RE: Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

[Guest guest]

History of prostate cancer, Although the prostate was

first described by Venetian

anatomist Niccolò Massa in 1536, and illustrated by Flemish

anatomist s

Vesalius in 1538, prostate cancer was not identified until 1853.[125]

Prostate cancer was initially considered a rare disease, probably because of

shorter life expectancies and poorer detection methods in

the 19th century. A few years ago there was an ancient body that was found I

think in the Russian Steppes of a man who died of prostate cancer. Be careful

to not make assumptions. Because it is not diagnosed doesn’t mean that it

doesn’t exist. That may be at least part of the issue with men in Africa

and in Asia.

Kathy

From:

ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of sammy_bates

Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:46 AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Curing cancer (just a couple of

paragraphs)

Curing prostate cancer may be difficult.

Whatever, it is important to understand the CAUSE to get on the right track.

Prostate cancer science does not offer us anything except to hark back to

Huggins and his PC / castrated dogs. There is little science and a lot of

spin:- Huggins .. Nobel prize .. has got to be good yadda yadda .. here try

this new form of chemical castration while we do some more research .....

The fact is that prostate cancer was virtually unheard of 150 years ago.

Archaeloogical samples are rare indeed. Ancient Egyptian and Chinese medical

texts do not mention it at all (they don't mention BC either which is

interesting - although other cancers are mentioned). PC is still very rare in

some parts of Far east SE Asia. Genetic differences do not explain this.

Diaspora from these low incidence regions 'acquire' diseases of the host

country in as little as a lifetime.

Curing prostate cancer may be difficult, but a lot can be achieved by first

understanding its true cause. Predictions can be made and tested using

retrospective / prospective studies on human populations. Attempts at

prevention can be initiated on the best evidence available. None of this is

happening right now because some people think it is too difficult, and yet others

fail to see a problem (we do have chemical castration drugs after all).

It is a pretty shambolic state of affairs. I predict prostate cancer rates will

soar as maternal alcohol drinking increases. We already have a PC time-bomb on

our hands in the UK after the relaxation of drink laws and the sight of legless

young women in the high street. I am not a moralist or anti-drink campaigner, I

am just stating the obvious after a moducum of scrutiny.

Sam.

Sam.

>

> I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by

> the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and

> progress seems to be very slow.

>

> Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:

>

> 1. Not enough money is going into research.

>

> That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money

> for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and

> smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money

> in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.

>

> 2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to

> protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.

>

> Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and

> their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company

> executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,

> blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than

> cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing

> research.

>

> 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts

> and solve the problems.

>

> I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of

> scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow

> minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard

> for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or

> medicine.

>

> Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses

> working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have

> a lot of extremely bright people working too.

>

> And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that

> progress has been so slow:

>

> 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.

>

> Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of

> 100,000,000,000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.

> Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of

> many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized

> into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced

> by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes

> with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,

> and post-transcriptional modifiers of many different types -

> some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years

> and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at

> all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling

> molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone

> at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve

> dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a

> submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely

> difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and

> which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals

> and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living

> cells.

>

> Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for

> example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in

> the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered

> in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been

> discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is

> to learn.

>

> This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!

>

> Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for

> those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -

> bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is

> different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes

> wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is

> still very poorly understood and something that no one has

> ever yet been able to stop.

>

> In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.

> It's going to require thousands of highly educated and

> intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most

> difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the

> co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem

> of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well

> funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.

>

> I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the

> first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive

> study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,

> I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not

> willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,

> if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature

> without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA

> replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,

> phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,

> cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the

> rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern

> cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well

> intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritative

> pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.

>

> You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of

> electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep

> understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_

> harder than either of those endeavors.

>

> People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,

> capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that

> they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never

> looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know

> how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single

> chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and

> never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of

> cancer.

>

> When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this

> or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, " Don't you

> believe yourself! " It was good advice.

>

> Alan

>

[Guest guest]

Sammy

I think you need to convince some of the cancer research organisations to take this up. It really needs expert consideration and the treatment concepts can go through the various trial levels.

On the group we can only say that because of the square world syndrome any potential concept needs to be checked and your logic given extra thought

From the graph you produced in the book your logic has potential, but we are not qualified to assess the detail and thus recommend it.

I think possibly we should rest this now and give the opportunity that if anyone has anything new to say then e-mail me at bryan.metcalf@... and If it has value I'll post it.

I'm quite willing to coem back to the discussion in a couple of months, Sammy can tell us of progress then. In the meantime it would be good if Sammy tells us again of his treatment history from diagnosis.

