Cancer cells travel all over the body when the primary tumor is active,
but do not attach. But once the primary tumor is removed, the remote cells
ape inflamation and use it to enter another organ. The angiogenesis view is
that the remote cells to not have the ability to get blood until after the
primary tumor is removed. Now, is it possible the primary tumor actually
causes an immune response which is effective against the remote cells, but
for which the primary tumor actually has a defense (PD-1?) and when the
primary tumor is removed, the remote cells feel free to metastase. What
really bugs me is that the cancer vaccine people have one explanation and the
angiogenesis people have another one, but the phenomenon seems identical.
I'm just drawing parallels with how nitric oxide surprised everyone in
cardiology and how the immune and cholesterol responces are closely linked.
I apologise for my ignorance, this is not my field, but so many people close
to me have died of cancer in recent years.
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Reagan Mozart Pindus BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Yellary Clinton & Yellalot Spitzer: Nasty Together]
