The ''Root Cause" of Cancer From One of Only Two Origins.

rosemary-b

Yazmin

I thought that was what you meant. Some days it makes me crazy to see "the side effects are worth it."

Rosemary

RunswithScissors

OK since purplex had a chance to thoroughly describe his theory, I  now feel qualified to share mine: 

The root cause of cancer is carcinogens. The reason there are so many different cancers, is because there are so many different carcinogens. 

Cancer has always been a problem because carcinogens have always existed. Increased  rates of cancer  in some cultures correspond to increased exposures to carcinogens. 

Up until 2008, scientists were aware of carcinogens but for some reason decided they were not responsible for increasing cancer rates. (see consensus statement for 2008, above) 

Since it was believed that carcinogens were not causing escalating cancer rates, very little was done to eliminate them.  

The public was aware of said carcinogens, but modern humans cannot bear the thought of life without modern necessities such as scotch-guarded sofas, vinyl siding, and  $1 menu meals. 

(and the jobs these things create, of course.) 

I will continue to pursue this line of research as funding becomes available.  Please mail donations to :

Another Self-Appointed Cancer Researcher

c/o  The Runs With Scissors Foundation

100 Nice-Try Ave.

Keep Dreaming, PA 10001  

ananda8

rosemary-b,

Thank you for bringing up the very high incidence of congestive heart failure due to Herceptin.  I am sorry to hear that you are in the 10% of patients who are affected. 

I am borderline expressive for her2.  The protocol says that I should have taken Herceptin because my tumor was 2.4 cm.  I chose not to take Herceptin even though I am considered a high risk for recurrence.  CHF was the reason I turned down the treatment.  Perhaps if I had been in my 30s rather than my 60s, I would have made a different choice.

As for purple X, he is a troll.  However, your comment/warning about the side effects of Herceptin made all of his nonsense worth the key strokes.

Thank you and may you be well and happy.

rosemary-b

Runswithscissors

No...the secret of green m&ms is not that they make you horny, but that they cause cancer. It must be because I ate them and I have breast cancer. Oops, maybe not Correlation is not causation. More cancer reported in areas with modern lifestyles does not prove modern lifestyles cause cancer.

notself

Thank you for your kind words. I feel that people should know the risks they are taking.

barbe1958

The very definition of carcinogen is "causing cancer". It has been known since 1910. It is not new.

purple_X

Jelson

But for every one case of cancer in Thailand, there are 40 cases in Denmark. I don't doubt that what you point out is true, but can this skew the figures 40 fold? I have never been to Thailand, but from what I know of the country it doesn't seem to be that undeveloped or backwards from western societies. There must be something more going on to account for such a deviation in the numbers. Reporting methods and diagnostic tools and methods would all be variables that could be used to account for some variation, but 40 times is a huge difference. This quote in my opinion is merely an attempt to justify the observable data, that the long lists of carcinogens are not leading us to victory over this disease. When we discovered that tobacco smoke was strongly linked to cancer, and sales of tobacco products dropped off, but the incidents of lung cancer did not follow, then it was suggested that it was second hand smoke that was responsible. Laws were put in place to limit the exposure to second hand smoke in restaurants and the workplace. Again, the lung cancer statistics did not follow.

"the calculation of attributable fractions fails to account for the fact that exposures interact with each other, making the attribution of cancers to single causes highly speculative and uncertain."

This is a ‘catch- all' phrase to justify the observable data, which shows that cancer statistics are getting worse despite our new found knowledge of what causes it. If we are to embrace this as our new reality, then compiling lists of carcinogen is fruitless. This seems to imply that we need to come to terms with the concept that cancer is here and there is no avoiding it, unless you are willing to revert back to the Stone Age. But all this is contingent on the root cause of cancer being from a flaw in the cell itself.

