Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Dead Cell Barrier Conjecture(Cancer Research)

  1. #1 Dead Cell Barrier Conjecture(Cancer Research) 
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Here is a link to my thesis on cancer: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5JW9UgFkd8ZeUlhdlJ1cDAzdEE/edit
    So, the basic idea of the hypothesis is that all cancers are a process that is a part of a body defense mechanism against harmful chemicals within the body or overproduction of certain proteins or hormones. When a cell detects an over production or excessive amount of these chemicals within the body(though the cells regulate the intake of these necessary proteins), this activates a gene inside cells that causes the rapid reproduction of cells, forming the cancer. This is to create a barrier so the threatnening chemical does not begin to cause tissue damage to other tissue in the body.

    This especially happens with people with certain genetic disorders, such as overproducing insulin. This also happens with UV rays when Vitamin D is over produced by the skin, forming skin cancer. There is more in the PDF file explaining the idea.


    Last edited by GreggSchaffter; May 19th, 2013 at 02:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Here is a link to my thesis on cancer: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5JW9UgFkd8ZeUlhdlJ1cDAzdEE/edit
    So, the basic idea of the hypothesis is that all cancers are a process that is a part of a body defense mechanism against harmful chemicals within the body or overproduction of certain proteins or hormones. When a cell detects an over production or excessive amount of these chemicals within the body(though the cells regulate the intake of these necessary proteins), this activates a gene inside cells that causes the rapid reproduction of cells, forming the cancer. This is to create a barrier so the threatnening chemical does not begin to cause tissue damage to other tissue in the body.

    This especially happens with people with certain genetic disorders, such as overproducing insulin. This also happens with UV rays when Vitamin D is over produced by the skin, forming skin cancer. There is more in the PDF file explaining the idea.
    So the body develops a cancerous tumor, (which provides no barrier to anything) which kills the body, in order to protect the body.

    Seems counter productive.


    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Here is a link to my thesis on cancer: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5JW9UgFkd8ZeUlhdlJ1cDAzdEE/edit
    So, the basic idea of the hypothesis is that all cancers are a process that is a part of a body defense mechanism against harmful chemicals within the body or overproduction of certain proteins or hormones. When a cell detects an over production or excessive amount of these chemicals within the body(though the cells regulate the intake of these necessary proteins), this activates a gene inside cells that causes the rapid reproduction of cells, forming the cancer. This is to create a barrier so the threatnening chemical does not begin to cause tissue damage to other tissue in the body.

    This especially happens with people with certain genetic disorders, such as overproducing insulin. This also happens with UV rays when Vitamin D is over produced by the skin, forming skin cancer. There is more in the PDF file explaining the idea.
    So the body develops a cancerous tumor, (which provides no barrier to anything) which kills the body, in order to protect the body.

    Seems counter productive.
    It does provide some barrier from the chemical that caused the cell to activate the gene.

    Also, the harm done is the un-intended side-effect, as stated in the paper.

    EDIT: For example, with pancreatic cancer, which is what produces the insulin needed, causes the production of insulin to either slow down or completely stop. This is a response to the overproduction of the insulin hormone.

    EDIT2: IF you read my paper, here is something else to add:

    5) Sustained angiogenesis - Cancer cells are able to stimulate formation

    of blood vessels, thus securing their oxygen and nutrient supply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    It does provide some barrier from the chemical that caused the cell to activate the gene
    A tumor is a self contained group of cells. How does a tumor in your liver prevent chemicals of any kind from invading the blood stream?

    Also, the harm done is the un-intended side-effect, as stated in the paper.
    Unintended? By what? Side-effect? Cancer ALWAYS kills. How would anti-survival trait ever become established in the genome? From both an individual and evolutionary stand point, your idea makes no sense.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It does provide some barrier from the chemical that caused the cell to activate the gene
    A tumor is a self contained group of cells. How does a tumor in your liver prevent chemicals of any kind from invading the blood stream?

    Also, the harm done is the un-intended side-effect, as stated in the paper.
    Unintended? By what? Side-effect? Cancer ALWAYS kills. How would anti-survival trait ever become established in the genome? From both an individual and evolutionary stand point, your idea makes no sense.
    Cancer kills because of what it was intended to do. Prevent other cellular damage with the overproduction of proteins and hormones, such as insulin and vitemin D. The reason why cancer always kills is due to the fact that either the protein or hormone involved is still threatening the cells inside the body or if it were the signal was never received by the cancerous cells to stop the rapid reproduction.

