The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Can cancer be cured by treatment rotations?  (Read 7161 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8676
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can cancer be cured by treatment rotations?
« Reply #25 on: 26/10/2013 15:30:27 »
OK, you have convinced me it must be true if you tell lies but use Really big letters
No, not really- just kidding.
Fundamentally you have offered nothing but "magic" to discriminate between healthy cells and cancer cells.


You continue to ignore the massive problem with the bugs of yours- there's no reason for them to stop when they have eaten the tumour.
Your original idea was based on the belief that cancer cells would be short of oxygen and so they would be uniquely susceptible to attack by anaerobes.
There are two problems with that
Not all cancers are anaerobic- the word cancer derives from the blood supply they arrange. There are real (as opposed to magic) cancer treatments that work by blocking the production of the new blood vessels that feed the cancer
Plenty of human cells are anaerobic enough to be affected by anaerobic bacteria- there's a whole wiki page of them.


So, the only means you offered to distinguish good from bad is oxygen level and, unfortunately, that doesn't work.


Never mind.
Have a  look at this.
You might find it amusing as I did.
http://eveningharold.com/2013/10/23/police-quiz-immigrant-family-on-parentage-of-confused-ginger-man/

 

Offline Peter Dow

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
    • Scottish National Standard Bearer
Re: Can cancer be cured by treatment rotations?
« Reply #26 on: 29/10/2013 15:38:39 »
So, if the gut bacteria make, for example, vitamin B (a rather poor example since it has been shown to be a whole lot of different materials), how come people get vitamin B deficiencies?
I said "some" vitamins are made in the gut. People can get a deficiency of some vitamins, some not all, if they are on antibiotics which wipe out their gut flora.

Incidentally, one vitamin that's made by the bucketfull  in the gut is vitamin B12.
Unfortunately, they stuff is made too far down the digestive tract to be absorbed os, while it's possible to extract vitamin B12 from sewage sludge (and they did) you don't actually benefit from it yourself.

The point remains, if they were good at it those substances wouldn't be vitamins.
What bacteria do for us in the gut, they are good at.

Incidentally, re.
" Yes we need to eat the precursors of the vitamins but the bacteria are also needed to convert the digested foodstuff into those particular vitamins."
Are you labouring under the misunderstanding that vitamin C is produced by gut bacteria or do you understand that you actually need to consume it?
Fruit.
What about vitamin E?
Seeds and nuts and oils derived from such.

B6?
Many foods.
D?
D is in fish oils and can be made by the action of sunlight on cholesterol in the skin.
Who cares?
I care that you are going off topic into a vitamin Q & A and not sticking to the main topic. I suppose it is more "on topic" than politics but nevertheless not as "on topic" as I would like.

My point remains that anaerobic bacteria in the gut, even though it's an hypoxic environment, are not a danger but play a useful role. They don't damage the body because the gut wall is robust enough to hold back a greater number of "individual" bacteria in the gut than there are cells in the body.

So a few more bacteria knocking about in odd nooks and crannies of the body, got there because they have been administered as a bio-agent in cancer treatment are not a cause for alarm per se, not "magically" safe but bio-engineered and selected as fit for purpose.



More magic here
Quote
"Nope it follows that if normal, non-cancerous cells have all been stopped from dividing by the type H drugs which haven't stopped the cancer cells from dividing then the only cells which are still dividing are the cancerous cells. That's what type H drugs are supposed to do."
As I have pointed out, if you could get that level of specificity you would have already solved the problem, but you can't.
The solution to the problem was found a decade and more ago by research scientists. I have recently found this excellent source.


"Exploiting Cancer Cell Cycling for Selective Protection of Normal Cells [nofollow]"
Mikhail V. Blagosklonny1, and Arthur B. Pardee
Cancer Res June 1, 2001 61; 4301

ABSTRACT

Chemotherapy of cancer is limited by its toxicity to normal cells. On the basis of discoveries in signal transduction and cell cycle regulation, novel mechanism-based therapeutics are being developed. Although these cell cycle modulators were designed to target cancer cells, some of them can also be applied for a different purpose, i.e., to protect normal cells against the lethality of chemotherapy. Loss of sensitivity of cancer cells to cell cycle inhibitors can be exploited for selective protection of normal cells that retain this response. Indeed, inhibition of redundant or overactivated pathways (e.g., growth factor-activated pathways) or stimulation of absent pathways in cancer cells (e.g., p53, Rb, and p16) may not arrest cycling of cancer cells. But growth arrest of normal cells will then permit selective killing of cancer cells by cycle-dependent chemotherapy.



Now that's science!


Saying "firstly I would use magic then secondly I would use more magic" doesn't help.

Quote
"Now if the type H drugs succeed, then if the type K drugs kill all dividing cells then they are killing only all the cancerous cells, because the cancer cells are the only cells which are still dividing at that point."
i.e. the patient is dead, but the cancer is still growing.
The patient doesn't die!

The effects of the type H drugs are required to be reversible and only have effect while the drug remains in the body. When the drug clears the body, after the chemo session, the normal cell division resumes.