Ezscriibe

The expression that you have put into quotation marks about "if "how you got here" DOES matter to you" did not come from me. I don't know from what I have written how you could come up with the assertion that I don't care where cancer comes from. I believe the statement came from someone who wanted to imply that they had come to terms with the fact that they now have cancer, and have moved on to address what to do about it now that they had it. They did not want to become preoccupied with how they got cancer, which I can appreciate, but that is not where I am coming from. I assure you that I very much do care how people get cancer. If you mistakenly attributed this remark as having come from me, I can understand how the tone of your post could be as it is. If you are not open to entertaining ideas that have not been presented in a scientific format, there is not much I can do about that. This is an idea in an essay format put forward by an individual who is not qualified to put it forward as a scientific journal. It may very well prove to be all wrong. But ‘proof' will have to come from someone other than me because I have no formal training in the ability to prove or disprove the ideas that I put forward. I try to substantiate them with observable data, but this should only be viewed as an essay expressing the opinion of one non-scientist.

When you think differently from everyone else on a subject, by definition I guess that makes you ‘crazy' so I suppose I have no defence for your assertion that I have a mental illness.

rosemary-b

I think the plan here was to throw so many words up on the screen as possible to confuse us. There are so many things that don't make sense in the OP but I do not have the time or energy to read let alone refute them all.

I am not a scientist, just a mother who has had teen-agers try that strategy.

pip57

Well, if he has come here to confuse us, he has picked the wrong board.  As we can see, there are too many women here who have the wit and intelligence to give him a real education on the subject!

Anonymous

Hey everyone, let's just not "feed the Trolls"

Barb

otter

Some food-for-thought (as opposed to "food for trolls"): 

Actually, certain chemicals were known to be associated with increased risk of cancer many centuries ago.  Here's some fun reading from an actual reputable source:  an article in the e-magazine "Medscape Today" (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/499098).  The article might be subscription-only, for which I apologize; but the information it contains isn't unique to the Medscape site.  Just google "chemical carcinogens x history" for a sampling.  Okay, here comes the fun stuff:

"The roles of genetic constitution versus environmental factors in cancer development have been a matter of debate even long before the discovery of 'oncogenes'. Evidence from epidemiological, occupational and migration studies has consistently pointed to environmental factors as the major contributing factors to cancer, so it seems reasonable to discuss the importance of chemical carcinogenesis in the present 'age of cancer genetics.'

" ... Based on his observation in Austrian mines and at several other places throughout Middle Ages Europe, Theophratus Bombastus von Hohenheim, better known by the name Paracelsus, described the 'wasting disease of miners' in 1567. He proposed that the exposure to natural ores such as realgar (arsenic sulphide) and others might have been causing this condition. A similar disease was noticed in the Erz Mountains of Eastern Europe that was much later known as the 'lung cancer of the Schneeberg mines' in Saxony. Although this kind of cancer was eventually linked to radioactivity emitted from decay products of radon gas, rather than to arsenic, Paracelsus was actually among the first to consider a chemical compound as an occupational carcinogen.

"A more systematic account on the work-related 'peculiar diseases' in several different fields was published by Bernadini Ramazzini in 1700, who could therefore be considered as the actual founder of occupational medicine. Later in the same century, the two English physicians John Hill and Percivall Pott described the occurrence of cancerous alterations in the nasal mucosa and at the skin of the scrotum in a few patients, and traced it to the local long-term exposure to snuff and to repetitive local contamination by soot, respectively. In 1822, John Ayrton Paris noticed that arsenic fumes ('arsenical vapour') might contribute to the occurrence of scrotal skin cancer in the copper-smelting works of Cornwall and Wales.

"At the end of the nineteenth century it became evident that occupational exposure to certain chemicals or mixtures of chemicals had carcinogenic effects. For instance, Richard von Volkmann and Joseph Bell confirmed the early observation from Pott by describing several scrotal skin tumor cases in the German and Scottish paraffin industry. In the late 1880's, the English pathologist and dermatologist Sir Jonathan Hutchinson reported on the occurrence of skin cancer as a result of the medical use of arsenic. In 1895, the surgeon Ludwig Wilhelm Carl Rehn reported the appearance of urinary bladder tumors among men employed in the German Aniline dyestuff industry in the production of 'fuchsin' (magenta). This workplace was subsequently associated with frequent occurrence of cancer of the urinary tract, referred to as 'analine cancer.'"