    And also, read what I added.

    It isn't an anti-survival trait. What caused the cancer to happen was anti-survival, if put in words as such.

    To you it makes no sense. It is my job to make sure it makes sense.

    EDIT: Also, if experiments would be done, it could be determined whether without the cancer a victim of over production of insulin or Vitamin D were to die faster without the cancer forming.

    EDIT2: "A new hypothesis that focuses on reactive oxygen species (ROS) proposes that antioxidant levels within cancer cells are a problem and are responsible for resistance to treatment.

    The theory destroys any reason for taking antioxidative nutritional supplements, because they "more likely cause than prevent cancer," according to Nobel laureate James Watson, PhD, from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York."

    This means that other chemicals perceived as threatening to the cells causes the cancer barrier to increase in size.

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/777516

    Also, the fact that many such as diet effect the possibilities of forming cancerous cells, which means that when people eat "wrong", where there is an over intake of a specific protein, cells take that as a threat and react the way they do; they form cancerous cells.

    http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/19

    Cancer can be thought of as almost like an infection(though it is a bad analogy, it still works). Though infections cause death, it due to the fact that there is a continuous addition of a virus that is trying to penetrate the body. So, shouldn't it also be anti-survival?

    Also, Breast cancer has also been linked to the production of breast milk. This means that the breast milk, if there are abnormalities in this production, can cause the cancer to form. Again, another example of what the hypothesis shows.

    http://themedcircle.com/factor-respo...breast-cancer/

    Also, MIT biologists have linked a specific protein to the formation of Lung cancer. Meaning, an over-production of this protein can cause Lung cancer.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/l...-research.html

    Oestrogen. Women with the highest levels of oestrogen and related hormones have over twice the average risk of breast cancer and womb cancer. They may also have higher risks of ovarian cancer.

    Testosterone. At the moment, it isn’t clear if high levels of testosterone in men increases the risk of prostate cancer. But we do know that prostate cancer cells depend on testosterone in order to grow.

    Insulin. Insulin is most famous for controlling our bodies’ sugar levels, but it has many other functions. High levels of insulin have been linked to cancers of the bowel, womb, pancreas and kidneys.

    Insulin also affects the levels of another group of similar hormones called insulin-like growth factors or IGFs. High levels of IGF-1 could increase the risk of prostate, breast and bowel cancers. Many scientists are studying the links between insulin, IGFs and cancer but at the moment, they are still unclear.

    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/canc...nes-and-cancer

    "Chemicals in household and industrial products that disrupt the human hormone system are linked to high global rates of breast, ovarian, prostate, testicular and thyroid cancers, warns a report released today by the UN Environment Programme and the World Health Organization."

    http://ens-newswire.com/2013/02/19/h...hounep-report/

    Another source points out that an overproduction of estrogen is involved and linked in the formation of cancer in women.

    http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/publica...ss10_may26_03/

    And, there have been many cases where victims of cancer, especially pancreatic cancer, healed after both removing the tumor(when the cancer had spread) and eating properly.
    Last edited by GreggSchaffter; May 18th, 2013 at 08:51 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    t is my job to make sure it makes sense.
    Fail.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    t is my job to make sure it makes sense.
    Fail.
    What is the fail? I simply stated that I want people to understand it so they have a better understanding of it...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    The fail is making sense. If that's your job, you didn't.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    The fail is making sense. If that's your job, you didn't.
    What doesn't make sense? It would be good to know what doesn't make sense to you. I can't read people's minds(I wish I could though).

    EDIT: Also, instead of saying fail tell me what doesn't make sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    What doesn't make sense is that the body would develop a defense mechanism which unfailingly kills it.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    What doesn't make sense is that the body would develop a defense mechanism which unfailingly kills it.
    It isn't the cancer that does all the killing. It is the fact that whatever started the cancer in the first place that kills the body. The cancerous cells simply do their job. They do their job until the threat is eliminated, however if the threat isn't removed for such a long time the defense mechanism fails and the body begins to lose. Same thing happens with infections.

    You might as well argue the same about infections.

    EDIT: Again, look at all the information given above about causes and cases of people recovering by going to healthy life styles, which potentially show that lower intakes and such lowered the intake of certain proteins, causing the cancer cells to die down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    It isn't the cancer that does all the killing.
    Tell that to my dead mother.

