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.

 

New Study Finds Fish Don't Get Cancer, Cure for Cancer in Their Blood?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

New Study Finds Fish Don't Get Cancer, Cure for Cancer in Their Blood?


www.helpinghandcancer.com

Many believe it is due to their active lifestyle, seeing that aquatic animals are almost in constant motion since the day of birth. This may be a general factor in overall health, but still does not explain how they are immune to the agents when directly exposed.

_______________________

Many believe that it is their DNA which simply does not have an existence for this disease, while others hope that their biological makeup holds the secret to the cause for cancer.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
This would be a fantastic find if they can unlock the secrets as to why the fish don't contract cancer, however, we may never see the results ever hit the light of day. Time for the pharmaceuticals to take over. Too much money to be had from sick people.

www.helpinghandcancer.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Great find SS!!! I'm also wondering how long it will take the pharmaceutical industry to commandeer this new medication and use it for their own gain...

Truly intriguing.

TheBorg



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBorg
Truly intriguing.


Would also be fascinating to see if the supposed link between their health and no cancer is found to be the cause. May well be another tick in the health advocates column. I do think it will be found to be something else as people who run 10kms a day still contract cancer.

Maybe if they never stopped running?

Who knows.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Some research was done a few years ago showing sharks and rays did not get cancer as well. This lead to the line of thought that maybe cancer was somehow related to bone composition, or that the lack of bone in those species was somehow creating an immunity to cancer.

Good article. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ixnay
Some research was done a few years ago showing sharks and rays did not get cancer as well. This lead to the line of thought that maybe cancer was somehow related to bone composition, or that the lack of bone in those species was somehow creating an immunity to cancer.


Maybe there is something in the ocean they are eating? Maybe it's the ocean water itself?



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:49 AM
link   
I'm searching around for the study report about the rays and sharks.

Fish have bones, so this is a new can of worms.

In the meantime: Shark (and ray) cartilage contains an active ingredient that inhibits tumor growth.

However, the sources I'm seeing say that it's not true that no sharks, ray, fish get cancer. They claim that sharks and rays have great defense against cancer, though.

seaworld.org/animal-info/info-books/sharks-&-rays/anatomy.htm (copy and paste, sorry. I can't work out how to make the '&' not break the link here)
www.elasmo-research.org...

[edit on 17-3-2008 by ixnay]

[edit on 17-3-2008 by ixnay]



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I wish I was a scientist.

If I was to test this myself, I would make the fish chain smoke Camels, eat microwave dinners and good ol' American hot dogs, drink diet soda and mercury.... hell, swim in diet soda, and then put the fish tank at ground zero of some nuclear test site. A few months later, if the fish is still alive, I would know I found the cure to cancer.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ixnay
In the meantime: Shark (and ray) cartilage contains an active ingredient that inhibits tumor growth.


Hmmm very interesting. It does also mention that it seems unlikely that a creature will not create a cure for something it is not likely to encounter. I would think that you shouldn't rule it out because it was unlikely to encounter it. I am sure in some way in the past it may have.


Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I wish I was a scientist.

If I was to test this myself, I would make the fish chain smoke Camels, eat microwave dinners and good ol' American hot dogs, drink diet soda and mercury.... hell, swim in diet soda, and then put the fish tank at ground zero of some nuclear test site. A few months later, if the fish is still alive, I would know I found the cure to cancer.

The original article made this statement:


Although the facts are clear that there is hardly ever any aquatic animals that ever developed this disease, even when directly exposed to cancer causing elements, the reason to why is still unclear.


SO who knows... maybe they did exactly as you would have. But still nothing.

I wonder if gravity has some role to play in this. I am unsure of the science around gravity when immersed, however, at least i get the feeling that its 'power' is diminished. Maybe cancer cells can only thrive in a gravity environment.

It was just a thought i felt like throwing out there lol.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Dont some fishes lay down on the ocean floor and others hide among coral reefs? The article says that fish are in almost constant motion but aren't there exceptions to this? They should pick these fish for the test too.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
A person should first wonder if a fish is different than a mammal in regards to dietary habits, environmental aspects, and self induced health hazards.

