Cancer Caused by New Kind of Gene

[Guest guest]

Personally, I doubt they'll find a CURE for cancer this way, but

interesting . . .

Cancer Caused by New Kind of Gene

It was a few years ago that Croce began to sniff out one of the most

surprising and most promising discoveries in cancer research. The

discovery placed him and his collaborators at the leading edge of a

now-booming field that promises improved techniques for diagnosing

cancer diseases and, they hope, more effective new treatments.

Ambros' new gene was truly tiny, only 70 bases long, not 10,000 bases

like

other genes. Stranger still, the gene didn't make a protein, as other

genes

do. Instead, it made another kind of genetic material, which is now

called

microRNA. Traditional genes make RNA also, but that RNA is short-lived,

serving as a mere intermediary in the construction of proteins. But this

microRNA was the gene's end product, and it was no mere messenger.

" Every cancer we look at, we find an alteration in microRNA, " says

Croce.

" In probably every human tumor there are alterations in microRNA. " Calin

and Croce were convinced: these two tiny genes made microRNAs that

suppressed

cancer.

MicroRNA, Ambros and Ruvkun realized, worked by an intriguing mechanism:

it

acted like a miniature strip of Velcro. Because the microRNA gene

matched

part of a traditional gene, the microRNA stuck to RNA produced by the

traditional gene. In doing so, it blocked the other gene from producing

protein.

Read more:

http://snipr.com/n9xqu

Of course, the cures for cancer are already largely known, if only the

world were open to them.

[Guest guest]

Gene research, when you read it, jumps over so many cause and affect

relationships to arrive at a conclusion that bad genes cause cancer, " it's a

cancer gene. "

 

  Yet, almost always there are people with the exact same genetic " mutation " who

never do get cancer. Ok, so cancer can't be a genetic defect. But, wait, what if

it were like some kind of recessive trait that skips generations.  If it were

recessive it would numerically bear this out mathematically in family trees. We

could have proven it without million dollar gene research, we could have proved

it just by the math of genetics.

 

Also, this research never proves " what comes first Chicken or the Egg " and the

true genentic relationships to the disease, (cancer, alzheimers, whatever,) is

never clearly established nor identified, and is suggested by circumstances

only. Circumstances, the are happening in a cell line, in a petri dish, in a

laboratory supported by a pharmaceutical company or two.

 

Furthermore, if we are  talking about a cancer gene that is inherrited, we are

only talking about clearly connecting very few cancers. FOr if a gene causes

cancers, children will get your cancer!  Still, breast cancer Mothers have

daughters that never get breast cancer.

Also, there is no recessive characteristics in the epidemiology statistics.

 

Now, if you are talking about a cellular mutation, a cancer gene you don't

inherit but you get because one cell suddenly goes hay wire, well......then it

really can't be a cancer gene and even still, cellular mutations in cancer DNA

is like a , " NO DUGH " statement anyway.

CONCLUSION

 

And what if you were bedazzled and believed everything this study

suggests,....you would say, my cancer is from faulty genes not something else,

(metabolic disturbances, toxicities, immune deficiencies, chronic infections,

chronic irritation, and other carcinogenic/inflamatory processes.)

 

and what if you could alter a gene that would block a key metabolic need of

cancers, ok that would be fantastic, but it would never mean that a bad gene

caused the disease.

 

If you took these studies at face value, you just might not be so willing to

research alternatives. You just might believe everything your oncologist was

taught to say to you, You just might never even try taking something like whole

aloe, flax seed, dmso, ascorbate infusions. 

 

Hmmmm!

 

[Guest guest]

Bret,

Children ARE getting our cancers. With BRCA carriers, the cancer is

starting earlier and earlier. For instance, the grandmother had breast

cancer when she was 40-something. Then the mother develops breast

cancer when she is 30-something. And then the women/child is developing

breast cancer while in her 20s. It is alarming and scary. I know many

BRCA positive women and they are terrified for their children.

The gene mutation can skip a generation or two as well. I believe a

BRCA carrier has something like an 80% chance of developing cancer.

My cousin carries both BRCA genes. Her mother and her sister died young

of ovarian and breast cancer. Many years ago, she had prophylactice

bilaterian mastectomies and had her ovaries removed. Oddly enough, the

genes come from a side of the family not related to me. I do not have

BRCA but I developed breast cancer at age 42.

ar

> Furthermore, if we are talking about a cancer gene that is

inherrited, we are only talking about clearly connecting very few

cancers. FOr if a gene causes cancers, children will get your cancer!

Still, breast cancer Mothers have daughters that never get breast

cancer.