To establish a relationship between a particular carcinogen and the development of cancer, there must be enough cases so "statistical significance" can be achieved in the analysis. Otherwise, the relationship can be due to chance (random association).  Even if there is a statistically significant association, that does not mean there is a causal relationship ("cause-and-effect").  That's much harder to prove.  One reason why much of the work on carcinogens was done in men (aside from the zillions of experiments done in lab animals) was because, until 50 years ago, most workers were men; and their work environment in factories and mines was laden with potentially carcinogenic chemicals.

So, scientists have been well aware of carcinogens, for many centuries. I think what "runswithscissors" (love that name!) means is that there hasn't been a lot of attention paid to carcinogens in our modern day-to-day environment.  And, there might be a lot more things out there that are potentially carcinogenic than we realized 50 (or certainly 100) years ago.  That's what happens when the "easy" solutions have all been found and average lifespans are much longer.

BTW, there are still many millions of dollars spent on discovery and study of things that cause cancer in (wild) animals.  As is often the case, animals can be sentinels, warning us of things that could harm humans.

otter

(P.S.:  There are a lot more "oncogenes" and "tumor suppressor" genes than just the p53 gene purple mentioned. Here's a primer:  http://www.cancer.org/docroot/eto/content/eto_1_4x_oncogenes_and_tumor_suppressor_genes.asp) 

(P.P.S.: This, I think, is the greatest fallacy of purple's offerings:  "But ‘proof' will have to come from someone other than me because I have no formal training in the ability to prove or disprove the ideas that I put forward. I try to substantiate them with observable data, but this should only be viewed as an essay expressing the opinion of one non-scientist."  So, only "scientists" need to use logic and reasoning and critical thinking when presenting their ideas?  Wow.  That's news to me.  In any case, purple_x claims to be a "philosopher".  BTW, nearly all college-level programs in Philosophy require a course in "Introductory Logic" or "Reasoning" fairly early in the curriculum.) 

ananda8

Purple X,

Cancer is the leading cause of death in Thailand.

http://jjco.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/suppl_1/S82

I suggest that you use actual scientific journals or sites for your information rather than sites ending in .com.  Look for information from sites ending in .org or .edu. 

AnnNYC

Very happy to see a beautiful essay from Otter!!!!

If you were still teaching, Dr. Otter, I would move to Alabama to take your classes !!!!!!!!!

xoxoxoxox

Ann

barbe1958

My use of the year 1910 was thought to be when the actual word carcinogen was first used...cancer has been around as long as life has.

Ezscriiibe

I find it interesting that in first world countries, we have a plethora of Movie Theaters. They don't have so many in Third World countries.

As a result, those of us in First World countries eat an awful lot of Movie Theater Popcorn.

People in Third World Countries don't.

Wait. . . a. . . minute. . . . could it be that MOVIE THEATER POPCORN IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF MOST CANCERS TODAY?!

Lowrider54

Wow...this thread has become quite a debate!  After reading through it (mostly skimming) - I have come to realize that we choose what is right for us.  We believe in what is right for us.  I will continue this journey with hope that the approach my onc is taking is correct in the treatment path we have chosen.  Kathy36 - 17 years with mets - that is hope enough for me despite all the debate. 

As a side bar...I really wish the cure will come - and come in time for every one of us on this site to take advantage of it.  Being pretty new to this (10/09) - it has been support and hope and guidance for me...today, however, I really felt the sadness.  I did not know Kbugmom but read about her as I had the others - I learned the great sadness of this site.

