The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A New Cancer Theory  (Read 26285 times)

Offline Shakespirit

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
A New Cancer Theory
« on: 25/05/2006 17:00:40 »
All cancers are fungus related, and since there are many types of fungus, many types of cancers are known to exist.

Fungus growths can invade the internal burns from radiation or the external burns from the Sun or other sources.

The fungus on wheat has been proven to cause cancer.
The fungus on peanuts has been suspected to cause cancer.
The fungus on home-canned jelly is suspected to have caused stomach cancer, which is not as common now as in the 1950's.

Therefore, the fungus on tobacco is suspected to cause lung cancer and may go undetected in cigaretts more than in cigars or raw pipe-smoking tobacco. Tobacco buyers try to buy good tobacco without fungus deposits, which are caused by the improper drying of tobacco leaves.

The fungus in coal mines and uraninum mines is suspected to cause "black lung" problems, like the carbon deposits in large cities caused from the accumulation of diesel or coal soot.

The cure for "Black Lung" or "Lung Cancer" may be any system that flushes inoperable, black, infected lungs while on a heart-lung machine with a mild solution of "Oil of Oregano".

"Oil of Oregeno" has been proven to cure many external fungus infections, and may cure all overdoses of antibiotics, which are known to stimilate the natural defence against fungus invasions.

AIDS may be related to some of the newer antibiotics, which can eventually destroy the immune system in certain types of people.
Homosexuals and whores are known to take many preventative antibiotics to avoid and to prevent VD.

Overdoses of antibiotics in young children may cause Lukemia, which is now cureable by removing all fungus infections from the bone marrow with special, bone marrow transplants.

"Follow the Reasons"


 

Offline xetho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #1 on: 11/06/2006 21:57:55 »
That's an interesting theory - except for the derogatory comment about people who get AIDS.

Free radicals are reactive molecules that damage cells in the body, and are believed to cause cancer. Tying in with what you've said, fungus may create chemical compounds that produce free radicals, as this quote from MEEM states:

"...These compounds, chelators or catecholate chelators, are much smaller than enzymes and can readily penetrate into the wood cell wall where they appear to act in a catalytic manner to generate free radicals that attack the cellular components of wood."

Also, those compounds produced by fungus could remain, even if something was sterilized by heat.

MEEM is "Microbial Ecology - Environmental Microbiology" (good thing they've got an abbreviated name)
http://www.umaine.edu/meem/index.htm [nofollow]

"The meaning of life is growth"
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #2 on: 11/06/2006 23:04:01 »
So you are saying that all the effort people are putting into trialling a vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus to protect against cervical cancer is all a waste of time and money?

Epstein Barr Virus is another virus that has been implicated in a number of cancers (as well as a number of other degenerative diseases).

Helicobacter pylori bacteria has also been associated with some stomach cancers.

Are you saying that all of the above is wrong?

It is ofcourse not inconceivable that some cancers are also associated with fungi, but clearly there are many with other causes.  It seems any chronic infection or irritant may be capable of causing cancer, and no doubt there are some fungi that would fall under that category.



George
« Last Edit: 11/06/2006 23:06:46 by another_someone »
 

Offline xetho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #3 on: 12/06/2006 01:10:05 »
The original post is a bit extreme, but I looked past that.
I contradicted the original post anyway,  by saying "free radicals from fungus" and not purely fungus itself. (free radicals come from many things)
I wouldn't discredit any plausible cause of cancer or avenue of research. All or none is beside the point anyway; it's plausible that fungus could be causing more cancers than it is currently believed to. I hadn't even heard of it up until I read this thread.

If cancer IS caused by any one thing, that would have to be our body. Since that's the only single element of cancer that's present in every case. (That's a joke, I'm pointing out the irony of "one cause".)

So many things seem to be able to cause cancer that I wonder if it isn't also some unrecognized part of evolution.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #4 on: 12/06/2006 02:02:41 »
quote:
Originally posted by xetho
So many things seem to be able to cause cancer that I wonder if it isn't also some unrecognized part of evolution.



Evolution of what?  Evolution of the host, or evolution of some categories of infectious agents (although, I suppose that the assumption of the latter would have to be that all cancers are caused by infectious agents, and the present arguments seem to suggest that some non-infectious irritants may also cause cancer).

My own suspicion is that maybe cancers are simply a variant of the normal inflammatory response.

