Cancer Science??

[Kumar]

Why not?

Because we can't make a theory on that basis.

 

[Kumar]

yes, but I have not seen anything suggesting that lactic acid generation causes cancer. It is a feature of tumors due to their hypoxic nature, but I can't imagine it being a causitive agent. If it was, you'd expect weight lifters to have increased incidence of cancer.

Simply it can cause acidic state which can move potassium extracellar & sodium intracellular--so the cell swelling. Btw what can be the effect of lactic acid in tumor.

 

[Mojo]

Because we can't make a theory on that basis.

Or are you just disregarding them because they don't fit your "theory"?

 

[Kumar]

Or are you just disregarding them because they don't fit your "theory"?

Not only mine. I have also provided link.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Simply it can cause acidic state which can move potassium extracellar & sodium intracellular--so the cell swelling. Btw what can be the effect of lactic acid in tumor.

Wow, it's hard to believe this is the man who was spouting the five elements theory in another thread. Here he talks about real elements and compounds. What happened to Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Space?

 

[joobz]

Sorry, Will it not be better if we say that they acquire mutations in genes? To me, acquiring mutations is secondary but basic question is that why they can get mutations? I assume it is due to cells become delicate due to odd exposures(I am not counting accidental mutations by chance).

it isn't secondary at all. It's a key feature. it's one of the primary classes of cancer causes. the problem here is you are using a catch all term "delicate" and then applying that to everything within that catchall. Unfortunately, some of the things you are grouping don't share outcomes.

Though I may be looking this possibilty bit differently but still,Can't we make local environment hypotonic limited to or near to cancer site?

That's the rub. That's the entire goal of any cancer therapy. The question here is if you could do that, why not use it in conjugation with a cancer agent which already shows efficacy?

Btw, whether cancer cell can get cytolysis or sucide, if they get hypotonic environment?

Yes. If you put cancer cells into pure water, they will swell and die.
If you put cancer cells into pure ethanol, they will delipidate and die.
If you put cancer cells into anoxic conditions, they will run out of O2 and die.
If you put cancer cells into motor oil, they will die.

It isn't hard to kill cancer. It is hard to kill cancer without killing healthy tissue.

I can't say, if there can be persistent oxidative stress? If you say, it may be ok.

What?

To understand it better, can you tell what can make normal cells to become so delicate that they can get mutations & increases their protective mechnisms? Whether carcinogens make cells delicate(by cell swelling, oxidative stress, inflammation--if it can also cause cell swelling or otherwise)?

There are a variety of ways in which an agent can cause cancer.
Some work to directly induce oxidation of the DNA. Some work to cause errors during replication. Some work to inhibit natural DNA repair mechanisms.

Cell swelling is a result of and not a cause of many of these mechanisms.

Though I feel I know it bit differently but still, why can't we make local environment near to cencer site(if not spread) hypotonic? I can't say, if hypotonicity to cancer cells can be selective?

Well, one reason is you may do more harm than good.

Let's say you intentionally swell the cells in a tumor, and the tumor starts to lyse. What do you think happens to the cancer cells which break free from the ruptured tumor bed that you just formed? How do you ensure those cells die before they are able to repopulate(metastasize) other locations?

 

[Kumar]

it isn't secondary at all. It's a key feature. it's one of the primary classes of cancer causes. the problem here is you are using a catch all term "delicate" and then applying that to everything within that catchall. Unfortunately, some of the things you are grouping don't share outcomes.

Why cells get mutations will not be promary to getting mutations?

That's the rub. That's the entire goal of any cancer therapy. The question here is if you could do that, why not use it in conjugation with a cancer agent which already shows efficacy?

That will be an issue of further research.

Yes. If you put cancer cells into pure water, they will swell and die.
If you put cancer cells into pure ethanol, they will delipidate and die.
If you put cancer cells into anoxic conditions, they will run out of O2 and die.
If you put cancer cells into motor oil, they will die.

It isn't hard to kill cancer. It is hard to kill cancer without killing healthy tissue.

What about if we make environment around the tumor bit acidic (i think it also happent naturally)? Can it make potassium to move out of cell and Na go into cell, making cancer cells to swell? Can't we target tumor only?

What?



