Is This An Old Wives Tale about cancer?
sphinx at world.std.com
Wed Apr 4 22:19:53 EST 2001
In article <3AC93D94.7E793CEC at telusplanet.net>,
T D Laing <RTLaing at telusplanet.net> wrote:
>Not at all. Martin Lewitt posted a fantastic reply to your inane
Yes, I appreciated his reply. Rather polite guy, isn't he?
(You could take lessons, maybe.)
>All normal cells have the capacity to induce angiogenesis when needed.
>Doesn't need "purposeful editing" at all, just the proper signals from
>or nutrient/oxygen-starved tissues--like rapidly growing tumor cells.
How does this fit within Curly++'s comment about inhibition of
longer-range angiogenesis? Is that all standard-issue signaling too?
>> Except THAT only works when the mutation gets spread by
>> exponential reproduction. And if THAT is happening, we are again saying
>> that cancer is due to a biological pathogen that REPRODUCES. Because
>> that finely tuned preparation for angiogenesis keeps showing up in ALL
>> cancer patients (well, all affected by metastasis and angiogenesis),
>> not just SOME of them, as would be the case if it were just random
>> mutations, occurring individually in each new patient.
>Not true--cells reproduce themselves irrespective of any pathogen. Cells
>don't need pathogens to reproduce--they do need the appropriate signals
>from the body to do so, or in the case of cancer, need only their
>misinterpreted approximation of the normal body signals. > >T.
Uh, T., you seem to have missed my point here, in your zeal to discredit.
The POINT is that the reproduction is happening across organism boundaries.
I.e. the same "random mutations" are happening in, what, 500,000 cancer
patients each year?... Or, at any rate, a very tiny number of different
kinds of "random mutations", compared to what truly random mutation
ought to come up with.
More information about the Proteins