Another possibility might be that it is caused by a mechanism that causes a cell to revert back from being a functional part of a multicellular organism to a more primitive unicellular organism.  One of the requirements of being a functional part of a multicellular organism is the willingness of a cell to be willing to give up its life for the benefit of the greater whole, and clearly this willingness to be subservient to the whole is compromised in cancerous tissue.  When a cell is invaded by a virus, this response might make sense, since the virus itself is not a part of the multicellular organism, and so the cell that has been taken over by the virus is no longer the same cell it once was.  Clearly, in such a situation, the body would be asking the infected cell to commit suicide in order to quarantine the infection from the rest of the organism, while the virus would be wanting to override the cells mechanism to commit suicide for exactly the same reason, that it may continue to use is as a staging post to infect the rest of the body.  The problem is that while this argument may work for viruses, it really does not work as well for other carcinogenic agents.

One problem with arguing that there is an evolutionary benefit to the species in the development of fatal cancers is the very long time it takes for cancer to kill its host, and that most early humans would have died of other causes long before they succumbed to cancer.  It seems, for the most part, that cancers occur mostly at the point where the machine, the human body, has already exceeded is design life, and is just one of the modes of failure that occur as the body is pushed ever further beyond its natural life expectancy.  That the early response that leads to cancer has a value to the host is very possible, but it seems likely that the response to the infectious or environmental agent was intended to provide a short term benefit that would allow the human body to live it natural life span (i.e. to about 40 years of age), and not intended to facilitate survival to three score and ten, or more, years.



George
 

Offline xetho

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #5 on: 12/06/2006 15:48:12 »
Evolution of the host is what I was thinking of; An additional factor in Neo-Darwinism population genetics. Cancer can affect any multicellular organism. For single celled organisms, "cancer" couldn't happen, it'd just be a mutation.

Some of the things you said were really interesting and I'd have to agree with a couple; possible short term beneficial reactions that eventually malfunction and cause cancer, cancer being another mode of failure for an organism past it's natural lifespan, and the argument about viruses interfering with the behavior of cells in a multicellular organism.

The inflammatory response sounds more like a symptom than a cause, is there a reason you believe that it is the other way around?

You said cancer affects people over 40, whereas acute forms of leukemia can occur in children and young adults. Genetic mutations accumulate over the course of any organisms life and it is more probable that they'd develop cancer later on, but that still doesn't mean it only happens to an old creature.

I've tried to explain my reasoning for how cancer could be part of the evolutionary process, below.

"Neo-Darwinism, the modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics: natural selection and genetic drift acting on genetic variation created by mutation, genetic recombination and gene flow. ...relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world."
-Wikipedia

If a creature remains in an unchanging environment, they will reach genetic equilibrium and stop mutating. What causes the creature to mutate in the first place, and why does one creature adapt to certain roles in the environment while others do not?
I don't believe the basic mechanisms of population genetics explain why the creatures begin mutating when the environment changes, and stop mutating (or slow down) when the environment is consistent.

The catalyst for the mutations in Neo-Darwinism aren't pinned down adequately. I believe things like carcinogens in various quantities may be responsible for some mutations, even very early on in life. Cancer is an extreme mutation harmful to the organism, but to lesser degrees (not cancer) that source of mutation, over many generations, might be beneficial and help the organisms adapt.

In conclusion, cancer is excessive and hazardous mutation in response to changes in the environment. Whereas carcinogens promote mutation and in small amounts may be beneficial for adaptation.
 

Offline iko

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1626
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #6 on: 22/08/2006 11:57:39 »
"tumors are wounds that never healed"

"leukemias infections never resolved"


Sorry, I'm getting old and do not remember who wrote it.

iko
« Last Edit: 04/09/2006 08:12:37 by iko »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #7 on: 22/08/2006 21:14:46 »
To say that because some fungus infections can cause cancer all cancers are fungus related is stupid.

Cancers are invasive cases of a lack of control of cellular growth many such tumours are self limiting and "benign" most of us will have lots of them dotted around our body.

Almost any sort of disturbance can cause cellular damage that results in a malignent tumour and that includes the normal damage assocated with everyday life as well as known carcinogens.  Some people are more or less resistent to the occurence of tumours.

The problem will always exist and cannot be eliminated but it is sensible to avoid activities that have a high risk of cancer develoment like smoking or exposure to very fine mineral particles like asbestos.

The best solution is to learn how to identify cancers quickly before they do to much damage and learn how to identify and treat them precisely hoping to make maximum use of our body's own capabilities without doing too much damage elsewhere.


Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Mjhavok

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
    • View Profile
    • http://cantmakeadifference.blogspot.com
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #8 on: 23/08/2006 23:12:52 »
"All cancers are fungus related" is a blanket statement that is just incorrect. Perhaps some cancers are caused by certain fungal infections I just don't know. I do know however that all of them are not.

Soul Surfer is correct.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #9 on: 22/08/2006 21:14:46 »
To say that because some fungus infections can cause cancer all cancers are fungus related is stupid.

