Survival

[Taffer]

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

No, fasting is always unhealthy.

 

[Taffer]

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

No, our immune system ignores cancer cells because they are us.

 

[Kumar]

No, fasting is always unhealthy.

Ok thanks.

 

[Kumar]

No, our immune system ignores cancer cells because they are us.

Still I would like to understand, whether composition & tonicity of cancer cells changes resulting either cell swelling or cell shrinking?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

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

I ment breaking up a tumor. Some chemotherapy fails because it only reaches the outside of the tumor mass, hence disrupting the tumor would help. However as far as I know there is no chemical that can do this without also harming the patient. I think there is some work done with directed ultrasound, but as with all the rest of cancer, it also depends on the specific type of cancer

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

Since the mutations that cancers accumulate later tend to be rather random, I guess both could occur, or they dont become either.
I don't know what you mean about sticky inside a cell. Please bear in mind that the cytoplasm has the consistency of thick syrup to start with due to the sheer amount of protein in there.

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

Again, the mutations cancers accumulate are random. So yes, it is possible that a cancer line that through mutations becomes a target of the immune response then through later mutations gains protection again. However the short timespan which it has to evolve both responses before the patients die make this unlikely. Especially because cancer cells that gain an immune response are selected against, so that part of the cancer that did not gain this mutation will outgrow it.
Mutations are not retroactive. A cancer contains millions of cells and each of these can gain mutations independently of each other. THe ones that make the cells grow faster are the ones that eventually end up as the majority of the population.

 

[Kumar]

I ment breaking up a tumor. Some chemotherapy fails because it only reaches the outside of the tumor mass, hence disrupting the tumor would help. However as far as I know there is no chemical that can do this without also harming the patient. I think there is some work done with directed ultrasound, but as with all the rest of cancer, it also depends on the specific type of cancer

Thanks again.

I think such breaking up a tumor is meant for maximum effect of chemotherapy. However can't this lead to travel of cancer cells to other part?

Since the mutations that cancers accumulate later tend to be rather random, I guess both could occur, or they dont become either.
I don't know what you mean about sticky inside a cell. Please bear in mind that the cytoplasm has the consistency of thick syrup to start with due to the sheer amount of protein in there.

Do we know changes in composition & size of cancer cell as compared to normal similar cell? What make cancer cell to look irregular in shape & somewhat shrinked? Does he lose some water(due to its tonicity change) & shrink? If so, Is there any change in intracellular potassium & calcium?

Again, the mutations cancers accumulate are random. So yes, it is possible that a cancer line that through mutations becomes a target of the immune response then through later mutations gains protection again. However the short timespan which it has to evolve both responses before the patients die make this unlikely. Especially because cancer cells that gain an immune response are selected against, so that part of the cancer that did not gain this mutation will outgrow it.
Mutations are not retroactive. A cancer contains millions of cells and each of these can gain mutations independently of each other. THe ones that make the cells grow faster are the ones that eventually end up as the majority of the population.

When cancer cells become independent how they colonize/stay attached as cancer mass/tumor?

This question occasionally confuse me;

Whether tumor formation(stay at one point) is an defence mechnism mediated condition or cancer cell's mediated? Regards.

 

[The Man]

Ok not children but us as someone told.

What? That still doesn't answer the question.

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

Back to the special pleading instead of just answering the questions. As no one has asserted or suggested killing the “being” “us as someone told” as a treatment (although you came close with your starvation “treatment”). This is not only special pleading, again; it is entirely irrelevant and superfluous to the discussion at hand. If you would just answer the questions you might find the actual considerations aren’t all that different.

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?

I still don’t understand. What “latent stage”? “meant towards direction of cure” by whom? “meant towards… increase of disease” by whom? You still seem to be attributing some kind of “mind” to the immune system when you seemed to assert that it was “Quite right” that we had cleared up the issue of you ascribing some “mind” to such biochemical functions.

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.

I still have no idea what you are trying to say or ask here. You need to be more specific, and as recommended by others before, studying biology and chemistry can help you with that.

Again the immune system itself can be “those disease agents” as in autoimmune diseases.

 

[Kumar]

I still don’t understand. What “latent stage”? “meant towards direction of cure” by whom? “meant towards… increase of disease” by whom? You still seem to be attributing some kind of “mind” to the immune system when you seemed to assert that it was “Quite right” that we had cleared up the issue of you ascribing some “mind” to such biochemical functions.I still have no idea what you are trying to say or ask here. You need to be more specific, and as recommended by others before, studying biology and chemistry can help you with that.

Latent is defined as under:-

1. Present or potential but not evident or active:
2. Pathology In a dormant or hidden stage: a latent infection. Eg.,

Latent tuberculosis is where a patient is infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, but does not have active tuberculosis disease.

Rest is either irrelevant or can be understood by understanding above definitions.

