. Our world is chock full of mutagens, carcinogens and teratogens that create cancer and a variety of other diseases - by causing both cell and genetic mutations. The tar in cigarettes being one single factors of trillions now contaminating our planet.

2. Health policies focus on the very few factors that individuals can control, like smoking - but there are millions of mutation-causing agents loose in our world that individuals have NO hope of controlling.

3. Health policies purposefully misrepresent "genetic" disease as being long-present in a bloodline - but such diseases result from relatively recent mutations.


...This misrepresentation of 'genetic mutation' as 'bloodline genetic' is a dishonest communications strategy.

The focus on "Personal Responsibility in Health" - when most modern disease results from mutations caused by industrial contamination - is a dishonest communications strategy.

The beneficiaries - and probably the architects - of these communications strategies are international corporations who create, manufacture and use mutagenic, carcinogenic and teratogenic disease-causing agents in food processing, cosmetics manufacturing and agriculture - and release them into the environment.


PS. Thanks khunmoon.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
In other words sofi, we either mutate to accommodate for the foreign forced environmental changes made by us humans or the weakest die while the stronger adapt. . .

I wonder what kind of changes new generations of humans will come out with to be able to survive, perhaps new type of bloods or immunity to cancer.

Anything on that yet?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Well yes you are correct there are millions of mutagens in the US that cause cancer. I didn't understand what you were getting at, sorry about that.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaAnuOmega
I didn't understand what you were getting at, sorry about that.


Well is a lot of implications when the causes of some diseases that are either for long term care or terminal created by what we humans do to the environment.

Everything comes to the lack of responsibilities and accountability.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

In other words sofi, we either mutate to accommodate for the foreign forced environmental changes made by us humans




Yes - we have changed our world at a fundamental level - and we need to mutate, as part of the adaptation and evolution process, so we can continue living on this now-changed planet.






or the weakest die while the stronger adapt. . .




It's kind of misleading to say "the weakest die while the stronger adapt" - because there are so many factors involved.

Three main factors are "amount of exposure," "co-exposures" and "age at exposure" (to a mutagen or teratogen). ...A good part of adaptation has to do with timing:

For example - a developing fetus exposed to massive amounts of radiation, plus a virulent viral infection might not make it - but an adult exposed to radiation released by a veterinarian x-raying a horse 3 miles away while he has a touch of the flu might adapt.

A mine worker exposed to toxic fumes plus arsenic on a daily basis might end up with cancer because his system is overwhelmed - but a manager who walks through the area only occasionally might adapt. However - if the manager impregnates a woman with mutated sperm formed during his walk-through, his child might not make it.





I wonder what kind of changes new generations of humans will come out with to be able to survive, perhaps new type of bloods or immunity to cancer.

Anything on that yet?



Many so-called "genetic diseases" seem to cause one disease while conferring immunity to another - the most well-known being sickle cell disease, which confers immunity to malaria.

The new mutations have not been studied well enough to know what's really happening yet, but the disease I have, called "fibromuscular dysplasia," might confer immunity to HIV/AIDS.

Also for example, we're seeing almost epidemic levels of ADD and ADHD - with a parallel "epidemic" in genius-level intelligences in affected children.


...So who knows? But we do need to wake up, stop releasing loads of new mutagens and teratogens into the environment every day, and stop overloading our cells and systems with so many different exposures. Our DNA can't take the strain.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I suspect the increased use of alkyl halides in the past century has been a major contributor to cancer. Of course people live longer now and early 20th century medicine did a poor job of diagnosis. The linked story has a theory of tandem causation of cancer.

Tamdem cause of cancer?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
I suspect the increased use of alkyl halides in the past century has been a major contributor to cancer.




Around 100,000 synthetic chemicals have been introduced into the world over the past century - and they are capable of coming together in an infinite number of combinations to form an infinite number of never-seen-before compounds, which the human body is not designed to handle.

Why on earth do you focus on one single organic chemical?!?

For more info : Environmental Health Perspectives





people live longer now




Not any more.

...this will be the first generation where children die before their parents

Obesity is being blamed for our now shorter lifespans, and FYI:


Chemicals affect genes, lead to obesity

Environmental chemicals found in everyday plastic and pesticides may influence the incidence of obesity, says a scientist at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

He studied the effect of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including bisphenol-A, using lab mice.