Best wishes

Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

Curing prostate cancer may be difficult. Whatever, it is important to understand the CAUSE to get on the right track. Prostate cancer science does not offer us anything except to hark back to Huggins and his PC / castrated dogs. There is little science and a lot of spin:- Huggins .. Nobel prize .. has got to be good yadda yadda .. here try this new form of chemical castration while we do some more research .....The fact is that prostate cancer was virtually unheard of 150 years ago. Archaeloogical samples are rare indeed. Ancient Egyptian and Chinese medical texts do not mention it at all (they don't mention BC either which is interesting - although other cancers are mentioned). PC is still very rare in some parts of Far east SE Asia. Genetic differences do not explain this. Diaspora from these low incidence regions 'acquire' diseases of the host country in as little as a lifetime.Curing prostate cancer may be difficult, but a lot can be achieved by first understanding its true cause. Predictions can be made and tested using retrospective / prospective studies on human populations. Attempts at prevention can be initiated on the best evidence available. None of this is happening right now because some people think it is too difficult, and yet others fail to see a problem (we do have chemical castration drugs after all).It is a pretty shambolic state of affairs. I predict prostate cancer rates will soar as maternal alcohol drinking increases. We already have a PC time-bomb on our hands in the UK after the relaxation of drink laws and the sight of legless young women in the high street. I am not a moralist or anti-drink campaigner, I am just stating the obvious after a moducum of scrutiny.Sam.Sam.>> I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by> the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and> progress seems to be very slow.> > Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:> > 1. Not enough money is going into research.> > That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money> for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and> smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money> in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.> > 2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to> protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.> > Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and> their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company> executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,> blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than> cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing> research.> > 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts> and solve the problems.> > I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of> scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow> minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard> for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or> medicine.> > Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses> working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have> a lot of extremely bright people working too.> > And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that> progress has been so slow:> > 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.> > Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of> 100,000,000,000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.> Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of> many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized> into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced> by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes> with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,> and post-transcriptional modifiers of many different types -> some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years> and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at> all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling> molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone> at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve> dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a> submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely> difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and> which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals> and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living> cells.> > Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for> example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in> the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered> in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been> discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is> to learn.> > This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!> > Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for> those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -> bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is> different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes> wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is> still very poorly understood and something that no one has> ever yet been able to stop.> > In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.> It's going to require thousands of highly educated and> intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most> difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the> co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem> of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well> funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.> > I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the> first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive> study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,> I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not> willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,> if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature> without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA> replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,> phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,> cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the> rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern> cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well> intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritative> pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.> > You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of> electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep> understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_> harder than either of those endeavors.> > People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,> capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that> they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never> looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know> how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single> chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and> never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of> cancer.> > When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this> or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, "Don't you> believe yourself!" It was good advice.> > Alan>

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2679 - Release Date: 02/10/10 07:40:00

[Guest guest]

Sam,

You seem very ready to jump to some definite conclusions with not much real evidence. I'm quite sure you've done more research than I have but for the record my mother was a life long tee-totaller yet I was diagnosed with PCa at age 48. Your statement 'the fact that prostate cancer was virtually unheard of 150 years ago' frankly staggered me. As Kathy Meade pointed out in her reply, life expectancy until VERY recent history was so short that PCa was very unlikely to be an issue for any man. It was the first thing that sprung to my mind. I really don't mean to make this a personal criticism but I think your 'stating the obvious' isn't helping any one diagnosed with this complex disease, which no doubt has multiple and possibly random causes. Forgive me if I am misreading your post but you seem to be laying the blame for most prostate cancer at the feet of alcohol drinking mothers?

I'm ex UK myself and I would imagine that the 'Gin Palaces' of the n era ejected many 'legless young women' on to the streets (though obviously not the 'High Streets' ) so it is not an entirley modern age phenomenom. If you pin prostate cancer on maternal drinking you make it easier for society to abandon research and simply clamp down on drinking.