Today, I looked at dx dates, recurrence dates, spread to organs dates and the final post dates - there is the reality that keeping it in the bone is crucial to longer term survival when dx'd with bc bone mets.  Sadly, there seems to be an average of 3 years of treatments until their failure results in organ involvement (the 'arsenal').  Then its chemo and looking at quality of life - adding an average of 2 - 3 years.  If all treatment fails, 5 - 6 years could be an optimistic worst case for an early bone mets dx without any organ involvement.  This is solely based on a lay persons observation of the stage IV group here.  But honestly, that is not so bad - not so good either but that is only if all fails - one long run on a hormone/bone strenghtening infusion adds a year or 2.  Now 6 - 7 years.  If you get another long run - 7 -8 and on it goes so HOPE is there.  But I don't have to get all my affairs in order today - I should start and putter my way through and start lightening my keeping of things I cannot remember where they came from or why I am keeping - and why I have I kept all my bank statements from 1978 forward...really, a bonfire is in order. 

This seemed to be the place for a long post - I am not sure I am ready to fully accept my new theory yet so I put it out here.  Although all this thinking may have something to do with having the onc checking off on my life expectency on my accelerated benefits forms next Friday. 

And that is how I feel today!

Member_of_the_Club

I do want to apologize if it appeared I was minimizing the side effects of herceptin.  I certainly didn't mean to do that and I do know that it can cause heart disease.  While I don't suffer from anything as daunting as heart disease, I do have a chronic digestive disorder, gastroparesis, that causes episodes of nausea and vomiting that last for months and that i believe was a result of taxol and I also have lymphedema, another cancer-related chronic disorder.  I would never accept these permanent side effects if it weren't for the fact that I am alive because of these treatments.  I long for the day that we don't have to suffer to get effective treatments.  My point was only that herceptin has brought hope to women who previously faced a grim prognosis, and lengthened life to women with mets who are her2neu positive.  I think this is, on the whole, a great thing and I expect survival rates will reflect it.

Yazmin

Member_of_the_Club: I am sorry to hear about your side effects from chemotherapy.

I went through 5 out of 6 infusions of the TAC chemotherapy. The reason why my treatment was interrupted is that it happened in 2006, just at the time when it became clear to scientists that my type of tumor (ER+, PR+, HER-) does not benefit from chemotherapy. If I am not mistaken, most oncologists no longer apply chemo to ER+.

I just feel it is a pity that millions of women went through the damaging effects of chemotherapy before it was acknowledged that it does nothing for a very large portion of the breast cancer population. I would be inclined to think, as you do, that chemo is worth the side effects if most women benefitted from it in absolute terms.

Unfortunately, there is widespread disagreement, even among scientists, as to the real benefit of chemotherapy; some oncologists even had the courage to speak up on that issue:

http://www.gawler.org/assets/Uploads/Articles/Chemotherapy-Ian-Gawler.pdf

While I am happy that chemotherapy saved your life, it played no part in causing my current excellent health. Much to the contrary: I am still having to rebuild myself every day from the damaging effects of chemotherapy.....

Husband11

Yazmin, chemo is still standard treatment in Canada for women with node positive, ER+ breast cancer.  Many respected scientists believe that ER+ women in the highest risk of recurrance categories, benefit from chemo.   Without a doubt its a nasty form of medicine that we all hope can be made obsolete.   Anyone interested should read this site's chemotherapy news articles for one perspective on the issue of chemo and ER+ breast cancer:

Husband11

http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/chemotherapy/new_research/20091212b.jsp

Member_of_the_Club

Yeah, I want to echo Timothy.  I don't know of anyone here in the US who was er/pr+ and also node positive, like myself, who didn''t have chemo.  A cancer that gets into the lymph nodes before being detected is aggressive enough to benefit from chemo.  I don't believe it did nothing for me.  One measure of that is that my tumor markers were measured mid-chemo and were quite elevated, only to go down to normal after chemo.  One theory about this dynamic is that the dying cancer cells elevate the markers.  Lots of women have posted in the years since about elevated markers during chemo (and most oncologists don't run the test at that point for that reason -- I sure wish mine had not, it was a major trauma) but none that I remember got as high as mine.  That tells me (and obviously this is inexact) that I had a lot of random cancer cells killed off.  I've never believed chemo got all of them, which is why I've been on tamoxifen and will switch to an AI after five years.