    Your proposal is simply fucking ridiculous.

    This makes no more sense than your other thread.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    It isn't the cancer that does all the killing.
    Tell that to my dead mother.

    Your proposal is simply fucking ridiculous.

    This makes no more sense than your other thread.
    I didn't mean to offend anyone. If you want me to reword it, I meant to say that the protein or chemical involved causes the cancer to go overboard and kill the person(Sorry if your mother is dead because of cancer. That is why I am doing cancer research).

    If you are referring to other threads I have made, those aren't the subject of the topic.

    EDIT: I will be adding more sources onto the mix, showing that overproduction of certain chemicals or over intake of chemicals are involved in cancerous cells.

    There have been studies that show that women have a decreased risk of breast cancer if they consume green tea leaves.

    http://cancer.ucsf.edu/_docs/crc/nutrition_breast.pdf

    Now, here are some studies about green tea leaves:

    The thermogenic properties of Green Tea and its role in encouraging the healthy metabolism of sugars make it an excellent choice for the support of a weight management protocol. The antioxidant activity of Green Tea is well documented and attributed to the polyphenols known collectively as catechins; epigallocatechin (EGC), epicatechin (EC), epigallocatechingallate (EGCG) and epicatecatechingallate (ECG). The chemical structure of these antioxidants not only impedes the action of free radicals as oxidative stressors but prevents their formation. Many integrative health protocols for the support of the immune system involve using natural health supplements high in antioxidants, including Green Tea which has substantial in vitro clinical validation of its supportive role in reducing the effects of oxidative stress.
    Through archaeological carbon dating, it was discovered that Green Tea leaves were first boiled in water over 500,000 years ago. It has been cultivated in India, China, and Japan for hundreds of centuries and has been used for at least five thousand years to support digestion, promote a healthy cardiovascular system, promote healthy metabolism of sugars, provide support for clear thinking and encourage an energetic lifestyle. Its consumption worldwide is second only to water. Green tea comes from the unfermented leaves of the Camellia sinensis shrub, while oolong tea is partially fermented, and black tea is fully fermented and has the highest caffeine and lowest antioxidant activity. Green tea has been shown to have the some of the highest antioxidant activity of any plant known. It was shown to have more antioxidant capacity than both Vitamin C and Vitamin E in a study conducted in 1989.
    http://www.gaiaherbs.com/products/ingredient/157/157

    There was another study, as well, that shows that green teas help fight and prevent cancer.

    There are three main varieties of tea -- green, black, and oolong. The difference is in how the teas are processed. Green tea is made from unfermented leaves and reportedly contains the highest concentration of powerful antioxidants called polyphenols. Antioxidants are substances that fight free radicals -- damaging compounds in the body that change cells, damage DNA, and even cause cell death. Many scientists believe that free radicals contribute to the aging process as well as the development of a number of health problems, including cancer and heart disease. Antioxidants such as polyphenols in green tea can neutralize free radicals and may reduce or even help prevent some of the damage they cause.

    Source: Green tea http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/g...#ixzz2Thcy5B1Y
    University of Maryland Medical Center
    Follow us: @UMMC on Twitter | MedCenter on Facebook
    http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/green-tea-000255.htm

    Now, what helps fight the free radicals is the polyphenols. Here is the main structure of polyphenols.


    1000px-Tannic_acid.svg.jpg

    Here is another source explaining the help of green teas in fighting cancer.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16445946

    Grean teas also have been shown to eliminate many toxins from the body, which shows that toxins in your body are linked to the development of cancerous cells.

    http://www.articlesbase.com/tea-arti...em-720628.html

    Also, it can be noticed that the compound that helps fight cancer is some of the same substance and build up of molecules that help regulate cell replication for cellsl.
    Last edited by GreggSchaffter; May 18th, 2013 at 10:10 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    [QUOTE=AlexG;423492]
    Your proposal is simply fucking ridiculous.
    You Sir have crossed the line from civil conversation; This is a warning.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    [QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;423519]
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Your proposal is simply fucking ridiculous.
    You Sir have crossed the line from civil conversation; This is a warning.
    Apologies. It's an emotional subject.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    [QUOTE=AlexG;423524]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Your proposal is simply fucking ridiculous.
    You Sir have crossed the line from civil conversation; This is a warning.
    Apologies. It's an emotional subject.
    Well then, I would like to ask then what doesn't make sense? I want to help people understand my hypothesis. I want to help fight cancer and help cancer research. The only way to do that is to find what is the problem with the hypothesis and then make it better or modify it.
    EDIT: (Also, I just wanted to say sorry about your mother. It can be an emotional subject).

