Survival

[Kumar]

Although I concluded but following information can be relevant to topic:-

Potency
One hypothesis regarding pathogens states that the longer a pathogen can survive outside of the body, the more dangerous it can be to a potential host.[citation needed] For example, the smallpox virus (variola virus) can survive outside the human body for approximately 885 days. It is also one of the most deadly pathogenic viruses, as it kills between 20-50% of the people it infects. The tuberculosis bacterium kills 1 in 5 of the people it infects, but only survives 244 days outside of its host. However, research into the basis of the ability of pathogens to cause disease provides evidence from multiple and diverse species of the existence of pathogenicity or virulence factors, encoded within the pathogens' genetic material, that facilitate microbes to cause disease.

In countries that have higher sanitation standards, pathogens cannot survive for as long outside of the human. This is seen as encouragement to mutations to the pathogen which would make it less deadly, as such mutations would allow the pathogen to survive in the host for longer periods of time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogen

 

[Sledge]

Can you explain how it's relevant to the topic?

For that matter, what the heck IS the topic?

 

[Taffer]

Hello all,

We had mostly good discussions in this thread & got ideas about Pathogenic & cancer cell 's Survial vs. host survival. Pathgens may not like to kill host for their survival benefit as they need to survive for long but still defficiency of nutrients may kill the host. Some variations in this aspect are indicated. Cancer cells, because defective(mad in my sense) & as don't need survial for long, their uncontrolled multiplication can become a reason of the death of host. Fasting/defficient food issue is bit unclear because better food or better distribution of food(if possible from fasting) can also be a cause to getting better food to bacterias & cancer cells, which can either be benefitial in short term(they remain calm) to host but harmful in long run(their multiplications). Is it all that which I learned here? Still one can have more idea by checking following quote/link about pathogens:-

Thanks for the contributions. We can now move on to next topic. I may like to understand more about Cancer, possibilty of getting some treatment by non-killing(by us) method. improving DNA repair, avoiding odds, Improving immunity, manipulating cellular adhesions--adhesion molecules, nutrients maniplulations etc.can be relevant.

With best wishes.

*sigh*

No Kumar, fasting will not help in any way. It does not redistribute food. All it does is starve you.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

As Taffer said Kumar, fasting is NOT helpful for a cancer patient.
Nor do you have any form of control of where nutrients come from once you start fasting.
You do know that your body starts by degrading muscle tissue before it starts on fat right?
And that while it can get energy from your fat reserves, they do not contain all the vitamins and minerals your body also needs that can only be obtained from food?
And that any mechanism to gain food from your body be definition is less efficient than getting it from your gut?
And that while you are doing that the cancer cells will still get exactly the same proportion of nutrients that they got before and therefore will still outgrown the host?

There is NO magical way to wish cancer gone. Not trough fasting, not through praying, not through doing nothing. The only succesful cures for cancer have come through modern medicine and those are still few and far between, hence the immense amount of research into the subject.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Good point. Two aspects are there. One is need other greed. We may want anything for both but it is enjoyble for need but can be stressful for greed.

Actually, greed does not come into it. The basic reason we crave some foods even if we don't need them, is evolutional. Sugar, fat, and salt have been difficult to get for most of mankind's history (and even before we became human). So our body rewards us (with a feeling of well-being) for eating such foods whenever they are available. For millions of years, and actually even today for part of humanity, this was/is not a problem, because naturally, sources of sugar, fat, and salt are fairly rare, so there is no risk of getting too much.

However, in modern times, and here I mean since we invented agriculture 5-10,000 years ago, we have become able to produce such foodstuffs in excess. And we therefore have the risk of overindulging.

So, there is one 'modren and unnatural' for you. Would you like to be back in the hunter/gatherer age?

Hans

 

[Kumar]

As Taffer said Kumar, fasting is NOT helpful for a cancer patient.
Nor do you have any form of control of where nutrients come from once you start fasting.
You do know that your body starts by degrading muscle tissue before it starts on fat right?
And that while it can get energy from your fat reserves, they do not contain all the vitamins and minerals your body also needs that can only be obtained from food?
And that any mechanism to gain food from your body be definition is less efficient than getting it from your gut?
And that while you are doing that the cancer cells will still get exactly the same proportion of nutrients that they got before and therefore will still outgrown the host?

There is NO magical way to wish cancer gone. Not trough fasting, not through praying, not through doing nothing. The only succesful cures for cancer have come through modern medicine and those are still few and far between, hence the immense amount of research into the subject.

OK thanks. I tried to check targeted therapies other than chemo, radiation & surgery. However I can not find any therapy based on manipulation of cell adhesion & adhesion molecule. Do you have any idea about it. Can such manipulation benefit in cancer?