There are a variety of ways in which an agent can cause cancer.
Some work to directly induce oxidation of the DNA. Some work to cause errors during replication. Some work to inhibit natural DNA repair mechanisms.

Cell swelling is a result of and not a cause of many of these mechanisms.

Yes, I read it;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen

However can there a basic & common reason to getting mutations?

Well, one reason is you may do more harm than good.

Let's say you intentionally swell the cells in a tumor, and the tumor starts to lyse. What do you think happens to the cancer cells which break free from the ruptured tumor bed that you just formed? How do you ensure those cells die before they are able to repopulate(metastasize) other locations?

Yes. But I feel that lactic acid in tumor may be meant to move K out of cells & Na into the cells--resulting cell swelling--probably a defence mechanism. It can be a slow & specific process selective to tumor. Can it be?

 

[Kumar]

Wow, it's hard to believe this is the man who was spouting the five elements theory in another thread. Here he talks about real elements and compounds. What happened to Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Space?

Sorry, we had already discussed a lot about it.

 

[joobz]

Why cells get mutations will not be promary to getting mutations?

because I'm interested in the central convergence steps. If mutation is a key step along the way, then it should be considered a primary cause.

If you are exposed to a mutagen, but don't get a mutation, you aren't likely to develop cancer.
If you are exposed to a mutagen and do get a mutation, you may well get cancer.

That will be an issue of further research.

No. That is the issue of current research. Your idea is behind a decade or two in terms of cancer therapy.

What about if we make environment around the tumor bit acidic (i think it also happent naturally)? Can it make potassium to move out of cell and Na go into cell, making cancer cells to swell? Can't we target tumor only?

Why should I care about any of this? If I can target cancer cells directly, why not simply deliver a highly toxic payload that will instantly kill the cell?

Yes, I read it;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen

However can there a basic & common reason to getting mutations?

Asked and answered. There are multiple paths to form mutations. This is well known and well described in the literature.

Yes. But I feel that lactic acid in tumor may be meant to move K out of cells & Na into the cells--resulting cell swelling--probably a defence mechanism. It can be a slow & specific process selective to tumor. Can it be?

You keep confusing causality here. Lactic acid build up in tumors is a result of poor oxygenation.

 

[dafydd]

Sorry, we had already discussed a lot about it.

If you call people telling you why you are wrong,and you ignoring them and posting more drivel a discussion.

 

[joobz]

Yes. But I feel that lactic acid in tumor may be meant to move K out of cells & Na into the cells--resulting cell swelling--probably a defence mechanism. It can be a slow & specific process selective to tumor. Can it be?

You'll need to be more specific before I can answer the question. You haven't provided any information regarding why you think lactic acid build up in the tumor would be different from that of any other hypoxic condition.

I just came back from a lecture where researchers were designing drugs which function to selectively inhibit proteosomes (the protein complexes that break down proteins within the cell). The current research thought is that through inhibiting the proteosomes, unfolded proteins accumulate and this induces apoptosis within the cell. Obviously, all cells have proteosomes, so general Proteosome inhibitors typically have systemic side effects, such as peripheral nerve damage. The talk I attended focused on looking at inhibitors of a subclass of proteosomes called immunoproteosomes, which seem to be experessed in a number of cancer types. By inhibiting this complex specifically, much of the toxicity of general proteosomes can be inhibited.

This is, of course, an oversimplification of the state of the research, but one that illustrates my point. You may have a concept that is of interest, but your description of it doesn't provide any clear idea to me that it is interesting. Further, your repeated emphasis of mentioning the potential membrane polarization effects of lactic acid doesn't help me understand how this is in anyway selective enough to be of use in cancer therapy.

 

[Kumar]

because I'm interested in the central convergence steps. If mutation is a key step along the way, then it should be considered a primary cause.

If you are exposed to a mutagen, but don't get a mutation, you aren't likely to develop cancer.
If you are exposed to a mutagen and do get a mutation, you may well get cancer.

That is true, but if we can understand the primary factors, we may take care for not to get cancer.

No. That is the issue of current research. Your idea is behind a decade or two in terms of cancer therapy.

Why should I care about any of this? If I can target cancer cells directly, why not simply deliver a highly toxic payload that will instantly kill the cell?

Yes, but if we can understand simpler means, we can avoid advese effects.