Why not make a "reverse" type H?
A drug that stops cancer cells dividing, but leaves healthy cells alone.
Because there's no known mechanism that can do that in general.

You can sometimes inhibit cancer cells from growing, as per in some anti-estrogen treatments for breast cancer that involve taking those inhibitors for life - but that also inhibits normal breast cells from growing for life.

So, you know, that's not too bad because older women especially don't need their breasts to grow.

But other cancers in other tissues, do need normal cells to divide to keep their vital function going - skin, gut, immune, blood, sperm production, etc.

So for those tissues, if you inhibit the cancer growth with a life time of inhibition drugs you'd also cause too much damage for the normal tissue to still function.

Then you could remove most of the tumour by surgery (or radiation) and leave only small but non-growing metastases  which wouldn't be life threatening because their cells couldn't divide.
OK for tissues like breast tissue that you don't need, that's an option.

What I am proposing is a general solution when that option is not available and it may be a better solution even if that option is available.

Do you see how, since that's what they have been trying to do for years without success, they wouldn't be able to make your "type H" drugs either? So what you do next is irrelevant.
They have so been making growth factor inhibitor drugs for some tissue types for years and some of those drugs would do well as type H drugs I think but we will need more drugs to operate on other tissue types to get a complete set of type H drugs.

So what decision makers need to do is to understand how those type of drugs could be used to cure cancer and get ahead and make them.
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 15:50:44 by Peter Dow »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8676
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: Can cancer be cured by treatment rotations?
« Reply #27 on: 29/10/2013 19:53:38 »
Some gold is present in the gut along with vitamins made by bacteria.
And if the amounts of them were significant we wouldn't need vitamins in our food and we would all be rich.

On the other hand, thanks for pointing out that vitamin C, for example is obtained from fruit (and veg BTW) and that Vitamin E is obtained from seeds, oils and such.
I knew that already- you are the one who was pretending we got them from gut bacteria.
"What bacteria do for us in the gut, they are good at."
Possibly, but if they made vitamin C for us, and they were good at it, we wouldn't get scurvy for example. It's not caused by a shortage of bacteria in the gut is it?
You are arguing against yourself there.

"I care that you are going off topic into a vitamin Q & A and not sticking to the main topic. I suppose it is more "on topic" than politics but nevertheless not as "on topic" as I would like."

 If you don't want them in the thread, why did you introduce them?
Again, you seem to be picking a fight with yourself here.


"My point remains that anaerobic bacteria in the gut, even though it's an hypoxic environment, are not a danger but play a useful role. They don't damage the body because the gut wall is robust enough "
and the reason for that is that it is euplastic- it grows like fury the whole time.

"So a few more bacteria knocking about in odd nooks and crannies of the body, got there because they have been administered as a bio-agent in cancer treatment are not a cause for alarm per se, not "magically" safe but bio-engineered and selected as fit for purpose."
Do you understand that bacteria which are pretty much harmless in their normal environment are a major threat when they are somewhere else in the body?

And, unless you can get round that by some clear means the idea that they are "bio engineered and selected" is magic.

"The solution to the problem was found a decade and more ago by research scientists. I have recently found this excellent source."
then why were you seeking a Nobel prize for it?

"The patient doesn't die!

The effects of the type H drugs are required to be reversible and only have effect while the drug remains in the body."
Allow me to remind you of something you said earlier
"... bacteria in the gut, ... are not a danger .... They don't damage the body because the gut wall is robust enough"
Now, as I pointed out, they are only "robust" because they are continuously growing.
And what you have proposed to do is stop that growth.
That's the point at which the patient dies of massive infection/ toxaemia.

Again, you are arguing against yourself
I asked "Why not make a "reverse" type H? A drug that stops cancer cells dividing, but leaves healthy cells alone."

And your reply was
"Because there's no known mechanism that can do that in general."
Well, you are right. There's no known way to do the easy thing (selectively suppress the cancer)
So there's also no known way to do the difficult thing (selectively supress the healthy cells (all the varieties of them at once- reversibly)  yet leave the cancer cells growing).
That's why your idea is bizarre.
You accept that it's impossible to do something easy but you say we can do something much more difficult instead.


"What I am proposing is a general solution when that option is not available and it may be a better solution even if that option is available."
No you are not.
You are saying that we should do something that is a lot harder to do than whaty ou say we are unable to do.

"They have so been making growth factor inhibitor drugs for some tissue types for years and some of those drugs would do well as type H drugs I think but we will need more drugs to operate on other tissue types to get a complete set of type H drugs."
We don't need a complete set of "every known type of cell -including genetci and racial variation) inhibitors"
We need some cancer cell inhibitors.

"So what decision makers need to do is to understand how those type of drugs could be used to cure cancer and get ahead and make them."
No, that's a whole bunch of silly.
For a start decision makers don't make drugs
More importantly, the decision makers are not going to allocate funds to a project that says
"Make magic stuff that works- even though it's going to kill the patient and it's more difficult than pursuing the approach we currently have- which, btw, works quite well.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8676
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Can cancer be cured by treatment rotations?
« Reply #28 on: 29/10/2013 20:46:15 »

 

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