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

mollyann

thenewme,

You are really angry.

Have you ever considered that you might be directing your anger about getting cancer to the people on this forum?

motheroffoursons

You know, I think this thread is in the wrong place.  It should be in the humor section.  I log in to read it just to see what stupid things Mr. Purple says and proposes. 

katgirl

Feb 2, 2010 03:15 pm ReneeS wrote:

My scroll down button broke.

www.caringbridge.org/visit/reneeswartz TCX6, 33 rads
Diagnosis: 9/24/2008, IDC, 1cm, Stage II, Grade 2, 1/2 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2-

ReneeS,

You made me laugh so loud my boss came over to my desk to see what I was reading.   Thanks, needed this!

Kat

AnnNYC

Yes, that was a good one, ReneeS!

ananda8

mollyann,

That was a terrible thing to say.  Shame.

mollyann

Shame? 

You're hysterical.

ananda8

Thank you for your kind words. 

apple

notself wrote:

"It would be nice if a moderator could keep the original post by purple X on the first page of this thread and after that shorten the original post on all following pages.  I find it a waste of space to have the very long op repeated on every page.  I have searched this forum and can find no way to report a post.  There are no moderators to report to."

i'm getting carpal tunnel syndrome.. oh wait, maybe it's that femara

apple

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/this-virus-could-be-the-answer-to-cancer/19344145/

now this is interesting.. certainly novel.

AnnNYC

That is very exciting, Apple -- thanks so much for posting it.

Husband11

That oncolytic virus treatment is really novel as you say.  There's quite a story behind how it was discovered, pretty much by accident by a student.

luv_gardening

There's an earlier article showing that this virus also kills stem cells in breast cancer.  It's probably the stem cells that cause the deadly recurrences years after chemo and rads have worked on the tumours but failed to kill the stem cells.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090408192134.htm 

Now this is real research which could well result in a cure rather than temporary suppression.

luv_gardening

Oh, and I forgot to mention this sentence in the article which is just the opposite of what the OP is saying...

"In addition to its ability to kill cancer cells and cancer stem cells, reovirus stimulates the anti-cancer immune system."

purple_X

I find it interesting that the opening line of the article that Apple has brought to our attention is very similar to a line in my original post. I wrote; " It would seem foreign, or perhaps even absurd to introduce infectious contaminants into the human body. It would seem ludicrous to do this to someone who is already ill. "

The opening line of the article that Apple linked is; "You'd think that infecting a cancer patient with a virus would be the last thing a doctor would want to do. But what if it was a virus that attacks and kills cancer cells?

I find this avenue of research very fascinating. If I understand the premise correctly, the article is suggesting there exists viruses that can be introduced into a cancer patient which can turn on the Ras pathway, which then seems to turn off a growth pathway, and the virus is allowed a window of opportunity to enter the cancer cell and replicate itself which then ultimately causing the death of the cancer cell. It is believed that these pathways being opened/closed is what is generating the favourable findings. My belief is that the introduction of the virus itself, forces the immune system into a confrontation, and it is this battle with the virus which exercises the immune system, and the exercised immune system is responsible for the favourable findings. Progress is progress. Favourable findings are welcome despite any philosophical differences as to how they came about. I would expect that any approach that does not attempt to assist the immune system would show favourable results. From my point of view it would be expected that this approach should join the ranks of the three most successful methods of dealing with cancer, because like chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery, this protocol places a workload on the immune system. The introduction of viruses would torment the immune system. I find this approach to be encouraging, and it is not a great leap from this line of thinking to the ideas that I have been suggesting. I would disagree with your statement that this."is just the opposite of what the OP is saying..."

otter

Purple_x, your understanding of the premise about oncolytic reoviruses is not correct; but there seems little point in trying to explain the details because they involve basic cell biology, which you have rejected as "mainstream thinking."

So, I'm happy that you feel "encouraged" by your ability to bend the concepts of oncolytic reoviruses to fit your own hypothesis.  As others have noted here, the normal way of doing things in science is to modify the theory so that it fits the observable facts.  Your strategy, though, is just the opposite:  When observable facts conflict with your theory, you dismiss those facts as mere "statistics", or even 'bogus statistics."  Paradoxically, most of the "anomalies" you've used to justify your rejection of the "DNA model" of cancer's origins are only anomalous because you have misinterpreted the data, made erroneous assumptions, and drawn faulty conclusions.

You said this: "I acknowledge that I do have a lack of biological principles, but it is from this position that I am allowed to come to any conclusion I want."

Although you might, in fact, "have a lack of biological principles," I think what you meant was that you lack any understanding of biological principles.  I've heard people apologize for their lack of education or be embarrassed by it; but never before have I seen someone relish, or exploit, his lack of knowledge.  You seem to be boasting that, because of your ignorance, you can come to any conclusion you want -- unlike the rest of us, you are not constrained by the facts. Hmmm... reminds me of Calvinball.

Finally, there was this statement:  "I know we can tear down this theory by saying that it doesn't jive with what we presently know, but this whole exercise is intended to question whether what we presently know is correct."

It's interesting to hear that you think of this as an "exercise".  Most of us on these boards are here because we're dealing with a life-threatening illness -- one that might, despite all our efforts, be the cause of our death. This is not an "exercise" for us.

I don't think I'm interested in doing any more of your homework assignments.

otter 

AnnNYC

Purple_X, your summary of the reovirus article is not correct.  The reovirus does not "turn on" the Ras pathway in cancer cells -- most cancer cells, unlike most healthy cells, already have the Ras pathway turned on.  The virus can only reproduce in cells in which the Ras pathway is already turned on.  The virus reproduces in these cancer cells, thereby killing them.

"This phenomenon" -- to paraphrase your original post -- would appear "a candidate [to which] to apply Occam's razor."  Namely, since the virus is killing the cancer cells, it is not necessary (and not parsimonious) to postulate an additional mechanism, such as that the "real" reason the cancer cells are being killed is that the virus is "tormenting" the immune system. 

luv_gardening

Purple, It's hard to read let alone understand your extremely long OP but here you seem to be saying that the immune system may be to blame for the proliferation of the cancer, yet the researchers are implying that stimulation of the anti-cancer immune system is a good thing which is the opposite to what you are suggesting here.

 "Cancer becomes much less mysterious if we simply take the point of view that the immune system is causing the lawless proliferation of growth, (since it is its job to do so,) and the immune system is also supplying the essential blood supply to support this newly generated growth, by way of inflammation (again, because it is its job to do so)."

 There is more here about the role of stem cells for anyone who is interested in real research...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145507.htm 

 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1126590820091211

and if anyone is interested in using viruses to treat cancer, these articles are about the use of various common cold viruses, adenovirus and coxsackie plus vaccinia which is used for the smallpox vaccine...

http://www.viralytics.com/index.cfm?action=dsp_content&contentID=21

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jan/11/cancer.infectiousdiseases

http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Cold-virus-is-scientists39-new.5293410.jp 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228123346.htm

Edited to correct spelling

Anonymous

Demagogy (also demagoguery) (Ancient Greek δημαγωγία, from δῆμος dēmos "people" and ἄγειν agein "to lead") is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public-typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist, populist or religious themes.

 Wikipedia

purple_X

It is exciting to think that the approach to fighting cancer is taking this shift. I apologise if using the word ‘exercise' has the connotation that this is in any way less serious a matter.

 I read the article provided by apple and understood the virus to be acting like an on-off switch. From the article; "When the Ras pathway is turned on, it turns off the virus defense mechanism in the cell so the virus can go in and replicate itself," Thompson continued.

I still find it confusing referring to the reovirus as an on-off switch either being applied to the ras pathway, or the virus defence mechanism, but I will accept Anna's summary.

Here is a portion from the article that SheilaEchidna provided called Common Cold Virus May Be New Weapon To Fight Cancer. "If successful, virus therapy could eventually form a third pillar alongside radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the standard arsenal against cancer, while avoiding some of the debilitating side-effects."

The use of virus's seems to be yielding positive results and I am claiming that whatever validates this approach , would also inadvertently validate my approach. I just have a problem with the explanation as to what is going on. From the same article;

‘"They replicate, you get a million copies in each cell and the cell bursts and they infect the tumour cells adjacent and repeat the process," said Prof Seymour.'

But for it to rupture the cell wall the mass would need to increase. I would ask, what causes the mass to change for it to rupture the cell from within? I can envision a balloon being blown up with a pump that is drawing air in from the outside, but how can a virus enter a cell, and then cause an exponential increase in the cell mass form within that cell, even if it did make a million copies? A major stumbling block with their explanation comes from a basic understanding of physics. The spontaneous existence of matter is not allowed. If the molecules within the cell were to change there state, from a solid to a gas and required more room, then the volume could change and cause a rupture of the cell from within, but this is a completely different explanation to the one being suggested. My explanation is another example of just a completely different explanation. I don't feel that I have twisted or modified anything here so that if fits in with my views. It's not necessary because an explanation for these findings already fit nicely with the model that I have been promoting.

You all have a common enemy, but that common enemy is not me, it is cancer. I have not written anything to belittle this fight. I have trouble with the existing explanation for the positive results, and am suggesting an alternative explanation. Both explanations can't be right, but both may be wrong, Perhaps there is another explanation.

Husband11

Purple-X wrote:  But for it to rupture the cell wall the mass would need to increase.

 You don't understand the article or the subject well enough.  You need more basic knowledge to tackle this subject sensibly.  Your above statement is typical of your overly simplistic misunderstanding of the subject.  For the cell wall to rupture you do not need the mass to increase.  Enzymatic damage or disruption to the cell membrace would suffice, and is common in viruses that spread by cell lysis.  Hit the books and do some more reading before forming conclusions that the cell burst like a cow's belly filled with fermenting grain. 

apple

oh... i remember a story from my childhood about the belly of the beloved family cow bursting... perhaps by Laura Ingalls Wilder?

what was that?

thenewme

LOL!  I think it's probably just a case of regurgitated logorrhea from a drunken cow

purple_X

The explanation given by Professor Leonard Seymour, the leader of this pioneering research is, " you get a million copies in each cell and the cell bursts " .

There are several ways that a cell wall can become ruptured, but he didn't mention dissolved or eaten. He said that it "bursts". This is his explanation for what causes the death of the cancer cell.

Husband11

Purple-X wrote:

A major stumbling block with their explanation comes from a basic understanding of physics. The spontaneous existence of matter is not allowed.

 Yeah, right, its a major stumbling block.  I'm sure their detailed explanation goes beyond the spontaneous creation of matter, should you care to look into it. 

ananda8

Here is a link to the article by Professor Seymour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jan/11/cancer.infectiousdiseases

He seems to think that introducing live virus coated with a polymer to make it impervious to the immune system is a way of getting the virus into the tumor.  The replicants of the original virus would not have the coating.  Of course after the virus has killed all of the tumor cells, the professor expects that the immune system will kill the virus.  I think it is similar to introducing cats to island in order to control rats.  No one ever thought of the impact on the island system after the rats were gone.

The professor is talking about injecting cold virus or cow pox into the tumor.  This idea hasn't even reached stage 1 trials.  At the moment it is just an initial hypothesis

apple

it's about to begin Phase 3 trials

AnnNYC

Viral replication is not "spontaneous creation of matter" -- but I believe the process involves small soluble molecules, capable of permeating into and out of the cell through the membrane, being assembled into larger structures that are no longer capable of permeating out.  So then it gets a little crowded in the cell that has been commandeered by a virus! 