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK thanks. I tried to check targeted therapies other than chemo, radiation & surgery. However I can not find any therapy based on manipulation of cell adhesion & adhesion molecule. Do you have any idea about it. Can such manipulation benefit in cancer?

I think I have read about some reseach in that direction. Not sure how far they are, or even what he results were. But there is no such therapy in use.

Hans

 

[kerikiwi]

OK thanks. I tried to check targeted therapies other than chemo, radiation & surgery.

There are no other therapies which work.

 

[Kumar]

Actually, greed does not come into it. The basic reason we crave some foods even if we don't need them, is evolutional. Sugar, fat, and salt have been difficult to get for most of mankind's history (and even before we became human). So our body rewards us (with a feeling of well-being) for eating such foods whenever they are available. For millions of years, and actually even today for part of humanity, this was/is not a problem, because naturally, sources of sugar, fat, and salt are fairly rare, so there is no risk of getting too much.

However, in modern times, and here I mean since we invented agriculture 5-10,000 years ago, we have become able to produce such foodstuffs in excess. And we therefore have the risk of overindulging.

So, there is one 'modren and unnatural' for you. Would you like to be back in the hunter/gatherer age?

Hans

This is quite fair post. However previous experiance/impression of defficiencies/starvation may also predispose us in overindulging & overeating. Probably this can a basis of developing greed. Other way, overindulging may cause resistances(inhibitions of normal functions) & tolerances alike IR, so inspite of over-fed, craving still continue. People craving for money, drinks etc can increase after previous over indulging.

 

[Kumar]

*sigh*

No Kumar, fasting will not help in any way. It does not redistribute food. All it does is starve you.

In an over-fed or over-stored or accumulated substances, how homeostatis can be achieved? Homeostatis should be better health than such overs.

 

[Taffer]

In an over-fed or over-stored or accumulated substances, how homeostatis can be achieved? Homeostatis should be better health than such overs.

Eat less, exercise more, have a well balanced diet. Do NOT eat nothing.

 

[Mojo]

Eat less, exercise more, have a well balanced diet.

He's had this suggested before, but doesn't seem to like the idea.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

OK thanks. I tried to check targeted therapies other than chemo, radiation & surgery. However I can not find any therapy based on manipulation of cell adhesion & adhesion molecule. Do you have any idea about it. Can such manipulation benefit in cancer?

Possibly, along with a hundred other ideas. Like I said, cancer research is a HUGE field of hundreds of people trying to discover everything from early warning to cures.
However, since what we call 'cancer' is actually a vast array of genetic defects in different areas of our genome in different cells with different sub stages all finally leading to a similar effect it is a very difficult thing to get a grip on.

Taking the adhesion as an example. It is probably really easy to design a chemical that will cause disintegration of cancer cells on a petri dish. However, since the adhesion mechanism used by cancer is also used by every other organ (including your skin) direct injection will just kill someone.

And targeting something to a specific area in the body is virtually impossible since blood flows everywhere.

And even IF you manage to specifically target the cancerous growth you need to prevent the cells from entering the bloodstream and re-attaching themselved throughout the body the moment it falls apart.

And if that all works then you need to keep checking as you might have missed something.

Once all of that works and is non-lethal and doesnt have disastrous side effects you have managed to find a cure for one specific sort of cancer that uses the targeted form of adhesion (provided it doesn't mutate).

By the time you have this you are talking several billion dollars in research and clinical trials. This is of course assuming that nothing goes wrong with any of these steps, which is where most anti-cancer research does actually fail, at which point its back to step one.

 

[Kumar]

Taking the adhesion as an example. It is probably really easy to design a chemical that will cause disintegration of cancer cells on a petri dish. However, since the adhesion mechanism used by cancer is also used by every other organ (including your skin) direct injection will just kill someone.

And targeting something to a specific area in the body is virtually impossible since blood flows everywhere.

And even IF you manage to specifically target the cancerous growth you need to prevent the cells from entering the bloodstream and re-attaching themselved throughout the body the moment it falls apart.

And if that all works then you need to keep checking as you might have missed something.

Thanks. What benefits on cancer, overexpression of adhesion molecules or its underimpression. Pls tell me as much as you can about adhesion relevance to cancer.

I assume, this can be the process for cancer development(simply non technical):-

{A person acquire(inherit?) some disposition/predisposition to getting cancer in due to some mutations in few cells. Other odds substances(carcinogens) are further exposed to those cells on long term baisis which is harming to those cells. Now those cells trying to protect either develop some coating around them to protect or develop some genetic change to handle those assualts. It may a film or a mucin coating or otherwise. This interfere in cell to cell interactions resulting avoiding of PCD. This process goes on to tumor formation & spred. I can't say whether such film or coating which protect cancer cell from outside insults & interfere in cell to cell interaction, is related to adhesion or adhissive substance or molecule which can be manipulated by some target therapy to remove or dilute such film enabling normal interactions & cell suicide. However such asdhesion on one side may keep cells in limits(tumor) but if detached may spred to other sites.]