Vom Saal said he found that when fetuses are exposed to these chemicals, their gene function is changed, altering their metabolic system.

***

Before birth, exposure to chemicals may tip scale

Exposure before birth to chemicals that mimic potent hormones may be predisposing people to gain weight, a panel of scientists said at this year's American Association for the Advancement of Science conference.








and did a poor job of diagnosis.




Myth-spin. Early 20th century doctors were arguably better diagnosticians. Doctors were hands on - they had their own labs, and microscopes, and kept astoundingly complete and accurate records of exactly what diseases did to cells.

Most doctors today have better relationships with their pharmaceutical dealers than with their patients - and they haven't looked at a microscope since high school chemistry class, never mind in it.



More, FYI -


Public health agency linked to chemical industry

For nearly a decade, a federal agency has been responsible for assessing the dangers that chemicals pose to reproductive health. But much of the agency's work has been conducted by a private consulting company that has close ties to the chemical industry, including manufacturers of a compound in plastics that has been linked to reproductive damage.

***

Group Warns Some Plastic Baby Bottles Are Toxic

The California Environment Research and Policy Center says toxic chemicals can leak out from certain baby bottles, reports CBS station KOVR-TV in Sacramento, Calif.





posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Why on earth do you focus on one single organic chemical?!?


Alkyl Halides are any carbon radical which has been chemically combined with chlorine, bromine, fluorine or iodine or combinations thereof. There are at least tens of thousands of them, including CFCs, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and methylene chloride to name a few.. Alkyl halides are 100% manmade, never found in nature.

Do you really believe the physicians of yesteryear did a better job of diagnosis than we do today with our modern diagnostic tools? Not likely.

The potential to live longer is there if people will live a heathy lifestyle.








[edit on 10-3-2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   


Do you really believe the physicians of yesteryear did a better job of diagnosis than we do today with our modern diagnostic tools? Not likely.



Physicians today may have better tools and tests - BUT - most diagnoses are based on the info provided by pharmaceutical sales reps, not "modern diagnostic tools," and refer exclusively to presenting symptoms. Just like in the old days. Without the microscope in the back lab.

BTW - the info provided to doctors by pharmaceutical sales reps is designed to sell product, not provide patients with the best care available.

FYI - doctors often can't use "modern diagnostic tools" because access to expensive technology is not covered by insurance until medically necessary - meaning a) the diagnosis must be confirmed before expensive diagnostic tests are allowed, and frequently, b) disease must have progessed sufficently for symptoms to be life threatening. Ie., preventive treatment is specifically disallowed in many if not most instances.



Distinguishing Between Clinical Guidelines and Covered Services

There are two steps in determining medical necessity. The first step is to determine whether services are covered or noncovered. Once the determination has been made that the service is covered, the second step is to judge whether the service is medically necessary or not medically necessary. Medical necessity issues underscore the importance of clear physician documentation.[3]

Covered services may be diagnostic or preventive. Medicare reimburses for very few preventive services.

***

What is medical necessity?

The dilemma is due to several factors, the first of which is definitional. There are almost as many definitions of medical necessity as there are payors, laws and courts to interpret them. Generally speaking, though, most definitions incorporate the principle of providing services which are "reasonable and necessary" or "appropriate" in light of clinical standards of practice. The lack of objectivity inherent in these terms often leads to widely varying interpretations by physicians and payors, which, in turn, can result in the care provided not meeting the definition. And last, but not least, the decision as to whether the services were medically necessary is typically made by a payor reviewer who didn’t even see the patient.

Claims for services which are not medically necessary will be denied, but not getting paid isn’t the only risk. If Medicare or other payors determine that services were medically unnecessary after payment has already been made, they treat it as an overpayment and demand that the money be refunded, with interest. Moreover, if a pattern of such claims can be shown and the physician knows or should know that the services are not medically necessary, the physician may face large monetary penalties, exclusion from Medicare program, and criminal prosecution.