Malaga, Spain

Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

Curing prostate cancer may be difficult. Whatever, it is important to understand the CAUSE to get on the right track. Prostate cancer science does not offer us anything except to hark back to Huggins and his PC / castrated dogs. There is little science and a lot of spin:- Huggins .. Nobel prize .. has got to be good yadda yadda .. here try this new form of chemical castration while we do some more research .....The fact is that prostate cancer was virtually unheard of 150 years ago. Archaeloogical samples are rare indeed. Ancient Egyptian and Chinese medical texts do not mention it at all (they don't mention BC either which is interesting - although other cancers are mentioned). PC is still very rare in some parts of Far east SE Asia. Genetic differences do not explain this. Diaspora from these low incidence regions 'acquire' diseases of the host country in as little as a lifetime.Curing prostate cancer may be difficult, but a lot can be achieved by first understanding its true cause. Predictions can be made and tested using retrospective / prospective studies on human populations. Attempts at prevention can be initiated on the best evidence available. None of this is happening right now because some people think it is too difficult, and yet others fail to see a problem (we do have chemical castration drugs after all).It is a pretty shambolic state of affairs. I predict prostate cancer rates will soar as maternal alcohol drinking increases. We already have a PC time-bomb on our hands in the UK after the relaxation of drink laws and the sight of legless young women in the high street. I am not a moralist or anti-drink campaigner, I am just stating the obvious after a moducum of scrutiny.Sam.Sam.>> I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by> the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and> progress seems to be very slow.> > Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:> > 1. Not enough money is going into research.> > That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money> for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and> smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money> in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.> > 2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to> protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.> > Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and> their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company> executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,> blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than> cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing> research.> > 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts> and solve the problems.> > I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of> scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow> minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard> for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or> medicine.> > Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses> working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have> a lot of extremely bright people working too.> > And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that> progress has been so slow:> > 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.> > Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of> 100,000,000,000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.> Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of> many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized> into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced> by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes> with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,> and post-transcriptional modifiers of many different types -> some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years> and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at> all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling> molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone> at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve> dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a> submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely> difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and> which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals> and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living> cells.> > Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for> example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in> the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered> in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been> discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is> to learn.> > This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!> > Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for> those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -> bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is> different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes> wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is> still very poorly understood and something that no one has> ever yet been able to stop.> > In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.> It's going to require thousands of highly educated and> intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most> difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the> co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem> of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well> funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.> > I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the> first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive> study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,> I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not> willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,> if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature> without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA> replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,> phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,> cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the> rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern> cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well> intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritative> pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.> > You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of> electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep> understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_> harder than either of those endeavors.> > People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,> capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that> they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never> looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know> how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single> chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and> never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of> cancer.> > When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this> or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, "Don't you> believe yourself!" It was good advice.> > Alan>

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure I get the point of this. Sam is saying that prostate cancer is strictly a modern disease but acknowledges the fact that a 2700 year old body showed signs of prostate cancer? I'm quite sure it IS a rare occurance - how often are ancient corpses available or capable of being tested for any disease? Similarly how many deaths in Africa and Asia result in an autopsy to determine the exact cause of death? I live in Spain and believe it or not (but it is FACT) that if someone dies while 'under the care of a doctor' no autopsy is required. This could (and does)include if you have been to your doctor and been prescribed aspirin for a headache! I had a friend who died in hospital 4 years ago here in Spain while suffering pnuemonia. His death certificate stated cause of death 'Cancer' despite the fact that no primary lession had been discovered - no autopsy was performed; so we really have no idea why he died or where 'the cancer' originated, it could have been lung , it could have been prostate , it could have been anywhere.

I think the bible states our MAXIMUM span as 3 score years and 10, not an average and you can not dispute that throughout history it has been significantly less. I'm quite sure that no records of age at death were habitually kept in biblical times, if they were it is my guess they would apply to the literate classes only who may well have lived longer than average. Diagnosis must surely have been virtually non existant!? In Zimbabe I believe life expectancy is currently statistically 38 years!

I still don't get what point you are trying to make in respect of prostate cancer, other than that it is all down to maternal alcohol consumption. Despite having said this thread was now over I notice 2 of your posts have 'slipped' thru. Going round in circles we certainly are!

Spain

Re: Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

It is an important point and easy enough to test. Simply look at the bones of men who died in Africa. Go back as far as you can, and as near as you can. The Scithian King you mention had evidence of osteoblastic disease and testing showed the presence of PSA. This is a very rare occurrance. There is another one from Wharram Percy. They are the only two I could find and I did a pretty thorough search. I'd be glad if anyone can show me other instances of prostate cancer in ancient populations. i http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev95_6/enviro.htm Image and paragraph 3.ii T, Wakely J, A. Medieval example of metastatic carcinoma: a dry bone, radiological, and SEM study. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 Nov;89(3):309-23. PubMed:1485639iii Aufderheide & -; The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Paleopathology. CUP, 1998; ISBN10 (hardback) 0521552036, pp388-390.iv Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 4; Oldest known case of metastasizing prostate carcinoma diagnosed in the skeleton of a 2,700-year-old Scythian king from Arzhan (Siberia, Russia). Schultz M, Parzinger H, Posdnjakov DV, Chikisheva TA, Schmidt-Schultz TH.Department of Anatomy, University of Göttingen, Germany. PubMed: 17918181> >> > I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by> > the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and> > progress seems to be very slow.> > > > Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:> > > > 1. Not enough money is going into research.> > > > That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money> > for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and> > smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money> > in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.> > > > 2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to> > protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.> > > > Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and> > their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company> > executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,> > blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than> > cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing> > research.> > > > 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts> > and solve the problems.> > > > I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of> > scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow> > minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard> > for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or> > medicine.> > > > Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses> > working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have> > a lot of extremely bright people working too.> > > > And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that> > progress has been so slow:> > > > 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.> > > > Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of> > 100,000,000,000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.> > Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of> > many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized> > into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced> > by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes> > with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,> > and post-transcriptional modifiers of many different types -> > some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years> > and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at> > all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling> > molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone> > at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve> > dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a> > submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely> > difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and> > which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals> > and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living> > cells.> > > > Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for> > example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in> > the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered> > in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been> > discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is> > to learn.> > > > This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!> > > > Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for> > those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -> > bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is> > different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes> > wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is> > still very poorly understood and something that no one has> > ever yet been able to stop.> > > > In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.> > It's going to require thousands of highly educated and> > intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most> > difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the> > co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem> > of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well> > funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.> > > > I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the> > first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive> > study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,> > I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not> > willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,> > if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature> > without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA> > replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,> > phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,> > cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the> > rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern> > cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well> > intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritative> > pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.> > > > You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of> > electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep> > understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_> > harder than either of those endeavors.> > > > People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,> > capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that> > they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never> > looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know> > how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single> > chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and> > never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of> > cancer.> > > > When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this> > or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, "Don't you> > believe yourself!" It was good advice.> > > > Alan> >>