 I generally don't complain about side effects because for the most part I feel and look good, am in great shape, and feel unbelievably grateful to be alive. 

purple_X

　

Otter

"Genetic constitution versus environmental factors in cancer development" is an interesting subject. I believe they are both factors. Redheads have an inclination towards skin cancer as a prime example. Radiation exposure has a strong link towards certain types of cancer as well. But tangled in with genetic constitution is a nature versus nurture quagmire. If you were raised in a family who tended to run to the medicine cabinet at the first sign of a sniffle, then you are apt to do the same behaviour, and pass this on to your offspring. Thus some things could be mistakenly labelled as running in the family when it is actually learned behaviour. It would be hard to argue against cancer being affected by the presence of carcinogens, as over the years there has been enough studied that have produced enough statistical significance to become irrefutable. But as kellyj asked " what triggers it in some and not in others living the exact same lifestyle? " (one could argue that even identical twins don't live the exact same lifestyle, but it is a pertinent question which has remained unanswered for quite some time, what distinguishes the cancer patient from the others?) This is why I feel that cancer is the fulfillment of two separate requirements. The patient must first be in possession of a faulty immune system that is capable of generating cells without rules, and secondly they must have that faulty immune system steered towards performing un-requested work on a given tissue type. If cancer is a two part equation, then we can come to understand how two co-workers could live similar lifestyles and one acquire cancer and the other one not. The carcinogen would then be used to explain why this person developed breast cancer and not pancreatic cancer for instance.

　

　

barbe1958

You said"....the final two sentences in his last post contradict each other...." How so? If antioxidants are good and are linked to lower cancer statistics, then loosing them thru sweating is bad. If antiperspirants prevent you from sweating, they keep the antioxidants from exiting. Thus antiperspirants are good.

Husband11

Puple-X says: 

This is why I feel that cancer is the fulfillment of two separate requirements. The patient must first be in possession of a faulty immune system that is capable of generating cells without rules, and secondly they must have that faulty immune system steered towards performing un-requested work on a given tissue type.

Timothy asks: What is your evidence to support these two proposed phenomena?  By what mechanism might these processes work?

RunswithScissors

rosemary-b wrote:

No...the secret of green m&ms is not that they make you horny, but that they cause cancer. It must be because I ate them and I have breast cancer. Oops, maybe not Correlation is not causation. More cancer reported in areas with modern lifestyles does not prove modern lifestyles cause cancer.

*****

Who wants to volunteer as a white rat to verify that  green m&m 's have nothing to do with increased  cancer rates?

After all, they are delicious.... 

Ezscriiibe

If you were raised in a family who tended to run to the medicine cabinet at the first sign of a sniffle, then you are apt to do the same behaviour, and pass this on to your offspring. Thus some things could be mistakenly labelled as running in the family when it is actually learned behaviour.

And. . . .some people can be spouting off cr*p and positioning it as legitimate assertions, with absolutely NOTHING to back up the assertions.

Go figure.

Yazmin

Timothy:

Thank you for this interesting article on chemotherapy, a senstive issue for me.

purple_X

Timothy asks: What is your evidence to support these two proposed phenomena?  By what mechanism might these processes work?

The majority of the original post is devoted to answering why I propose this, and how I believe the situation we are in has come to be. If it was too long to read, the answer to your question will be equally as long, and also go unread.

 My logic and reasoning skills have been called into question, so this might not go over to well, but consider this,... In probability theory, the ‘Borel-Cantelli lemma' is a theorem about sequences of events that is a fundamental maxim of the theory of natural selection. The theorem is perhaps best exemplified with the cliché that if an infinite number of monkeys sat at an infinite number of typewriters and randomly press keys, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. If we grant that this would eventually happen, then the same logic used to conclude this, would compel us to admit that there would be generated an unfathomable volume of typewritten gibberish in the process.