    EDIT2: Here is a look at pancreatic cancer:

    CDR742418-571.jpg

    As seen in the image, the cancer blocks the duct that releases the insulin hormones. This causes there to be little to no insulin to be produced. This is caused by the cells within the pancrease to become cancerous by their being an overproduction if insulin hormone.
    Last edited by GreggSchaffter; May 19th, 2013 at 02:51 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I'm no doctor.

    But I've read through it all and here are my thoughts:

    Cancer cells, to the best of my understanding, come in a very large variety. It is not quite so simple as one kind of cancer cell and it's not only because different cells can turn cancerous, but rather, the specific cause of the cancerous growth of which there are several identified causes.

    If there was a genetic cause- a gene that turns on hyper growth- can that gene be isolated and identified?

    Oncogene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    About ten percent of people that have cancer that has not metastasized (the cancer stayed in one place) die.
    But when the cancer cells do metastasize (move to other parts of the body by dislodging and being carried by the bloodstream and then infecting other healthy cells) the mortality rate jumps as this is very difficult to treat.
    So- we take a look at the "suicide gene" in cells that tells them to self destruct if there's a problem.
    The world we are talking about is very small and difficult to observe in great detail as a whole. But there are the things we do understand about chemistry and physical reactions. Proteins, DNA and the like are all molecules that are unintelligent and must obey their properties. Certain foreign elements introduced to the system can alter the function of a simple protein, throwing a localized system out of whack. There are several genes that deal with this:
    Suicide genes- tell the cell to self destruct
    DNA repair genes- tell the cell to stop and go over its code and make repairs
    If either of these molecules are inhibited by a free agent, then the cell will have nothing to prevent it from rapid uncontrolled growth.

    All of these are understandable and none of them require a gene to specifically tell a group of cells to grow rapidly as a reaction to foreign substances.
    As we have identified the above genes, why has the "Grow and create a wall" gene evaded geneticists?
    What might demonstrate the existence of this gene?
    What molecular reactions could result in a coded instruction to grow without resistance?

    As a defensive reaction, the risk seems higher than the defense. If this is a failed defensive mechanism that has remained simply because most every being that is open to cancer has bred long before cancer claims them, that is understandable- but the gene instructing cells to go into hyperdrive still would need to be identified. Without showing that gene, you don't really have any direct evidence for your idea.

    As I said, I am no doctor and everything I've put here should be taken with a salt shaker.
    Even so, damaged DNA or inhibited DNA matches the data better than DNA instructions to have cells go crazy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I'm no doctor.

    But I've read through it all and here are my thoughts:

    Cancer cells, to the best of my understanding, come in a very large variety. It is not quite so simple as one kind of cancer cell and it's not only because different cells can turn cancerous, but rather, the specific cause of the cancerous growth of which there are several identified causes.

    If there was a genetic cause- a gene that turns on hyper growth- can that gene be isolated and identified?

    Oncogene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    About ten percent of people that have cancer that has not metastasized (the cancer stayed in one place) die.
    But when the cancer cells do metastasize (move to other parts of the body by dislodging and being carried by the bloodstream and then infecting other healthy cells) the mortality rate jumps as this is very difficult to treat.
    So- we take a look at the "suicide gene" in cells that tells them to self destruct if there's a problem.
    The world we are talking about is very small and difficult to observe in great detail as a whole. But there are the things we do understand about chemistry and physical reactions. Proteins, DNA and the like are all molecules that are unintelligent and must obey their properties. Certain foreign elements introduced to the system can alter the function of a simple protein, throwing a localized system out of whack. There are several genes that deal with this:
    Suicide genes- tell the cell to self destruct
    DNA repair genes- tell the cell to stop and go over its code and make repairs
    If either of these molecules are inhibited by a free agent, then the cell will have nothing to prevent it from rapid uncontrolled growth.

    All of these are understandable and none of them require a gene to specifically tell a group of cells to grow rapidly as a reaction to foreign substances.
    As we have identified the above genes, why has the "Grow and create a wall" gene evaded geneticists?
    What might demonstrate the existence of this gene?
    What molecular reactions could result in a coded instruction to grow without resistance?