Again the immune system itself can be “those disease agents” as in autoimmune diseases.

Yes then?

 

[The Man]

Latent is defined as under:-

1. Present or potential but not evident or active:
2. Pathology In a dormant or hidden stage: a latent infection. Eg.,]

I know what latent means, it is your specific context of your usage that is not apparent.

Latent tuberculosis is where a patient is infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, but does not have active tuberculosis disease.

OK so you are talking about a particular disease being latent, which would be definition #2 above.

Rest is either irrelevant or can be understood by understanding above definitions.

Rest isn’t irrelevant and generally refers to “a patient” resting (being inactive or just less active). A disease being latent isn’t a disease that is “resting”. ‘Present but inactive’ would be definition #1 above for the patient and the infection (if both are latent at the same time). You seem to be mixing the two definitions, which is probably why the context of your usage of the word latent was not apparent. Please try to understand the above definitions.

Yes then?

“Yes then” what?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Thanks again.

I think such breaking up a tumor is meant for maximum effect of chemotherapy. However can't this lead to travel of cancer cells to other part?

Yes, one of the reasons cancer therapy is such a pot luck at the moment. Its a matter of priorities and risk assessment, which is discussed with the patient in question. It will usually come down to 'chemo at the moment isnt taking, you will die in X time. We can try this and possibly extend your survival but it can also go wrong and you'll die sooner'
I don't envy those that need to make these choices

Do we know changes in composition & size of cancer cell as compared to normal similar cell? What make cancer cell to look irregular in shape & somewhat shrinked? Does he lose some water(due to its tonicity change) & shrink? If so, Is there any change in intracellular potassium & calcium?

Again, cancer is a lump term for thousands, possibly several factors more of different genetic defects. Some types will have malformed cells, some won't. Some will alter their internal chemistry, some won't. It depends on the original cell, the original mutation turning it cancerous and the further accumulated mutations.

When cancer cells become independent how they colonize/stay attached as cancer mass/tumor?

This also depends on the particular cancer in question. The general mechanism is that a broken off cell ends up somewhere in a different tissue and then just starts multiplying again after it attaches to this tissue.

This question occasionally confuse me;

Whether tumor formation(stay at one point) is an defence mechnism mediated condition or cancer cell's mediated? Regards.

I don't understand what you mean with this last question. There is very little your immune system (which I assume you mean) has to do with cancer and it does not affect whether they become mobile or not.

Its best to see it like an avalance. At the top you have the inital rock that drops, and the further down the mountain you go, the more damage it will do. At any point it can stop due to natural effects, but there is absolutely nothing the guy at the bottom can do about that. Our cures pretty much amount to somebody at a different mountain using a cannon to try and stop the rocks falling on the man at the bottom. It *can* work, but its by no means sure. The immune system is the gun the guy at the bottom carries, very good at fending off other people, but the chances it'll stop the avalance is minimal as its not designed for the task.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, one of the reasons cancer therapy is such a pot luck at the moment. Its a matter of priorities and risk assessment, which is discussed with the patient in question. It will usually come down to 'chemo at the moment isnt taking, you will die in X time. We can try this and possibly extend your survival but it can also go wrong and you'll die sooner'
I don't envy those that need to make these choices

Thanks. That can be big issue. Is there anything common in cancer cells which keep them bound as a tumor? I am not sure that during initial stages, what is in host benefit, bounded cancer cells or free?

Again, cancer is a lump term for thousands, possibly several factors more of different genetic defects. Some types will have malformed cells, some won't. Some will alter their internal chemistry, some won't. It depends on the original cell, the original mutation turning it cancerous and the further accumulated mutations.

If so, what is common in cancer cells?

Ca2 is linked to cancer.
Why people with cancer get hypercalcaemia
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/coping...ly/calcium/high-calcium-in-people-with-cancer

Whether potassium instabilty(probably intracellular excess of K due to excessive transcellular movement) is common in cancer cells & patients?

This also depends on the particular cancer in question. The general mechanism is that a broken off cell ends up somewhere in a different tissue and then just starts multiplying again after it attaches to this tissue.

Yes.

I don't understand what you mean with this last question. There is very little your immune system (which I assume you mean) has to do with cancer and it does not affect whether they become mobile or not.

I meant, is it immune(defence) mediated mechanism to limit cancer spread by encapsuling it in tumor or cancell cell mediated? If tumor is simply a bunch of cancer cells nothing else, and if our defence mechanism can't recognize odds in mutated cells, we can say it is cancer cell mediated.

Its best to see it like an avalance. At the top you have the inital rock that drops, and the further down the mountain you go, the more damage it will do. At any point it can stop due to natural effects, but there is absolutely nothing the guy at the bottom can do about that. Our cures pretty much amount to somebody at a different mountain using a cannon to try and stop the rocks falling on the man at the bottom. It *can* work, but its by no means sure. The immune system is the gun the guy at the bottom carries, very good at fending off other people, but the chances it'll stop the avalance is minimal as its not designed for the task.