[Guest guest]

I don’t know if approved this post – I can’t

believe he did after posting this over an hour ago:

<snip> As I mentioned before it is time to stop this thread, we

can go round in circles if we are not careful.

As I say you can e-mail me with a plea to add your bit, if I think it

adds to the discussion then I'll run with it, if not it can be shared directly

between the posters e=-mail addresses not via the group

<snip>

Can you please stop this ridiculous exchange

on an issue that clearly can never be clarified – and even if it could  -

SO WHAT?

Terry Herbert

Moderator: Prostate Cancer Support List

From:

ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ]

On Behalf Of elhorizonte

Sent: Thursday, 11 February 2010

1:26 PM

To:

ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Re:

Re: Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

I'm not sure I get the point of this. Sam is saying that

prostate cancer is strictly a modern disease but acknowledges the fact that a

2700 year old body showed signs of prostate cancer? I'm quite sure it IS a rare

occurance - how often are ancient corpses available or capable of being tested

for any disease? Similarly how many deaths in Africa and Asia

result in an autopsy to determine the exact cause of death? I live in Spain and

believe it or not (but it is FACT) that if someone dies while 'under the care

of a doctor' no autopsy is required. This could (and does)include if you have

been to your doctor and been prescribed aspirin for a headache! I had a friend

who died in hospital 4 years ago here in Spain while suffering pnuemonia.

His death certificate stated cause of death 'Cancer' despite the fact that no

primary lession had been discovered - no autopsy was performed; so we really

have no idea why he died or where 'the cancer' originated, it could have been

lung , it could have been prostate , it could have been anywhere.

I think the bible states our MAXIMUM span as 3 score years

and 10, not an average and you can not dispute that throughout history it has

been significantly less. I'm quite sure that no records of age at death were

habitually kept in biblical times, if they were it is my guess they would apply

to the literate classes only who may well have lived longer than average.

Diagnosis must surely have been virtually non existant!? In Zimbabe I believe

life expectancy is currently statistically 38 years!

I still don't get what point you are trying to make in

respect of prostate cancer, other than that it is all down to maternal alcohol

consumption. Despite

having said this thread was now over I notice 2 of your posts have 'slipped'

thru. Going round in circles we certainly are!

Spain

Re: Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

It is an important point and easy enough to test. Simply look at the bones of

men who died in Africa. Go back as far as you

can, and as near as you can.

The Scithian King you mention had evidence of osteoblastic disease and testing

showed the presence of PSA. This is a very rare occurrance. There is another

one from Wharram Percy. They are the only two I could find and I did a pretty

thorough search. I'd be glad if anyone can show me other instances of prostate

cancer in ancient populations.

i http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/ArchRev/rev95_6/enviro.htm

Image and paragraph 3.

ii T, Wakely J, A. Medieval example of metastatic carcinoma: a

dry bone, radiological, and SEM study. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 Nov;89(3):309-23.

PubMed:1485639

iii Aufderheide & -; The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human

Paleopathology. CUP, 1998; ISBN10 (hardback) 0521552036, pp388-390.

iv Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 4; Oldest known case of metastasizing prostate

carcinoma diagnosed in the skeleton of a 2,700-year-old Scythian king from

Arzhan (Siberia, Russia). Schultz M, Parzinger H, Posdnjakov DV, Chikisheva TA,

Schmidt-Schultz TH.Department of Anatomy, University of Göttingen, Germany.

PubMed: 17918181

> >

> > I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by

> > the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and

> > progress seems to be very slow.

> >

> > Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:

> >

> > 1. Not enough money is going into research.

> >

> > That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money

> > for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and

> > smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money

> > in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.

> >

> > 2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to

> > protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.

> >

> > Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and

> > their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company

> > executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,

> > blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than

> > cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing

> > research.

> >

> > 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts

> > and solve the problems.

> >

> > I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of

> > scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow

> > minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard

> > for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or

> > medicine.