Cancers are invasive cases of a lack of control of cellular growth many such tumours are self limiting and "benign" most of us will have lots of them dotted around our body.

Almost any sort of disturbance can cause cellular damage that results in a malignent tumour and that includes the normal damage assocated with everyday life as well as known carcinogens.  Some people are more or less resistent to the occurence of tumours.

The problem will always exist and cannot be eliminated but it is sensible to avoid activities that have a high risk of cancer develoment like smoking or exposure to very fine mineral particles like asbestos.

The best solution is to learn how to identify cancers quickly before they do to much damage and learn how to identify and treat them precisely hoping to make maximum use of our body's own capabilities without doing too much damage elsewhere.


Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #10 on: 22/08/2006 21:14:46 »
To say that because some fungus infections can cause cancer all cancers are fungus related is stupid.

Cancers are invasive cases of a lack of control of cellular growth many such tumours are self limiting and "benign" most of us will have lots of them dotted around our body.

Almost any sort of disturbance can cause cellular damage that results in a malignent tumour and that includes the normal damage assocated with everyday life as well as known carcinogens.  Some people are more or less resistent to the occurence of tumours.

The problem will always exist and cannot be eliminated but it is sensible to avoid activities that have a high risk of cancer develoment like smoking or exposure to very fine mineral particles like asbestos.

The best solution is to learn how to identify cancers quickly before they do to much damage and learn how to identify and treat them precisely hoping to make maximum use of our body's own capabilities without doing too much damage elsewhere.


Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Mjhavok

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
    • View Profile
    • http://cantmakeadifference.blogspot.com
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #11 on: 23/08/2006 23:12:52 »
"All cancers are fungus related" is a blanket statement that is just incorrect. Perhaps some cancers are caused by certain fungal infections I just don't know. I do know however that all of them are not.

Soul Surfer is correct.
 

Offline Mjhavok

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
    • View Profile
    • http://cantmakeadifference.blogspot.com
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #12 on: 23/08/2006 23:12:52 »
"All cancers are fungus related" is a blanket statement that is just incorrect. Perhaps some cancers are caused by certain fungal infections I just don't know. I do know however that all of them are not.

Soul Surfer is correct.
 

Offline jysk

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #13 on: 26/08/2006 17:42:09 »
My better judgement says that this article doesn't really belong here, but I can't ignore the irony.

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2590 [nofollow]

Mike
 

Offline weed4me

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 29
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #14 on: 29/08/2006 03:53:01 »
little..no scratch that..ALOT out of my depth here,but from what iv read in this thread someone said cancer infects cells much like a virus. but there are vacines for viruses..is it not plausable to create a vacine to help combat it?? or is that cancer destroys cells rather than infect??? please someone enlighten me.

"You have to stay in shape. My grandmother, she started walking five miles a day when she was 60. She's 97 today and we don't know where the hell she is."
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #15 on: 30/08/2006 14:42:05 »
It is quite likely in theory to be able to create a vaccine to train one person's body to reject a specific cancer but very difficult in practice.   this is because although there are various general types f cancr the biological make up of a particular cancer is very individual and it is important to be very precise on the targeting of the immune reaction or you end up with disasters like the recent failed test that nearly killed several people.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline iko

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1626
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #16 on: 30/08/2006 15:50:28 »
Quote
All cancers are fungus related" is a blanket statement that is just incorrect. Perhaps some cancers are caused by certain fungal infections I just don't know. I do know however that all of them are not.

Mjhavok

 Shortly, we should be careful not to generalize so much talking about cancer. We fortunately live in a new century and scientific research has done something about it. At least we should talk about different forms of tumors, leukemias and lymphomas. In some particular case scientists finally managed to find a cause and design effective and specific treatments (without toxicity, compared to chemotherapy).

A type of slow growing gastrointestinal lymphomas called MALTomas (Mucosa Associated Lymphoid Tissue) had been treated by standard chemotherapy (CHOP protocol...what a name for a chemo!) until the end of the last century.
There was no suggestion about the origin of this clonal expansion of lymphoid cells in the gut. So the following action had to be blind and toxic.

But in the middle of the '80s two smart researchers from Australia, Barry J. Marshall and J. Robin Warren (Nobel Prize 2005) started their battle: they tried to demonstrate that a common bacteria, Helicobacter pylori, was the major cause of gastroduodenal ulcers in humans.
A standard antibiotic treatment was able to eradicate the bacteria,  allowing the ulcers (wounds in the mucosa) to heal spontaneously.