Then I would wonder, golly, a fish is cold blooded and not a mammal; it's a different species. Exposing it to a mammal based disease may cause it problems. I'm sure I can find some governmental agency that will throw money at this.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ixnay
However, the sources I'm seeing say that it's not true that no sharks, ray, fish get cancer. They claim that sharks and rays have great defense against cancer, though.


That's correct... they do get cancer, and fishermen find fish with tumors. Sharks and rays also get cancer.

Part of this may be due to the fact that in the wild, these things don't live long enough to get cancer... they usually die before mid-adulthood (our equivalent of dying before 35.) If we all died before 35, cancer would be very rare.



posted on Mar, 17 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Part of this may be due to the fact that in the wild, these things don't live long enough to get cancer... they usually die before mid-adulthood (our equivalent of dying before 35.) If we all died before 35, cancer would be very rare.


Like it was in the "good old days", when more people died from polio, smallpox, malaria, asbestos poisoning, black lung disease, and industrial accidents.

Also, fish might simply be too dumb to get cancer, or care if they do.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   
I remember hearing somewhere that sharks didn't get cancer because they expel waste through their skin, and not out of any single location. I don't know if this is accurate, as I haven't made it a point to look up shark physiology.

Byrd, is it true that sharks excrete their waste through their skin? I know some still get tumors, but are they really cancerous ones? Or could they be some other form of infection?

TheBorg



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Also, fish might simply be too dumb to get cancer, or care if they do.


Too dumb to get cancer?


Maybe brain cancer


I don't think intellect or sentience is a factor here, unless you were alluding to mind over matter.

And fish may not care according to your standards but they will still feel the chemo therapy


Let's try and be respectful to the fishies, cancer is not pretty at all.

[edit on 043131p://18u25 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Hi.

I actually work in the North Sea fishing industry,and i can tell you all,i have seen cancerous tumours in all the breeds of comercially popular fish,such as ,Cod,Ling,Saithe,Coley,Haddock,Tusk and Monkfish.

Some of these tumours are particularly horrific,and i have to wonder how these fish can still function with some of the growths i have seen.

Also on the increase in these fish is the number of worms and parasites found in the belly cavaties of these fish.

I have worked in the fishing industry for the last 12 years and i can honestly say that i have never seen as much evidence of cancer,parasites and worms in these speciesas i have in the last 4 years.

Perhaps changes in the habitat are responsible for this.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo

Like it was in the "good old days", when more people died from polio, smallpox, malaria, asbestos poisoning, black lung disease, and industrial accidents.


I think you might have misinterpreted. I don't think Bryd was trying to undermine anything. I am prettty sure he was saying cancer risk increases with age, and that if we all died before mid-adulthood, it would probably be from something other then cancer.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by scobro
Hi.

I actually work in the North Sea fishing industry,and i can tell you all,i have seen cancerous tumours in all the breeds of comercially popular fish,such as ,Cod,Ling,Saithe,Coley,Haddock,Tusk and Monkfish.


Are you sure they are cancerous tumours? and not just bad benign or non cancerous ones?

Either way the disturbing trend you have noticed is a terrible tragedy. As humans we need to really understand that not only are we killing ourselves but we are killing all the other living creatures.



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SilentShadow
 


Hi.

I am no medical expert,but my workmates and i have discussed the subject many times and we all agree that it must be cancer.

Some of these growths are huge,and often affect the outside of the fish as well as the inside.The tumors themselves resemble pieces of old wood and are very dark brown or black and fairly hard,but you could still cut it in half with a knife with little trouble.

Also,i have seen these growths in all ages of fish,so it does'nt seem to be a problem that just affects more mature fish.

I wonder if fishing industry workers from around the world have noticed these changes,or is it only associated with the North Sea/North Atlantic?

Anyone here on ATS any idea?



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I have to call BS on this one. After spending a few years in a cannery, and several months filleting fish I can tell you they do in fact get cancer and tumors but not very often. Every 4'x4' tote will have one cancer fish on the average from bad fishing grounds and every 4-5 totes will have one from cleaner grounds.

Talk to someone on the processing line.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join