Yes thanks.

 

[Kumar]

I know what latent means, it is your specific context of your usage that is not apparent.



OK so you are talking about a particular disease being latent, which would be definition #2 above.

Not a particular disease but this aspact in general in all chronic diseases? I may also take developing tolerance and suppressions as somewhat latent.

Rest isn’t irrelevant and generally refers to “a patient” resting (being inactive or just less active). A disease being latent isn’t a disease that is “resting”. ‘Present but inactive’ would be definition #1 above for the patient and the infection (if both are latent at the same time). You seem to be mixing the two definitions, which is probably why the context of your usage of the word latent was not apparent. Please try to understand the above definitions.

Basic idea of both look to be same. It can be just a suppression of odds. In cancer term, probably tumor stage esp. Benign tumor is somewhat latent or suppressive stage.





“Yes then” what?[/QUOTE]

 

[The Man]

Not a particular disease but this aspact in general in all chronic diseases? I may also take developing tolerance and suppressions as somewhat latent.

Still it would be definition #2 and not all “chronic diseases” have a latent stage or phase or even the possibility of being latent.

Basic idea of both look to be same. It can be just a suppression of odds. In cancer term, probably tumor stage esp. Benign tumor is somewhat latent or suppressive stage.

Again a latent disease is not “resting”. No, latent can’t "be just a suppression of odds" as it specifically refers to the disease being present yet dormant, inactive or hidden. So the only suppression is an active suppression of the disease (not the odds of having or getting the disease) such that its affects tend to remain hidden. A benign tumor is not a “somewhat latent or suppressive stage” it is simply, well, benign. That is why it is called a benign tumor and not a “latent or suppressive stage” tumor.


Again study some basic biology and chemistry first, that will also help you learn some of the terminology. As it stands you’re just in over your head and flailing about.

 

[Kumar]

Still it would be definition #2 and not all “chronic diseases” have a latent stage or phase or even the possibility of being latent.

Yes it is related to many dormant infections(TB, latent virus etc.) but now LADA, latent diabetes etc. are on track. As such many chronic diseases if these have various states, primarry(acute), dormant & active, may be sometimes be named latent.

Again a latent disease is not “resting”. No, latent can’t "be just a suppression of odds" as it specifically refers to the disease being present yet dormant, inactive or hidden. So the only suppression is an active suppression of the disease (not the odds of having or getting the disease) such that its affects tend to remain hidden. A benign tumor is not a “somewhat latent or suppressive stage” it is simply, well, benign. That is why it is called a benign tumor and not a “latent or suppressive stage” tumor.

But if a resting phase of any disease can be followed by active phase, why it can't be treated as latent? An alcoholic a drug addict,, may acquire tolerance to these but can get serious stage afterwords. Why this is not latent?

Again study some basic biology and chemistry first, that will also help you learn some of the terminology. As it stands you’re just in over your head and flailing about.

I am trying simultaneously. However at certain point acedemic study become difficult. Then you can choose just specifics.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Thanks. That can be big issue. Is there anything common in cancer cells which keep them bound as a tumor? I am not sure that during initial stages, what is in host benefit, bounded cancer cells or free?

THe things keeping cancers together intially are whatever systems keep the cells together in the organ the cancer starts in. I'm not familiar enough with human cell-cell interaction to know if this mechanism is the same in all parts of the body or wether there are differences (I suspect the latter, but do not know for certain)

If so, what is common in cancer cells?

They all grow uncontrollably

Ca2 is linked to cancer.
Why people with cancer get hypercalcaemia
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/coping...ly/calcium/high-calcium-in-people-with-cancer

Whether potassium instabilty(probably intracellular excess of K due to excessive transcellular movement) is common in cancer cells & patients?

I'm sure that cancers use the Ca2+ and K+ that is present in the body and eventually can cause instabilities, but as the link you provided shows, this only happens in between 10-20% of all cancer patients, usually in the later stages. So while it is something that CAN happen it is by no means sure that it will, like every other symptom of cancer.

I meant, is it immune(defence) mediated mechanism to limit cancer spread by encapsuling it in tumor or cancell cell mediated? If tumor is simply a bunch of cancer cells nothing else, and if our defence mechanism can't recognize odds in mutated cells, we can say it is cancer cell mediated.

I know nothing of cancers being encapsulated. Maybe its something that sometimes happens, but I've never heard of it in any of the lectures I've been to. The immune system never does anything like that that I know of, so if it happens it's probably an anomaly caused by a specific form of cancer.

 

[The Man]

Yes it is related to many dormant infections(TB, latent virus etc.) but now LADA, latent diabetes etc. are on track. As such many chronic diseases if these have various states, primarry(acute), dormant & active, may be sometimes be named latent.