Medicare and other payors have taken the position that medical necessity is implicit in every claim for payment, and that the physician is expected to know the rules of medical necessity and abide by them. However, the notion of medical necessity is not adequately defined or uniformly interpreted in a manner which allows physicians to understand their rights and responsibilities. Nonetheless, to avoid denials, refunds, monetary penalties and exclusion from participation in payor programs, the physician must take the time and trouble to deal with this elusive concept.

***

'Medical Necessity' Definition Could Set Harmful Precedent

The new definition contains four parts, all of which must be met for the patient to receive care.

* "Part 1—[A medical item or service] must be required in order to diagnose or treat an enrollee's medical condition."
NHLP argues that the requirement to diagnose or treat could eliminate preventive screening, such as pap smears and blood tests for lead, and preventive care, such as immunizations.
The definition could also exclude services such as personal care and home health aid services for elderly patients with Alzheimer's disease and therapy services for children with cerebral palsy.
Pain medications, such as those used to ease the suffering of terminally ill individuals, could be excluded because they are used to treat a symptom rather than a medical condition.

***

Medicare uses medical necessity as a way to determine if they should pay for goods or services. They consider medical necessity to include that which is reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness, injury, or to improve the function of a malformed body member.

Medicare has a number of policies, including National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) and Local Medical Review Policy (LMRP) (also known as Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs)), which line out what is and is not covered. In a small number of cases, Medicare may even determine if a method of treating a patient should be covered on a case-by-case basis. Even if a service is accepted as reasonable and necessary, coverage may be limited if the service is provided more frequently than allowed under standard policies or standards of care. Often a Letter of Medical Necessity has to be written to justify the need for the equipment.






The potential to live longer is there if people will live a heathy lifestyle.




Can you please explain exactly how people can live a healthy lifestyle in this grossly contaminated world?





Originally posted by soficrow

Why on earth do you focus on one single organic chemical?!?


Alkyl Halides are any carbon radical which has been chemically combined with chlorine, bromine, fluorine or iodine or combinations thereof. There are at least tens of thousands of them, including CFCs, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and methylene chloride to name a few..



Oops. Meant organic compounds, not chemicals. Alkanes, or saturated hydrocarbons appear to be the least offensive of the hydrocarbon group, biologogically speaking, although they are admittedly major players in global warming...




(alkyl halide)
# noun: organic compound in which halogen atoms have been substituted for hydrogen atoms in an alkane

halogen. group VIIA; group 18.
An element of group VIIA (a. k. a. Group 18). The name means "salt former"; halogens react with metals to form binary ionic compounds. Fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine (Br), iodine (I), and astatine (At) are known at this time.

alkane An organic molecule containing carbon and hydrogen atoms in straight or branched chains, where all of the carbon-carbon bonds are single bonds. One of three major classes of aliphatic hydrocarbons.

***

saturated hydrocarbons or - Alkanes are chemical compounds that consists only of the elements carbon (C) and hydrogen (H) (i.e. hydrocarbons), wherein each of these atoms are linked together exclusively by single bonds (i.e. they are saturated compounds).

...Alkanes are not very reactive and have little biological activity. Alkanes can be viewed as a molecular scaffold upon which the interesting biologically active/reactive portions (functional groups) of the molecule can be hung upon.




And again, global warming aside...

Around 100,000 synthetic chemicals have been introduced into the world over the past century - and they are capable of coming together in an infinite number of combinations to form an infinite number of never-seen-before compounds.

None of which accommodate a "healthy lifestyle."




posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 02:32 AM
link   
No, I'd say it's way over 1,000,000 synthetic chemicals in the past 100 years. There are over 2,000,000 compounds known on the organic side alone these days. Granted, many occur in nature, but most do not. Some cause cancer, I have absolutely no doubt.

The state of medicine in the U.S. is deplorable with only the wealthy or insured being able to have advanced diagnostics, I agree. Still, I submit that even the cheap and simple test kits used in physicians offices are far better than what their predecessors had in 1907. Also, not all M.D.s are owned by the pharmaceutical firms, believe it or not. Some even really care about their patients. I have actually seen an M.D. meet people at their office on weekends to save them emergency room charges. Greed is not a universal character trait that automatically comes with a medical degree.