    As a defensive reaction, the risk seems higher than the defense. If this is a failed defensive mechanism that has remained simply because most every being that is open to cancer has bred long before cancer claims them, that is understandable- but the gene instructing cells to go into hyperdrive still would need to be identified. Without showing that gene, you don't really have any direct evidence for your idea.

    As I said, I am no doctor and everything I've put here should be taken with a salt shaker.
    Even so, damaged DNA or inhibited DNA matches the data better than DNA instructions to have cells go crazy.
    I linked an article about lung cancer and how they did find a gene that contributes to the rapid reproduction growth. It hasn't evaded geneticists, they have found genes linked to the cancer.

    Infections do the samething. Cancer almost acts like an infection, where if the threat isn't removed it simply grows, even when out of control.

    The samething could be claimed about infection.

    EDIT: Also, it is expected that the gene causing the cells to rapidly reproduce would be different for each type of cell to deal with different chemicals and different ways of dealing with them.

    There are also genes that have been linked to breast cancer.
    Last edited by GreggSchaffter; May 19th, 2013 at 01:30 PM.
    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    I linked an article about lung cancer and how they did find a gene that contributes to the rapid reproduction growth. It hasn't evaded geneticists, they have found genes linked to the cancer.

    There are also genes that have been linked to breast cancer.
    Could you link again? Organize the material and present it whole, please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    I linked an article about lung cancer and how they did find a gene that contributes to the rapid reproduction growth. It hasn't evaded geneticists, they have found genes linked to the cancer.

    There are also genes that have been linked to breast cancer.
    Could you link again? Organize the material and present it whole, please.
    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/l...gene-0719.html
    Lung Cancer gene found

    I am still looking for the breast cancer article. I remember seeing it, but have forgotten the location of it.

    Ultimately, there is a gene linked to the cancerous cells that shows that there is some genetic mutation involved, however, it involves the cell activating a process in which changes the genetic make up to form cancerous cells.
    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Ultimately, there is a gene linked to the cancerous cells that shows that there is some genetic mutation involved, however, it involves the cell activating a process in which changes the genetic make up to form cancerous cells.
    Evidence to support this statement is required.

    ETA:
    From the link- Bold mine-
    They found extra copies of a few short stretches of DNA, including a segment of chromosome 4 that turned out to include a single gene called Nuclear Factor I/B (NFIB). This is the first time NFIB has been implicated in small cell lung cancer, though it has been seen in a mouse study of prostate cancer. The gene’s exact function is not known, but it is involved in the development of lung cells.
    "involved in the development"... Could that be any more vague?
    The NFIB gene codes for a transcription factor, meaning it controls the expression of other genes, so researchers in Jacks’ lab are now looking for the genes controlled by NFIB. “If we find what genes NFIB is regulating, that could provide new targets for small cell lung cancer therapy,” Dooley says.
    As evidence in support of your hypothesis, this is inconclusive.
    You said that "they found the gene." That was not what I just read in the article, rather, they found a gene that is suspect but has unknown function other than regulating the expression of other genes. It's involved in the cancer but not determined as to what that involvement is.

    Stay objective.

    I suggest switching over to a search using Google Scholar. Try finding the sources that these... 'journalists' are reporting on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    Ultimately, there is a gene linked to the cancerous cells that shows that there is some genetic mutation involved, however, it involves the cell activating a process in which changes the genetic make up to form cancerous cells.
    Evidence to support this statement is required.

    ETA:
    From the link- Bold mine-
    They found extra copies of a few short stretches of DNA, including a segment of chromosome 4 that turned out to include a single gene called Nuclear Factor I/B (NFIB). This is the first time NFIB has been implicated in small cell lung cancer, though it has been seen in a mouse study of prostate cancer. The gene’s exact function is not known, but it is involved in the development of lung cells.
    "involved in the development"... Could that be any more vague?
    The NFIB gene codes for a transcription factor, meaning it controls the expression of other genes, so researchers in Jacks’ lab are now looking for the genes controlled by NFIB. “If we find what genes NFIB is regulating, that could provide new targets for small cell lung cancer therapy,” Dooley says.
    As evidence in support of your hypothesis, this is inconclusive.
    You said that "they found the gene." That was not what I just read in the article, rather, they found a gene that is suspect but has unknown function other than regulating the expression of other genes. It's involved in the cancer but not determined as to what that involvement is.