They initially got veggies and bananas at medical meetings, nevertheless they went on collecting more and more evidence to prove the "infectious theory" of peptic ulcer.
It had to be tough. Medicine is highly conservative for various reasons, and for a long time infectious diseases had been strictly defined: one bacteria, one disease.  Helicobacter pylori is very common in humans...but just few of us develop ulcers.   That was just enough to keep stalling any bright theory for years.
Finally H.p. eradication became the standard treatment.
Now there is growing evidence that persistent Helicobacter infection and continuous release of toxic substances for years, could be one of the causes of stomach cancer.

"...tumors: wounds that never healed..."

"...leukemia&lymphoma: infections never resolved..."

Shortly after it was found that the majority of the patients with MALT lymphomas were carrying H.p. and that eradication therapy alone was able to induce a spontaneous regression of the tumors.
It was obviously too good to be true, so over the years some patients were found to be resistant to antibiotic treatment (2-3 weeks, no chemo!) and their lymphomas where identified as more advanced, with more chromosomal damage, unable to stop growing even when the bacterial stimuli were removed by eradication treatment.

Here we have a model for cancer treatment:

SPOT the cause (if there is any, but never stop searching), remove it as fast as you can. Some clone of cells will STOP proliferating and gradually disappear.
In advanced cases, most cells have been damaged so much and their DNA heavily deranged, that they cannot stop dividing (even in cell cultures).  Trying to block these resistant cells, scientists are now assemblying properly designed molecules, non-toxic "magic bullets" that should take advantage of the great differences at molecular level showed by some tumor cells (abnormal receptors, defective enzymes, etc.).  Time runs fast for everybody, patients and scientists.



ikod



Robert M. Genta, M.D.
David Y. Graham, M.D.
Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Houston, TX 77030

N.Engl.J.Med. 1996;335:250 Jul 25, 1996.       Images in Clinical Medicine


« Last Edit: 08/12/2009 15:26:48 by iko »
 

Offline dinochick

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
    • http://www.dinochick.com
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #17 on: 30/08/2006 18:18:00 »
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone

So you are saying that all the effort people are putting into trialling a vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus to protect against cervical cancer is all a waste of time and money?



George




That reminds me of this article I saw yesterday:
newbielink:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/health/29hpv.html?ex=1157515200&en=d2cca4ad3030bf13&ei=5070&emc=eta1 [nonactive]
 

Offline iko

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1626
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #18 on: 30/08/2006 21:03:54 »
Thank you for the article! I found it "historical" enough (i.e. good for me).
Actually, I think that dinosaurs may be very good for the brain...
iko
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #19 on: 30/08/2006 14:42:05 »
It is quite likely in theory to be able to create a vaccine to train one person's body to reject a specific cancer but very difficult in practice.   this is because although there are various general types f cancr the biological make up of a particular cancer is very individual and it is important to be very precise on the targeting of the immune reaction or you end up with disasters like the recent failed test that nearly killed several people.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline dinochick

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
    • http://www.dinochick.com
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #20 on: 30/08/2006 18:18:00 »
quote:
Originally posted by another_someone

So you are saying that all the effort people are putting into trialling a vaccine against Human Papilloma Virus to protect against cervical cancer is all a waste of time and money?



George




That reminds me of this article I saw yesterday:
newbielink:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/health/29hpv.html?ex=1157515200&en=d2cca4ad3030bf13&ei=5070&emc=eta1 [nonactive]
 

Offline Niklas

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #21 on: 05/09/2006 06:33:48 »
Very good read indeed.

newbielink:http://www.longer-living.com/ [nonactive]
 

Offline Gaia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #22 on: 16/09/2006 13:04:38 »
Some cancers are genetically determined. That is not to say that someone with the genes will definitely get the cancer but environmental stressors may 'turn on or off' the relevant gene.

In the labs sendai virus can be used to transform, ie immortalise, cell lines for cell culture purposes. There is the possibility that some cancers are caused when apoptosis (programmed cell death) is switched off, leading to 'overgrowth'.

Gaia  xxx
 

Offline Gaia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #23 on: 16/09/2006 13:04:38 »
Some cancers are genetically determined. That is not to say that someone with the genes will definitely get the cancer but environmental stressors may 'turn on or off' the relevant gene.

In the labs sendai virus can be used to transform, ie immortalise, cell lines for cell culture purposes. There is the possibility that some cancers are caused when apoptosis (programmed cell death) is switched off, leading to 'overgrowth'.

Gaia  xxx
 

Offline meddgm

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #24 on: 21/09/2006 15:58:40 »
Cancer and Immunity- what you need to know.

You need to understand how the immune system works in order to fight cancer. A very interesting new concept for immune disease is free online at PLoS Medicine " A proposed classification of the immunological diseases.  

The link is;

newbielink:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030297 [nonactive]

A
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: A New Cancer Theory
« Reply #24 on: 21/09/2006 15:58:40 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums