Survival

[Kumar]

You still try to humanize and rationalize cancer cells.
They are not out to be better. They are not thinking, they are not in any way out to *do* anything.

Yes but for me these are just defective(madlike) ours. That day will be a good & holy day, when we shall achieve to correct them instead of killing them.

A cancer goes through a series of stages each of which can be their last and the length of which varies immensely
1: Initial mutation that relaxes the control of cell division
The cells multiply beyond what they would normally do, but are further harmless and can be stopped by simple things like physical resistance
2: Mutations in DNA repair in response to increase multiplication.
This is both the result of and the reaction to the multiplication defect. DNA repair in most tissues is relatively slow due to the slow replication rate. If cells replicate faster its more likely that this system gets subverted
3: Initial tumor.
With the loss of DNA control the cells can replicate faster and will start being destructive to their environment and also rapidly start accumulating various mutations, but are still linked to their point of origin
4: Metastatis
Due to the accumulation of mutations the cells at some point become able to detach from the tumor, enter the bloodstream and attach at a different point in the body.

One point is that cancer cells, being our cells, are not recognized by immune cells as foreign, 2nd, they can also lose contacts with immune cells due to their mass(outer cells in a tumor are recognized but inner ones not). I am not sure if any defect in adhesion system can also interfere immune cells to recognize cancer cells at any stage. Ok?

Now whatever the case, upto what stage/mutaions, cancer cells can be corrected or killed by our body mechansms if they are free or exposed?

Although at stage 3 and 4 in theory there is a chance the surface of the cells will alter to such a degree that the patients immune system will respond to them, this is by no means a given, and there is always the possibility that the cells the immune system recognizes and destroys are not the ones actually doing the damage. But all of this is the result of a cascade of mutations and not any conscious decision of the cancer cells. A great many get stuck in stage one and never become dangerous.

Do you mean that those who are not doing damage are still cancer cells but to lesser degree?

Is it always better that mutated cells(partially & completely) remain stuck or at any iinitial stage, if they are unbound, then they can be better handled by our defence mechanisms?

I realize that this is a simplification, but I really don't know any way to make it more clear without the need for you to truly immerse yourself in genetics and human biochemistry. At some point such knowledge in necessary if you want to know more about the mechanisms underlying cancer. This is not some secret way to keep knowledge from the layman, but its like trying to explain quantum mechanics to someone who has never had more maths than what is given in high school, or asking someone to build a building when you've never had more than standard woodcraft.

I do read a lot. While discussing, I do read a lot before posing & after posting, when I get some idea. But I feel text book readings may give you an idea in theory where you can locate any required information because it may be beyong a capacity of brain to really keep everything in it esp. at looking on so much & daily increasing understandings. Moreover, one may read & remember, but may not be able to study & effect by compiling everything at a time. I do observed that many understandings are there but they are quite sacattered-- even in mind. So compiling these is very necessary for the justified & effective knowledge. Moreover, I get many brainstorming clues from different & uncommon source about many unclear understandings, therefore want to comply with current understandings. Probably if we could make things simple & clear, it can help better.

I think you have not seen one of may yesterday's post. Pls llok & reply.

Best regards.

 

[Kumar]

Not necessarily. You might eat more on the other days.

When you are fasting intentionally, it should mean you are doing something to reduce, intentionally.

 

[Kumar]

Are you a real doctor?

Are you trying to derail thread, nitpicking or contributing?

 

[Kumar]

Sorry I’ve been quite busy lately so I have not had a chance to respond.

No problem, though it wasn’t all that technical.

Those can be for me.

Well I think Lukraak_Sisser put it quite eloquently and succinctly.

OK, glad we have cleared that up.

Quite right.

Well again the problem is in targeting only the cancerous cells. Our immune systems can malfunction just like any other system. Generally those malfunctions result in one of two overall outcomes. The immune system becomes less effective and one becomes more vulnerable to opportunistic infections or diseases. Alternately the system becomes overactive and begins damaging otherwise healthy parts of our body.

It is possible that our interventions may damage otherwise health part while trealting unhealthy part but how immune cells can do that mistake unless they are madlike?

Will there not be a stage between immune weakening & immune stregthening---compromising(latency) enabling immune system to improve itself & attack later?

By the way, a scar is part of the “natural healing process”, some “interventions in natural healing process” (or more specifically assistance), like keeping the wound tightly closed, can help reduce possible scarring.[/QUOTE]

 

[Taffer]

Yes but it should be opimal. I taken in excess & got accumulated, it may need to balance.

No, it doesn't work that way. If you eat large meals, eating large meals regularly is healthier than eating large meals, and then eating nothing. The best way to create a healthy body is to slowly reduce meal size, slowly increase food variety, and slowly increase exercise.

 

[Taffer]

Yes but for me these are just defective(madlike) ours. That day will be a good & holy day, when we shall achieve to correct them instead of killing them.

If we can "correct" them, great, but I doubt that will happen any time soon. In most cases, the genome of cancerous cells is irreparably damaged. Just killing them is easier.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Yes but for me these are just defective(madlike) ours. That day will be a good & holy day, when we shall achieve to correct them instead of killing them.

Agaim, using words like mad cancer cells implies some form of moral choice. Would you call an avalance evil? A tsunami a murderer? An earthquake insane?

One point is that cancer cells, being our cells, are not recognized by immune cells as foreign, 2nd, they can also lose contacts with immune cells due to their mass(outer cells in a tumor are recognized but inner ones not). I am not sure if any defect in adhesion system can also interfere immune cells to recognize cancer cells at any stage. Ok?

Our immune system is not as powerful as you seem to give it credit for. It 'recognizes' cells by the proteins displayed on the outside. First of all, it can only do this in those areas where it can reach (mainly your blood and cirulatory system), which is not where most cancers reside. And secondly it takes a significant change for the immune system to react to cells, else it would kill off its host cells too quickly. Wether cells adhere or not has nothing to do with if the immune system will recognize them as foreign.

Now whatever the case, upto what stage/mutaions, cancer cells can be corrected or killed by our body mechansms if they are free or exposed?

Generally they can't. ONLY if by total happenstance one of the first mutations to occur after the cells become dangerous happens to truly modify the surface proteins AND the cells are in reach of the immune system could the immune system respond. There is no other mechanism to deal with cancer, as the DNA control has already been bypassed by that point

Do you mean that those who are not doing damage are still cancer cells but to lesser degree?

I mean that the point at which we call it cancer is rather arbitrary. Moles and warts are a form of uncontrolled division

Is it always better that mutated cells(partially & completely) remain stuck or at any iinitial stage, if they are unbound, then they can be better handled by our defence mechanisms?

For a patient its always better if the cells remain stuck at stage one, since then you are not ill. Each of us HAS such cells in them at this moment, but as I said, there is little to none your body can do to handle cancer as it doesn't recognize it as a threat

I do read a lot. While discussing, I do read a lot before posing & after posting, when I get some idea. But I feel text book readings may give you an idea in theory where you can locate any required information because it may be beyong a capacity of brain to really keep everything in it esp. at looking on so much & daily increasing understandings. Moreover, one may read & remember, but may not be able to study & effect by compiling everything at a time. I do observed that many understandings are there but they are quite sacattered-- even in mind. So compiling these is very necessary for the justified & effective knowledge. Moreover, I get many brainstorming clues from different & uncommon source about many unclear understandings, therefore want to comply with current understandings. Probably if we could make things simple & clear, it can help better.

I think you have not seen one of may yesterday's post. Pls llok & reply.

Best regards.

The thing is that the questions you want awnsered here are extremely advanced stuff. It's hard to fully explain even less sweeping questions about cancer to final year university students with several years knowledge of biochemistry and genetics. How adherin mutation relates to the mortality rate of a specific type of cancer would typically be a 4 year PhD project for someone, usually assisted by one or two others. I cannot awnser your question not because I do not want to, but I don't have the time and JREF won't give me the bandwith to write it all down with paper citations and scans of books that would be needed backed with experiments done in a lab I do not possess.

Your original question was why cancer cells would want to kill us.
The general consensus awnser from those involved in the field has been that they do not 'want' to do that, its a side effect from the malfunction that causes cancer.
You also asked if fasting would aid cancer patients and got as a consensus awnser that doing that would in fact be very harmful.
These awnsers were not given to spite you, or to belittle you, but they are the awnsers that have come up trough the accumulated knowledge of cancer and the human body over they years since we started research.

Now you can chose to accept that we to an extent know what we are talking about, or that we are wrong, but in that case the only way to prove it would be to perfom such experiments yourself, which would most likely require you to follow a very extensive course in the field. If you then do manage to prove that fasting would cure cancer you are looking at an immediate nobel prize.

I will keep trying to awnser your questions, but please understand that you have reached a point where it becomes harder and harder to do that in a way that makes sense to a layman

 

[The Man]

Those can be for me.



Quite right.



It is possible that our interventions may damage otherwise health part while trealting unhealthy part but how immune cells can do that mistake unless they are madlike?

Certainly it is possible, and demonstrably so, "that our interventions may damage otherwise health part while trealting unhealthy part". However, “how immune cells can do that mistake unless they are madlike” still indicates that you’re trying to “humanize and rationalize” cells. Is your TV or car “madlike” if they no longer function properly? Are they also “madlike” if they do function correctly but are just receiving some extraneous input?

Will there not be a stage between immune weakening & immune stregthening---compromising(latency) enabling immune system to improve itself & attack later?

Sure, that is what might be considered normal functioning, but again everyone is different as is everyone’s immune system. So we do not respond to the same stimulus in entirely the same fashion. Also, although availability of system resources will vary from person to person, time to time and situation to situation, those resources are still finite. So activity in one area can hamper availability in another or lack of activity in one area can make resources available for other activities (much as others mentioned before about resting to aid in recuperation).

 

[Kumar]

No, it doesn't work that way. If you eat large meals, eating large meals regularly is healthier than eating large meals, and then eating nothing. The best way to create a healthy body is to slowly reduce meal size, slowly increase food variety, and slowly increase exercise.

It is right way but when wrong way already practiced? Don't we need eating less in any condition?

 

[Kumar]

If we can "correct" them, great, but I doubt that will happen any time soon. In most cases, the genome of cancerous cells is irreparably damaged. Just killing them is easier.

If so then probably when our defence could better handle them.

 

[Kumar]

Agaim, using words like mad cancer cells implies some form of moral choice. Would you call an avalance evil? A tsunami a murderer? An earthquake insane?

Many thanks for detailed awnsers inspite of my odds. Better, I shall use defective or mutated cells.

Our immune system is not as powerful as you seem to give it credit for. It 'recognizes' cells by the proteins displayed on the outside. First of all, it can only do this in those areas where it can reach (mainly your blood and cirulatory system), which is not where most cancers reside. And secondly it takes a significant change for the immune system to react to cells, else it would kill off its host cells too quickly. Wether cells adhere or not has nothing to do with if the immune system will recognize them as foreign.

I somewhere read, not all cancer cell seprated from tumor can cuase cancer development at other parts and chances are quite less because our defence mechanism will kill them in circulation Is it correct? Is so and as you told, is it also a major reason in cancer development that immune cells are not able to reach to cancer site or to cancer cells even after they can be recognised?

Can there be a chance that mutated cells develop some kind of protection so that they are not recognised by immune cells esp in tumor stage?

Generally they can't. ONLY if by total happenstance one of the first mutations to occur after the cells become dangerous happens to truly modify the surface proteins AND the cells are in reach of the immune system could the immune system respond. There is no other mechanism to deal with cancer, as the DNA control has already been bypassed by that point

Sorry & thanks for your politeness & broadmindedness like a teacher. However it may sometimes benefit, if we can get better understandings & some new clues by going deep & deep. New things may also come this way.

Yes but it can be rare so immaterial. Btw, whether immune cells are fully capable of killing all types of cancer cells at all stages, if they can reach to them & recognize them as odd?

I mean that the point at which we call it cancer is rather arbitrary. Moles and warts are a form of uncontrolled division

Ok.

For a patient its always better if the cells remain stuck at stage one, since then you are not ill. Each of us HAS such cells in them at this moment, but as I said, there is little to none your body can do to handle cancer as it doesn't recognize it as a threat

By stuck I meant, is it better that cancer cells do not unbound from tumor & remain stuck to primary site from stage I to III? Can we have some benefit if they seprate during first two stages?

The thing is that the questions you want awnsered here are extremely advanced stuff. It's hard to fully explain even less sweeping questions about cancer to final year university students with several years knowledge of biochemistry and genetics. How adherin mutation relates to the mortality rate of a specific type of cancer would typically be a 4 year PhD project for someone, usually assisted by one or two others. I cannot awnser your question not because I do not want to, but I don't have the time and JREF won't give me the bandwith to write it all down with paper citations and scans of books that would be needed backed with experiments done in a lab I do not possess.

Your original question was why cancer cells would want to kill us.
The general consensus awnser from those involved in the field has been that they do not 'want' to do that, its a side effect from the malfunction that causes cancer.
You also asked if fasting would aid cancer patients and got as a consensus awnser that doing that would in fact be very harmful.
These awnsers were not given to spite you, or to belittle you, but they are the awnsers that have come up trough the accumulated knowledge of cancer and the human body over they years since we started research.

Now you can chose to accept that we to an extent know what we are talking about, or that we are wrong, but in that case the only way to prove it would be to perfom such experiments yourself, which would most likely require you to follow a very extensive course in the field. If you then do manage to prove that fasting would cure cancer you are looking at an immediate nobel prize.

I will keep trying to awnser your questions, but please understand that you have reached a point where it becomes harder and harder to do that in a way that makes sense to a layman

 

[Kumar]

Certainly it is possible, and demonstrably so, "that our interventions may damage otherwise health part while trealting unhealthy part". However, “how immune cells can do that mistake unless they are madlike” still indicates that you’re trying to “humanize and rationalize” cells. Is your TV or car “madlike” if they no longer function properly? Are they also “madlike” if they do function correctly but are just receiving some extraneous input?

There can be different consideration to things & beings esp. us. If so, should we also kill our children if they become defective or mad? We should go on trying to find more & ways.

Sure, that is what might be considered normal functioning, but again everyone is different as is everyone’s immune system. So we do not respond to the same stimulus in entirely the same fashion. Also, although availability of system resources will vary from person to person, time to time and situation to situation, those resources are still finite. So activity in one area can hamper availability in another or lack of activity in one area can make resources available for other activities (much as others mentioned before about resting to aid in recuperation).

Thanks. Can there be active stage after such latency, when immune system become too strong & is now able to handle by exposing disease causing agents to them as a direction to cure? I think, active state after latent stage is usually considered as progress of disease & so treated acoordingly (eg in TB).

 

[Mojo]

By stuck I meant, is it better that cancer cells do not unbound from tumor & remain stuck to primary site from stage I to III? Can we have some benefit if they seprate during first two stages?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I somewhere read, not all cancer cell seprated from tumor can cuase cancer development at other parts and chances are quite less because our defence mechanism will kill them in circulation Is it correct? Is so and as you told, is it also a major reason in cancer development that immune cells are not able to reach to cancer site or to cancer cells even after they can be recognised?

Can there be a chance that mutated cells develop some kind of protection so that they are not recognised by immune cells esp in tumor stage?

In a way that is true. The immune system is generally unable to reach most tumors due to their location in the body and the way they grow, so even if a cancer progresses to the point that it is attacked by the immune system it still is hard. Also bear in mind that the immune system perfectly capable of being overwhelmed. While it can deal with some foreign material and destroy it, there are limits. Terminal cancer (the one that is spreading throughout the body) generally grows too fast to deal with even if it could be reached.
And yes, there is nothing to prevent a cancer that is recognized by the immune system from mutating to the point that it is protected again. But again, by the time this happens its generally a sideshow.

Sorry & thanks for your politeness & broadmindedness like a teacher. However it may sometimes benefit, if we can get better understandings & some new clues by going deep & deep. New things may also come this way.

Yes but it can be rare so immaterial. Btw, whether immune cells are fully capable of killing all types of cancer cells at all stages, if they can reach to them & recognize them as odd?

IF they could reach it and IF they reach it on time, then yes, the immune system could deal with it. I'm sure there is some research in that general direction, mainly by trying to infect cancer cells with something that would present foreign proteins on their cell wall. But the problem of location remains, and specifically transforming only cancer cells in a human is beyond current technological capacity.

By stuck I meant, is it better that cancer cells do not unbound from tumor & remain stuck to primary site from stage I to III? Can we have some benefit if they seprate during first two stages?

No there is no real benefit if the cells become mobile early. But the thing is that we (currently) also cannot detect such anomalies early enough to begin with except by surgery that will kill a person. We're talking clumps of cells slightly different from their surrounding material, usually only less than a pinhead in size, that sometimes, if you're lucky, can be detected under a microscope. Otherwise you can only tell the difference using special forms of DNA recognition, but both methods require extensive preparation of slices of the body. Since you'd need a comprehensive library of slices you can see why this is not generally done as a preventive measure.
We know how this works because most of the research is being done in mice models, where we can take similarly infected/treated mice from a litter, kill one each day and see where in the body things are going wrong and extrapolate from there. Then when a human dies from cancer and donates (part) of their body to science we can do the same and compare and see what might have happened. But until we find a non-invasive, side effect free, cheap way of imaging every cell of the body in detail and then do scans every so often it is virtually impossible to detect the early stages of cancer.

 

[The Man]

There can be different consideration to things & beings esp. us. If so, should we also kill our children if they become defective or mad? We should go on trying to find more & ways.

How about just answering the question instead of invoking some special pleading? Your cells aren't "beings" or children by the way.

Is your TV or car “madlike” if they no longer function properly? Are they also “madlike” if they do function correctly but are just receiving some extraneous input?

Would you “kill” your TV or car if they no longer function properly or would you try to get them fixed. What type of considerations or constraints would contribute to your decision?

Thanks. Can there be active stage after such latency, when immune system become too strong & is now able to handle by exposing disease causing agents to them as a direction to cure? I think, active state after latent stage is usually considered as progress of disease & so treated acoordingly (eg in TB).

Sorry I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to ask here, but it does seem like you’re associating “active state after latent stage” as some kind of “progress of disease” which can be how some disease progress but need not be. Also you seem to be suggesting that some exposure to “disease causing agents” might be a course of treatment for some condition. While that might be possible it is not a general case and while it might treat symptoms or make them more bearable I doubt it would be a cure. Even if there was some specific case or condition, again it would not be the general case.

 

[Kumar]

In a way that is true. The immune system is generally unable to reach most tumors due to their location in the body and the way they grow, so even if a cancer progresses to the point that it is attacked by the immune system it still is hard. Also bear in mind that the immune system perfectly capable of being overwhelmed. While it can deal with some foreign material and destroy it, there are limits. Terminal cancer (the one that is spreading throughout the body) generally grows too fast to deal with even if it could be reached.
And yes, there is nothing to prevent a cancer that is recognized by the immune system from mutating to the point that it is protected again. But again, by the time this happens its generally a sideshow.

Overwhelming of immune cells esp. in early stage seems to be rare. So we can think about other conditions. What causes cancer cells to grow at a point & how it can be reversed? Whether experiments are done by manipulating unbounding of cancer cells or by giving some medicines which can disciurage forming of tumor/cancer cell mass?

IF they could reach it and IF they reach it on time, then yes, the immune system could deal with it. I'm sure there is some research in that general direction, mainly by trying to infect cancer cells with something that would present foreign proteins on their cell wall. But the problem of location remains, and specifically transforming only cancer cells in a human is beyond current technological capacity.

I think immunotherapy & other target therapies are been experimented. In view of so much hardships involved in cancer, It appears that ultimate cure may lie in manipulating body defence mechanism.It may be by exposing cancer cells to immune system as much as possible. Some risk may be involved in it of spreading cancer but I don't feel there can be other way for body cantrolled cure.

No there is no real benefit if the cells become mobile early. But the thing is that we (currently) also cannot detect such anomalies early enough to begin with except by surgery that will kill a person. We're talking clumps of cells slightly different from their surrounding material, usually only less than a pinhead in size, that sometimes, if you're lucky, can be detected under a microscope. Otherwise you can only tell the difference using special forms of DNA recognition, but both methods require extensive preparation of slices of the body. Since you'd need a comprehensive library of slices you can see why this is not generally done as a preventive measure.

Yes that is a problem. Can't immune cells recognize cancer cells earlier than we can recognize?

As I asked, is it there that cancer cells, in early stages develop some defence which can protect them by recognition by immune cells?. I think this is one mechanism used by other pathogens?

We know how this works because most of the research is being done in mice models, where we can take similarly infected/treated mice from a litter, kill one each day and see where in the body things are going wrong and extrapolate from there. Then when a human dies from cancer and donates (part) of their body to science we can do the same and compare and see what might have happened. But until we find a non-invasive, side effect free, cheap way of imaging every cell of the body in detail and then do scans every so often it is virtually impossible to detect the early stages of cancer.

Yes lot of hardships are there. Regards.

 

[Kumar]

How about just answering the question instead of invoking some special pleading? Your cells aren't "beings" or children by the way.

Ok not children but us as someone told.

Would you “kill” your TV or car if they no longer function properly or would you try to get them fixed. What type of considerations or constraints would contribute to your decision?

Simply, we may have to take decision about a thing and about a being(esp. when it is ours) with different consideration.

Sorry I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to ask here, but it does seem like you’re associating “active state after latent stage” as some kind of “progress of disease” which can be how some disease progress but need not be. Also you seem to be suggesting that some exposure to “disease causing agents” might be a course of treatment for some condition. While that might be possible it is not a general case and while it might treat symptoms or make them more bearable I doubt it would be a cure. Even if there was some specific case or condition, again it would not be the general case.

No I am trying to know that, can there be two states after latent stage, one meant towards direction of cure other direction towards increase of disease? Probably when immune system become substancially strong to deal with disease causing agents, active stage after latent stage may be meant for direction of cure(where immune system become capable to deal with those disease agents). If immune system weaken after latency than that can be a direction of progress to disease where infective agents become active to overwhelm immune system. I don't think that active type state after latency is considered as a direction towards cure & always taken as a direction to progress of disease. Probably not getting all symptoms related to disease may suggest somewhat that it can be a direction to cure.

 

[dafydd]

Are you trying to derail thread, nitpicking or contributing?

I just want to know if you are a real doctor.Judging by your posts,the answer is no.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Overwhelming of immune cells esp. in early stage seems to be rare. So we can think about other conditions. What causes cancer cells to grow at a point & how it can be reversed? Whether experiments are done by manipulating unbounding of cancer cells or by giving some medicines which can disciurage forming of tumor/cancer cell mass?

Yes, there are experiments in the direction of breaking up cancer (although not for the immune system, but to allow chemotherapy to reach all the cells). However like I said, its getting a specific chemical that breaks up cancer but not every other organ in your body that so far has not been found.

I think immunotherapy & other target therapies are been experimented. In view of so much hardships involved in cancer, It appears that ultimate cure may lie in manipulating body defence mechanism.It may be by exposing cancer cells to immune system as much as possible. Some risk may be involved in it of spreading cancer but I don't feel there can be other way for body cantrolled cure.

The immune system recognizes the outside of a cell, cancer is an error in the internal workings of the cell. And as I've mentioned before, the vast majority of cancer is never attacked by the immune systerm. There is not even a theorethical way to get the immune system to work inside cells. Immunotherapy involves trying to get antibodies against a cancer so that the immune system will attack it. So far it's not been a success, again due to the fact that as far as the immune system is concerned cancer cells are the same as body cells.

Yes that is a problem. Can't immune cells recognize cancer cells earlier than we can recognize?

No, because the immune system doesnt work like that. Its there to protect us from external threats. No more.

As I asked, is it there that cancer cells, in early stages develop some defence which can protect them by recognition by immune cells?. I think this is one mechanism used by other pathogens?

No, because cancer does not need such protection, as the immune system doesn't consider it a threat

 

[Kumar]

Yes, there are experiments in the direction of breaking up cancer (although not for the immune system, but to allow chemotherapy to reach all the cells). However like I said, its getting a specific chemical that breaks up cancer but not every other organ in your body that so far has not been found.

Sorry, do you mean breaking cancer cell or cencer cell mass-- tumor?

The immune system recognizes the outside of a cell, cancer is an error in the internal workings of the cell. And as I've mentioned before, the vast majority of cancer is never attacked by the immune systerm. There is not even a theorethical way to get the immune system to work inside cells. Immunotherapy involves trying to get antibodies against a cancer so that the immune system will attack it. So far it's not been a success, again due to the fact that as far as the immune system is concerned cancer cells are the same as body cells.

Btw, cancer cells become hyper or hypotonic after mutations? Are they become bit sticky inside the cells?

No, because the immune system doesnt work like that. Its there to protect us from external threats. No more.



No, because cancer does not need such protection, as the immune system doesn't consider it a threat

What about after they are recognizable to immune cells? Do they develop some protection to avoid immune response? Regards.