Medical and scientific terminology tends to be very specific, it helps to avoid confusion. So if there is some distinction between how certain states are named it is usually for very specific reasons.

But if a resting phase of any disease can be followed by active phase, why it can't be treated as latent? An alcoholic a drug addict,, may acquire tolerance to these but can get serious stage afterwords. Why this is not latent?

Again it is not “resting” that was the point, not that you can’t consider certain diseases as being latent, but that in being latent they aren’t “resting”. A tolerance to some drug is not an addiction being latent in fact tolerance is generally the result of active addiction (meaning heavy usage).

I am trying simultaneously. However at certain point acedemic study become difficult. Then you can choose just specifics.

The problem is you are trying to “choose just specifics” without getting the general knowledge down first. So as a result you end up postulating tolerance to some drug (by an addict) as some kind of latent stage of addiction. Addiction is the desire for the drug (or whatever) or more specifically the induced effects. So tolerance (a reduction in effectiveness due to heavy use) is actually a driving factor in some addictions (it takes more to get the same effect).

 

[paximperium]

@Kumar:
I'm just curious.

Why don't you actually spend your time and effort to get an actual medical education instead of running around and asking a whole host of questions that are often not related and which you often have no basic understanding to even form an actual question?

 

[Kumar]

THe things keeping cancers together intially are whatever systems keep the cells together in the organ the cancer starts in. I'm not familiar enough with human cell-cell interaction to know if this mechanism is the same in all parts of the body or wether there are differences (I suspect the latter, but do not know for certain)

I could find this link & your suspicion look to be right;

Cell-Cell Interactions
Direct interactions between cells, as well as between cells and the extracellular matrix, are critical to the development and function of multicellular organisms. Some cell-cell interactions are transient, such as the interactions between cells of the immune system and the interactions that direct white blood cells to sites of tissue inflammation. In other cases, stable cell-cell junctions play a key role in the organization of cells in tissues. For example, several different types of stable cell-cell junctions are critical to the maintenance and function of epithelial cell sheets. Plant cells also associate with their neighbors
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=cooper&part=A2058

Understanding of , what make cells to remain bounded at one point, can be important to know--whether this is cancer cell mediated or defence system's mediated.

They all grow uncontrollably

Sorry, i meant common biochemical changes/instability on becoming cancerous. Whether they display excessive intracellular Potassium?

Cancer cells look like, as if they are dehydrated or shrinked. Is it so, that they are bit dehydrated? Dehydration/water defficiency may be related to cells to become hards, i think as plants in dessets. Water plants on the other side can be bit delicate as money-plant.

I'm sure that cancers use the Ca2+ and K+ that is present in the body and eventually can cause instabilities, but as the link you provided shows, this only happens in between 10-20% of all cancer patients, usually in the later stages. So while it is something that CAN happen it is by no means sure that it will, like every other symptom of cancer.

Ca2 may also be related to vascular tone, signaling ion etc. Probably it may also effect blood supply to tumor.

What happens to blood flow to tumor? Is it decreased or increased? I suspect decreased which may somewhat control growth & multiplication of cancer cells.

I know nothing of cancers being encapsulated. Maybe its something that sometimes happens, but I've never heard of it in any of the lectures I've been to. The immune system never does anything like that that I know of, so if it happens it's probably an anomaly caused by a specific form of cancer.

What about non-cancerous tumors? Are they encapsuled or restricted anyway from outside environment?

 

[Kumar]

Medical and scientific terminology tends to be very specific, it helps to avoid confusion. So if there is some distinction between how certain states are named it is usually for very specific reasons.

Yes but more specifics may go on adding due to new understandings eg. latent diabetes.

Again it is not “resting” that was the point, not that you can’t consider certain diseases as being latent, but that in being latent they aren’t “resting”. A tolerance to some drug is not an addiction being latent in fact tolerance is generally the result of active addiction (meaning heavy usage).

I feel you are quote right here. Thanks. Whether cancer in early stages can be considered as latent(somewhat like HIV)?

The problem is you are trying to “choose just specifics” without getting the general knowledge down first. So as a result you end up postulating tolerance to some drug (by an addict) as some kind of latent stage of addiction. Addiction is the desire for the drug (or whatever) or more specifically the induced effects. So tolerance (a reduction in effectiveness due to heavy use) is actually a driving factor in some addictions (it takes more to get the same effect).

Thanks. At least you endorssed that latent can also be other way.

 

[Kumar]

@Kumar:
I'm just curious.

Why don't you actually spend your time and effort to get an actual medical education instead of running around and asking a whole host of questions that are often not related and which you often have no basic understanding to even form an actual question?

To get fruits, we may not need to understand deep of whole tree. Getting fruits is more important. Moreover You can't say I don't have any knowledge & interest. Although it can be different.