Again, it's not that new matter has been created -- it's that previously soluble small molecules (matter) have been assembled into larger non-soluble molecules (matter).  They "check in" but they can no longer "check out" -- if the virus, like the reovirus, is of the non-envelope type, it won't release new viruses by "budding" out of the cell.  Something's gotta give...

kalyla

Until the past century and the advent of lifesaving antiboitics such as pennicillin, the life expenctancy of the human race was 42 years old. People would die from fever following childbirth, small and large injuries, flu and colds. I think many of those premature deaths masked many of the ailments we as an "older" society now encounter. The 10 year old felled ffrm the flu, may have gone on to develop breastcancer at 60. The 30 year old man who died from an infection following a cut he recieved chopping wood, may have gone on to develop heart problems at 70. Do you see my point? We only see more degenerative diseases now because people are living longer.

ananda8

apple,

do you have a link to the results of phase I and phase II results?

AnnNYC

Notself (are you an immunologist, by the way? the term "notself" is famous in immunology!), here is a link to the most recent report I could find of a Phase I/II trial of reovirus:

http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=65&abstractID=35014

And here are some other abstracts about oncolytic viruses:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19565924
Methods Mol Biol. 2009;542:607-34.
Oncolytic viral therapy using reovirus.
Thirukkumaran C, Morris DG.
Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Department of Medicine and Oncology, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Current mainstays in cancer treatment such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy, hormonal manipulation, and even targeted therapies such as trastuzumab (Herceptin) for breast cancer or erlotinib (Tarceva) for non-small cell lung cancer are limited by lack of efficacy, cellular resistance, and toxicity. Dose escalation and combination therapies designed to overcome resistance and increase efficacy are limited by a narrow therapeutic index. Oncolytic viruses are one such group of new biological therapeutics that appears to have a wide spectrum of anticancer activity with minimal human toxicity. Because the malignant phenotype of tumours is the culmination of multiple mutations that occur in several genes eventually leading to aberrant signalling pathways, oncolytic viruses, either natural or engineered, specifically target tumour cells, taking advantage of this cellular deviant signalling for their replication. Reovirus is one such naturally occurring double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) virus that exploits altered Ras signalling pathways in a myriad of cancers. The ability of reovirus to infect and lyse tumours both solid and haematological, under in vitro, in vivo, and ex vivo conditions, is discussed in this chapter. The major mechanism of reovirus oncolysis of cancer cells has been shown to occur through apoptosis. In addition, the synergistic anti-tumour effects of reovirus in combination with radiation or chemotherapy has also been demonstrated for reovirus-resistant and moderately sensitive tumours. In most of the clinical trials undertaken to date, an anti-reovirus immune response has been seen likely circumventing efficacy. Investigation into the use of reovirus as an immune adjuvant is currently underway to try and re-direct this immune response to tumour. Reovirus phase I clinical trials have shown indications of efficacy and several phase I/II trials are ongoing at present. The extensive pre-clinical efficacy, replication competency, and low toxicity profile in humans has placed the reovirus as an attractive anti-cancer therapeutic for ongoing clinical testing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19832925
Int J Urol. 2009 Oct 13. [Epub ahead of print]
Oncolytic virus therapy for prostate cancer.
Fukuhara H, Homma Y, Todo T. 
Department of Urology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract The use of replication-competent viruses that can selectively replicate in and destroy neoplastic cells is an attractive strategy for treating cancer. Various oncolytic viruses have been taken to clinical trials since a recombinant virus was first applied to cancer patients a decade ago. The concept of the therapy is simple: infectious virus kills the host cancer cells in the course of viral replication. It is important, however, that the virus does not harm the surrounding normal tissue. Oncolytic viruses can be classified largely into two groups: DNA viruses genetically engineered to achieve cancer specificity (e.g. adenovirus, herpes simplex virus and vaccinia) and RNA viruses of which human is not the natural host (e.g. Newcastle disease virus and reovirus). Prostate cancer has always been one of the major targets of oncolytic virus therapy development. The result of six clinical trials for prostate cancer has been published and several trials are now going on. Forty-eight of 83 (58%) patients evaluated in the phase I studies demonstrated a >25% decrease in serum prostate-specific antigen level without evidence of severe toxicities. The result shows the oncolytic virus therapy is promising toward clinical application. Here, we review the recent advances in the field and summarize the results from clinical trials.