> >

> > Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses

> > working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have

> > a lot of extremely bright people working too.

> >

> > And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that

> > progress has been so slow:

> >

> > 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.

> >

> > Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of

> > 100,000,000,000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.

> > Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of

> > many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized

> > into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced

> > by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes

> > with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,

> > and post-transcriptional modifiers of many different types -

> > some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years

> > and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at

> > all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling

> > molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone

> > at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve

> > dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a

> > submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely

> > difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and

> > which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals

> > and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living

> > cells.

> >

> > Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for

> > example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in

> > the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered

> > in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been

> > discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is

> > to learn.

> >

> > This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!

> >

> > Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for

> > those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -

> > bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is

> > different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes

> > wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is

> > still very poorly understood and something that no one has

> > ever yet been able to stop.

> >

> > In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.

> > It's going to require thousands of highly educated and

> > intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most

> > difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the

> > co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem

> > of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well

> > funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.

> >

> > I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the

> > first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive

> > study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,

> > I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not

> > willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,

> > if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature

> > without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA

> > replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,

> > phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,

> > cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the

> > rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern

> > cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well

> > intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritative

> > pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.

> >

> > You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of

> > electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep

> > understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_

> > harder than either of those endeavors.

> >

> > People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,

> > capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that

> > they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never

> > looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know

> > how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single

> > chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and

> > never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of

> > cancer.

> >

> > When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this

> > or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, " Don't you

> > believe yourself! " It was good advice.

> >

> > Alan

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Alan

I do agree with most of what you say, but I can't help wondering if knowing the exact cause of a disease is really the only way to benefit human kind in the endless struggle against diaease.

To my knowledge, the cure for polio has not been found, yet millions of people have been protected by the vacine discovered by Dr. Salk.

In my view, cancer is, as you say, extremely complex and almost impossible to fully understand

however, adding to this problem, is the fact that the human body is not able to recognize cancer cells as an antigen and thus stimulate our immune system to gear up and stop it in its tracks.

finding a way to create markers that will have this property is, in my view, is a more achieviable goal. There is work being done on an immuniological approach to combating cancer one institution doing this is the Mayo Clinic. I really believe that this is an achievieable apporach. I pray that we will be seeing more investigation along these lines. As you say, constant chattering

about the hope of some magic bullet appearing and curing cancer is a waste of time. and only benifits the vendors of alternative products.

Harry

Subject: Re: Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)To: ProstateCancerSupport Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 6:41 PM

Sam,

You seem very ready to jump to some definite conclusions with not much real evidence. I'm quite sure you've done more research than I have but for the record my mother was a life long tee-totaller yet I was diagnosed with PCa at age 48. Your statement 'the fact that prostate cancer was virtually unheard of 150 years ago' frankly staggered me. As Kathy Meade pointed out in her reply, life expectancy until VERY recent history was so short that PCa was very unlikely to be an issue for any man. It was the first thing that sprung to my mind. I really don't mean to make this a personal criticism but I think your 'stating the obvious' isn't helping any one diagnosed with this complex disease, which no doubt has multiple and possibly random causes. Forgive me if I am misreading your post but you seem to be laying the blame for most prostate cancer at the feet of alcohol drinking

mothers?

I'm ex UK myself and I would imagine that the 'Gin Palaces' of the n era ejected many 'legless young women' on to the streets (though obviously not the 'High Streets' ) so it is not an entirley modern age phenomenom. If you pin prostate cancer on maternal drinking you make it easier for society to abandon research and simply clamp down on drinking.

Malaga, Spain

[ProstateCancerSupp ort] Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

Curing prostate cancer may be difficult. Whatever, it is important to understand the CAUSE to get on the right track. Prostate cancer science does not offer us anything except to hark back to Huggins and his PC / castrated dogs. There is little science and a lot of spin:- Huggins .. Nobel prize .. has got to be good yadda yadda .. here try this new form of chemical castration while we do some more research .....The fact is that prostate cancer was virtually unheard of 150 years ago. Archaeloogical samples are rare indeed. Ancient Egyptian and Chinese medical texts do not mention it at all (they don't mention BC either which is interesting - although other cancers are mentioned). PC is still very rare in some parts of Far east SE Asia. Genetic differences do not explain this. Diaspora from these low incidence regions 'acquire' diseases of the host country in as little as a lifetime.Curing prostate cancer may be difficult,

but a lot can be achieved by first understanding its true cause. Predictions can be made and tested using retrospective / prospective studies on human populations. Attempts at prevention can be initiated on the best evidence available. None of this is happening right now because some people think it is too difficult, and yet others fail to see a problem (we do have chemical castration drugs after all).It is a pretty shambolic state of affairs. I predict prostate cancer rates will soar as maternal alcohol drinking increases. We already have a PC time-bomb on our hands in the UK after the relaxation of drink laws and the sight of legless young women in the high street. I am not a moralist or anti-drink campaigner, I am just stating the obvious after a moducum of scrutiny.Sam.Sam.>> I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by> the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and> progress seems to be very slow.> > Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:> > 1. Not enough money is going into research.> > That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money> for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and> smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money> in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.> > 2. The medical establishment is suppressing progress in order to> protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.> > Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and>