Asked and answered. There are multiple paths to form mutations. This is well known and well described in the literature.

Yes but there can be a common disorder prior to getting mutations(probably in our environmental factors--acid, base, water(mucus), temp., O2 concentration or in motions(contractions & relexations)>

You keep confusing causality here. Lactic acid build up in tumors is a result of poor oxygenation.

I previously provided following link which also suggest that withholding of iron is a modality of our body defence--either to starve cancer cells indirectly expose cells to increased lactic acid. Low iron can be relevent to low O2 & increased generation of lactic acid.

Iron Loading and Disease Surveillance

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no3/weinberg.htm

 

[Kumar]

If you call people telling you why you are wrong,and you ignoring them and posting more drivel a discussion.

I think science of cancer couldn't yet be known in absolute & final. So....

 

[Kumar]

You'll need to be more specific before I can answer the question. You haven't provided any information regarding why you think lactic acid build up in the tumor would be different from that of any other hypoxic condition.

I just came back from a lecture where researchers were designing drugs which function to selectively inhibit proteosomes (the protein complexes that break down proteins within the cell). The current research thought is that through inhibiting the proteosomes, unfolded proteins accumulate and this induces apoptosis within the cell. Obviously, all cells have proteosomes, so general Proteosome inhibitors typically have systemic side effects, such as peripheral nerve damage. The talk I attended focused on looking at inhibitors of a subclass of proteosomes called immunoproteosomes, which seem to be experessed in a number of cancer types. By inhibiting this complex specifically, much of the toxicity of general proteosomes can be inhibited.

This is, of course, an oversimplification of the state of the research, but one that illustrates my point. You may have a concept that is of interest, but your description of it doesn't provide any clear idea to me that it is interesting. Further, your repeated emphasis of mentioning the potential membrane polarization effects of lactic acid doesn't help me understand how this is in anyway selective enough to be of use in cancer therapy.

As per my last post. Self defence process should also take care, survival along with handling diseases.

Our goal to care cancer can be:-

1. To avoid odd exposures.
2. To take care of changes in responsible environmental factors to mutaions.
3. To enhance DNA repair & appoptosis.
4. To try to try treat cancer naturally by our own defence response.
5. By modern medical interventions--may be a last option in view of that Cancer cells being our own cells(somewhat like disordered children due to our odds).

 

[Sideroxylon]

I think science of cancer couldn't yet be known in absolute & final. So....

... you can ignore what is already known and make up your own fanciful narratives?

 

[Kumar]

... you can ignore what is already known and make up your own fanciful narratives?

Actually I feel it very odd, when an understanding is yet unclear, but still people try to resist new thoughts. New thoughts should be the basic of new Research.

 

[Mojo]

Our goal to care cancer can be:-

...

4. To try to try treat cancer naturally by our own defence response.
5. By modern medical interventions--may be a last option in view of that Cancer cells being our own cells(somewhat like disordered children due to our odds).

This is a seriously dangerous idea. Go to a proper doctor as soon as possible.

"Try[ing] to treat cancer naturally" and only getting proper medical attention as "a last option" results in people dying needlessly.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...cle379479.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/28/a...on-death-as-a-celebration-of-life-on-hbo.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Victims/craven.html
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/...al/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=4821

 

[Mojo]

Actually I feel it very odd, when an understanding is yet unclear, but still people try to resist new thoughts. New thoughts should be the basic of new Research.

Yes, but "new thoughts" that contradict what is already known need good evidence before they should be considered.

Keeping an open mind is not the same thing as letting your brain fall out.

 

[Kumar]

This is a seriously dangerous idea. Go to a proper doctor as soon as possible.

"Try[ing] to treat cancer naturally" and only getting proper medical attention as "a last option" results in people dying needlessly.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...cle379479.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/28/a...on-death-as-a-celebration-of-life-on-hbo.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Victims/craven.html
http://classic-web.archive.org/web/...al/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=4821

Yes, what to do? Science couldn't yet achieve better option.

 

[Kumar]

Yes, but "new thoughts" that contradict what is already known need good evidence before they should be considered.

Keeping an open mind is not the same thing as letting your brain fall out.

Good evidances can be secondary to good/right thoughts, previously.