As far as a healthy lifestyle, I'll tell you the same as most physicians: Do not smoke, Eat right, Go easy on booze, stay HWP, exercise, take a good multiple vitamin daily, along with an 81 Mg aspirin daily if over 40. Get adequate sleep and go for an annual physical examination. To the extent possible, avoid whatever chemicals in the environment that concern you.

Soficrow, this is not a global warming thread; I actually agree with you about environmental contaminants. I work with them and test for them every day. Still you question every comment, huh? You are a tough room.







[edit on 3/18/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
No, I'd say it's way over 1,000,000 synthetic chemicals in the past 100 years.



My sources say 80,000 last year, now 100,000 - but maybe introduced in the past decade or ???

...Will check, get back to you.




As far as a healthy lifestyle, ...To the extent possible, avoid whatever chemicals in the environment that concern you.

Soficrow, ...Still you question every comment, huh? You are a tough room. )






Yes.



...I have a bee up my butt about "Personal Responsibility in Health" policies coupled with terms for "Medical Necessity" in the context of our ridiculously contaminated food, air and water.

See red, spit fire. Sorry if I jumped all over you.


...I agree that we all do have some power - but it's my observation that the concept of 'personal empowerment' is being twisted to blame the victims, and thereby avoid accountability and liability. A trap as it were.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
I agree. The insurance companies jerk us around too.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   
BTW avenger - that was a good link you posted above.


Besides chemicals working in tandem with one another, the evidence strongly suggests that infectious agents like viruses play a role in causing cancer, and in the genetic mutations that make people more susceptible to cancer.

...also btw - 1 in 2 American males will get cancer sometime during their lives, and 1 in 3 females? ...That's a HUGE jump from past rates...





posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Wow, a 50% chance of getting cancer. Factor in a family history of cancer, 35 years of cigarette smoking, (now quit for over 5 years) that I work with cancer- causing chemicals daily, and I am almost 57 years old. .


I have already had cataract surgery which was most likely a result of occupational exposure to intense U.V. light of a particular wavelength. It may well be that my body is actually 10 or more years more worn out than my years.

It seems I need to update my will. What's truly amazing is that I can obtain insurance at all.


[edit on 3/18/2007 by TheAvenger]



posted on Apr, 21 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Re: infectious agents and cancer - I should explain how it works...


The important ones are the latent infections - especially latent viruses and retroviruses.

See: Viral Pathogenesis and Immunity (pdf)

People can be infected with latent viruses via a variety of pathways, including congenitally and genetically.

Most people are now infected with a variety of latent viruses or retroviruses that are incurable. [Ie., herpes HSV-1, Epstein Barr and CMV.)

These viruses go latent and hide out in the body until they are reactivated by various triggers like stress, superimposed infections, trauma, drugs or chemicals, exposure to radiation etc.

Reactivated viruses tend to mutate or 'transform,' and then to spread in the body to infect different cells and systems.

These viruses cause normal cells to mutate - and broadly speaking, the changes progress from dysplasia, to hyperplasia, neoplasia and finally, metaplasia (cancer).

The number of reactivations is important because effects appear to be cumulative, as is the amount of exposure to a given trigger and the severity of the reactivation phase.



.



posted on Apr, 23 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   
More info, FYI:




latent virus Virus integrated within host genome but inactive: may be reactivated by stress such as ultraviolet irradiation.

***

retrovirus

1. endogenous retrovirus: A retrovirus that has become dormant and exists as DNA copies in every cell in the body of its host and is passed down from generation to generation.

2. retrovirus: Any virus in the family Retroviridae that has RNA as its nucleic acid and uses the enzyme reverse transcriptase to copy its genome into the DNA of the host cell's chromosomes. Many cancers in vertebrates are caused by retroviruses.




Note: When integrated and endogenous viruses mutate, the mutations impact the host genome.

The cycle of change starts with proteins changing to become prions; the prions or "new proteins" are integrated by viruses and microbes, triggering their mutation; new strains of viruses and microbes then infect complex organisms, causing 'disease' and in turn, triggering their mutation.

In this light, cancer can be seen as a failed mutation that did not lead to successful adaptation and evolution.

Also, the phrase "survival of the least assaulted" might be more accurate than "survival of the fittest."








[edit on 23-4-2007 by soficrow]



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join