their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company> executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,> blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than> cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing> research.> > 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts> and solve the problems.> > I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of> scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow> minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard> for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or> medicine.> > Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses> working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have> a lot of extremely bright people working too.> > And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason

that> progress has been so slow:> > 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.> > Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of> 100,000,000, 000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.> Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of> many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized> into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced> by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes> with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,> and post-transcriptiona l modifiers of many different types -> some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years> and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at> all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling> molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone> at a membrane protein on the

surface of a cell, may involve> dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a> submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely> difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and> which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals> and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living> cells.> > Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for> example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in> the last 60 years. Many key facts have only been discovered> in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been> discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is> to learn.> > This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!> > Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for> those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -> bacterial or

viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is> different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes> wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is> still very poorly understood and something that no one has> ever yet been able to stop.> > In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.> It's going to require thousands of highly educated and> intelligent people, working over many decades, doing the most> difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the> co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem> of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well> funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.> > I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the> first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive> study of chemistry, biology, and

medicine. When he's done that,> I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not> willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,> if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature> without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA> replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,> phosphorylation, protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,> cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the> rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern> cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well> intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritativ e> pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.> > You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of> electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep> understanding of

civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_> harder than either of those endeavors.> > People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,> capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that> they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never> looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know> how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single> chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and> never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of> cancer.> > When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this> or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, "Don't you> believe yourself!" It was good advice.> > Alan>

[Guest guest]

Harry Trentes wrote:

> I do agree with most of what you say, but I can't help

> wondering if knowing the exact cause of a disease is really the

> only way to benefit human kind in the endless struggle against

> diaease.

I'm sure you're right Harry. We have cures for many diseases for

which we don't know nearly as much about the cause as we would

like. We also have preventive and palliative treatments that can

help.

As I understand it, scientists are currently working in basic

research - trying to understand the underlying biology of cancer,

and also in more direct approaches to the disease - trying to

find things that work regardless of the cause. As examples of

the latter approach, there are many epidemiological studies going

on to find out what the risk factors are for various cancers and

to warn people about them. These studies may not have any

understanding of the actual chemical role of green tea, cooked

tomatos, pomegranates, read meat, dairy products, etc., but they

may find statistical associations that can be used to suggest

risky or helpful behaviors.

> ... the human body is not able to recognize cancer cells as an

> antigen and thus stimulate our immune system to gear up and

> stop it in its tracks. finding a way to create markers that

> will have this property is, in my view, is a more achieviable

> goal. There is work being done on an immuniological approach to

> combating cancer one institution doing this is the Mayo Clinic.

> I really believe that this is an achievieable apporach. ...

I hope this works out.

There is a great deal of research going on regarding the immune

system and cancer. " Provenge " is one of the products of this

research. I think it holds considerable promise.

From what I've read, the attempts to get the immune system to

attack cancer have had partial success, much in the way hormone

therapy has partial success. Some patients respond well and some

poorly. Among those who respond well, some get long term benefit

and some only get short term benefit. It is possible that cancer

cells mutate rapidly and, in effect, evolve to survive immune

system attacks. We don't know.

Nevertheless, any treatment that can add time to a patient's life

and alleviate symptoms is certainly welcome - especially if it

works when ADT does not and vice versa.

Incidentally, it's my impression that the people working in

cancer immunology are very much on the frontiers of basic

biochemical and biological research. They aren't making

statistical associations. They're attempting to understand the

specific molecules and chemical reactions in cancer cells.

Alan

[Guest guest]

This is al conjecture. I must apologize to you guys for my imput the other day. I just started taking a seritonin(sp) that day and read it later and went whatdid I say? Sorry guys.

My mother may have drank 4 beers in her life and never smoked. My great grandfather on her father's side died of what they called "man cancer". So for me I think it is genetic and my mother was stressed out during her pregnancies and her stress may have thrown switch on me to make pc genetic material dominant.

So not much science but facts. It is a fact that fetal alchohol sysdrum will develpoe in the mother who drinks while pregnant and may drink because of stress causing it to flip the genetic switch on Pc genetic material causing it to be dominant.

Guys this is not treating, curing and/or helping people like me who you have been very kind and patient.