I can't say above make some sense or not. Pls tell.

Sorry but I found an important link about calory restriction & longevity. Pls don't take it otherwise & just check. There should be some relevance of DNA repair with cancer.

If the rate of DNA damage exceeds the capacity of the cell to repair it, the accumulation of errors can overwhelm the cell and result in early senescence, apoptosis or cancer...

Longevity and caloric restriction

Most life span influencing genes affect the rate of DNA damage.A number of individual genes have been identified as influencing variations in life span within a population of organisms. The effects of these genes is strongly dependent on the environment, particularly on the organism's diet. Caloric restriction reproducibly results in extended life span in a variety of organisms, likely via nutrient sensing pathways and decreased metabolic rate. The molecular mechanisms by which such restriction results in lengthened life span are as yet unclear (see[36] for some discussion); however, the behavior of many genes known to be involved in DNA repair is altered under conditions of caloric restriction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

Best regards.

 

[Kumar]

Eat less, exercise more, have a well balanced diet. Do NOT eat nothing.

I was talking about fasting for some time not starvation. Ok you can also take it as eating less(balanced diet), using more & stressing less. I don't know what is basis of diabetes, odd eatings, inactivity & chronic stress causing odd insulin secretion(both way) OR inherited defect other than these odds.

 

[Mojo]

I was talking about fasting for some time not starvation. Ok you can also take it as eating less(balanced diet), using more & stressing less.

No. Fasting means eating nothing, not eating less.

 

[Kumar]

No. Fasting means eating nothing, not eating less.

I think there is a confusion here. I meant to bring nutrients to optimal or homeostsis level from previous over-fed or over stores or over accumulated levels. Nutrient should work better at this level.

 

[Taffer]

I was talking about fasting for some time not starvation. Ok you can also take it as eating less(balanced diet), using more & stressing less. I don't know what is basis of diabetes, odd eatings, inactivity & chronic stress causing odd insulin secretion(both way) OR inherited defect other than these odds.

No, fasting means eating nothing at all, not eating less.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Thanks. What benefits on cancer, overexpression of adhesion molecules or its underimpression. Pls tell me as much as you can about adhesion relevance to cancer.

I assume, this can be the process for cancer development(simply non technical):-

{A person acquire(inherit?) some disposition/predisposition to getting cancer in due to some mutations in few cells. Other odds substances(carcinogens) are further exposed to those cells on long term baisis which is harming to those cells. Now those cells trying to protect either develop some coating around them to protect or develop some genetic change to handle those assualts. It may a film or a mucin coating or otherwise. This interfere in cell to cell interactions resulting avoiding of PCD. This process goes on to tumor formation & spred. I can't say whether such film or coating which protect cancer cell from outside insults & interfere in cell to cell interaction, is related to adhesion or adhissive substance or molecule which can be manipulated by some target therapy to remove or dilute such film enabling normal interactions & cell suicide. However such asdhesion on one side may keep cells in limits(tumor) but if detached may spred to other sites.]

I can't say above make some sense or not. Pls tell.

Cells do not develop a coating to protect themselves from carcinogens (especially since one of the biggest carcinogens out there is oxygen) and the genetic machine to protect against DNA damage is already in place. There is no need to develop one. But like all natural things it is good, but not faultless.
The adhesion machinery is also already in place, after all, all cells in your body have this. Alterations in this *can* have an effect on cancer, but again, the sheer number of variations possible makes it impossible to generalize

Sorry but I found an important link about calory restriction & longevity. Pls don't take it otherwise & just check. There should be some relevance of DNA repair with cancer.



Best regards.

The paragraph you quoted already mentions it one down. There are also genes that are beneficial to lifespan when overfeeding and detrimental when the organisms are starved. And do bear in mind that calory restriction when applied to humans would constitute severe malnourishment. Even *IF* it were to increase our lifespan it would not be a life worth living. And it has no effect on cancer, it merely prolongs the organism's life, so you can still get sick and die.
It's also highly debatable how well results in yeast and c.elegans translate to humans to begin with.
Humans evolved to live to about 40-50, long enough to reproduce and care for 1 generation, so we already have extended our lifespan considerably and our bodies break down rapidly near the end.

 

[Taffer]

I think there is a confusion here. I meant to bring nutrients to optimal or homeostsis level from previous over-fed or over stores or over accumulated levels. Nutrient should work better at this level.

No, fasting does not do that. In fact, the body does not work that way. Fasting will not "rebalance" you.