If a single case of cancer is the culmination of a series of events, then where is the corresponding gibberish? It would be expected that there should exist a multitude of occurrences in which the entire chain of events did not occur. To get around this dilemma, the scientific community has placed the blame on our p53 chromosome. If the orderly reproduction of our DNA is the responsibility of our p53 gene, then a defect in this one gene could be the ‘common denominator' and then be used to account for all cases of mutated cell growth. That is to say; if the gene responsible to oversee the orderly division of cells is itself damaged, then the un-orderly division of cells could occur. This then becomes the ‘root cause' of cancer.   It is mathematically comprehensible how the DNA of an individual cell might go astray, and starts to reproduce itself repeatedly as outlined in our present cancer theory, but this event would be limited to grow only to the size that could be supported by the existing blood supply. It would yield at best, a 'pea' sized growth. There should therefore be occurrences in which the cell did reproduce itself, but the accompanying blood supply did not happen. The scientific community acknowledges the need to address the blood supply issue, and with great difficulty they have postulated a complex chain of events that is both mathematically and logically absurd. This ‘root cause' of cancer must therefore also have the attributed powers of being able to induce pathological angiogenesis. These cancer cells, we are told, release molecules that attract our endothelial cells, which then set out to successfully build a blood vessel system to get the much needed nutrients to the site. This amazing task is performed by a cell that is already deemed to be defective and in a nutrient and oxygen starved environment. All this must be identified as needed, set in motion, and accomplished before the cell succumbs to its seemingly perilous situation. We are further told that these cancer cells take on an immortal status, and acquire the ability to disguise themselves, and recruit allies in their defence, and a multitude of other special powers that are attributed only to cancer cells. When we examine this supernatural chain of events, and the obstacles that the cancer must overcome, and the safeguards that are in place to prevent these occurrences from happening the way they are described, one must wonder about the mathematical likelihood of this occurring even once in a species with just over six billion members.

ktym

Rosemary, I too had found the thread amusing and hadn't posted in order to not feed the trolls.  However had to comment after your post regarding your CHF,  (I am so sorry to hear that) because it echoed a comment I made on another thread a couple of days ago.  I seriously worry about how much encouragement some women get to do chemotherapy here.  I think those decisions need to be made looking at hard numbers regarding risk and benefit.  I was in that 1-2% who ended up in the ICU with life threatening SE's from chemo.  Thankfully (I say with some sarcasm) my only long term effects seem to be myopathy neuropathy and lymphedema.  All of which have affected my career.  Hopefully they will continue to improve.  I agree with you, those 1-2% of this, 5% of that, 10% of CHF etc.  are real and have to be balanced against the benefit.  In my case the chance for benefit still outweighed the risk and I would make the same decision over again to take chemo given those same stats.  I just cringe, however, everytime someone is told give it everything you have, its tough but you can do it, or worse yet, not as bad as you've heard, I worked through chemo.  Yes, many here found it wasn't as bad as expected, but, the risks are real and serious and I don't think sometimes that is acknowledged very well.

ktym

Yazmin, it is interesting you say that.  I was with a friend when she got a consultation from an oncologist who said, 5% benefit, you have to realize that means if I give this to 100 women, 5 will benefit and 95 will be taking it for no benefit.  Not at all the way her first oncologist had explained it to her. 

mumito

Interesting discussions but I am exhausted,had to read 3 pages to catch up. In my case there is no family history of cancer.But I was in a depressed state of mind and had stopped my routine of exercising and eating healthy,for about a year and half before my DX.

Let me add I had what the onc called a complete response to chemo. But i was lucky that i tolerated the drugs with only a few SE's

rosemary-b

kmmd

I have other after affects from surgery chemo radiation and AIs and I accept them because I didn't want to die from cancer. So now I probably won't. I will probably die young (I'm 58 now, 56 when I developed heart failure I have about a 20% chance of living 10 yrs from then, it was 70% with just surgery and radiation) from the effects of Herceptin. I had no heart problems  before and I went from normal to very sick in 5 weeks.

I don't see Herceptin as a wonder drug but as a baby step on the way to that wonder drug.