Tom

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Wed, February 10, 2010 8:26:08 PMSubject: Re: Re: Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

I'm not sure I get the point of this. Sam is saying that prostate cancer is strictly a modern disease but acknowledges the fact that a 2700 year old body showed signs of prostate cancer? I'm quite sure it IS a rare occurance - how often are ancient corpses available or capable of being tested for any disease? Similarly how many deaths in Africa and Asia result in an autopsy to determine the exact cause of death? I live in Spain and believe it or not (but it is FACT) that if someone dies while 'under the care of a doctor' no autopsy is required. This could (and does)include if you have been to your doctor and been prescribed aspirin for a headache! I had a friend who died in hospital 4 years ago here in Spain while suffering pnuemonia. His death certificate stated cause of death 'Cancer' despite the fact that no primary lession had been discovered - no autopsy was performed; so we really have no idea why he died or where

'the cancer' originated, it could have been lung , it could have been prostate , it could have been anywhere.

I think the bible states our MAXIMUM span as 3 score years and 10, not an average and you can not dispute that throughout history it has been significantly less. I'm quite sure that no records of age at death were habitually kept in biblical times, if they were it is my guess they would apply to the literate classes only who may well have lived longer than average. Diagnosis must surely have been virtually non existant!? In Zimbabe I believe life expectancy is currently statistically 38 years!

I still don't get what point you are trying to make in respect of prostate cancer, other than that it is all down to maternal alcohol consumption. Despite having said this thread was now over I notice 2 of your posts have 'slipped' thru. Going round in circles we certainly are!

Spain

[ProstateCancerSupp ort] Re: Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

It is an important point and easy enough to test. Simply look at the bones of men who died in Africa. Go back as far as you can, and as near as you can. The Scithian King you mention had evidence of osteoblastic disease and testing showed the presence of PSA. This is a very rare occurrance. There is another one from Wharram Percy. They are the only two I could find and I did a pretty thorough search. I'd be glad if anyone can show me other instances of prostate cancer in ancient populations. i http://www.eng- h.gov.uk/ ArchRev/rev95_ 6/enviro. htm Image and paragraph 3.ii T, Wakely J, A. Medieval example of metastatic carcinoma: a dry bone, radiological, and SEM study. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 Nov;89(3):309- 23. PubMed:1485639iii Aufderheide & -; The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human

Paleopathology. CUP, 1998; ISBN10 (hardback) 0521552036, pp388-390.iv Int J Cancer. 2007 Oct 4; Oldest known case of metastasizing prostate carcinoma diagnosed in the skeleton of a 2,700-year-old Scythian king from Arzhan (Siberia, Russia). Schultz M, Parzinger H, Posdnjakov DV, Chikisheva TA, Schmidt-Schultz TH.Department of Anatomy, University of Göttingen, Germany. PubMed: 17918181> >> > I know that cancer patients and their families are frustrated by> > the fact that we still have no cures for most cancers and> > progress seems to be very slow.> > > > Various explanations are advanced for these facts such as:> > > > 1. Not enough money is going into research.> > > > That's undoubtedly true, but then everyone wants more money> > for everything and at the same time want lower taxes and> > smaller government. However, while there isn't as much money> > in cancer research as I'd like, there is a fair amount.> > > > 2. The medical establishment is suppressing

progress in order to> > protect their incomes from treating cancer patients.> > > > Personally, I think this one is totally false. Doctors and> > their families get cancer too. So do pharmaceutical company> > executives. Big pharma does put more money into heartburn,> > blood pressure, diabetes, and other chronic conditions than> > cancer, but I don't think they or anyone else are suppressing> > research.> > > > 3. Scientists are too dumb or too narrow minded to see the facts> > and solve the problems.> > > > I think this one is totally false too. I've met a number of> > scientists, including a few that I thought were narrow> > minded, but none that I thought were dumb. It's pretty hard> > for a dumb person to get a PhD in chemistry, biology, or> > medicine.> > > >

Genius is a wonderful thing. I wish we had more geniuses> > working in cancer research. But we do have some, and we have> > a lot of extremely bright people working too.> > > > And now I'd like to give what I think is the real reason that> > progress has been so slow:> > > > 4. Curing cancer is a very, very, very hard problem.> > > > Human bodies are estimated to have on the order of> > 100,000,000, 000,000 cells in them. Nobody knows for sure.> > Nobody knows how to count them. Those cells are composed of> > many thousands of different kinds of molecules, organized> > into hundreds of different kinds of structures, and produced> > by the translation and interaction of perhaps 20,000 genes> > with a vast array of chemical signals, promoters, repressors,> > and post-transcriptiona l modifiers of

many different types -> > some of which have only been discovered in the last ten years> > and many others, no doubt, have not yet been discovered at> > all. The interactions stimulated by a single signalling> > molecule, for example the arrival of molecule of testosterone> > at a membrane protein on the surface of a cell, may involve> > dozens of chemical reactions, all taking place at a> > submicroscopic level, under conditions which are extremely> > difficult or impossible to simulate in a laboratory, and> > which are way too small and too surrounded by other chemicals> > and reactions to possibly be directly observed in living> > cells.> > > > Some of the most fundamental facts of this system, for> > example, the structure of DNA, have only been understood in> > the last 60 years. Many key facts have