    Stay objective.

    I suggest switching over to a search using Google Scholar. Try finding the sources that these... 'journalists' are reporting on.
    I see. Well, I guess I should have called my idea a "speculation" instead of a hypothesis.
    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    I see. Well, I guess I should have called my idea a "speculation" instead of a hypothesis.
    A hypothesis is, by nature, speculative. The word applies.

    I think this is worthy speculation, in my ignorance.
    Cancer is very complex. This is not a simple system, but a system dependent on initial conditions and heavily dependent on constant and consistent regulation. Add to this the factor of many free radicals from a very large variety of sources and that we are medically somewhat in our infancy in the field of medical biology.
    We don't have nanotechnology which we can use to get down in there and really look at what is going on.

    That a gene expression may play a role in the development of cancer cells is not far-fetched. Whether it is a defense mechanism... well...

    Our bodies are not perfect. Not by a long shot. Some seem to take this stance that things like a gene expression that serves no function is impossible. I find that almost religious. Of course redundant, absurd or even hazardous gene expressions can exist as long as they are remote enough to not inhibit survival to breeding. Many exist that have immediate results, such as severe birth defects and some of those defects still are not enough to kill the patient. They remain because not enough of those instances occur to affect the species. Some are not genetic as much as a result of toxic influence, such as a Thalidomide baby. Some only are an inconvenience, like male pattern balding.
    You may as well say, "God wouldn't allow it" at that point.

    Now, could six fingers, male pattern balding or a gene expression that caused eyesight to go really bad after the age of thirty (past breeding age for the most part) be part of a defense mechanism? Or are they defective genes that have persisted since there was nothing to remove them?
    This is where your speculation or hypothesis will need strong support: The claim it is a defense mechanism.
    I think you'll have an easier time showing that a gene expression causes rapid cancerous growth deliberately- even if the reason why is simply left to speculation.
    I am very skeptical, but again, while most cancers seem to be caused by faulty genes, not genes activating but genes failing to work properly, this is a complex system and I find it possible that a faulty gene has persisted and survived as part of our genome for many thousands of years.

    And there may be an advantage to that- it's a good survival trait for a species to have the old ones keel over and allow room for growth and more resources for the breeders.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman GreggSchaffter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreggSchaffter View Post
    I see. Well, I guess I should have called my idea a "speculation" instead of a hypothesis.
    A hypothesis is, by nature, speculative. The word applies.

    I think this is worthy speculation, in my ignorance.
    Cancer is very complex. This is not a simple system, but a system dependent on initial conditions and heavily dependent on constant and consistent regulation. Add to this the factor of many free radicals from a very large variety of sources and that we are medically somewhat in our infancy in the field of medical biology.
    We don't have nanotechnology which we can use to get down in there and really look at what is going on.

    That a gene expression may play a role in the development of cancer cells is not far-fetched. Whether it is a defense mechanism... well...

    Our bodies are not perfect. Not by a long shot. Some seem to take this stance that things like a gene expression that serves no function is impossible. I find that almost religious. Of course redundant, absurd or even hazardous gene expressions can exist as long as they are remote enough to not inhibit survival to breeding. Many exist that have immediate results, such as severe birth defects and some of those defects still are not enough to kill the patient. They remain because not enough of those instances occur to affect the species. Some are not genetic as much as a result of toxic influence, such as a Thalidomide baby. Some only are an inconvenience, like male pattern balding.
    You may as well say, "God wouldn't allow it" at that point.

    Now, could six fingers, male pattern balding or a gene expression that caused eyesight to go really bad after the age of thirty (past breeding age for the most part) be part of a defense mechanism? Or are they defective genes that have persisted since there was nothing to remove them?
    This is where your speculation or hypothesis will need strong support: The claim it is a defense mechanism.
    I think you'll have an easier time showing that a gene expression causes rapid cancerous growth deliberately- even if the reason why is simply left to speculation.
    I am very skeptical, but again, while most cancers seem to be caused by faulty genes, not genes activating but genes failing to work properly, this is a complex system and I find it possible that a faulty gene has persisted and survived as part of our genome for many thousands of years.

    And there may be an advantage to that- it's a good survival trait for a species to have the old ones keel over and allow room for growth and more resources for the breeders.
    Well, of course there are genetic faults within the genetic make up of organisms, but I find cancer to be "different" in it being a gene fault.