only been discovered> > in the last ten years. A great many more have not yet been> > discovered at all. We don't even know how much more there is> > to learn.> > > > This is very difficult stuff to study and understand!> > > > Ordinary infectious diseases are difficult enough. But for> > those, there is a single pathogen, a foreign invader -> > bacterial or viral, that causes the damage. Cancer is> > different. The body itself goes wrong. A lot of what goes> > wrong appears to be bound up with aging, a process that is> > still very poorly understood and something that no one has> > ever yet been able to stop.> > > > In my view, there are no shortcuts to solving the cancer problem.> > It's going to require thousands of highly educated and> > intelligent people, working over many

decades, doing the most> > difficult, tedious, and brain bending work. , the> > co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, has worked on the problem> > of cancer for the last 40 years. He hasn't solved it. His well> > funded laboratory hasn't solved it. Neither has anyone else.> > > > I believe if someone here thinks he can find the answer, the> > first thing he should do is spend about ten years in intensive> > study of chemistry, biology, and medicine. When he's done that,> > I'd like to hear what he has to say about it. If he's not> > willing to do that, if he thinks those studies aren't necessary,> > if he thinks he can evaluate all the scientific literature> > without that, if he thinks it isn't necessary to understand DNA> > replication, mutation repair, mitosis, RNA transcription,> > phosphorylation,

protein folding, G-proteins, signaling cascades,> > cross membrane transport, ubiquitination, apoptosis, and all the> > rest of the molecular biology that's at the heart of modern> > cancer research, then I think he's kidding himself. However well> > intentioned he is, if he makes pseudo-authoritativ e> > pronouncements about cancer cures, he's trying to kid others.> > > > You can't design a television set without a deep understanding of> > electronics. You can't design a skyscraper without a deep> > understanding of civil engineering. Curing cancer is a _lot_> > harder than either of those endeavors.> > > > People who have never constructed a TV set from transistors,> > capacitors, resistors, and other components know intuitively that> > they aren't able to do it. However some people who have never> >

looked through a microscope at a cancerous cell and wouldn't know> > how to recognize one if they saw it, never performed a single> > chemical experiment, never read a textbook on cancer biology, and> > never cured a patient, imagine they know the cause and cure of> > cancer.> > > > When I was a small boy I sometimes made pronouncements about this> > or that to my grandmother. She would respond with, "Don't you> > believe yourself!" It was good advice.> > > > Alan> >>

[Guest guest]

Thanks Alan it is always nice to know more is going that could effect us positively.

My Pc is responding to the Lupron from 4.6 to 1.6 PSA. Unfortunately I need to make sure my chemicals right because Lupron really kicked my as emotional.

Thanks for your support!

Tom

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Thu, February 11, 2010 1:35:11 PMSubject: Re: Curing cancer (just a couple of paragraphs)

Harry Trentes <hmtpghyahoo (DOT) com> wrote:> I do agree with most of what you say, but I can't help> wondering if knowing the exact cause of a disease is really the> only way to benefit human kind in the endless struggle against> diaease.I'm sure you're right Harry. We have cures for many diseases forwhich we don't know nearly as much about the cause as we wouldlike. We also have preventive and palliative treatments that canhelp.As I understand it, scientists are currently working in basicresearch - trying to understand the underlying biology of cancer,and also in more direct approaches to the disease - trying tofind things that work regardless of the cause. As examples ofthe latter approach, there are many epidemiological studies goingon to find out what the risk

factors are for various cancers andto warn people about them. These studies may not have anyunderstanding of the actual chemical role of green tea, cookedtomatos, pomegranates, read meat, dairy products, etc., but theymay find statistical associations that can be used to suggestrisky or helpful behaviors.> ... the human body is not able to recognize cancer cells as an> antigen and thus stimulate our immune system to gear up and> stop it in its tracks. finding a way to create markers that> will have this property is, in my view, is a more achieviable> goal. There is work being done on an immuniological approach to> combating cancer one institution doing this is the Mayo Clinic.> I really believe that this is an achievieable apporach. ...I hope this works out.There is a great deal of research going on regarding the immunesystem and cancer. "Provenge" is one of the

products of thisresearch. I think it holds considerable promise.From what I've read, the attempts to get the immune system toattack cancer have had partial success, much in the way hormonetherapy has partial success. Some patients respond well and somepoorly. Among those who respond well, some get long term benefitand some only get short term benefit. It is possible that cancercells mutate rapidly and, in effect, evolve to survive immunesystem attacks. We don't know.Nevertheless, any treatment that can add time to a patient's lifeand alleviate symptoms is certainly welcome - especially if itworks when ADT does not and vice versa.Incidentally, it's my impression that the people working incancer immunology are very much on the frontiers of basicbiochemical and biological research. They aren't makingstatistical associations. They're attempting to understand thespecific molecules

and chemical reactions in cancer cells.Alan