    That is why I have been so interested in cancer development. Out of all faults, it seems to express the largest uniqueness. For example, it is undetectable by the immune system and many other factors. I speculate that we may be attacking the wrong thing.

    While subjective at best, there have been an "infinite" amount of cases where cancer had either gone dormant or was removed because people began a healthy life style. That, with all known ideas of cancer, should not be happening because the immune system, even if it got stronger, couldn't have destroyed the cancerous cells. It seems to be that the cancerous cells simply "stopped" their processes. That lead me to the idea that maybe that is due to the threatening chemical no longer was there, caused by a previously diet life style.
    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." – Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    32
    Neverfly is landing very close to point with the concept of oncogenes.

    I take some umbrage with the assertions presented here, if I may. And I would prefer to argue from the standpoint of illustrations, if it's ok.

    So, the basic idea of the hypothesis is that all cancers are a process that is a part of a body defense mechanism against harmful chemicals within the body or overproduction of certain proteins or hormones. When a cell detects an over production or excessive amount of these chemicals within the body(though the cells regulate the intake of these necessary proteins), this activates a gene inside cells that causes the rapid reproduction of cells, forming the cancer. This is to create a barrier so the threatnening chemical does not begin to cause tissue damage to other tissue in the body.


    Unfortunately, this is not how cancer is understood to form. Over the course of around 40+ years, we've gained an understanding that DNA damage or mutation is the most likely culprit in forming tumors. Overproduction of "these chemicals," as you put it, can drive things further, like with Harold Varmus's discovery of Wnt signaling initially in the early 1970s. And I really like Wnt signaling as an opponent to your argument here.

    The APC gene mutation, which creates a defective gene product (adenomatous polyposis coli), blunts its normal function of suppressing a certain signaling pathway. This particular pathway is essential for NORMAL development and maintenance/proliferation of the body's stem cells. We shut this down, though, because as our tissues become terminally differentiated, we don't want processes to drive us backward. Unfortunately, people with APC gene mutation have this pathway turned on all the time, and it will eventually manifest (in 90% of cases, if I recall correctly), in colorectal carcinoma.

    BRCA1 mutation is another fine example here. This is a gene involved in the repair of DNA. Women with defects in this gene are at a huge risk for breast and ovarian cancer (see the recent news on Angelina Jolie's double mastectomy and pending hysterectomy for some relevant news). Why? Because knocking down a gene that promotes DNA repair means you will incur more damage. More damage=greater chance of getting mutational hits that shut down regulators in the cell. If you happen to get a nasty hit, then the cell can start becoming hyperproliferative. As they acquire more hits, the cancer progresses. At least, this is the current paradigm of thought in cancer. There are other ideas out there, but these ones are pretty well rooted in a long history of research.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    HTM fan
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    227
    If humans evolve, wouldn't it make sense for individual cells to evolve? They can replicate and mutate. If they aren't destroyed by the usual mechanisms, mutated cells replicate out of control. I don't think cells would try to mutate on purpose. Cancer cells could evolve to create blood vessels or what not, as well.
    I guess all cells in humans compete for survival. Most mutations would kill the cell. Some would allow them to process nutrients better (Or would this kill the cell by mutation-preventing mechanisms?). Others would cause the cell to replicate out of control. Normally the cells with the mutation would self-destroy. However, if the mutation-preventing genes are also mutated, the cells could replicate out of control. The cells would continue to evolve, but now more rapidly because of the missing mutation-preventing genes.

    Probably less than 1/20 hypothesis work, so don't feel too bad. Avoid attachment to ideas, and remember that you will create new ideas in the future.
    "It is the ability to make predictions about the future that is the crux of intelligence."
    -Jeff Hawkins.
    For example, you can predict that 3+5=8. You can predict what sequence of muscle commands you should generate during a conversation, or whether an object is a desk or a chair. The brain is very complicated, but that is essentially how intelligence works. Instinct, emotions, and behavior are somewhat seperate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. cancer research (proteins)
    By stetch14 in forum Biology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 19th, 2013, 12:37 AM
  2. A new hypothesis re-defined quantum research!
    By Mixter in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2012, 11:07 AM
  3. The nebular hypothesis is dead
    By KrupS in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 04:43 AM
  4. Cancer cell detecting machine
    By s09tp2 in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 14th, 2011, 01:45 AM
  5. Dead cell removal
    By George Moll in forum Biology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 11th, 2008, 11:22 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •